that old GNU/Linux argument

[Antonio Olivares]

> > I really could not care less what it is called, just
> that the
> > bleedin' thing works.
> 
> If you don't care, then wouldn't object to calling
> it GNU/Linux,
> right?
> 

A kind person posted the following at Distrowatch.com, you can check it out for yourselves if you want to confirm it 
<quote>
30 • Re post #23 (by Anonymous on 2008-07-21 20:19:06 GMT from Canada)
Plse see: http://www.linuxmark.org/

Linux is the kernel ONLY
All else are add-ons to actually be capable of doing things
(E.G. from small stand_alone utilities to huge Apps)

What you generically called "linux" is in fact, varied distributions
of O/Systems -
~ Bundled as a package, encompassing some release of the (often modified) basic Linux kernel

Irregardless of R.Stallman's opinions & many wonderful FSW contributions:
"Gnu" is but one portion of all

By "closed source" if you mean proprietary code;
All is dependent on filling licensing requirements

The GNU philosophy is ~ to use no proprietary code whatsoever
( arguably impractical if a needed driver is closed source)

After how many years, the *HURD* kernel project is still incomplete
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/

To satisfy any queries such as those - It may be better to source
"official" original sites of Ea.

An interesting (VERY lengthy) read:

http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Torvalds/summing_up.shtml#Linux_as_a_accidental_creator_of_a_new_bios

Contrary to his unfortunate quote: Mr. Torvalds has never had aspirations to be a "god"

At present, the FOSS movement is so vast > NO single person would be capable of
maintaining any but some *portion* of the kernel aspects

Thankfully we all benefit from talented coders & feedback from ALL users

This recent quote may summarise all:

"Linux is moving away from its founding ideals and not even Linus Torvalds can change it"

Hope the above, answers some of your questions
</quote>

Regards,

Antonio