[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/gnu gnu-linux-faq.html
|
From: |
Karl Berry |
|
Subject: |
www/gnu gnu-linux-faq.html |
|
Date: |
Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:26:56 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Karl Berry <karl> 07/02/21 14:26:56
Modified files:
gnu : gnu-linux-faq.html
Log message:
.dquo and formatting
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.59&r2=1.60
Patches:
Index: gnu-linux-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.59
retrieving revision 1.60
diff -u -b -r1.59 -r1.60
--- gnu-linux-faq.html 19 Feb 2007 16:47:15 -0000 1.59
+++ gnu-linux-faq.html 21 Feb 2007 14:26:50 -0000 1.60
@@ -28,10 +28,10 @@
<p>
In fairness, we ought to get at least equal mention.
-<p>See <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">"Linux and the GNU Project"</a>
+<p>See <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU Project</a>
and <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU Users Who Have
Never Heard of GNU</a> for more explanation, and <a
-href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">"The GNU Project"</a> for the
+href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">The GNU Project</a> for the
history.</p> </dd>
<dt id="whycare">Why is the name
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@
</dd>
<dt id="always">Should we always say
- "GNU/Linux" instead of “Linux”?</dt>
+ “GNU/Linux” instead of “Linux”?</dt>
<dd>
Not always--only when you're talking about the whole system. When
you're referring specifically to the kernel, you should call it
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@
they call the whole system by the same name as the kernel.
This causes many kinds of confusion, because only experts can tell
whether a statement is about the kernel or the whole system.
-By calling the whole system "GNU/Linux", and calling the kernel
+By calling the whole system “GNU/Linux”, and calling the kernel
“Linux”, you avoid the ambiguity.</p>
</dd>
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@
community if you did not divide people with this request?</dt>
<dd>
-When we ask people to say "GNU/Linux", we are not dividing people. We
+When we ask people to say “GNU/Linux”, we are not dividing people.
We
are asking them to give the GNU Project credit for the GNU operating
system. This does not criticize anyone or push anyone away.
<p>
@@ -138,15 +138,15 @@
<p>
This disagreement is not just a matter of names--it is a matter of
differing basic values. It is essential for the community to see and think
-about this disagreement. The names "free software" and "open source" are
+about this disagreement. The names “free software” and
“open source” are
the banners of the two positions. See
-<a href="/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html">"Why Free Software Is
-Better Than Open Source"</a>.</p>
+<a href="/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html">Why Free Software Is
+Better Than Open Source</a>.</p>
<p>
The disagreement over values partially aligns with the amount of
attention people pay to the GNU Project's role in our community.
People who value freedom are more likely to call the system
-"GNU/Linux", and people who learn that the system is "GNU/Linux" are
+“GNU/Linux”, and people who learn that the system is
“GNU/Linux” are
more likely to pay attention to our philosophical arguments for
freedom and community (which is why the choice of name for the system
makes a real difference for society). However, the disagreement would
@@ -169,12 +169,12 @@
<br>
<dt id="everyoneknows">Since everyone knows
- GNU's role in developing the system, doesn't the "GNU/" in the
+ GNU's role in developing the system, doesn't the “GNU/” in the
name go without saying?</dt>
<dd>Experience shows that the system's users, and the computer-using
public in general, often know nothing about the GNU system. Most
-articles about the system do not mention the name "GNU", or the ideals
+articles about the system do not mention the name “GNU”, or the
ideals
that GNU stands for. <a
href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU Users Who Have Never
Heard of GNU</a> explains further.
@@ -182,29 +182,29 @@
The people who say this are probably geeks thinking of the geeks they
know. Geeks often do know about GNU, but many have a completely wrong
idea of what GNU is. For instance, many think it is a collection
-of <a href="#tools">"tools"</a>, or a project to develop tools.</p>
+of <a href="#tools">“tools”</a>, or a project to develop tools.</p>
<p>
The wording of this question, which is typical, illustrates another
-common misconception. To speak of "GNU's role" in developing
+common misconception. To speak of “GNU's role” in developing
something assumes that GNU is a group of people. GNU is an operating
system. It would make sense to talk about the GNU Project's role in
this or some other activity, but not that of GNU.</p>
</dd>
-<dt id="windows">Isn't shortening "GNU/Linux"
- to “Linux” just like shortening "Microsoft Windows" to
"Windows"?</dt>
+<dt id="windows">Isn't shortening “GNU/Linux”
+ to “Linux” just like shortening “Microsoft
Windows” to “Windows”?</dt>
<dd>
It's useful to shorten a frequently-used name, but not if the
abbreviation is misleading.
