Linux is the free land of awesome.

[hoppipolla]

Discuss. ^_^

[MikeTheC]

Why?

[hoppipolla]

I dunno I actually just came up with it while showing my friend Ubuntu for the first time and I thought it sounded quite cool lol

[Bachstelze]

Discuss. ^_^

Free as in "Do as I say!"

[MikeTheC]

Free as in "Do as I say!"

http://www.thescifiworld.net/img/interviews/williambdavis_01.jpg

"What you fail to understand is whom actually is in charge. However, you do have it partially correct."

[steveneddy]

Most of us already know this.

Everyone that sees my laptop (I'm out on the road so lots of people have exposure to it) says that it is the coolest this they have ever seen.

Then when they find out it's not Windows, they get a deer in the headlights look.

Cracks me up every time.

(Most of the folks that see the laptop are not geeky or techy types.)

[hoppipolla]

Most of us already know this.

Everyone that sees my laptop (I'm out on the road so lots of people have exposure to it) says that it is the coolest this they have ever seen.

Then when they find out it's not Windows, they get a deer in the headlights look.

Cracks me up every time.

(Most of the folks that see the laptop are not geeky or techy types.)

Yeah thats the thing, at its best Linux has the power to clear out Windows 7 and Mac OS with relative ease, at least in terms of visuals and base functionality. Well, we'll see what happens ^_^

[ZankerH]

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities, bash and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

[Bachstelze]

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities, bash and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

RMS would be proud.

[Screwdriver0815]

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities, bash and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
... and if the Linux Kernel was not there: would GNU work? Ah yes, when HURD is finished - and it will be... next week or next year or maybe in the next century :lolflag:

For everyone it is just Linux. Most of the distributions call themselves "xyz Linux". The exception is Debian.

All this "$distroname GNU/Linux" is nitpicking in my opinion. In the average Userland only a few people recognise GNU, but lots of people recognise Linux. Calling it "$distroname Linux" is a better way in my eyes because it makes it easier to talk/ write about and to mention it. And it leaves away the flavour of "I have also done something and I need to be mentioned" - yeah okay, the GNU guys have done something... but without Linux it would be in Nirvana.

[hoppipolla]

Yes I know but "GNU/Linux is the free land of awesome" just didnt have the same ring lol

[ZankerH]

... and if the Linux Kernel was not there: would GNU work? Ah yes, when HURD is finished - and it will be... next week or next year or maybe in the next century :lolflag:

Indulging in a hypothetical what-if scenario here, but I'd imagine that, had the Linux kernel not been released under the GNU GPL, the GNU kernel development would likely have been much more active and have produced much more solid results than the HURD project has done thus far.

And, for the record, without Stallman and the GNU project, Free software as we know it today wouldn't exist.

[Screwdriver0815]

Indulging in a hypothetical what-if scenario here, but I'd imagine that, had the Linux kernel not been released under the GNU GPL, the GNU kernel development would likely have been much more active and have produced much more solid results than the HURD project has done thus far.

And, for the record, without Stallman and the GNU project, Free software as we know it today wouldn't exist.
so what should we, as the Linuxusers do now?

Have you also contacted the guys at www.linux.com regarding this? What is their statement?

[Bachstelze]

And, for the record, without Stallman and the GNU project, Free software as we know it today wouldn't exist.

Oh dear, not again...

[ZankerH]

so what should we, as the Linuxusers do now?

Acknowledge the contributions the GNU project made to the OS you're using.

Alternatively, try writing your own core libs, coreutils, compilers and a shell - the tools GNU project spent the better part of two decades developing so they could one day form a part of a Free operating system.

Feeling lucky? Try using Linux without GNU.

[Screwdriver0815]

Acknowledge the contributions the GNU project made to the OS you're using.

Alternatively, try writing your own core libs, coreutils, compilers and a shell - the tools GNU project spent the better part of two decades developing so they could one day form a part of a Free operating system.

Feeling lucky? Try using Linux without GNU.
I acknowledge the contributions of ALL people who are involved in the development of the operating systems and the programs I use - for the record: I do not use Windows. GNU or anyone else is no exception and they do not get any extra acknowldgement.

