🚀 go-pugleaf

In the last exciting episode, Kevin Everets <kevin.everets@alcatel.com> wrote::
> ruhl@4dv.net (Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>) writes:
>
>> Kevin Everets <kevin.everets@alcatel.com> writes:
>> > The GNU page on Linux seems to express fairly well the GNU project's
>> > position on this: they were the first to begin the massive attempt
>> > to develop a complete free Unix-like system.
>> 
>> And the first to fail in a very big and embarassing way...
>
> I'm pretty sure that it's far from a failure... it's still under
> development (and is in use).  I guess you have a different definition
> of failure than I do.

"I am aware of the benefits of a micro kernel approach.  However, the
fact remains that Linux is here, and GNU isn't --- and people have
been working on Hurd for a lot longer than Linus has been working on
Linux." -- Ted T'so, 1992.

It wasn't until some time in 2001 that Hurd _started_ to become
realistically useful as a _plausible_ alternative to Linux for people
that were interested in using it as an alternative.

The comments from Ted T'so are only _marginally_ untrue NOW, ten years
later.  That's certainly not a big picture of "scintillating Hurd
success."

They didn't Hurd back moving until the attempt at a "GNU distribution"
was dropped in favor of making it into a port of Debian.

>> > Basically, if you don't believe that a system is any more than
>> > the kernel, then by all means continue to call your system
>> > "Linux".  If instead, you feel that a system is more than a
>> > single component then what you're talking about is a version of
>> > GNU that happens to have Linux at the helm.  Thus, it would be
>> > called "GNU/Linux".
>> 
>> In the latter case, what I'm talking about is the Linux OS with all
>> the myriad bits of free software, GPLed, LGPLed, BSDLed &c. which
>> make up my system.  Thus, I call it Linux.  Although I could, I
>> suppose, call it BSD/MIT/GNU/Knuth/Linux.  Which would be silly,
>> and dumb.
>
> Calling it Linux/X/TeX/LibC would be dumb too... and that's why no
> one is suggesting it.  You appear to be of the opinion that the
> kernel is the most important piece of an operating system, and thus
> should be the name of the operating system, which is well within
> your right to do.

The Debian people are happy calling their system "Debian."  Others
like calling their systems "Red Hat Linux" systems.  Still others like
other names.
-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/rdbms.html
"As soon as  we started programming, we found to  our surprise that it
wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought.  Debugging had
to be  discovered.  I can remember  the exact instant  when I realized
that a  large part of my  life from then on  was going to  be spent in
finding  mistakes in  my own  programs."  
-- Maurice Wilkes discovers debugging, 1949