🚀 go-pugleaf

Quoth Sami Sihvonen <ss@janiika.com>:
> In article <m3ofdf62hx.fsf@latakia.dyndns.org>,
> ruhl@4dv.net (Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>) wrote:
>
>>> Please tell me more about Linux-kernel based operating systems that
>>> use no GNU Project efforts.  I have been asking it several times
>>> here and got no replies.
>> The _point_ is that it's possible, and therefor that the GNU tools are
>> not required for a usable system.  It might not be what either of us
>> would consider particularly useful, but it's possible.
>
> But it has never been done, still waiting for that URL where to
> download operating system based on Linux-kernel without any GNU 
> Project efforts. You are writing about science fiction. Here in
> reality they are all GNU/Linux operating systems.

In your neck of the universe, you can call them whatever you want.
"GNU/Linux/Throat-Warbler-Mangrove," if you wish.

That doesn't mean that anyone else needs to care about your private
definitions of things.

>> If they call it GNU/Linux, they certainly do.  They could call it
>> BSD/GNU/AT&T/MIT/IBM/Linux, I suppose.  You still haven't addressed
>> the major point: why give credit in the name to a particular
>> organisation, one which hasn;t even contributed the majority of code?
>> It doesn't make sense.
>
> GNU Project efforts _are_ the majority of code in GNU/Linux based
> systems. I have posted URL's that point to details, if you know how
> to read English, Catalan, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Polish,
> Portuguese, Russian, Serbo-Croatian or Slovenian you might try:

> ---cut--
> One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU 
> software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total
> source code, and this included some of the essential major components
> without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So
> if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the
> programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be
> ``GNU''. 
> ---cut--

Somehow it appears that you must have failed basic arithmetic.

On the one hand, you claim emphatically that GNU Project efforts
represent the majority of the code.

Then the only figure you actually quote indicates a figure of 28%.

Perhaps you live in some "quantum continua" where 28% may be treated
as a "majority."  (Perhaps in some part of Florida where they _really_
count funny.)

But in the parts of the universe where the rest of us reside, the term
"majority" is reserved for situations involving proportions that
exceed 50%.

You're not even _CLOSE_ to that.
-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ac.notelrac.teneerf@" "454aa"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html
"Just because the code is intended to cause flaming death is no reason
to get sloppy and leave off  the casts." - Tim Smith, regarding sample
(F0 0F C7 C8) Pentium Death code on comp.os.linux.advocacy