And therefore: it is Linux for me. That's it

[ZankerH]

I acknowledge the contributions of ALL people who are involved in the development of the operating systems and the programs I use - for the record: I do not use Windows. GNU or anyone else is no exception and they do not get any extra acknowldgement.

And therefore: it is Linux for me. That's it

So why does Linux get extra acknowledgement? After all, it's just another contribution to the Free operating system as envisioned by the Free Software Foundation.

Again, consider the fact that GNU can be used without Linux (albeit on an unstable kernel under active development), while Linux is a useless pile of code without GNU, since it's been designed to be integrated with GNU software since it was released under the GPL in 1992. That's not the case for the large majority of other contributing Free software. If you're not giving any special acknowledgement Linux certainly doesn't deserve it any more than GNU.

[Bachstelze]

Again, consider the fact that GNU can be used without Linux (albeit on an unstable kernel under active development), while Linux is a useless pile of code without GNU. That's not the case for the large majority of other contributing Free software.

You could get the Linux kernel to run on a BSD userland fairly easily. IBM also experimented an OS with the Linux kernel and their own userland based on AIX's, which got dropped but went pretty far nonetheless. OSes combining the GNU userland with a BSD kernel exist as well. This debate is just pointless. You can call it GNU/Linux if you want, but harassing people to get them to adhere to your views will only get you in trouble.

[ZankerH]

You could get the Linux kernel to run on a BSD userland fairly easily. IBM also experimented an OS with the Linux kernel and their own userland based on AIX's, which got dropped but went pretty far nonetheless. OSes combining the GNU userland with a BSD kernel exist as well. This debate is just pointless. You can call it GNU/Linux if you want, but harassing people to get them to adhere to your views will only get you in trouble.

Yes, but the fact is that all major "Linux" distributions are in fact using GNU/Linux and not any of the alternatives you've listed. It's pure hypocrisy, the GNU software is just about as important to the OS as a whole as Linux is.

[Screwdriver0815]

So why does Linux get extra acknowledgement? After all, it's just another contribution to the Free operating system as envisioned by the Free Software Foundation.

Again, consider the fact that GNU can be used without Linux (albeit on an unstable kernel under active development), while Linux is a useless pile of code without GNU, since it's been designed to be integrated with GNU software since it was released under the GPL in 1992. That's not the case for the large majority of other contributing Free software. If you're not giving any special acknowledgement Linux certainly doesn't deserve it any more than GNU.
it doesn't.

Linux is the generic name for a free unixoid operating system. This generic name has arisen as popular saying. It is simply popular saying. And popular saying automaticly sorts out complicated things like this "/GNU" because it is an obstacle in talking.
It does not mean that the achievements and results of all developers in the world of FLOSS are not recognised and appreciated.
So why should I mention everyone on a single line when I can do this in one single thing? Because the GNU guys do not want to belong to the Linux community? So then be it - its their fault.

When I say that I organize my photos with a photo organising program, and in fact I do it with digikam... should I then run in circles and mention all photoprograms and their developers???

Anyway: if GNU would not be there, the Linux developers would have developed a new userland. Face it.

[Bachstelze]

It's pure hypocrisy, the GNU software is just about as important to the OS as a whole as Linux is.

I never said it wasn't, and you could even say it's more important, and I'd agree with you. Nonetheless, people have the right to call it just "Linux" if they want to. Once again, harassing them so they call it "GNU/Linux" will only give you a bad reputation (and could put you in trouble).

I guess if RMS could have put a clause in the GPL saying that you must call it GNU/Linux, he would have done it. Maybe for GPLv4?

[ZankerH]

it doesn't.

Linux is the generic name for a free unixoid operating system. This generic name has arisen as popular saying. It is simply popular saying. And popular saying automaticly sorts out complicated things like this "/GNU" because it is an obstacle in talking.

It's not a generic name, it's the name of the kernel. The generic term you're looking for is "*IX" or "POSIX-like".

