RE: "MIT/GNU/Linux" (was: gnu vs. xemacs)

["Micha Feigin" <michf@post.tau.ac.il>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+michf=post.tau.ac.il@gnu.org 
> [mailto:help-gnu-emacs-bounces+michf=post.tau.ac.il@gnu.org] 
> On Behalf Of B. Smith-Mannschott
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:46 PM
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: "MIT/GNU/Linux" (was: gnu vs. xemacs)
> 
> 
> On Dec 29, 2006, at 02:12, Leo wrote:
> > In every emacs-* mailing lists, it has been extremely consistent to 
> > use Linux and GNU/Linux i.e. Linux means the kernel and 
> GNU/Linux is 
> > the operating system that contains a Linux kernel.
> 

The operating system is the kernel. GNU is one of the more popular option (but
not the only one) for the tools running over the operating system. I think
GNU/Linux is just RMS being overly pushy and and egomaniac.

> So lemme see...
> (1) "Linux" is just kernel

Linux is the operating system

> (2) GNU/Linux is the operating system formed by running the 
> GNU tools on top of that kernel
> 
> =>
> 
> Actually, we should use "MIT/GNU/Linux", at least when 

What about qt etc ?

> including X11 on top of GNU/Linux. I'm sure I wouldn't feel 

What if you replace GNU tools? (there are alternative options to most if not
all)

> at all tempted to shorten a handy phrase like 
> "MIT/GNU/Linux". It just rolls of the tongue.
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with the point made by the pedants of 
> "GNU/ Linux", but I do wonder: where does it end?
> 
> *ducks*
> 
> 
> // ben
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> help-gnu-emacs mailing list
> help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs
> 
> 
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System  at the Tel-Aviv 
> University CC.
> 
>