> > So, having said that, Red Hat Linux with GNU is ok as is Red Hat GNU for
> > Linux, or S.u.S.E. Linux and GNU but GNU and Linux are two different
> > things, Linux is not GNU and GNU is not Linux.
> So by this argument, "Redhat Linux" should be known as "Redhat for Linux",
> right? There is no difference, except perhaps "Redhat Linux" sounds like
> they made Linux, whereas the slash in "GNU/Linux" makes it more clear they
> are two seperate entities.
I think if it were clear, there would not be so much argument about
it. It won't take you long to find many names with slashes being used
to intimately tie companies and products, rather than make clear the
separation as you suggest.
I submit: FSF/GNU. I can create that as easily as Stallman created
GNU/Linux (the name I mean). It's meaning could be argued endlessly
just too. I guess that means both have a lot in common... :)
-- Shannon - shendrix@widomaker.com - www.widomaker.com/~shendrix/myresume.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Computers are like air conditioners -- they stop working properly if you open WINDOWS"
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/