<p>
Most everyone in developed countries really does know that the
-"Windows" system is made by Microsoft, so shortening "Microsoft
-Windows" to "Windows" does not mislead anyone as to that system's
-nature and origin. Shortening "GNU/Linux" to “Linux” does give the
+“Windows” system is made by Microsoft, so shortening
“Microsoft
+Windows” to “Windows” does not mislead anyone as to that
system's
+nature and origin. Shortening “GNU/Linux” to “Linux”
does give the
wrong idea.</p>
<p>
-The question is itself misleading because it compares "GNU" to a
+The question is itself misleading because it compares “GNU” to a
software development organization. It makes sense to contrast the GNU
Project with Microsoft, or contrast GNU with Microsoft Windows, but
GNU and Microsoft are not comparable.</p>
@@ -217,15 +217,14 @@
People who think that Linux is an entire operating system, if they
hear about GNU at all, often get a wrong idea of what GNU is. They
may think that GNU is the name of a collection of programs--often they
-say "programming tools", since some of our programming tools became
-popular on their own. The idea that "GNU" is the name of an operating
+say “programming tools”, since some of our programming tools became
+popular on their own. The idea that “GNU” is the name of an
operating
system is hard to fit into a conceptual framework in which that
operating system is labeled “Linux”.
<p>
The GNU Project was named after the GNU operating system--it's the project
to develop the GNU system. (See <a
-href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html">the 1983 initial announcement at
-<http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html></a>.)</p>
+href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html">the 1983 initial announcement</a>.)</p>
<p>
We developed programs such as GCC, GNU Emacs, GAS, GLIBC, BASH, etc.,
because we needed them for the GNU operating system. GCC, the GNU
@@ -249,24 +248,24 @@
running. The kernel also takes care of starting and stopping other
programs.</p>
<p>
-To confuse matters, some people use the term "operating system" to
-mean "kernel". Both uses of the term go back many years. The
-use of "operating system" to mean "kernel" is found in a number of
+To confuse matters, some people use the term “operating system” to
+mean “kernel”. Both uses of the term go back many years. The
+use of “operating system” to mean “kernel” is found in
a number of
textbooks on system design, going back to the 80s. At the same time,
-in the 80s, the "Unix operating system" was understood to include all
+in the 80s, the “Unix operating system” was understood to include
all
the system programs, and Berkeley's version of Unix included even
games. Since we intended GNU to be a Unix-like operating system, we
-use the term "operating system" in the same way.</p>
+use the term “operating system” in the same way.</p>
<p>
-Most of the time when people speak of the "Linux operating system"
-they are using "operating system" in the same sense we use: they mean
+Most of the time when people speak of the “Linux operating system”
+they are using “operating system” in the same sense we use: they
mean
the whole collection of programs. If that's what you are referring
-to, please call it "GNU/Linux". If you mean just the kernel, then
-“Linux” is the right name for it, but please say "kernel" also to
+to, please call it “GNU/Linux”. If you mean just the kernel, then
+“Linux” is the right name for it, but please say
“kernel” also to
avoid ambiguity about which body of software you mean.</p>
<p>
-If you prefer to use some other term such as "system distribution" for
-the entire collection of programs, instead of "operating system",
+If you prefer to use some other term such as “system distribution”
for
+the entire collection of programs, instead of “operating system”,
that's fine. Then you would talk about GNU/Linux system
distributions.</p>
</dd>
@@ -280,36 +279,36 @@
than the misuse of the name “Linux”. Normally an operating system
is
developed as a single unified project, and the developers choose a
name for the system as a whole. The kernel usually does not have a
-name of its own--instead, people say "the kernel of such-and-such" or
-"the such-and-such kernel".
+name of its own--instead, people say “the kernel of such-and-such”
or
+“the such-and-such kernel”.
