Re: [PLUG] RMS and GNU/sink (was: systrace is cool)

[Noah Silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>]

Ok, for you and me, perhaps something like glibc is more important than
something like gnome.  (although since I mainly use pascal, which has
much of the glibc stuff in the SYSTEM unit, this is questionable...). 
To end users though, shell utilities are something they prefer not to
see, and without things like gnome and mozilla are more important.  From
a GUI developer point of view, QT could be just as important as glibc. 
Perhaps QT won'r wotk without glibc, but then glibc won't work without
the an OS kernal.  The fact remains that while what RMS has made is
useful, it is a link in the chain.  Why does the middle deserve more
mention than the top or the bottom?

GPL says GPL things shouldn't leave GPL.  It doesn't say that GPL things
have to all be named with the prefix "GNU/".  

 -- noah silva


On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 19:11, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 06:53:49PM -0400, Noah Silva wrote:
> > The other thing is this:  I also run openoffice.  I use gnome (what RMS
> > wrote all of that too??), but I have KDE installed.  I also have
> > mozilla, etc.  Oh wait, and selinux, and Kylix, and SAPDB, and apache.
> > 
> > By RMS's logic, it should be:
> > GNU/Sun/Netscape/TrollTech/SecureComputing/Borland/SAP/Apache/Linux
> 
> No, you're stretching his meaning further than it goes. Those are
> *minor* components of the operating system (well, I guess Gnome
> would be debatable for some people, but I think you'd probably agree
> that a GUI is just useless fluff; sorry Ian... it's *pretty* useless
> fluffy though!), whereas the basic, POSIX-standard userland tools
> are a much more important part of an operable OS.
> 
> > and, Apple's OS shouldn't be called "Apple Mac OS", it should be "Apple
> > BSD/Mac OS".
> 
> No it shouldn't. RMS is making his demand along the same line as the
> "GPLed code can't leave the GPL" line of reasoning. BSD source isn't
> licensed the same way at all. As long as Apple states copyright of
> the code (hell, even Microsoft does this for the 4.2BSD TCP/IP
> stack, presuming they're still using it), they're doing what was
> asked of them.
> 
> > But apache? QT?  you get the point.
> 
> No, I don't. Apache's just another application (and only *one*, and
> it itself wouldn't work without the basic userland there), and QT
> is a fluff library (which *really* wouldn't work without a userland).
> Give me real meat and potatoes. Remember, Linux's libc is *also* a
> GNU thing.
> 
> -- 
> gabriel rosenkoetter
> gr@eclipsed.net



______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group       -      http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  -  http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug