>On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Dave Sherohman wrote: >> Then again, Stallman's advocated for "Linux" starting with an invisible >> (but decidedly not silent...) "GNU", but that doesn't seem to have >> caught on. (Thankfully.) Mike Miller wrote: >It doesn't predominate, but I've heard it fairly often. I must confess, I do pronounce "Linux" as GUH-NU-LEE-NUCKS. However, when GNU/Linux is written "Linux", I always assumed the GNU was omitted by accident or ignorance. (I like invisible letters even less than silent ones.) The Debian project both writes and pronounces "Linux" as "GNU/Linux". The only time when one should not say "GNU/Linux" is when one is referring to the Linux kernel itself, where the term "GNU/Linux" would not really apply even though the Linux kernel is built using GNU tools. The Linux kernel is the only thing in GNU/Linux that is 100% Linux and everything else in GNU/Linux is 0% Linux. >Linux would not have existed if it weren't for GNU and the GPL. I can >understand why Stallman feels a bit ripped off when he started the ball >rolling and Torvalds is getting most of the attention. Torvald's >contribution looks a lot smaller to me than Stallman's. I agree with Mike 100%. Don't forget that Stallman was already creating free software when Torvalds was still in diapers. On the other hand, the GNU project did drop the ball by delaying the creation of their kernel, known as the Hurd and its still not production quality from what I've heard. Check out the Debian/Hurd: http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/. Sincerely, Ken Fuchs <kfuchs at winternet.com>