You say this as if he created the whole system. He created the kernel, which is an essential piece, but useless by itself. The largest chunk of the system is GNU, and my argument is that it's unfair to refer to the entire OS as "Linux", not only because very little of it actually is, but also it gives people the wrong idea about the sytem's history and how the OS actually works. For example, I often hear people say "Linux looks better than Windows", but what they are looking at is NOT Linux, but GNOME or KDE, or maybe even Compiz-Fusion. Linux exists because of GNU, and people need to acknowledge this. He didn't GIVE the world a functional OS, he completed an existing one.

Your not that old, I remember BBS :P
I used to love them, getting all these neat little demos and such.

I knew BSD was an entirely different OS, but GNU software can be used on it.

Actually he did create his own base tools as well, but those were scrapped in favor of gnu tools. And technically they are right to call KDE or Gnome better then windows (ie Linux is better then windows) the reason this is because BSD has limited hardware support therefore not all the functions will be available to use under KDE with compiz since BSD is not big on 3D acceleration. So what other system can do it without a Linux like layer underneath?

Again Linux had it's own functional base therefore GNU did not make Linux, Linux was adapted for GNU
it was complete, it was limited but complete for his purposes.

I agree that KDE and Gnome are better than Windows, but my point was that people often say "Linux" when they mean something else. However, it's perfectly acceptable to say "Linux" when talking about hardware support, since the kernel is what runs the drivers.

I didn't say that GNU made Linux (maybe in a metaphorical sense). I only pointed out that Linus Torvalds used GNU tools to create Linux, which functions as a kernel for the GNU system.

Giving away all his money through his own charity with himself as the only donater? The funny thing is that Bill Gates has no ego at all. Hell Bill actually reads Slashdot. I don't see Linus do this if he would live to be a million years old -_-'Apart from software Bill Gates is actually doing the world a huge favor.

I disagree, even tho the kernel supports the device if there are no user land utilitys to provide the support there is still no support, because there is no way to interact with that device, other then sending garbage to this device node.

So to be fair it's no different then me saying Linux instead of GNU/Linux, it's either all or none. You can't blame hardware entirely on the kernel for not being supported, yet demand people start calling Linux "GNU/LINUX" if it's "GNU/LINUX" then hardware support is also related to GNU.

[disclaimer]i only read the first post[/disclaimer]

what's more important: the kernel or the interface ?

(what's more important: the engine or the chassis ?)

Drivers do not run in userspace with a monolithic kernel (such as Linux). They run in kernelspace, so if your hardware isn't working, it's because your kernel doesn't have drivers (or maybe it just has crappy ones). The part of the system that is GNU has very little to do with hardware support.

Why don't we just call it "Da Thing", so nobody gets offended?

Thats quite a silly view...
example of how silly that logic is... just because there are kernel drivers for a device doesn't mean it's supported if there is no application to use this device, how can you say it's supported? Example of this would be with web cams, there are drivers yet there are some web cams that apps don't play along with too well, this indeed has nothing to do with the kernel, it has to do with how the application is using the device. so to say hardware is 100% the linux kernel's fault without actually looking into why certain functions aren't working is quite foolish, I am going to go as far to say that it is quite stupid to do so.

Does this mean memory leaks in applications are the kernel fault too?
Or printers or scanners...lol I can list a lot unsupported features that are SOFTWARE related.

So my view has not changed, accept Linux flaws as GNU flaws or get GNU out of my face. because all this sounds to me is one giant GNU is perfect and everything should bow to it... if that's the statement you bring then get out of my face zealot!!!

How the application interacts with a device depends on the driver. If you have a generic driver, certain features will be disabled. I'm not placing blame on the Linux kernel - if your modem, webcam or video card doesn't work it's because your driver is lame.

That's not what I was saying at all. That's like blaming your steering wheel, seatbelt and gas tank for a flat tire, instead of that large nail poking out the side. The point I was trying to make is that when people call the entire system "Linux", it gives people the wrong idea about how the operating system works.

Then please explain why Kopete and other apps with web cam support have different problems with different web cams some work on some software, but that same web cam won't work in another program?

How does it? If they read the documentation which they would have to sometime or another to anything gnu based they would see gnu... I don't see the point of wall papering GNU on everything that uses GNU, BSD doesn't do it and they have an even less restrictive license, it changes nothing. Your scenario where if GNU didn't exist neither would Linux is absurd, all the features and stability in the Linux kernel will never be in the HURD kernel therefore the Linux kernel will always be there with or without GNU. Linux is not a GNU kernel and it never will be.

If you made a qt app to replace grep, then how would you use it in the command line?
chgrp, chown, chmod, cp, dd, df, dir, du, ln, ls, mkdir, mkfifo, mknod, mv, rm, cat, cksum, head, tail, md5sum, nl, oc, pr, tsort, join, wc, tac, paste, basename, chroot, date, dirname, echo, env, groups, hostname, nice, nohup, printf, sleep
I think it would be kinda hard to not use ls and some of the other commands in a command-line enviroment

Good point. In general, device support depends on kernel drivers, but then you have things like Winmodems, which are designed (quite evilly) in such a way that they are primarily controlled by a piece of software, that might be impossible to reverse engineer. I suppose the same thing can happen with webcams.

It's hard to say whether or not that's true, since we can't easily alter history and find out, but you can't deny that GNU played a very big role in the creation of Linux.
I think the main reason Hurd hasn't been finished is that Linux already exists, and many programmers don't see why the world needs another kernel. But from what I understand, the microkernel design is better than the monolithic design. More complex and harder to debug, yes...but there are many advantages.

I diffently agree that GNU has played an excellent role in Linux's growth! There is no denying that.