1 |
Moritz Schulte [moritz@×××××××××××××××.de] wrote: |
2 |
> "Kevyn Shortell" <kevyn@×××.com> writes: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Well, of course, Linux and GNU components are the most essential |
5 |
> pieces of the system, but they are essential in a different way. I |
6 |
> could imagine that the order "GNU/Linux" has historical roots. The |
7 |
> GNU Project was working on this free, Unix like operating system, |
8 |
> named "GNU". Many components of GNU were finished, but the Hurd core |
9 |
> was not ready yet. At that time Linux envolved and it became obvious |
10 |
> that all the GNU components combined with the Linux component can form |
11 |
> a more or less complete operating system. So the name of system |
12 |
> wouldn't be GNU anymore - but GNU/Linux. |
13 |
[snip] |
14 |
> Not RMS wants credit, he doesn't ask Gentoo to use the term RMS/Linux. |
15 |
> He wants credit for the GNU Project, which means: many, many other |
16 |
> people. |
17 |
|
18 |
I think you misunderstand why RMS does this. I think it really has |
19 |
little to do with giving credit for that development to the developers. |
20 |
That's already done. This is about RMS making sure that the GNU |
21 |
foundation stays at the front of people's thoughts. This is about |
22 |
RMS's free software crusade, thus, it's entirely about marketing. |
23 |
He needs GNU to continue to be a name in common usage, and to keep |
24 |
his group in out there in front of people. It's all about the cause. |
25 |
|
26 |
I understand this, and I can appreciate what he is trying to do. I |
27 |
just don't agree that this is the way to go about it. If in fact |
28 |
I'm wrong, and it IS about the credit, then I disagree even more. |
29 |
To make this issue about giving credit means that they overstate |
30 |
their own importance in the big scheme of things. I am thankfull |
31 |
for those who did the work, as well as the work they did, but if |
32 |
they hadn't done it someone else would have. To think that they |
33 |
are or were somehow critically important to this movement is |
34 |
incredibly foolish. Nobody is indispensible, that's the beauty |
35 |
of it. Any of us could disappear of the face of the earth and |
36 |
someone else would pop up to take our place, and things would |
37 |
keep going. |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |