Les Mikesell wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
A rare bit of honesty there:
"In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the “main”
repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution. Linux made
up 1.5%. So the same argument would apply even more strongly
to calling it “Linux”
You're reading it incorrectly, by leaving out the question:
GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, so why should we
mention it?
GNU is arguing, in the quote you posted, that if it is inappropriate
to include GNU in the name for a GNU/Linux distribution, then it is
even more strongly inappropriate to call it "Linux". Linux is a much
smaller and less significant portion of a GNU/Linux distribution than
GNU is.
It's not an either/or question. They are right that it is inappropriate
but in both cases, not just the straw man they set up. Call it Fedora,
call it freebsd, call it OpenSolaris, and leave politics out of it.
I don't think that they're arguing at all that it's inappropriate to
call it GNU/Linux. They're illustrating that the argument which is
often used for calling a system Linux -- that GNU is a small component
of a typical GNU/Linux distribution -- is a ridiculous argument, since
Linux is a much smaller component of the distribution.
Certainly, I have no objections referring to Red Hat's community
distribution as "Fedora", but when referring to distributions of
GNU/Linux systems in general or in aggregate, I do try to use the
appropriate name.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