<p>
Because those two constructions are used synonymously, the expression
-"the Linux kernel" can easily be misunderstood as meaning "the kernel
-of Linux" and implying that Linux must be more than a kernel. You can
+“the Linux kernel” can easily be misunderstood as meaning
“the kernel
+of Linux” and implying that Linux must be more than a kernel. You can
avoid the possibility of this misunderstanding by saying or writing
-"the kernel, Linux" or "Linux, the kernel."</p>
+“the kernel, Linux” or “Linux, the kernel.”</p>
</dd>
-<dt id="long">The problem with "GNU/Linux" is that it is too long.
+<dt id="long">The problem with “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long.
How about recommending a shorter name?</dt>
<dd>
-For a while we tried the name "LiGNUx", which combines the words "GNU"
-and “Linux”. The reaction was very bad. People accept "GNU/Linux"
+For a while we tried the name “LiGNUx”, which combines the words
“GNU”
+and “Linux”. The reaction was very bad. People accept
“GNU/Linux”
much better.
<p>
-The shortest legitimate name for this system is "GNU", but we call it
-"GNU/Linux" for the reasons given below.</p>
+The shortest legitimate name for this system is “GNU”, but we call
it
+“GNU/Linux” for the reasons given below.</p>
</dd>
<dt id="justgnu">Since Linux is a secondary
contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply
- "GNU"?</dt>
+ “GNU”?</dt>
<dd>
It would not be false to the facts, but it is not the best thing to
-do. Here are the reasons we call that system version "GNU/Linux"
-rather than just "GNU":
+do. Here are the reasons we call that system version “GNU/Linux”
+rather than just “GNU”:
<ul>
<li>
@@ -325,24 +324,24 @@
honorably and openly, rather than by trying to cut him out of the
credit for his contribution to the system.</li>
<li>
-Since many people know of the system as “Linux”, if we say "GNU"
they
+Since many people know of the system as “Linux”, if we say
“GNU” they
may simply not recognize we're talking about the same system. If we
-say "GNU/Linux", they can make a connection to what they have heard
+say “GNU/Linux”, they can make a connection to what they have heard
about.</li>
-</ul>
+</ul><p></p>
</dd>
<dt id="trademarkfee">I would have
to pay a fee if I use “Linux” in the name of a product, and
that
- would also apply if I say "GNU/Linux". Is it wrong if I use "GNU"
+ would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux”. Is it wrong if I use
“GNU”
without “Linux”, to save the fee?</dt>
<dd>
-There's nothing wrong in calling the system "GNU"; basically, that's
+There's nothing wrong in calling the system “GNU”; basically,
that's
what it is. It is nice to give Linus Torvalds a share of the credit
as well, but you have no obligation to pay for the privilege of doing
so.
<p>
-So if you want to refer to the system simply as "GNU", to avoid paying
+So if you want to refer to the system simply as “GNU”, to avoid
paying
the fee for calling it “Linux”, we won't criticize you.</p>
</dd>
@@ -414,91 +413,89 @@
</p>
</dd>
-<dt id="whyslash">Why do you write "GNU/Linux"
-instead of "GNU Linux"?</dt>
+<dt id="whyslash">Why do you write “GNU/Linux”
+instead of “GNU Linux”?</dt>
<dd>
-Following the rules of English, in the construction "GNU Linux" the
-word "GNU" modifies “Linux”. This can mean either "GNU's version
of
-Linux" or "Linux, which is a GNU package." Neither of those meanings
+Following the rules of English, in the construction “GNU Linux” the
+word “GNU” modifies “Linux”. This can mean either
“GNU's version of
+Linux” or “Linux, which is a GNU package.” Neither of those
meanings
fits the situation at hand.
<p>
Linux is not a GNU package; that is, it wasn't developed under the GNU
Project's aegis or contributed specifically to the GNU Project. Linus
Torvalds wrote Linux independently, as his own project. So the
-"Linux, which is a GNU package" meaning is not right.</p>
+“Linux, which is a GNU package” meaning is not right.</p>
<p>
We're not talking about a distinct GNU version of Linux, the kernel.
The GNU Project does not have a separate version of Linux. GNU/Linux
systems don't use a different version of Linux; the main use of Linux
is in these systems, and the standard version of Linux is developed
-for them. So "GNU's version of Linux" is not right either.</p>
+for them. So “GNU's version of Linux” is not right either.</p>
<p>
We're talking about a version of GNU, the operating system,
distinguished by having Linux as the kernel. A slash fits the
-situation because it means "combination." (Think of "Input/Output".)
