RE: "MIT/GNU/Linux"

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> I believe RMS's use of "GNU" in "GNU/Linux" does not really refer to the
> so-called GNU tools, but the GNU project which endeavored, long before it
> seemed even remotely possible, to build a 100% Free Software operating
> system.  To this end, it built tools like gcc, it designed
> licenses such as
> the GPL, it encouraged other people to release their code under a Free
> license, and it kind of brought some sense and long term vision to all the
> "free hacking" that was going on piecemeal around the world.

Well put. The "GNU = surrounding tools or environment" characterization is
too often too prevalent in these discussions. You put it right, IMO.

That said, getting people to refer to the OS as "GNU/Linux" might be a
losing, though worthwhile, battle, if only because people do take shortcuts
in speech. If the OS name were only one or two syllables, the battle would
be easier. If "GNU" didn't mean more than just an OS, one might try to push
to use just "GNU" instead of "GNU/Linux" - easier to say. If it were used
alone as the name for the OS, however, "GNU" would be more general than
"GNU/Linux", since, as someone pointed out, a different GNU kernel (e.g.
HURD) could be used. GNU/Linux is no doubt the right term for a GNU OS with
a Linux kernel, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

(I really wanted just to say "attaboy" for what you wrote.)