[Mageia-discuss] Linux is a KERNEL not an OS

[Wolfgang Bornath]

2011/3/2 André Salaün <andresalaun at free.fr>:
>
> But using only Linux because it is "common" for
> uninformed people is simplistic ; as we say in French :
> « l'enfer est pavé de bonnes intentions »
> « the road to hell is paved with good intentions »
>
> Furthermore someone (like me and some others perhaps ) can be
> interesting in « popular education » (éducation populaire)  and
> relations between free software, free sciences free...
> Oversimplification of the word is always oversimplifaction of the
> concept. Even if it seems to be easier I see that as a fault.

I have seen the history of GNU and Linux and their "marriage" (because
the GNU people did not have any simple and free kernel for their
software). So, from my point of view there's a good chance that Linux
could have grown to a full operating system even without the GNU
project. On the other side nobody could tell if the GNU project would
have survived without Linux. Both thoughts are speculations, of
course.

But would a GNU/Linux naming policy not neglect the merits of all the
other projects who actually made the "Gnu/Linux" system a real usable
package? Imagine a distribution only supplying Linux and what remains
from the GNU project (especially Emacs) - would any user actually use
it (except developpers and "tech freaks")? I serioously doubt that
this kind of package would never have made it out of the university
and research labs environment, let alone conquer the business world.

So much about the real value of Stallman's demand from my POV. I do
not want to belittle his and the GNU project's merits but I want to
set proportions right.

I remember discussing this with Maddog Hall a couple of years ago
(must have been in 2005). Now Maddog seems to be a somewhat biased
"friend" of RMS from the stories he tells. He sees both sides but also
said that he thinks Stallmann is exaggerating about this. :)

-- 
wobo