-This system is the combination of GNU and Linux; hence, "GNU/Linux".</p>
+situation because it means “combination.” (Think of
“Input/Output”.)
+This system is the combination of GNU and Linux; hence,
“GNU/Linux”.</p>
<p>
-There are other ways to express "combination". If you think that a
+There are other ways to express “combination”. If you think that a
plus-sign is clearer, please use that. In French, a dash is clear:
-"GNU-Linux". In Spanish, we sometimes say "GNU con Linux".</p>
+“GNU-Linux”. In Spanish, we sometimes say “GNU con
Linux”.</p>
</dd>
-<dt id="whyorder">Why "GNU/Linux" rather
-than "Linux/GNU"?</dt>
+<dt id="whyorder">Why “GNU/Linux” rather
+than “Linux/GNU”?</dt>
<dd>
It is right and proper to mention the principal contribution first.
The GNU contribution to the system is not only bigger than Linux and
prior to Linux, we actually started the whole activity.
<p>
-However, if you prefer to call the system "Linux/GNU", that is a lot
+However, if you prefer to call the system “Linux/GNU”, that is a
lot
better than what people usually do, which is to omit GNU entirely and
make it seem that the whole system is Linux.</p>
</dd>
<dt id="distronames">My distro is called
- "Foobar Linux"; doesn't that show it's really Linux?</dt>
+ “Foobar Linux”; doesn't that show it's really Linux?</dt>
<dd>
-It means that the people who make the "Foobar Linux" distro are
-repeating the common mistake.
+<p>It means that the people who make the “Foobar Linux” distro are
+repeating the common mistake.</p>
</dd>
-<dt id="distronames1">My distro's
- official name is "Foobar Linux"; isn't it wrong to call the distro
+<dt id="distronames1">My distro's official name is “Foobar
+ Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the distro
anything but “Linux”?</dt>
-<dd>
-If it's allowed for them to change "GNU" to "Foobar Linux", it's
-allowed for you to change it back and call the distro "Foobar
-GNU/Linux". It can't be more wrong to correct the mistake than it was
-to make the mistake.
-</dd>
+<dd><p>If it's allowed for them to change “GNU” to
+“Foobar Linux”, it's allowed for you to change it back and
+call the distro “Foobar GNU/Linux”. It can't be more wrong
+to correct the mistake than it was to make the mistake.</p></dd>
<dt id="companies">Wouldn't it be more
effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
- call their distributions "GNU/Linux" rather than asking
+ call their distributions “GNU/Linux” rather than asking
individuals?</dt>
<dd>
It isn't a choice of one or the other--we ask companies and
organizations and individuals to help spread the word. In fact, we
have asked all three of those companies. Mandrake uses the term
-"GNU/Linux" some of the time, but IBM and Red Hat were unwilling to
-help. One executive said, "This is a pure commercial decision; we
-expect to make more money calling it `Linux'." In other words, that
+“GNU/Linux” some of the time, but IBM and Red Hat were unwilling to
+help. One executive said, “This is a pure commercial decision; we
+expect to make more money calling it `Linux'.” In other words, that
company did not care what was right.
<p>
We can't make them change, but we're not the sort to give up just
because the road isn't easy. You may not have as much influence at
your disposal as IBM or Red Hat, but you can still help. Together we
can change the situation to the point where companies will make more
-profit calling it "GNU/Linux".</p>
+profit calling it “GNU/Linux”.</p>
</dd>
<dt id="reserve">Wouldn't it be better to
- reserve the name "GNU/Linux" for distributions that are purely
+ reserve the name “GNU/Linux” for distributions that are purely
free software? After all, that is the ideal of GNU.</dt>
<dd>
@@ -507,8 +504,8 @@
that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit
of “Linux”. Many “Linux” User Groups make it part of
their mission to
help users use non-free add-ons, and may even invite salesmen to come
-and make sales pitches for them. They adopt goals such as "helping
-the users" of GNU/Linux (including helping them use non-free
+and make sales pitches for them. They adopt goals such as “helping
+the users” of GNU/Linux (including helping them use non-free
applications and drivers), or making the system more popular even at
the cost of freedom.
<p>
@@ -527,8 +524,8 @@
system that exists specifically for the sake of the users' freedom.
With this understanding, they can start to recognize the distributions
that include non-free software as perverted, adulterated versions of
-GNU, instead of thinking they are proper and appropriate "versions of
-Linux".</p>
+GNU, instead of thinking they are proper and appropriate “versions of
+Linux”.</p>
<p>
It is very useful to start GNU/Linux User Groups, which call the
system GNU/Linux and adopt the ideals of the GNU Project as a basis
@@ -544,9 +541,9 @@
<dd>
All the “Linux” distributions are actually versions of the GNU
system
-with Linux as the kernel. The purpose of the term "GNU/Linux" is to
+with Linux as the kernel. The purpose of the term “GNU/Linux” is
to
communicate this point. To develop one new distribution and call that
-alone "GNU/Linux" would obscure the point we want to make.
+alone “GNU/Linux” would obscure the point we want to make.
<p>
As for developing a distribution of GNU/Linux, we already did this
once, when we funded the early development of Debian GNU/Linux. To do
@@ -558,9 +555,9 @@
such as gNewSense and Ututo.</p>
</dd>
-<dt id="linuxgnu">Why not just say "Linux is
- the GNU kernel" and release some existing version of GNU/Linux under
- the name "GNU"?</dt>
+<dt id="linuxgnu">Why not just say “Linux is
+ the GNU kernel” and release some existing version of GNU/Linux under
+ the name “GNU”?</dt>
<dd>
It might have been a good idea to adopt Linux as the GNU kernel back
@@ -568,7 +565,7 @@
GNU Hurd to work, we might have done that. (Alas, that is hindsight.)
<p>
If we were to take an existing version of GNU/Linux and relabel it as
-"GNU", that would be somewhat like making a version of the GNU system
+“GNU”, that would be somewhat like making a version of the GNU
system
and labeling it “Linux”. That wasn't right, and we don't
want to act like that.</p>
</dd>
@@ -588,7 +585,7 @@
<p>
The people who had made the changes showed little interest in
cooperating with us. One of them actually told us that he didn't care
-about working with the GNU Project because he was a "Linux user".
+about working with the GNU Project because he was a “Linux user”.
That came as a shock, because the people who ported GNU packages to
other systems had generally wanted to work with us to get their
changes installed. Yet these people, developing a system that was
@@ -597,7 +594,7 @@
<p>
It was this experience that first showed us that people were calling a
version of the GNU system “Linux”, and that this confusion was
-obstructing our work. Asking you to call the system "GNU/Linux" is
+obstructing our work. Asking you to call the system “GNU/Linux” is
our response to that problem, and to the other problems caused by the
“Linux” misnomer.</p>
</dd>
@@ -606,22 +603,22 @@
long before asking people to use the name GNU/Linux?</dt>
<dd>
-Actually we didn't. We began talking privately with developers and
+<p>Actually we didn't. We began talking privately with developers and
distributors about this in 1994, and made a more public campaign in
-1996. We will continue for as long as it's necessary.
+1996. We will continue for as long as it's necessary.</p>
</dd>
<dt id="allgpled">Should the GNU/[name]
convention be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed?</dt>
<dd>
-We never refer to individual programs as "GNU/[name]". When a program
-is a GNU package, we may call it "GNU [name]".
+We never refer to individual programs as “GNU/[name]”. When a
program
+is a GNU package, we may call it “GNU [name]”.
<p>
GNU, the operating system, is made up of many different programs.
Some of the programs in GNU were written as part of the GNU Project or
specifically contributed to it; these are the GNU packages, and we
-often use "GNU" in their names.</p>
+often use “GNU” in their names.</p>
<p>
It's up to the developers of a program to decide if they want to contribute
it and make it a GNU package. If you have developed a program and you
@@ -635,7 +632,7 @@
wrote it for us. For instance, the kernel, Linux, is released under
the GNU GPL, but Linus did not write it as part of the GNU Project--he
did the work independently. If something is not a GNU package, the
-GNU Project can't take credit for it, and putting "GNU" in its name
+GNU Project can't take credit for it, and putting “GNU” in its name
would be improper.</p>
<p>
In contrast, we do deserve the overall credit for the GNU operating
@@ -656,7 +653,7 @@
<dt id="unix">Since much of GNU comes
from Unix, shouldn't GNU give credit
-to Unix by using "Unix" in its name?</dt>
+to Unix by using “Unix” in its name?</dt>
<dd>
Actually, none of GNU comes from Unix. Unix was proprietary software
@@ -669,25 +666,25 @@
<p>
No code in GNU comes from Unix, but GNU is a Unix-compatible system;
therefore, many of the ideas and specifications of GNU do come from
-Unix. The name "GNU" is a humorous way of paying tribute to Unix,
+Unix. The name “GNU” is a humorous way of paying tribute to Unix,
following a hacker tradition of recursive acronyms that started in the
70s.</p>
<p>
-The first such recursive acronym was TINT, "TINT Is Not TECO". The
+The first such recursive acronym was TINT, “TINT Is Not TECO”. The
author of TINT wrote another implementation of TECO (there were
already many of them, for various systems), but instead of calling it
-by a dull name like "somethingorother TECO", he thought of a clever
+by a dull name like “somethingorother TECO”, he thought of a clever
amusing name. (That's what hacking means: playful cleverness.)</p>
<p>
Other hackers enjoyed that name so much that we imitated the approach.
It became a tradition that, when you were writing from scratch a
program that was similar to some existing program (let's imagine its
-name was "Klever"), you could give it a recursive acronym name, such
-as "MINK" for "MINK Is Not Klever." In this same spirit we called our
-replacement for Unix "GNU's Not Unix".</p>
+name was “Klever”), you could give it a recursive acronym name,
such
+as “MINK” for “MINK Is Not Klever.” In this same
spirit we called our
+replacement for Unix “GNU's Not Unix”.</p>
<p>
Historically, AT&T which developed Unix did not want anyone to
-give it credit by using "Unix" in the name of a similar system.
+give it credit by using “Unix” in the name of a similar system.
AT&T did not want this even if the system did use code from Unix,
not even if it was 99% Unix. AT&T disliked such credit so
strongly that it would threaten to sue you for trademark infringement
@@ -697,11 +694,11 @@
name.</p>
</dd>
-<dt id="bsd">Should we say "GNU/BSD"
+<dt id="bsd">Should we say “GNU/BSD”
too?</dt>
<dd>
-We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) "GNU/BSD" systems,
+We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) “GNU/BSD” systems,
because that term does not fit the history of the BSD systems.
<p>
The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in
@@ -722,10 +719,10 @@
GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.</p>
<p>
The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's
-why the name "GNU/Linux" is appropriate for it.</p>
+why the name “GNU/Linux” is appropriate for it.</p>
<p>
There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD. Its
-developers call it "Debian GNU/NetBSD", but "GNU/kernelofNetBSD"
+developers call it “Debian GNU/NetBSD”, but
“GNU/kernelofNetBSD”
would be more accurate, since NetBSD is an entire system, not just
the kernel. This is not a BSD system, since most of the system
is the same as the GNU/Linux system.</p>
@@ -735,7 +732,7 @@
on Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows system?</dt>
<dd>
-Not in the same sense that we mean by "GNU/Linux". The tools of GNU
+Not in the same sense that we mean by “GNU/Linux”. The tools of
GNU
are just a part of the GNU software, which is just a part of the GNU
system, and underneath them you would still have another complete
operating system which has no code in common with GNU. All in all,
@@ -756,14 +753,14 @@
systems?
