On 11/10/06 16:11 +0530, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
2006/10/10, Devdas Bhagat devdas@dvb.homelinux.org:
This is not the case with Linux. GNU tools sit at the same status as other applications. For most people, the GNU tools don't even matter, they run other applications. Most of the userland tools can be replaced with busybox too.
Busybox doesn't give you a compiler, libraries. I dont agree that GNU sits with other applications. Other applications don't exist without
BSD. They require gcc, but everything else is non GNU. As far as I am concerned, GNU is _one_ component of my system. A lot of other components use the GNU toolchain to exist, but practically, if those applications didn't exist, I might as well not use the computer.
So me crediting just GNU would be wrong. IBM/QT/Apache/Artistic/Mozilla/X/BSD/GNU/Linux would be acceptable (off the top of my head, those are the licenses used by software on my system).
GNU. *Can you explain how they can exist without GNU?* If this dependency is claimed falsely, I will correct myself. In fact most of the applications, including GNU exist without Linux, because they can depend on other kernels.
As I said, they are userland. And if GNU gets credit, everyone else who makes my desktop experience useful gets credit too.
I am not. I am reading it specifically as a branding issue, where the FSF is actually losing ground by insisting on the term GNU/Linux. No one part of the userland should claim dominance over the whole.
Your perception that GNU is userland is dubious. In order to prove otherwise, you have to explain the above question.
Everything that is not kernelspace is userland. This includes libc. As the GNU folks themselves say, Linux by itself is just a kernel.
Devdas Bhagat