When I say that I organize my photos with a photo organising program, and in fact I do it with digikam... should I then run in circles and mention all photoprograms and their developers???

When you use "Linux", you're using GNU. It isn't just about some random application you can choose not to use, unless you plan on porting one of the other established userlands to the Linux kernel.

Anyway: if GNU would not be there, the Linux developers would have developed a new userland. Face it.

Wrong. The GNU project launched the Free Software initiative itself back in the 80s. Without GNU, free software as we know it wouldn't exist today - the closest alternative is the BSD license - and linux would likely remain a simple hobby project with little if any user share, since it was the GNU developer base that helped to extend hardware support and get Linux into a stable shape when it was first released under the GNU GPL in 1991. If the GNU movement had not existed (and desperately needed a working kernel), it's highly unlikely any other group of highly skilled developers would have picked up what was at the time an obscure hobby project.

I never said it wasn't, and you could even say it's more important, and I'd agree with you. Nonetheless, people have the right to call it just "Linux" if they want to. Once again, harassing them so they call it "GNU/Linux" will only give you a bad reputation (and could put you in trouble).

So you're saying we're only allowed to have debates where everyone agrees?

[Bachstelze]

So you're saying we're only allowed to have debates where everyone agrees?

A guy randomly appearing on a thread and repeating the same old stuff over and over again to shove his opinion down others's throats isn't my definition of a debate.

[hoppipolla]

That would be an awesome but very brief debate! lol

EDIT -- oo sorry that was actually to ZankerH's post, but this thread is moving fast and my phone browser doesnt always like quoting lol

[Bachstelze]

Anyway, the battle for having the OS called "GNU/Linux" is a lost cause, and the GNU folks know it. Kinda pathetic to see that some people still feel the need to engage in that crusade...

[Screwdriver0815]

It's not a generic name, it's the name of the kernel. The generic term you're looking for is "*IX" or "POSIX-like".

so when I have a Sony Ericson mobile phone... and I talk about it: I am not allowed to say "my mobile"? Do I have to say "the number you have given to me is not in my Sony Ericson C702 with a T-mobile Basix24 contract, signed in xyz" instead of "the number is not in my mobile"? Because I need to acknowledge the achievements of the Sony Ericson guys and also the sales people who have sold the mobile to me? And even when "mobile" is the generic name of the device I am talking about, this is not okay... Errrmmm... yes, okay, if you feel better then I will do it. :lolflag:


When you use "Linux", you're using GNU. It isn't just about some random application you can choose not to use, unless you plan on porting one of the other established userlands to the Linux kernel.

oh yes, I can choose to use Linux (and I still do not mention the /GNU stuff... and I will not in future) or not. So it is the same.


Wrong. The GNU project launched the Free Software initiative itself back in the 80s. Without GNU, free software as we know it wouldn't exist today - the closest alternative is the BSD license - and linux would likely remain a simple hobby project with little if any user share, since it was the GNU developer base that helped to extend hardware support and get Linux into a stable shape when it was first released under the GNU GPL in 1991. If the GNU movement had not existed (and desperately needed a working kernel), it's highly unlikely any other group of highly skilled developers would have picked up what was at the time an obscure hobby project.

who cares?
If it would not have been there, someone else would have invented it. Its the same as with the wheel, with the telephone, with Radar, with cars, with... who knows what else.
A good movement or a good invention always evolves somehow, driven by someone and if it wasn't these people, someone else would have done or would do it. If you say that such things, movements and so on can not be done in different ways and if you say that the GNU people are the only ones who could have done it, then you put yourself on the same level as people who propagate proprietary software and software patents.

BTW this reminds me of some Mac fanboys who call their mobiles iPhone... "can you call me on my iPhone?" WTF? Or they do not use a mp3-player - they use an "iPod..." or they do not surf in the internet with a computer. No they do it with an "iMac or a MacBook..." its just silly.

[schauerlich]

Acknowledge the contributions the GNU project made to the OS you're using.

No.

Are we done here?

[Tipped OuT]

no.

Are we done here?

+1

[Bachstelze]

No.

