What do to about BitKeeper and the Linux Kernel (was: BitKeeper licence critic)

[M E Leypold @ labnet]

Jeroen Dekkers writes:

 > Most, if not all, call it the OS "Linux", not giving credits to
 > GNU. Also I've heard at least one of the main Linux hackers saying
 > that naming it GNU/Linux is just stupid because GNU is just a little
 > piece and you could better name it Xfree86/Perl/QT/GNU/Linux, which
 > totally missed the point.

I like the point. :-)

By the way: I don't call it GNU/Linux. To most of the mutants I say:
Redhat, SuSe, etc. Since Debian keeps to the GPL as far as possible
(or even strictly?), avoids contamination with proprietary (YAST) or
undocumented (RPM) setup tools and also produces the a first distro
with a Hurd kernel, I'd say, that Debian ist nearest to what could be
GNU/Linux (I think they use GNU/Debian).

GNU/Linux is really a strange name, since there is no such a thing as
THE STANDARD LINUX and there won't be 1 GNU system if it is
successful. The time is over, when only one variant was the right one
(and that is the idea of freedom).

 > > They don't because GNU and some ppl like you don't give credit to
 > > Linux.

 > 
 > Can you name an example? I've never heard someone calling the
 > "GNU/Linux" system "GNU".

Well. The name GNU sort of mutated to another meaning: (Real) Free
software. This might include one ore more kernels to run the software
at, but after all, a kernel is also a piece of software and who would
like to take the freedom from people to put the pieces together as
THEY want? 

IMHO there will be never THE GNU system, only a whole continuum od GNU
based systems. And that is good.

Regards -- Markus