>>Linux "GNU/Linux" instead of simply "Linux." >Or if I called my Solaris install GNU Solaris because >I use so much GNU software there. Or if I called my >Windows install GNU Windows for the same reason. Calling Solaris GNU/Solaris because one has loaded a few GNU programs on the system is silly, because none of those GNU programs are critical to the operation of Solaris. Same reasoning regarding GNU/MS Windows. Furthermore, no GNU software is used to build MS Windows and this is also true of building Solaris. Calling GNU/Linux GNU/Linux makes perfect sense since there is a symbiotic relationship between (at least the core) GNU software and the Linux kernel. But, the relationship isn't equal. The Linux kernel can't be build nor even run without GNU software. I'm not aware of any complete replacement of GNU software in a GNU/Linux system that results in a working system. However, the Linux kernel in a GNU/Linux system can be replaced with Hurd and possibly other kernels. Of course there is the possibility of replacing the xBSD kernel of an xBSD system with the Linux kernel, but I don't believe anyone is seriously considering it. >But I'm not going to do that. If PR is so important to >him he should chuck the GPL and use a modified >BSD license instead.</joke> > >>I'm not going to argue about this because it isn't important to me, but I > >>just want to say that I think it isn't foolish to tack a 'GNU' on the >>front of Linux. > >Good, but I think it is foolish to expect me to do that. >We disagree, and that is OK. OK, try "GNU system" or just GNU. The Linux kernel although a critical part of the total system is rather small in comparison to all the GNU software that in included in a GNU/Linux. Sincerely, Ken Fuchs <kfuchs at winternet.com>