Re: To GNU or not to GNU

[bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens)]

Simon,

I'm surprised you didn't catch Richard's comments, as they were directed
to the Linux-kernel mailing list. OK, that list has 100 postings a day,
but this thread was difficult to miss.

Here's what Richard wrote, starting with his
posting with the subject "Linux isn't an operating system". I deleted
the 100 responses for the sake of brevity. His attempt to take credit
after-the-fact when so much of the contribution to Linux was from sources
other than FSF offended many Linux developers.

	Bruce

>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Wed Mar  6 03:06:06 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tuH2j-00063ca; Wed, 6 Mar 96 03:06 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA08940
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Wed, 6 Mar 1996 03:05:55 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <105745-29292>; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 04:43:40 -0500
Date: 	Tue, 5 Mar 1996 22:37:28 -0500
Message-Id: <199603060337.WAA13103@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: ganderson@clark.net
Cc: linux-misc@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

    on NASA TV last week indicate that computers running under the Linux
    operating system are being used on STS-75.  Linux is powerful 32-bit
    multiuser, multitasking operating system similar to Unix in many ways
    except cost and licensing....

    Linux was designed a few short years ago by Linus Torvalds, a graduate...

This article makes a common mistake: confusing the whole operating
system with the kernel.  Linus Torvalds wrote the kernel, Linux.  A
whole operating systems consists of Linux and many other programs,
which were written by a great many people.

There are a number of whole operating systems using the Linux kernel,
Most of them are more or less close variants of the GNU system, so I
recommend the term "Linux-based GNU system" for them.

I'm going to talk to the author of the article about this distinction.

>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Wed Mar  6 04:24:06 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tuIGE-00063ca; Wed, 6 Mar 96 04:24 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA11749
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Wed, 6 Mar 1996 04:23:55 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <105793-29292>; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 06:37:24 -0500
Date: 	Wed, 6 Mar 1996 02:11:32 -0500
Message-Id: <199603060711.CAA13528@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: ganderson@clark.net
Cc: linux-misc@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960306001833.211A-100000@ganderson-ppp.clark.net>
	(message from Gary Anderson on Wed, 6 Mar 1996 00:31:29 -0500 (EST))
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

I would expect that most of the people who speak of "the Linux
operating system" think of this as just a minor lack of precision.

But aside from being unfair (which by itself would not be worth
fussing about), it also tends to split the community and thus
discourage communication and cooperation.  When the people who use
what is essentially the GNU system think of themselves as "Linux
users", and not as "GNU users", often they don't see a reason
cooperate with the people who maintain the GNU software.  This leads
to version-skew and unnecessary incompatibility.

One way to help unify the community, and gently encourage more
cooperation, is to use the term "Linux-based GNU system" to
describe these systems more accurately.


>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Thu Mar  7 02:34:16 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tud1U-00063ca; Thu, 7 Mar 96 02:34 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA20850
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Thu, 7 Mar 1996 02:34:13 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <107218-15859>; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 05:13:20 -0500
Date: 	Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:44:57 -0500
Message-Id: <199603061844.NAA15000@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: alan@cymru.net
Cc: ganderson@clark.net, linux-misc@vger.rutgers.edu,
        linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <199603061135.LAA06092@snowcrash.cymru.net> (message from Alan
	Cox on Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:35:31 +0000 (GMT))
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

I think I should explain the difference between "GNU software" and
"the GNU operating system".  It would be inaccurate to say that a
system such Slackware consists mainly of GNU software, but correct I
believe to say it is mostly the same as the GNU system.

I started the GNU project in 1984 with the aim of making a complete
free Unix-like operating system.  I wrote some parts myself--GCC,
Emacs, GDB, and other smaller ones.  Other people wrote other
components for the GNU project.  These programs are GNU software.

We also added to the GNU system some programs like X Windows and parts
of BSD which were written by other projects.  These programs are not
GNU software, but they are parts of the GNU system (and parts of other
systems as well).  When Linux was written, the GNU system was almost
complete, but lacking a kernel.  Putting the incomplete GNU system
together with Linux realized my dream of a free operating system.

