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

[Simon Cozens <simon@example.com>]

On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 02:30:48PM +0900, SL Baur wrote:
> I disagree with this statement, btw.  The critical component is libc
> as alternative C compilers exist.

That isn't logical. You're saying that gcc isn't critical as other compilers
exist. You're saying that libc is critical *ALTHOUGH* other libcs exist.
I believe the BSDs have their own libcs.[1]

The FSF contributed roughly 30% of the average userspace if you discount
software such as "GNU Perl" and "GNU TeX" which they rudely appropriated
without the knowledge of the original development communities. To me, that
doesn't make them the major stakeholders. You can run a Linux system with zero
GNU components; I've done it. 

[1] And if my belief is incorrect, then why doesn't RMS shout about
GNU/*BSD as well? Could it be because Linux is the popular one, and he's more
interested in popularity than principles?

-- 
The sky already fell.  Now what?  -- Steven Wright