www/gnu gnu-linux-faq.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       07/02/19 16:47:19

Modified files:
        gnu            : gnu-linux-faq.html 

Log message:
        Don't say the Hurd is working.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.58&r2=1.59

Patches:
Index: gnu-linux-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.58
retrieving revision 1.59
diff -u -b -r1.58 -r1.59
--- gnu-linux-faq.html  19 Feb 2007 16:45:50 -0000      1.58
+++ gnu-linux-faq.html  19 Feb 2007 16:47:15 -0000      1.59
@@ -566,14 +566,11 @@
 It might have been a good idea to adopt Linux as the GNU kernel back
 in 1992.  If we had realized, then, how long it would take to get the
 GNU Hurd to work, we might have done that.  (Alas, that is hindsight.)
-Today, with the GNU Hurd working, it would not make sense to do this.
-We don't want to release a GNU/Linux system as "GNU", because we are
-getting ready to package and release the real GNU system.
-<p>
-There is another reason why we don't want to take some existing
-version of GNU/Linux and relabel it as "GNU": that would be somewhat
-like making a version of the GNU system and labeling it &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.
-That wasn't right, and we don't want to act like that.</p>
+<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
+and labeling it &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.  That wasn't right, and we don't
+want to act like that.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt id="condemn">Did the GNU Project condemn
@@ -1054,7 +1051,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/02/19 16:45:50 $
+$Date: 2007/02/19 16:47:15 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>