🚀 go-pugleaf

On 11 Jul 2002 16:52:03 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:
> The world rejoiced as jmd@arse.net wrote:
>> You're absolutely right - the Linux kernel (i.e. the bit of the
>> operating system which is actually called "linux" is only a very
>> small part of the total code for any distribution.
>>
>> Almost everything in the distribution is covered by the Gnu general
>> public license.
> 
> Is that an actual statistic, or is it just one that you made up?
> 
> The only system I recall installing where "almost everything" was
> covered by the GPL was an early install of GNU Hurd, before the Debian
> project for that started up.

I'm not going to express an opinion about the name of the system, but
if you want to attack or defend RMS's position, I'm not sure it makes
sense to attack it based on the percentage of code belonging to the 
FSF.  It's not quite as bad as the "kernel isn't an operating system" 
argument (IMO), but it still misses RMS's point.

As I understand RMS's position, he's saying that Linux based systems
(no flames please) with all of their non GPLed software on them, are 
exactly the system he envisioned way back when.   He envisioned 
a free kernel with a bunch of freed unix like utilities + X + Tex,
etc. 

Of course he probably imagined that he and his staff would write the
kernel.  If he had managed to complete it even during the period
where Linux kernel based distributions were becoming popular, I think
more people would have been willing to agree with RMS that Linux systems
were simply GNU systems with a different kernel.  It's still possible
that some of those who currently disagree that there was such a thing as
a "GNU" system of which Linux is simply one example, might change their 
minds if the Hurd distributions become useful.

Isaac