In principle, there's no reason why a system based on Linux has to be
a variant GNU system, and perhaps some of them are not.  But as far as
I know, most of them currently are.

To speak of "Linux Based MIT X Windows/GNU/BSD/MIT systems" would be
correct.  But people may find it impractical.  The term "Linux-based
GNU system" is also correct, and it is practical.

By using this term, we can help encourage people to work together
instead of dividing themselves artificially into "Linux users" and
"GNU users".  This solves an important practical problem.

>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Thu Mar  7 03:58:38 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tueL8-00063ca; Thu, 7 Mar 96 03:58 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA22462
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Thu, 7 Mar 1996 03:58:37 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <107364-15871>; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 06:35:24 -0500
Date: 	Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:12:15 -0500
Message-Id: <199603062012.PAA15232@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: nelson@crynwr.com
Cc: linux-misc@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <19960306134711.13464.qmail@ns.crynwr.com> (nelson@crynwr.com)
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

     > There are a number of whole operating systems using the Linux kernel,
     > Most of them are more or less close variants of the GNU system, so I
     > recommend the term "Linux-based GNU system" for them.

    Which we can call just plain ``Linux'' for short.

Certainly you can--you just did.  But it isn't really a good idea,
because this practice tends to divide the community.  "Linux-based GNU
system" (or "GNU/Linux", for short) helps to unify the community, and
it's worth typing an extra word or two from time to time to achieve
that.

    Richard, you can't make ``hacker'' respectable again, and you can't
    change the name of Linux.

Statements like these are would-be self-fulfilling prophecies.  They
are neither true nor false in the factual sense when they are stated,
but if people believe them, that can make them true.

I usually ignore prophecies of failure, unless they are backed by
physical law.  When I started developing a free Unix-like operating
system, people said that too was impossible.  Fortunately, I ignored
them, and as a result, we have such systems now.

The whole world has not converted to free software.  Maybe it never
will.  But that doesn't mean my work on free software has failed.
Success which is less than total can still be worth while.

I probably won't convince all the "Linux users" to use the term
"Linux-based GNU system".  But I will convince some, and they by using
this term will contribute to unifying the community.  Even a little
more unity is worth the effort of writing these messages.

(I'm trying new approaches for correcting the media distortion of
"hacker", too.  I don't give up on a worthy cause!)

So instead of speculating about precisely how much change is possible,
how about pitching in?  Even a long shot is worth a very small amount
of work, and that's all it takes to use "Linux-based GNU system".

>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Thu Mar  7 05:23:38 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tuffO-00063ca; Thu, 7 Mar 96 05:23 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA26391
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Thu, 7 Mar 1996 05:23:35 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <107514-15859>; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:07:07 -0500
Date: 	Wed, 6 Mar 1996 16:31:59 -0500
Message-Id: <199603062131.QAA15405@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: cjs@netcom.com
Cc: ganderson@clark.net, linux-misc@vger.rutgers.edu,
        linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <199603061800.KAA06436@netcom17.netcom.com> (cjs@netcom.com)
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

    Maybe its time you followed OSF's example
    and just started calling everything "Linux".

I spoke to the OSF recently, and they are now making the distinction
between the Linux kernel and the whole operating system.


>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Thu Mar  7 08:22:15 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tuiSF-00063ca; Thu, 7 Mar 96 08:22 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA04683
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Thu, 7 Mar 1996 08:22:12 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <106550-15859>; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:03:03 -0500
Date: 	Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:40:04 -0500
Message-Id: <199603070240.VAA16295@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: linux-misc@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Cc: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

I learned to distinguish between an operating system and its kernel
while working at MIT, since before starting the GNU project.  That is
why the GNU system is not the same as the GNU Hurd plus Mach.

I was surprised to learn that some people consider "operating system"
to be synonymous with "kernel".  But they have quoted textbooks, so
this usage seems to be well established.

The other usage, which distinguishes the two terms, is also well
established.  Here's what the Feb 1966 issue of Linux Journal says, on
page 7, in answer to the question "What is Linux?"

   Linux itself is the kernel, the "core" of the operating system,
   Most people use "Linux" to mean all of the software that goes along
   with the kernel to make a usable operating system.

