> > Linux users use quite a bit of GNU software, and we're all grateful that
> > it's available. We also use a fair amount of non-GNU software. I don't
> > believe it's a fair characterization to consider Linux a ``GNU-based
> > system.'' There are very few cases in which we are using GNU software in
>
> Honestly, how far do you get without any GNU software after mounting
> your root filesystem? What do you use to compile your kernel? Which
> tools do you use to make a patch, debug, etc? Without Richard
> Stallman we probably wouldn't have the GPL; therefore I'll also
> consider X11 as GNU software. I couldn't afford to run UN*X; in fact
> I wouldn't have bought a new computer just to run Windoze'95.
>
> > which some alternative doesn't, or couldn't, exist. All kudos to
> > GNU-*style* licensing, which is another matter entirely....
On the other hand, consider how useless GNU software would be without a free
operating system to run it on. By the way, we should take this discussion
to a more appropriate forum.
> > > One way to help unify the community, and gently encourage more
> > > cooperation, is to use the term "Linux-based GNU system" to
> > > describe these systems more accurately.
> >
> > Linux is nothing if not pluralistic. Too much unification is probably not
>
> Implementing POSIX is almost the opposite. Just look at all these
> early DOS C compilers; completely incompatible.
Standards are fine. Depending on one implementation of them is not always a
good idea, though. There's licensing, for example. Some people like BSD
licensing, or artistic licensing. Some people might like GNU licensing
minus FSF pushiness.... ;)
> > the most useful thing in the world. It discourages the diversity which has
> > been one of Linux' strengths.
>
> Improving does not mean losing freedom to make decisions. You should
> want to make perfect software, not to make a new standard. If you do
> the former, you'll have good chances for the latter as well.
There's no such thing as perfect software. We all do the best we can. We
should take this discussion to a more appropriate forum.
> > There are many GNU-based Linux systems. Unless one is a GNU developer,
> > though, one is less likely to consider one's system a ``Linux-based GNU
> > system,'' and justifiably so.
>
> Back to the beginning: If you install a Linux system, how far would
> you go without ... gzip ...? Maybe you'd have to pay licence fees for
> uncompress...
Gosh, I guess we'd have to find some other efficient compression algorithm.
Or some other implementation of the one in gzip. As you say, you should
want to [at least try your best to] make perfect software, not a new
standard. I've noticed one thing that forces people to do the best possible
job is competition, especially when their prestige is on the line....
lilo
P.S. We should take this discussion to a more appropriate forum. I think
it was borderline when RMS first introduced it, especially on linux-kernel,
which is more concerned with kernel CODING and POLICY issues, rather than
GNU publicity issues. Let me suggest one of the GNU newsgroups, probably an
advocacy one if such exists....