>
>
> > cooperate, we may be able to do so. However, one problem may be hard
> > to solve: the LSB is mainly dealing with issues at the operating
> > system level--and is therefore in effect calling the GNU operating
> > system "Linux".
>
> Oh. I thought the GNU operating system was "HURD."
>
The FSF made the classical mistake: try to make an ambitious OS and do
this closed doors. That meant that until finished they would get
neither users nor additional people. So they had their hands full of
work and a tiny team to do it. Hurd was an old project before the
first line of Linux was written.
Linus made something quick and dirty but with an exciting feature
(virtual memory) and released. Then he got a team for improving
Linux.
> gnu software runs on almost anything. Including, in many cases, OS/2 and
> win32.
>
> > Many of you are aware that the GNU Project objects to this.
>
> There are more than one or two people who object to FSF spam.
>
Linux would have not been possible without the Gnu utilities and the
compiler used to built has ever been gcc. What would have been of
Linux if Gcc didn't exist? What of its performance if Gcc had been
mediocre? The only other 32 bits compiler I am aware of who was
freely available at the time Linux was written was bcc and the code it
generated was about two times slower than gcc's.
I think RMS deserves a lot of our patience but I still think that
because Linux was not sponsored in any way by FSF its right name is
Linux.
--
Jean Francois Martinez
Project Independence: Linux for the Masses
http://www.independence.seul.org
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
