Re: Linux isn't an operating system

Robert L Krawitz (rlk@tiac.net)
Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:36:14 -0500


Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:44:57 -0500
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>

We also added to the GNU system some programs like X Windows and parts
of BSD which were written by other projects. These programs are not
GNU software, but they are parts of the GNU system (and parts of other
systems as well). When Linux was written, the GNU system was almost
complete, but lacking a kernel. Putting the incomplete GNU system
together with Linux realized my dream of a free operating system.

...which is why I wish the FSF would stop playing around with the Hurd
and work more closely with Linus and the rest of the core team.

To speak of "Linux Based MIT X Windows/GNU/BSD/MIT systems" would be
correct. But people may find it impractical. The term "Linux-based
GNU system" is also correct, and it is practical.

I disagree. I don't think that that name is practical. It's too
long and looks too contrived. It's a lot easier for people to
remember short names (Linux, Warp, LoseDOS) than long composite ones.
>From the standpoint of suits, it also makes the product look like a
more unified whole rather than a mishmash of contributions. This is
essential for perceived stability, which is essential for market
acceptance.

By using this term, we can help encourage people to work together
instead of dividing themselves artificially into "Linux users" and
"GNU users". This solves an important practical problem.

When it comes to reaching out to the broader market, few people will
know the difference and fewer still will care. Among the more inside
crowd, I think most of us are well aware of the fact that the core
user-mode software comes from GNU, even though we describe our systems
as "Linux".

-- 
Robert Krawitz <rlk@tiac.net>           http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net Tall Clubs International -- tci-request@aptinc.com or 1-800-521-2512