Are we done here?

You made my day, sir.

[schauerlich]

You made my day, sir.

Any time.

[ViperChief]

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities, bash and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

rms...is that you?

[saulgoode]

A guy randomly appearing on a thread and repeating the same old stuff over and over again to shove his opinion down others's throats isn't my definition of a debate.
Yet you seemingly have no compunction in shoving your own opinions down other's throats. Mind, for myself I wouldn't characterize someone sharing their thoughts on a matter as "opinion shoving", especially after being invited to do so in the original post.

[Screwdriver0815]

Yet you seemingly have no compunction in shoving your own opinions down other's throats. Mind, for myself I wouldn't characterize someone sharing their thoughts on a matter as "opinion shoving", especially after being invited to do so in the original post.
when you read all the postings you see that I have asked the Zanker (which is quite funny because in german it means something like "looking for a fight")
what we should do in this issue.

He said that we should acknowledge the merits of the GNU people. I then posted that I do not only acknowledge their merits - I acknowledge the merits of all people, who work for FLOSS. This was not enough for him - he wanted that we add "/GNU" to Linux in all what we say - thats what I understood from his postings.
So this is shoving opinions down the throat in my opinion.

If he would say "okay, when you just say Linux, its your way to see the world but in my eyes it is wrong" then it is just the expression of an opinion. But he did not. And when I remember right, in the first post there was just an invitation to discuss - not to shove opinions in any openings of human bodys :D

[koenn]

I guess if RMS could have put a clause in the GPL saying that you must call it GNU/Linux, he would have done it. Maybe for GPLv4?

Hm, no.
He could have, but didn't want to.

straight from gnu.org:
The purpose of the GNU GPL is to protect the users' freedom from those who would make proprietary versions of free software.

the mere act of calling the system “Linux” does not, in itself, deny users their freedom. It seems improper to make the GPL restrict what name people can use for the system.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#require

[hoppipolla]

I never actually saw this thread going this way.. lol

I genuinely did just shorten the way I phrased that quote to make it sound better, not because I don't understand this kinda stuff.

[Bachstelze]

I never actually saw this thread going this way.. lol

I genuinely did just shorten the way I phrased that quote to make it sound better, not because I don't understand this kinda stuff.

Yeah, and everyone was fine with this until someone thought he would play the smart guy and lecture us about how we should call things according to the Holy GNU/Bible. You know how those peope are, never missing an occasion to preach...

[hoppipolla]

Yeah, and everyone was fine with this until someone thought he would play the smart guy and lecture us about how we should call things according to the Holy GNU/Bible. You know how those peope are, never missing an occasion to preach...

haha, to be honest I don't think at least originally any harm was intended - at one time I would have most probably done the same thing!

After a while though I just put all of that kinda stuff on a backburner and bring it up only when it feels particularly important!

[juancarlospaco]

I think that on the free land, some Freewares need to be accepted nicely,
in example Games with no source but free.
:)

[Bachstelze]

I think that on the free land, some Freewares need to be accepted nicely,
in example Games with no source but free.
:)

I think that on the free land, all software should be accepted nicely. That's the definition of free as everyone but the FSF and its minions see it.

[juancarlospaco]

I think that on the free land, all software should be accepted nicely. That's the definition of free as everyone but the FSF and its minions see it.

Yes and no, ...i mean on integration,
i want to see more Freeware games on some section of Official Repos,
doesn't matter if its unmaintained but yet avaliable under add/remove.
a .deb that try wget-ing the binary.

In example, i see some nice work on Karmic, i plug an HP Laserjet,
and the config asking something like:

You want to use Free or Propietary Drivers?
Aditional features with HP Propietary Drivers:
*Fast Printing.

For testing i pick Propietary, and it wget a binary from HP's FTP site.

:)

[geekygirl]

Remind me not to show any new *nix (see what I did there?!! hmm? hmm?!! that little wildcard symbol...oh you good thing you :p ) users this thread....