Many of the users of Linux have got their idea of the meaning of
"operating system" from there.  That explanation distinguishes clearly
between the kernel and the whole collection of software you need to do
actual work, but it suggests calling them both "Linux".

So it appears that "operating system" is ambiguous.  It can mean the
whole collection of system software, or it can mean just the kernel.
This ambiguity probably tends to encourage confusion between those two
different entities.

Most users who use Linux install whole collections of software, which
contain Linux.  These collections include Slackware, Debian,
Plug-and-Play, RedHat, and so on.  They are analogous to
non-Linux-based collections such as NetBSD, SunOS, HPUX, and Unix.  We
can call such collections operating systems, or ready-to-use
self-sufficient software distributions, or some other term.  Whatever
name we use, the difference between these collections and the kernel
is clear.

I call these collections "Linux-based GNU systems" to help promote
unity and cooperation in the whole community.  I hope some of you will
join me in doing this.


>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Fri Mar  8 05:39:58 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tv2Ok-0005zia; Fri, 8 Mar 96 05:39 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA07209
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Fri, 8 Mar 1996 05:39:55 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <107963-148>; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:16:45 -0500
Date: 	Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:02:42 -0500
Message-Id: <199603072202.RAA18547@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Cc: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

People are both attacking and defending me on the basis of how much
GNU software is included in systems such as Slackware and
Plug-and-Play, and how important it is.  Some argue that GNU programs
are important, others that they are not especially important.  Some
attack me with rancor, while others say it would have been better not
to raise the issue.  It looks the one thing most people agree on is
that this is the issue I raised.

Actually, I agree with those who say it is counterproductive to argue
about this.  I'm talking about a different issue.

In my second message I wrote about the difference between the GNU
system and the GNU programs.  When I say that Slackware is a
"Linux-based GNU system", I mean that Slackware and the GNU system are
mostly the same.  In both systems, the GNU programs themselves are one
substantial part, but nowhere near the whole.

By contrast, let's consider NetBSD.  That system contains some GNU
programs, but the differences between NetBSD as a whole and GNU are
very large.  It would be misleading to call NetBSD a "BSD-based GNU
system" just because it has a few programs in common with GNU.  (These
common programs include some GNU programs and some BSD programs.)

In principle it is possible to construct a BSD-based GNU system.  You
could take a BSD kernel, put it together with the libraries and
utilities of the GNU system, and make them work together.  As far as I
know, no one has done this.  Likewise, it is possible to construct a
Linux-based BSD system by putting Linux together with the libraries
and utilities in the BSD system, but I've never heard of that being
done.

I appreciate the moral support from those of you who think GNU
programs are important.  The best way to express your support is,
rather than arguing for their importance, to help me spread the idea
that we must work together as one community.

>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Fri Mar  8 12:20:15 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tv8e7-0005zba; Fri, 8 Mar 96 12:20 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA29509
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:20:11 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <105928-146>; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 14:54:58 -0500
Date: 	Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:23:36 -0500
Message-Id: <199603080223.VAA19500@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: wing@netcom.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <199603072319.PAA11604@netcom23.netcom.com> (wing@netcom.com)
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

    Arguing like this only creates divisiveness, such as the current
    *BSD debacle and the XEmacs/GNU Emacs division.

I hope we will merge XEmacs and Emacs.  It first depends on getting
legal papers from the contributors who wrote the code in XEmacs.


>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Sat Mar  9 00:15:36 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tvJoO-0005zLa; Sat, 9 Mar 96 00:15 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA05112
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Sat, 9 Mar 1996 00:15:33 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <105990-146>; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 19:19:20 -0500
Date: 	Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:16:46 -0500
Message-Id: <199603072016.PAA18392@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: janne@avocado.pc.helsinki.fi
Cc: tytso@mit.edu, ganderson@clark.net, linux-misc@vger.rutgers.edu,
        linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <oau401ul0f.fsf@avocado.pc.helsinki.fi>
	(janne@avocado.pc.helsinki.fi)
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

    And it is also
    right that a computer running Linux should be called a Linux system as
    well as a computer running Windows 95 is a Windows 95 system. It is
    just a little unfair.

