3 ms·

Hey, hey, don't mix weirdos and actual GNU Project together. Had GNU Project had ever really insisted on plastering "GNU" branding on some derivatives? I reall

Hey, hey, don't mix weirdos and actual GNU Project together. Had GNU Project had ever really insisted on plastering "GNU" branding on some derivatives? I really doubt that. What they had always asked is to call their OS by it's name and give the proper attribution when you base something on it. Just like everyone else (BSD) does. The OS without kernel is called "GNU", and with kernel it's "GNU/Linux". Oh, and the editor's "GNU Emacs" (because there are other Emacses). That's all that GNU Project had ever asked. If you see some weirdo telling that, say, Debian must be called "GNU Debian" or something, tell that they're nuts because Debian is not a part of GNU Project. But if someone expands and explains what Debian is ("Debian distribution of GNU OS with Linux kernel"), then surely, it's only right to give GNU some well-deserved attribution about the OS they wrote. That's all they ask. Oh, and I really don't get why author says it's not "Ubuntu" but "GNU". Ubuntu it is, with Ubuntu being a GNU distribution.

fmoralesc 11y ago
> The OS without kernel is called "GNU" But that's the thing, nobody other that the GNU people called that an OS worth of a name. I suspect what people call an OS is an standalone set of conventions and packaging that can actually be used to interface between the hardware and the user [0]; so I think Debian is more worth of being called an OS on its own than "GNU userspace - kernel". Same with any other Linux distribution, *BSD variant, Windows and OSX. It was the linux project that made those OSes viable as standalone things (to be fair, the GNU userspace made them viable as usable working platforms for early adopters - but nowadays the role of GNU software in the OS is less central), and people place more weight to that. [0]: I pretty much agree with Ted Nelson about the distinction between "technology" and "packaging". (https://youtu.be/KdnGPQaICjk?t=1m47s https://youtu.be/KdnGPQaICjk?t=1m47s)
- mikegerwitz 11y ago
  Please take a look at a brief history of the GNU Project: https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html GNU is more than a collection of GNU programs; when free software existed, it was used. The result with a complete Unix replacement.

fmoralesc 11y ago

> The OS without kernel is called "GNU" But that's the thing, nobody other that the GNU people called that an OS worth of a name. I suspect what people call an OS is an standalone set of conventions and packaging that can actually be used to interface between the hardware and the user [0]; so I think Debian is more worth of being called an OS on its own than "GNU userspace - kernel". Same with any other Linux distribution, *BSD variant, Windows and OSX. It was the linux project that made those OSes viable as standalone things (to be fair, the GNU userspace made them viable as usable working platforms for early adopters - but nowadays the role of GNU software in the OS is less central), and people place more weight to that. [0]: I pretty much agree with Ted Nelson about the distinction between "technology" and "packaging". (https://youtu.be/KdnGPQaICjk?t=1m47s https://youtu.be/KdnGPQaICjk?t=1m47s)

mikegerwitz 11y ago
Please take a look at a brief history of the GNU Project: https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html https://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html GNU is more than a collection of GNU programs; when free software existed, it was used. The result with a complete Unix replacement.