🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.unix.questions Sami Sihvonen <ss@janiika.com> wrote:
: In article <afddm8$94k$1@tilde.itg.ti.com>,
: "Kermit Tensmeyer" <nspam.x0kermit@ti.com> wrote:

:>> It is GNU/Linux, not Linux... See http://www.gnu.org/ for details.
:> Linux is the OS. gnu - tools provide some of the very good
:> software that also runs on Linux  and Unix and ...

: Linux is only kernel. About 3% of full operating system. And you
: simply can't do anything with that kernel unless you add something
: to it. Those things people call "Linux" usually are GNU/Linux
: with a lot of GNU Project material. 

: You should give credits where they belong, even if you hate them. 
: And why you hate Free Software Foundation? Have they not helped
: your everyday hacking?

Being opposed to an awful name does not mean we don't want GNU
to have credit.  It's just that the name of a system is the
wrong place to put it.  Since my system would never be able to
do anything graphical without the good work of the folks over at
xfree86.org, should I be calling it GNU/XFREE86/Linux?  Oh, wait,
there's also the wonderful work at Darpa that put together the
whole TCP/IP thing in the first place, which is such a large part
of what I do that it should be mentioned too, so should it be called
GNU/XFREE86/DARPA/Linux?  Oh, but wait, there's more - I'm using
KDE, which is another massive project with lots of code on my
system, so perhaps it should be GNU/XFREE86/DARPA/KDE/Linux?

I used to respect RMS.  The longer he continues with his bullshit
campaign to try to turn the Linux name into an unpronouncable
alphabet soup, the less I respect him.  Putting the credits up
in the name makes as much sense as making the title of a book
contain the bibliography.