Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "GNU/Linux naming controversy" in English language version.
the total of the GNU project's code is much larger than the Linux kernel's size. Thus, by comparing the total contributed effort, it's certainly justifiable to call the entire system GNU/Linux and not just Linux.
SCO has used "Linux" to mean "all free software", or "all free software constituting a UNIX-like operating system." This confusion, which the Free Software Foundation warned against in the past, is here shown to have the misleading consequences the Foundation has often predicted
RMS's idea (which I have heard first-hand) is that Linux systems should be considered GNU systems with Linux as the kernel.
No. That's it. The cool name, that is. We worked very hard on creating a name that would appeal to the majority of people, and it certainly paid off: thousands of people are using linux just to be able to say "OS/2? Hah. I've got Linux. What a cool name". 386BSD made the mistake of putting a lot of numbers and weird abbreviations into the name, and is scaring away a lot of people just because it sounds too technical.
Perhaps RMS is frustrated because Linus got the glory for what RMS wanted to do.
In particular, Stallman criticized the [Ken Brown/AdTI] report for capitalizing on common confusion between the Linux kernel, which Stallman says "Linus really wrote", with the full GNU operating system and associated software, which can be and generally is used with the Linux kernel.
Generally, SCO's Caldera v IBM Complaint is vague and confusing as to whether the accusations involve the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, Linux distributions, Linux applications, or whatever.
Generally, SCO's Caldera v IBM Complaint is vague and confusing as to whether the accusations involve the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, Linux distributions, Linux applications, or whatever.
Perhaps RMS is frustrated because Linus got the glory for what RMS wanted to do.
