[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 10:48 pm, Grant Sewell wrote:
I have a slight unease about it, though. Introducing a seemingly innocuous "G" into the group's title to show gratitude to GNU, their developers and their utilities that make the system what it is. But what about all the others that make "Linux" (in the general sense) what people would recognise today?
That's addressed on the FSF site: http://www.fsf.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html http://www.fsf.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html http://www.fsf.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU Project. If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead. Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it.
What about the various incarnations of X? I know "Linux" functions perfectly well without it
Especially when you consider the recent growth in servers that never use X. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.dcglug.org.uk/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/isbnsearch/ http://www.williamsleesmill.me.uk/ http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?qs=0x8801094A28BCB3E3
Attachment:
pgp00053.pgp
Description: PGP signature