said by me1212:
That hearkens to another point, "Linux" is just the kernel, ubuntu is the operating system. Same thing with windows, you never hear anyone call it NT they use the OS name(ie xp, 7, 8). When people say "duurr you have to call it linux" its really no better than stallman's obsessive gnu/linux or gnu+linux line.
First, Jane User does not know that only the kernel is called "technically" Linux. And its not promoted this why by various distros.
And more importantly, with out the rest of the bits, X, BASH etc.. its not really an OS in the sense that Jane User understands. (NOPE hold that idea, and read below!)
Side: Note there is a winstupper NT which went by NT, NT Workstation. I just threw all the 3.5" disks out for it during the summer infestation cleansing... feels great to get that filth out of here!
Second, its NOT ever, never, ever, and WONT be "GNU" anything! Linus has spoken its Linux, period. Full stop. Done, Over, Finished. End.
said by FF4m3 :
Here's a good overview of the naming debate (which the vast majority of users don't care about)
DING! DING DING DING DING! Winner!
The only reason I have an issue is when the FSF and rms cajoule some one like Debian into this BS. Debian has its own deamons to excorsize, DFSG, and adding the FSF and rms "GNU"sense is just another headache they don't need. Move on from it and drop the "GNU!"
said by dave:
"free software" does not include the freedom
I don't think that means what you think it does. Free software is that, free, no cost, gratis.
said by dave:
to forget to mention Richard Stallman
I forget about him all the time, till he creeps up on some tech news site.--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....