Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Feb 2008 21:29 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Richard Stallman, industry activist and founder of the Free Software Foundation has - once again - relinquished his role as maintainer of the phenomenally successful GNU Extensible, Customizable, Display Editor (Emacs). The news was slipped out on the Emacs developers' forum and Stallman explained his reasons in a later interview.
Thread beginning with comment 302622
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by tyrione
by pinky on Wed 27th Feb 2008 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by tyrione"
pinky
Member since:
2005-07-15

>As such calling every Linux-based OS GNU/Linux is wrong.

I don't say that you should call every Linux based system GNU/Linux! You should call the common desktop system GNU/Linux which is a combination of GNU and Linux. If you have a MacOS with a Linux kernel than you would probably continue to call it MacOS or maybe MacOS/Linux, if you have a BSD system with a Linux kernel you would probably continue to call it BSD and if you have a small embeded system where Linux is probably the largest and most important part than you may call it only Linux.

You see? It's not black or white!

>Take GNU/Linux, replace GNU with BSD alternatives -> Almost no difference yet the same kernel and completely different userland. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Don't mixup cause and effect.
It wouldn't be that different because both GNU and BSD are Unix-like operating systems and not because the kernel makes them identically.

Edited 2008-02-27 15:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by tyrione
by WereCatf on Wed 27th Feb 2008 15:40 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by tyrione"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Don't mixup cause and effect.
It wouldn't be that different because both GNU and BSD are Unix-like operating systems and not because the kernel makes them identically.


Just how exactly is that any different from your own examples then? Replacing a Unix-like kernel with another Unix-like kernel, that's the example you gave in your previous post. So why not replace Unix-like userland with another Unix-like userland then? The point here is that the GNU userland is not as important as you make it out to be. It can be replaced just as well as the kernel. They are both very much dependant on each other though, neither can be run by itself and atleast in the case of Linux and the GNU userland, neither would be even nearly as useable without the features provided by eachother.

Why is GNU more important? Give someone a GNU System and replace the Kernel Linux with another Kernel and most user won't discover any difference.

Do you have any idea what's wrong behind that reasoning? Well, it's the fact that the kernel isn't even supposed to be visible to the users, it's the userland. You're just comparing apples to oranges here, and then just claim GNU userland is more important. Yet, you just admitted that replacing GNU userland with BSD userland would mean almost no difference to the user either.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by tyrione
by pinky on Wed 27th Feb 2008 15:59 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by tyrione"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>Just how exactly is that any different from your own examples then? Replacing a Unix-like kernel with another Unix-like kernel, that's the example you gave in your previous post. So why not replace Unix-like userland with another Unix-like userland then?

Because your example only works if you change two almost equal userlands (e.g. BSD and GNU).
And my example also works if you change some complete different kernel. You can put whatever kernel you want into a GNU, BSD, MacOS, Windows,... system and the user will still have his GNU, BSD, MacOS, Windows,... system.

>Do you have any idea what's wrong behind that reasoning? Well, it's the fact that the kernel isn't even supposed to be visible to the users

Yes, you are right. The kernel is (a) not visible to the user and (b) only one program of an operating system. That's why almost no operating system in named like the kernel (most kernel don't have a name at all) and why Apple hasn't rename his OS after they have changed the kernel and why no MacOS user cares which kernel they use they would also like their MacOS if it would use an Linux kernel and they would probably not call it Linux because of the kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 2