I think Windows 95 includes a lot besides the kernel.  Aren't there
tools such as the program manager and file manager, and many DLLs?

>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Sat Mar  9 00:17:19 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tvJq3-0005zda; Sat, 9 Mar 96 00:17 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA05172
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Sat, 9 Mar 1996 00:17:16 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <106618-146>; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 19:56:00 -0500
Date: 	Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:12:09 -0500
Message-Id: <199603072212.RAA18602@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: rlk@tiac.net
To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Cc: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199603071536.KAA29739@sunspot.tiac.net> (message from Robert L
	Krawitz on Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:36:14 -0500)
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

    I think most of us are well aware of the fact that the core
    user-mode software comes from GNU, even though we describe our systems
    as "Linux".

In this discussion, we've seen people who definitely do know this
argue nonetheless that the "Linux users" should not be expected to put
effort into cooperation with the "GNU users".

What that shows is that it isn't just a matter of whether people
know the historical facts.  It's whether people think of themselves
as part of one larger community, or two smaller ones.


>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Sat Mar  9 00:18:23 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tvJr5-0005zTa; Sat, 9 Mar 96 00:18 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA05201
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Sat, 9 Mar 1996 00:18:16 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <106319-148>; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 20:24:49 -0500
Date: 	Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:03:37 -0500
Message-Id: <199603080003.TAA18876@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: tompkins@ncc1701.remstar.com
To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Cc: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960307112623.1316C-100000@ncc1701.remstar.com>
	(tompkins@ncc1701.remstar.com)
Subject: Re: Linux isn't an operating system
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

You've proposed that we agree on the term "Linux system" for the
complete systems based on Linux, and give credit to GNU developers "in
the second breath".  That is a reasonable way of giving credit, but it
has two drawbacks:

* It is what most people have been doing, and that is what has led to
our present problems.

* The real issue is not giving credit, but encouraging the cooperation
that we all need.

I'm sure that if I let this issue drop, and let the issues of
cooperation drift, we could all "get along" with no visible disputes.
But this is because the substantive problems would quietly continue to
grow.  We need to do more than get along; we need to work together.

People using almost the same collection of software have defined two
different community identities--"GNU user" and "Linux user".  And the
people in one community tend not to make an effort to cooperate with
those in the other.  This suggests that the real root of the problem
is in this social structure, not in the individuals concerned.  To
have more cooperation, we need to change the structure.  We need to
pay more conscious attention to our ties and common interests, and to
the larger community that includes all of us.

To effect a change, we have to do something different from what we
have done in the past.

I've proposed the term "Linux-based GNU system" as a way of doing
this, because I think it is an accurate description.  Other people
have suggested the term "GNU-based Linux system".  That too would
promote cooperation, if people use it often.  Both terms emphasize the
relationship rather than implying separation and isolation.

>From vger.rutgers.edu!owner-linux-kernel-outgoing Sat Mar  9 01:35:27 1996
Return-Path: <owner-linux-kernel-outgoing@vger.rutgers.edu>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0tvL3f-0005zCa; Sat, 9 Mar 96 01:35 PST
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu by pixar.com with SMTP id AA07300
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for bruce@mongo.pixar.com); Sat, 9 Mar 1996 01:35:25 -0800
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <106761-2404>; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 03:52:37 -0500
Date: 	Fri, 8 Mar 1996 00:18:24 -0500
Message-Id: <199603080518.AAA19867@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: hab@ece.engr.ucf.edu
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <01BB0C6C.D7F24240@ppp44.ucfdial.utelfla.com> (message from
	Hubert Bahr on Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:20:33 -0500)
Subject: Re: Linux-based GNU systems--NOT!!!
Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: O

      How many other OS's do your
    utilities support that do not call themselves GNU systems.

You seem to be arguing against someone who said that any system on
which a GNU program runs is a GNU system.

Naturally, I agree with you.

The reason it makes sense to call Debian or Slackware a variant GNU
system is that these systems are mostly the same, overall, as the GNU
system.  They have more than just a few programs in common.  Most of
them is the same.

--
Pixar Animation Studios: Reality is not our business.
Pixar's "Toy Story", at greater than $184,200,000 in domestic box office
receipts, is the #1 movie released in 1995!