that old GNU/Linux argument

[Antonio Olivares]

> >> the gnu utilities in linux distros could easily be
> replaced with
> >> counterparts from the *bsd's, opensolaris, or
> any commercial unix
> >> version.  And the Linux kernel could be swapped
> with a bsd,
> >> opensolaris, or commercial unix in a distro
> running GNU utilities.
> > 
> > That all this could be done and yield something else
> doesn't change
> > what the combination GNU+Linux is.
> 
> No, but it does point out that Linux does not particularly
> depend on GNU 
> or vice versa.
> 
> > Removing the GNU bits until it is
> > no longer the largest single part of the whole
> operating system would
> > just give legitimacy to naming the whole after some
> other part.
> 
> I suspect the X-related bits outweigh the GNUish parts
> considerably.
> 
> -- 

Some people that say the kernel is also GNU/General Public License, that there is no denying that the kernel is now part of GNU as well.  Without GNU, the kernel would not exist.  

Linus said in the naming controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

<QUOTE>
Linus Torvalds has said in the documentary Revolution OS, when asked if the name GNU/Linux was justified:

Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous.[25]
</QUOTE>

and from 
http://www.linux.org/

/* 

Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers around the world. Developed under the GNU General Public License , the source code for Linux is freely available to everyone. Click on the link below to find out more about the operating system that is causing a revolution in the world of computers.

*/ 

Regards,

Antonio