| |||||||||||
breakthrough on naming issue!breakthrough on naming issue!Posted Aug 12, 2004 15:50 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888)In reply to: breakthrough on naming issue! by piman Parent article: LSB 2.0 and C++ I see no gain by calling an AIX system with the GNU tools "Linux". Agreed, but that's not what the original poster was saying. AIX-5L is certainly Linux-like, and it and several other Unix-derived systems will run Linux binaries (of appropriate CPU architecture). It's a lie. It is similarly a lie to brand all the FLOSS tools supplied with most Linux (and many other OS) distros as "GNU tools". Many (most?) are not part of the GNU project and many are not even distributed under the GNU license, but some other free/open license. Perhaps we do need yet another name. POSIX and UNIX both have rather rigid (and somewhat dated) requirements as to their use, you don't like "Linux" as a generic term (probably a good thing, it dilutes the trademark), and calling anything with a mish-mash of GNU, non-GNU project GPL'd, BSD, Apache, Artistic, CPL, etc, etc, licensed tools should hardly be called GNU/anything. "Freenix" has been used as a generic term to cover Linux, the BSDs, etc, but there can be vast "feel" differences between those. (Not necessarily from a user view if he's just using a graphic desktop, but certainly from an admin point of view.) Something that conveys the flavor of a modern, user-oriented unix -- "muonix", perhaps? (Pronounced "moonix", so as not to confuse it with some new electronics-like technology based on muons ;-)
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||