>>> Mike Miller <mbmiller at taxa.epi.umn.edu> 03/09/05 12:46 PM >>> >On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Dave Sherohman wrote: >> Then again, Stallman's advocated for "Linux" starting with an invisible >> (but decidedly not silent...) "GNU", but that doesn't seem to have >> caught on. (Thankfully.) >It doesn't predominate, but I've heard it fairly often. >Linux would not have existed if it weren't for GNU and the GPL. I can >understand why Stallman feels a bit ripped off when he started the ball >rolling and Torvalds is getting most of the attention. Torvald's >contribution looks a lot smaller to me than Stallman's. On one hand, I am a big fan of Stallman's simply because of GNU and the GPL. I feel bad for him because he is not usually given due credit for his accomplishments. On the other hand, the "GNU Linux" thing makes him look like a glory hound. Bad PR. I think Linux owes much to many contributors like Andrew Tridgell and Tatu Ylonen, but they would look only slightly more silly suggesting calling Linux names like Samba Linux and SSH Linux. Their contributions may not compare to GNUs, but it doesn't matter. The suggester of the "name change" appears to be "tooting their own horn" and "needy" for attention. To me, Linux is a cool kernel and lots of great GNU (and other) software. But people (myself included) like to refer to things by short names. I (and at least a few others) don't feel the need to proclaim GNUs greatness every time I mention Linux. I still know GNU is great software. The fact that others do not is a GNU public relations problem, not a problem Linux or Linus Torvalds has to solve. That's my 2 cents. Troy