Linux or GNU/Linux

Shibi zzgraph at gmail.com
Sat Aug 4 05:19:11 UTC 2012


On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 5:39 AM, DJ Delorie <dj at delorie.com> wrote:

>  While it's technically true to call such distros
> "GNU/Linux", such a label ignores a large portion of the origin and
> richness of those distros.  It would be like calling the USA "the
> country that contains Boston."
>
> Also, outside of myself, in my house we call such distros "Firefox" ;-)
>

I Think there's a misunderstanding between the OS and Distro in this argument.
and of course there's gonna be so much more debate on what a OS really
is. (Bill Gates may appeal his conviction if everyone agree that every
piece of applications for example browser is part of a superset named
OS)

>So, IMHO, the answer to your question is "It depends on what you're
>talking about, and why."

in my opinion Linux couldn't and still cannot exist without certain
parts of gnu project including software and licenses, especially gcc,
glibc, gpl and lgpl. and that's true for android too, unless it uses
kernel header's without gpl licensing instead of glibc.
i don't mind any naming convention as long as it doesn't underestimate
the whole parts of concept.
but if calling a linux operating system Linux means:

>Linux-based distro that happens to include the GNU
>components but also includes components from many other projects.

I prefer not to use the word, because it doesn't concerns some
obligations (like gpl) and some involuntary constraints (like gcc)
fedora uses a GNU/Linux OS, and it's a GNU/Linux or linux distro, and
android IS not a GNU/Linux distro because despite the fact that it
contains Linux, it is not obligated to gnu general public license.


-- 
Shahab Shahsavari Alavidjeh
-----------------------------------------
شهاب شهسواری علویجه
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Weblog: http://piamak.wordpress.com

Twitter: http://twitter.com/zzgraph
====================


More information about the users mailing list