[GNUz] Re: [GNUz] “GNU”, “Linux”, or neither...?

[Rik Tindall]

Thanks for the comments too Jim,

Jim Cheetham wrote:
> On 03/04/07, Nick Rout <nick@rout.co.nz> wrote:
>> An interesting discussion on how much GNU actually does contribute to a
>> distro.
>>
>> http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/gnu_linux_neither
> 
> The article, and the discussions below it, seem to reinforce my belief
> that while the technical contribution from the GNU Project was very
> large in the past, its relative importance is decreasing.

Conversely, as */Linux(R) grows in use, then so too does GNU grow 
proportionately..

> It seems to me that the FSF and the GNU GPL are far more important
> influences :-)

..which confirms the success of that overall plan :)

> Even so, I don't think that anyone has a "Linux" distribution that
> isn't compiled using the GNU toolchain. I suspect that some of the
> BSDs may have an alternative, but I haven't done any research on that
> point.

Andrew Turners' FreeBSD presentation to CUUG on Tuesday made zero 
mention of "Linux", citing Unix instead. Yet the file searches he did 
revealed surprisingly frequent "GNU" references :)  Most telling.

My belief is that kernel completion of GNU is the final, equally 
noteworthy - for its strongly democratic "Bazaar" impetus - vindication 
of the grand GNU(FSF/GPL) plan. But what we call this last stage, and 
how hard people want to argue it, is actually secondary - for it is 
still *GNU* (POSIX, *Not_Unix*).

The lOppoSSition is self-interested and reactionary, for using the same 
kind of 'logic' (argument) seeking to deny women their rights:

'The linux-foetus has greater right of self-determination than the 
gnu-mother'.

Bollix. - 'Fundamentalism' today?

-- 
Rik