>I came across GNU Guix [1] last year. At that time, they had plans to >build a standalone distribution of the GNU Operating System. I watched >GNU Guix developers work during this year and they did build a >standalone distribution. [2] But the name of this distribution is GNU >Guix (the same name of the package manager). If Guix is the GNU package >manager and integrates the components of GNU, why can't the resulting >distribution be called The GNU Operating System (or GNU, for short)? [3]
Guix is a distribution of GNU, so far the only distribution than is officially under the umbrella of the GNU project. >Because this will incentivise people to say that that "Acme Linux", referring to GNU+Linux, "is not GNU, because GNU is only available >from gnu.org" which would be misleading. >"Acme GNU" or "GNU Acme" or "Acme GNU+Linux" are all the GNU operating system. Technically, its not GNU, it's GNU/Linux, GNU is running on top of Linux. But if GNU was running on HURD, I think it would just be called GNU because HURD is part of GNU. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > Hi > > Personal opinion only > > On 20 November 2014 15:42, Felipe López <felipe.lo...@openmailbox.org> > wrote: > >> >> I'd like to know what is >> holding the GNU developers back from releasing the first version of the >> GNU Operating System. >> > > It was released in the early 90s, with the Linux kernel substituted for > HURD. > > >> why can't the resulting >> distribution be called The GNU Operating System (or GNU, for short)? >> > > Because this will incentivise people to say that that "Acme Linux", > referring to GNU+Linux, "is not GNU, because GNU is only available from > gnu.org" which would be misleading. > > "Acme GNU" or "GNU Acme" or "Acme GNU+Linux" are all the GNU operating > system. > > -- > Cheers > Dave >
