Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
- From: Sriram Ramkrishna <sri ramkrishna me>
- To: guido iodice <guido iodice gmail com>
- Cc: Stormy Peters <stormy gnome org>, rms gnu org, Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:29:41 -0700
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM, guido iodice <guido iodice gmail com>
2010/6/14 Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>:
>Well, but merging GNU and Linux (or GNU and FreeBSD kernel...) we have
> I'll add that people writing KDE or GNOME don't push for a
> GNOME/GNU/Linux, or even GNOME/X.org/GNU/Linux. Just mentioning
> GNU/Linux is disingenious.
an OS. KDE is not sufficient to have an OS. It is a DE.
About GNOME, it is part of GNU.
That's not the argument we are making. We say GNU/Linux because GNU wants the credit for the part it delivers other than the kernel. That's why we say GNU/Linux. If we apply that attitude to GNOME we can do the same thing. It's reasonably implied that Linux includes the GNU system. There is no other system that Linux has other than GNU. You want credit I suggest you pick a new system name that implies both that is marketable. Nobody can say GNU/Linux in a conversation or type it. That's just not human nature, so it's better to get something that fits more naturally otherwise you'll just be repeating this mantra ineffectively.
Here's a real twister for you, if we had GNOME with FreeBSD do we insist on saying GNU/FreeBSD? After all Gnome is GNU, right? Don't we want credit for that?
] [Thread Prev