| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Is it the interviewer's fault?Is it the interviewer's fault?Posted Oct 24, 2006 4:39 UTC (Tue) by dthurston (guest, #4603)In reply to: GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) by thebluesgnr Parent article: GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)
It seemed to me that the interviewer might have said GNU/Linux, either to refer specifically to the complete OS or mistakenly to refer to the kernel, and some of the developers got ticked off by that. (Clearly the kernel developers thought it was being used to refer to the kernel.) See the little bit of question that Alan Cox quoted.
(Log in to post comments)
Is it the interviewer's fault? Posted Oct 24, 2006 15:03 UTC (Tue) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] If he called just kernel as GNU/Linux - then it's just a mistake (I'm not sure how big it is... it depends from situation). If he called the whole OS so... then it's correct. As others pointed out GNU/MacOS (by Gentoo) or GNU/FreeBSD (by Debian) feel more like GNU/Linux then Busybox/Linux...
Is it the interviewer's fault? Posted Oct 24, 2006 17:24 UTC (Tue) by dberkholz (subscriber, #23346) [Link] I'm pretty sure we've (Gentoo) never called it GNU/MacOS. Our projects are called things like Gentoo/OSX, Gentoo/FreeBSD, etc.
|
|
||||||||||||