Linked by the_randymon on Fri 25th Jan 2013 09:21 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 550469
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: might be more interesting the other way...
by kwan_e on Fri 25th Jan 2013 16:26
in reply to "might be more interesting the other way..."
RE: might be more interesting the other way...
by MOS6510 on Fri 25th Jan 2013 17:59
in reply to "might be more interesting the other way..."
RE[2]: might be more interesting the other way...
by MacMan on Fri 25th Jan 2013 19:22
in reply to "RE: might be more interesting the other way..."
Because Apple marketing prefers OS X.
Yeh, of course, but why isn't Stallman pitching a b!@tch over OSX not being called GNU/OSX like he is with Linux?
Now that I think about it, emacs (which is a fantastic program) and gcc (also great) run just about everywhere, including Windows. So, shouldn't Windows with Cygwin also be called GNU/Windows according to Stalman?
RE: might be more interesting the other way...
by jigzat on Fri 25th Jan 2013 21:12
in reply to "might be more interesting the other way..."
RE: might be more interesting the other way...
by tylerdurden on Fri 25th Jan 2013 22:13
in reply to "might be more interesting the other way..."
RE[2]: might be more interesting the other way...
by MacMan on Sat 26th Jan 2013 01:32
in reply to "RE: might be more interesting the other way..."
Can you even compile the Linux kernel without gcc or gnu's c library(es)?
Yes you can:
http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-04-12/Slides/Mark_Charlebois.pdf
And if I recall correctly, the first versions of Linux were developed on Minix.
RE[2]: might be more interesting the other way...
by Drumhellar on Sat 26th Jan 2013 01:43
in reply to "RE: might be more interesting the other way..."
Clang will build the Linux kernel, though it doesn't (yet) work well.
Intel's compiler works really well for building the Linux kernel, or at least used to be a few years ago. I'd be surprised if that has changed.
And, there are other C libs that work. For example, uClib is designed to have a tiny footprint.





Member since:
2006-11-19
With BSD userland running on the Linux kernel.
From a practical standpoint, the Linux kernel is quite a bit more advanced than the BSD kernel.
And with a BSD userland, maybe we could get rid of all this Stallman GNU/Everything BS.
On a side note, why is GNU user supposed to be all that much beter that BSD? Personally, everyday I flip between my MacBook (10.6), Ubuntu 12.10 and RHEL, and on all of them, I spend 90% of my time in emacs and gcc.
So, I guess even though emacs and gcc are GNU programs, Stallman does not feel the need to call MacOS GNU/MacOS even though one uses emacs and gcc. MacOS also has other goodies like GNU grep, bison, and so forth, but we still don't have to call it GNU/MacOS.
Now Linux on the other hand, we have to, according to Stallman, call GNU/Linux. Why? MacOS and Linux have the same suite of GNU programs. The differences I can tell, are that some other programs like ls as well as the c library were developed by GNU on Linux and the BSD folks on OSX. Thus brings up another question, MacOS uses BSD userland, so why don't we have to call it BSD/MacOS?