In article <1994Sep11.200842.22...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Matt Welsh <m...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:True. note that I said "first interpretation": when you said
>In article <CvvtAu....@pell.com> o...@pell.com (Orc) writes:
>>In article <1994Sep8.142206.18...@cs.cornell.edu>,
>> No reason. But since my first interpretation of RMS's idea is
>>that the FSF will take credit for work they've not done, it seems
>>like it's not the most politic way to ask for recognition.
>The FSF is not taking credit for anything that they have not
> RMS's idea (which I have heard first-hand) is that Linux systemsthe very first thing that popped into my head, even armed with
> should be considered GNU systems with Linux as the kernel.
the knowledge that RMS likes to make Pronouncements, was that FSF
was trying to take credit for Linux. And I *like* the FSF, and
support the work they're doing.
>Or didNow I'd have to disagree with this. Aside from gcc and libc, I
>believe that it was the Linux development team which wrote gcc,
>libc, and the dozens of other software tools which your Linux
>system depends upon to run?
can get stuff from multiple sources, not just the FSF. I have at
least as much Berkeley code on my linux box as I do FSF code --
if I was to convert over to FreeBSD, the only substantive change
would be the kernel, and that's certainly not a "GNU system with
BSD as the kernel"
The GNU stuff is good, with very few bugs and gotchas, and the
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.