Linked by the_randymon on Fri 25th Jan 2013 09:21 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 550486
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: might be more interesting the other way...
by MOS6510 on Fri 25th Jan 2013 19:35
in reply to "RE[2]: might be more interesting the other way..."
Personally I don't care what Stallman thinks, even more so with regards to his relabeling preferences.
A name is just a way to easily refer to something. The way Stallman wants it is more like listing all components of a system in its name. Where do you draw the line?
It's easier to refer to Windows, Linux and OS X. Or if needed include the version: Windows 7, Redhat Linux, OS X Lion.
I don't think GNU adoption would explode or even rise if we'd stick it in front of everything. If GNU is the answer people will include it in their product anyway. In other words if you made your own kernel and see a commercial of GNU/Windows I don't think it would make you say, "Of course, I cam use GNU to complete my OS!".
RE[3]: might be more interesting the other way...
by thetank on Fri 25th Jan 2013 23:38
in reply to "RE[2]: might be more interesting the other way..."




Member since:
2006-11-19
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?