🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> 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:

http://www.gnu.org/

Selected quotes from there below:

---cut---
Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely
used today is more often known as ``Linux'', and many users are not
aware of the extent of its connection with the GNU Project. There
really is a Linux; it is a kernel, and these people are using it. But
you  can't use a kernel by itself; a kernel is useful only as part of
a whole operating system. Linux is normally used in a combination with
the GNU operating system: the system is basically GNU, with Linux
functioning as the kernel. Many users are not fully aware of the
distinction between the kernel, which is Linux, and the whole system,
which they also call ``Linux''. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't
promote understanding. 
---cut---

---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--

> rms is mistaken here.

Never. http://www.stallman.org/ is a nice place.