RE: GNU-Linux vs Linux naming [was RE: LAM/MPI Parallel processing]

["Jonathan Shore" <jshore@example.com>]

You're right the libc was also critical.  I generally think of the compiler
and libc as tightly coupled.

-----Original Message-----
From: SL Baur [mailto:steve@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 2:31 PM
To: tlug@example.com
Subject: Re: GNU-Linux vs Linux naming [was RE: LAM/MPI Parallel processing]


Jonathan Shore <jshore@example.com> writes in tlug@example.com:

> The C compiler was the most important thing IMO.

The current Linux C compiler is a Cygnus project.

I disagree with this statement, btw.  The critical component is libc
as alternative C compilers exist.  The current libc is, however, also
a Cygnus project.

> The other tools were readily available from BSD distributions and
> other sources and many of these are relatively trivial to reimplement.

Agreed.

> Again I state, if you insist on sticking GNU at the front of the name to
> indicate it's heritage, then you damn well better put Minix there too.

Not including Cygnus is completely unfair and belittles their
contributions to the core set of utilities we depend on.

 ...
> And as for whether a distribution could survive without GNU - if we
> cared, given a bit of time we could reasonably replace GNU software.
> For the compiler I would look for some third party one.  But since
> we don't have to who cares.

I care.

> [2 winmail.dat <application/ms-tnef>]

Eek!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai Meeting: October 20 (Fri) 19:00   Place: Tengu TokyoEkiMae
Next Technical Meeting: November 11 (Sat) 13:30  Place: LinuxProbe Hall
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
more info: http://www.tlug.gr.jp           Sponsor: Global Online Japan