I for one completely agree with you. But discussions are fun. I was getting seriously into using Linux since 2006 and have just switched to Linux completely so I have never participated in this discussion so please let me have my fun

Of course. I was just saying that to the people who were seriously angry about it.

Sorry, I forgot a couple of words here. What I meant:

Yes. Or better, it is one of the very cores that let GNU apps run in the first place.

My point was GNU applications were existing and running long before Linux was born so aren't dependent on the Linux kernel.

I'm not getting what you mean about bash giving kernel instructions. Bash is one of these very portable Gnu programs. It knows nothing about the kernel nor does it give instructions to it. It just calls the C library.
Glibc is the layer used for interfacing the userland and the kernel on (Gnu/)Linux.

What's your point, you and me and everyone else in the geek world knows that without Linux ... GNU who? What is that? Never heard of it are the reactions you would get from most people.

Linux made GNU successful not even you can say it didn't, look at all the links in this thread, you will be amazed, GCC was chosen to be the compiler used, it didn't have to be, but it was, glibc was chosen to be forked it again didn't have to be, so Linux does not need to share it's name with GNU at all, without Linux, GNU would be limited, it wouldn't even had probly made it in to Windows territory, if the programs wouldn't have been running with a Linux kernel no one would have cared about them in the first place, why do you think AmaroK is being ported to win32... surly not because some random user on a newsgroup said hey I'll make a random port of a random application I have never heard of or seen.

It sound like political story to me.

--
PS: so here is my political story back

Most people use Windows.
"because most people do so" is never a valid argument.

While true, one can say the same about GNU making Linux successful.

Could you give an example/explanation here?
If I remember correctly, GNU was the only thing available.

BSD was in a legal dispute.
Minix wasn't free at that time, Linus wouldn't be able to share it (without cost and without violating its license).
All other commercial UNIX systems were just insanely expensive and closed-source.
What else...?

Most people do use Linux they just don't know it, how many devices on a daily basis to you use? how many of them run Linux? Just because it doesn't say Linux is big bold letters doesn't mean it's not running the GP2X when booting doesn't say a word about Linux, nor does the box... to people who don't know it's just another hand held. Windows wins when it comes to the clueless desktop/laptop market (the people who think there computer IS the internet) EDIT And you are right most people do run windows on there desktops.. now how many of them know about GNU? I bet not even a fraction of a percent that make up the windows user base. (no Firefox is Mozilla based not gnu)

MINIX was not free, but nothing was stopping you from compiling software with whatever compiler it had, I imagine it had a compiler before GCC came along. That's like Borland saying it owns every product you make with TASM, Turbo etc, no they don't they sold you the rights to make a program along with the software. It wouldn't matter if the OS is closed source, he is not making or adding to the OS, he is using the OS to build his own kernel.

Again, could you give an example?
I don't see how that could even be possible at that time (and not just the compiler).

PS: Sorry for the late edit (you're fast).

CC actually (it was called the MINIX C compiler (it's still why we make symlinks to CC from GCC) Also could have used ACK

http://www.minix3.org/previous-versi...man1/cc.1.html

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html

--
PS: i haven't read it at all.

"People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU. They won't automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people who consider themselves “Linux users”, and believe that the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful in Linux”, typically perceive only an indirect relationship between GNU and themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they come across it."

There right, i don't want to get in bed with a piece of software, I have no relation to GNU it is not my religion and if i am was seeing GNU I would break up with it or get a divorce asap. The fact that this statement acknowledges that there are just "Linux" users and trys to tell us to believe in the GNU the way they want us to... There philosophy to me sounds more like this:

Make an app based off something else (not even original but we'll make it free) and then when people start to use it and there project gains popularity we'll demand we get recognized for there hard work, We'll demand they chnage the name of there project to GNU/<whatever> and when people reject this we'll cry about it.

No. I asked you for a (GNU/)Linux example, not a Minix one.
One was not allowed to freely distribute anything from Minix (Something Linus obviously did care about). Even so, CC/ACK was not even capable to build all software that was already running on Linux.

At that time I was a Minix user(just a hobbyist) as well, but I'm not aware of any Minix tool that could have been used to replace the popular GNU ones on Linux (I obviously could be wrong, that's why I'm asking you to give an example).

Well since the Linux kernel was dependent on MINIX's environment (the first version of the kernel needed MINIX) That would mean Linus broke his word.

You are comparing apples to oranges now, look at it like this if GCC didn't exist and CC was the only compiler it would have been made or ported to Linux and from there things would have been different.

You can't look at 1991's version of CC and compare it to todays version of GCC and then say well this wouldn't be able to build this or that, so much has changed from then so how do you know?

If CC would have been the official Linux compiler (some how in bazaro universe they found away to make it free) the state of CC wouldn't be like it is today, your now entering an alternate reality, choices that were made instead of the choices that our reality witnessed. So in that reality M$ would be the GNU and the GNU could be M$ for all we know, thats why we don't compare things like that, because there are so many things that can alter the course of history if we do, the "What IF's are endless"

I can't agree with that either.
Linux was never intended to be a MINIX "monkey"(as Linus stated himself).
It was build using Minix and that's the only reason why it ever needed a Minix environment (but that's true for any project, kernel or anything else).
Since distributing Linux with a MINIX environment (at that time) would obviously be illegal, I honestly fail to understand why you're even bringing that up...
I guess this also depends on what you call "finished".
IMO Linux was not finished until it got rid of anything Minix related cause it simply wasn't usable that way without paying for Minix.



That's just silly...
I was comparing a compiler with a compiler (no apples and oranges).
At that time CC/ACK wasn't a usable option either.
Are you honestly stating it could have replaced GNU's compiler in 1991?

PS: Why are you making such a big deal of this anyway? It's just a name, some prefer crediting everyone and some don't...

PS PS: as for being MINIX dependent, it's very possible to cross-compile Linux 1 with a BSD system as well (just not at that time because of its legal problems).

It's possible to do a lot of things again the "what if's" are endless, if caldera would have gave away Unix code earlier , then Linux could have been coss-compiled on that too. Point is Linus didn't want to do that or didn't do that at the time, so since it never happened we are stuck with Linux was developed on MINIX, thus why i am bringing this up, you can't say what alternate compiler does Linux have? Because Linux was not compiled on Linux at first, so naturally there would have been a default compiler, since CC was not free at the time of this happening Linux really had no choice to use GCC. But now that CC is practically free we don't need GCC if we really wanted to ditch it we can. If were speaking for today instead of in the past, I can say CC because now 2002 the unix v7 source code is free (the version that included CC and make was v3 and above) so all one would have to do is emulate the machine unix v7 is on rip the source off that, port it and start making a new version of CC hell why not call it LCC (Linux C Compiler). See GCC is not needed if there are people willing to do the work, since we forked glibc before I don't see any trouble here.

So yes I am stating that CC should have replaced GCC in my opinion but since it was not free that didn't happen, how ever nothing is stopping it now.

And in my opinion Linux is not finished still, because now it has GNU demanding/confusing reality with fiction. Because someone uses your code does not warrant a name change, I'm a maintence man at my work, they need me more then I need them, I do not demand a name change due to this, it would be absurd and rude to do so. So until Linux is free of all GNU code or the GNU stops being ignorant, Linux still has a problem.

I am also doing this to prove a point... Linux doesn't belong to GNU and it won't, just because the HURD kernel was not a smashing hit and I fear it never will be doesn't mean Linux now belongs to GNU.