🚀 go-pugleaf

ruhl@4dv.net (Robert Uhl <ruhl@4dv.net>) writes:

> But the system is _much_ more than just GNU.  Many have stated this,
> but the pro-`GNU/Linux' factions ignores it; are y'all being
> deliberately obtuse?

But the system _is_ GNU.  GNU is nothing but the same of a system.
The system is _much_ more than the kernel, but not more than itself.
(Your definition of a system again seems to be that of a single
component, or subsystem, so since by your definition of a kernel is
the same as that of an operating system, you should continue to call
your Operating System "Linux".)

My last point in this mock debate is the following two analogies:

A computer system contains a very important (and vital) piece: the
processor.  Without the processor nothing can happen.  With only the
processor, very little can happen.  However, my computer systems are
called "Sun Fire 12K" and "IBM Netfinity" and "SGI Origin2000" and
_not_ "UltraSPARC" and "Pentium" and "MIPS R10000" (well, now more
likely "Itanium", but you get the point).  Though the processor is a
very complex system in its' own right (and often contains other parts
of a system like its' own memory), it's still not a computer system on
its' own.

Consider this scenario: someone designs and builds most of a computer
system, all the boring parts and the not-so-boring parts (the busses,
the power supply, the bios, etc), all except the last piece (the
processor). Then someone comes along and creates a processor that
happens to work very well in that system.  They then call the entire
system by the processor, as the processor was their baby.  And many
others start to call the system by the processor.  Perhaps fair,
perhaps not.

A car contains a very important (and vital) piece: the engine.
Without the engine nothing can happen.  With only the engine, very
little can happen.  However, cars are called "Corvette" and "Mustang"
and "Civic" and _not_ by the names of their engines (for those engines
that have names).  Though the engine is a very complex system in its'
own right (and often contains other parts of a system, like its' own
cooling), it's still not a car on its' own.

Consider this scenario: someone designs and builds most of a car, all
the boring parts and the not-so-boring parts (the chassis, the
dashboard, the wheels, etc), all except the last piece (the engine).
Then someone comes along and creates an engine that happens to work
very well in that system.  They then call the entire car by the name
of the engine, as the engine was their baby.  And many others start to
call the car by the engine.  Perhaps fair, perhaps not.

And with that, I leave it to the reader to decide which is more
appropriate.

Kevin.

-- 
Kevin Everets <kevin.everets@alcatel.com>
GPG: 0x86D6C5DD 48FA 053B FB7D 9BF9 FE4C  02D3 6346 055B 86D6 C5DD