<p>
People who think of the kernel as more important than all the rest of
-the system say, "They all contain Linux, so let's call them all Linux
-systems." But any two of these systems are mostly different, and
+the system say, “They all contain Linux, so let's call them all Linux
+systems.” But any two of these systems are mostly different, and
calling them by the same name is misleading. (It leads people to
think that the kernel as more important than all the rest of the
system, for instance.)</p>
<p>
In the small embedded systems, Linux may be most of the system;
-perhaps "Linux systems" is the right name for them. They are very
+perhaps “Linux systems” is the right name for them. They are very
different from GNU/Linux systems, which are more GNU than Linux. The
hypothetical IBM system would be different from either of those. The
right name for it would be AIX/Linux: basically AIX, but with Linux as
@@ -776,7 +773,7 @@
community?</dt>
<dd>
-Linus Torvalds is the "posterboy" (other people's choice of word, not
+Linus Torvalds is the “posterboy” (other people's choice of word,
not
ours) for his goals, not ours. His goal is to make the system more
popular, and he believes its value to society lies merely in the
practical advantages it offers: its power, reliability and easy
@@ -808,12 +805,12 @@
agree that Linux is just the kernel?</dt>
<dd>
-He recognized this at the beginning. The earliest Linux release notes
+<p>He recognized this at the beginning. The earliest Linux release notes
said, <a
href="http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01";>
-"Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the
+“Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the
GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU)
-for more info."</a>
+for more info”</a>.</p>
</dd>
<dt id="lost">The battle is already lost--society
@@ -823,24 +820,24 @@
<dd>
This isn't a battle, it is a campaign of education. What to call the
system is not a single decision, to be made at one moment by
-"society": each person, each organization, can decide what name to
-use. You can't tell others to say "GNU/Linux", but you can decide to
-call the system "GNU/Linux" yourself--and by doing so, you will help
+“society”: each person, each organization, can decide what name to
+use. You can't tell others to say “GNU/Linux”, but you can decide
to
+call the system “GNU/Linux” yourself--and by doing so, you will
help
us.
</dd>
<br>
<dt id="whatgood">Society has made its
decision and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
- "GNU/Linux"?</dt>
+ “GNU/Linux”?</dt>
<dd>
This is not an all-or-nothing situation: correct and incorrect
pictures are being spread more or less by various people. If you call
-the system "GNU/Linux", you will help others learn the system's true
+the system “GNU/Linux”, you will help others learn the system's
true
history, origin, and reason for being. You can't correct the misnomer
everywhere on your own, any more than we can, but you can help. If
-only a few hundred people see you use the term "GNU/Linux", you will
+only a few hundred people see you use the term “GNU/Linux”, you
will
have educated a substantial number of people with very little work.
And some of them will spread the correction to others.
</dd>
@@ -853,7 +850,7 @@
<dd>
If you help us by explaining to others in that way, we appreciate your
effort, but that is not the best method. It is not as effective as
-calling the system "GNU/Linux", and uses your time inefficiently.
+calling the system “GNU/Linux”, and uses your time inefficiently.
<p>
It is ineffective because it may not sink in, and surely will not
propagate. Some of the people who hear your explanation will pay
@@ -864,7 +861,7 @@
incorrect picture.</p>
<p>
It is inefficient because it takes a lot more time. Saying and
-writing "GNU/Linux" will take you only a few seconds a day, not
+writing “GNU/Linux” will take you only a few seconds a day, not
minutes, so you can afford to reach far more people that way.
Distinguishing between Linux and GNU/Linux when you write and speak is
by far the easiest way to help the GNU Project effectively.</p>
@@ -914,7 +911,7 @@
is it legitimate to rename the operating system?</dt>
<dd>
-We are not renaming anything; we have been calling this system "GNU"
+We are not renaming anything; we have been calling this system
“GNU”
ever since we started it, in 1983. The people who tried to rename
it to “Linux” should not have done so.</dd>
@@ -925,12 +922,12 @@
<dd>
There are no legal grounds to sue them, but since we believe in
freedom of speech, we wouldn't want to do that anyway. We ask people
-to call the system "GNU/Linux" because that is the right thing to do.
+to call the system “GNU/Linux” because that is the right thing to
do.
</dd>
<br>
<dt id="require">Shouldn't you put something in
- the GNU GPL to require people to call the system "GNU"?</dt>
+ the GNU GPL to require people to call the system “GNU”?</dt>
<dd>
The purpose of the GNU GPL is to protect the users' freedom from those
@@ -945,7 +942,7 @@
<br>
<dt id="deserve">Since you failed to put
- something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system "GNU",
+ something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
“GNU”,
you deserve what happened; why are you complaining now?</dt>
<dd>
@@ -1040,7 +1037,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-Copyright (C) 2001, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+Copyright © 2001, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
<br />
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
@@ -1051,7 +1048,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/02/19 16:47:15 $
+$Date: 2007/02/21 14:26:50 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>