Talk about arguing over minute details...and some people wonder why more people dont want to use *nix (oh there it is again!!) when there are people in the community that want to argue and split hairs all the time about what to CALL something?!

sigh

Fortunately most of us invloved with *nix one way or another are aware of such pointless disucssions and debates...but to the poor new user..\

gee you dont see people having arguments about calling Windows, Windows Vista/XP/Me (whatever) or should it be called Microsoft Windows Vista/XP/Me, or is it way too generic to call it Windows?

skips away back to her happy place to play with her *nix install.....:-\"

[ZankerH]

Yes and no, ...i mean on integration,
i want to see more Freeware games on some section of Official Repos,
doesn't matter if its unmaintained but yet avaliable under add/remove.
a .deb that try wget-ing the binary.

In example, i see some nice work on Karmic, i plug an HP Laserjet,
and the config asking something like:

You want to use Free or Propietary Drivers?
Aditional features with HP Propietary Drivers:
*Fast Printing.

For testing i pick Propietary, and it wget a binary from HP's FTP site.

:)

Yeah, and how about a prompt "Do you want to use a Free or Proprietary OS" at boot, and if you say yes it torrents windows off somewhere and installs it.

Hint: just because it's free as in beer doesn't mean you're free to distribute it in the repos. It's not just about the monetary price, and shouldn't be. Anyone who uses proprietary software on GNU/Linux or any Free OS is defeating the point of using Free software. This is why I quit using ubuntu.

which is quite funny because in german it means something like "looking for a fight"

And it also happens to be a regular family name. Making fun of a guy's name must be the most pathetic case of an ad hominem I've seen on this board.

[C!oud]

Anyone who uses proprietary software on GNU/Linux or any Free OS is defeating the point of using Free software.

Not really, I can choose to use linux because I'm a believer in the Open Source Movement not the Free Software Movement thus meaning I can believe that proprietary and open source software can in fact co-exist.

[RiceMonster]

Not really, I can choose to use linux because I'm a believer in the Open Source Movement not the Free Software Movement thus meaning I can believe that proprietary and open source software can in fact co-exist.

What? You mean you can use open source AND closed source!? :confused: My GNU mind is exploding.

[Screwdriver0815]

Hint: just because it's free as in beer doesn't mean you're free to distribute it in the repos. It's not just about the monetary price, and shouldn't be. Anyone who uses proprietary software on GNU/Linux or any Free OS is defeating the point of using Free software. This is why I quit using ubuntu.

ah so you see: its all about freedom. Freedom to use what fits your needs.
It is not doctrination or something, is it?

So if you quit using Ubuntu - fine. I am sure that you find another operating system which fits your needs. Have fun with it!

If other users want to have or just need proprietary software... is it a crime? No it isn't. It just does not match with your opinion. Thats it. There is no reason to say that anyone is defeating anything because he is using application abc instead of xyz. Because it is not true.

When you want to promote freedom, then live it - instead of indoctrinating people.

[ZankerH]

Yeah, thanks for twisting my words again. Use what works for you, that's what software freedom is about. My point is that even if a certain piece of proprietary software is available free of charge, its license may make it illegal to distribute in the repos or even through synaptic alone. Which do you think is more convenient, going through the license of every proprietary software someone wants to see in the repos to determine if it can be placed there legally, or just including software that's released under standard Free licences that permit that? You can still install your favourite proprietary game/driver/whatever manually without having to increase the workload on the ubuntu packaging and legal teams.

[Bachstelze]

Yeah, thanks for twisting my words again. Use what works for you, that's what software freedom is about. My point is that even if a certain piece of proprietary software is available free of charge, its license may make it illegal to distribute in the repos or even through synaptic alone. Which do you think is more convenient, going through the license of every proprietary software someone wants to see in the repos to determine if it can be placed there legally, or just including software that's released under standard Free licences that permit that? You can still install your favourite proprietary game/driver/whatever manually without having to increase the workload on the ubuntu packaging and legal teams.

Once again a patronizing statement. The Ubuntu packaging and legal team are grown-ups, they don't need you or me to defend themselves. If they consider that it's too much work to examine the licensing terms of non-free software to see whether it's possible to include it in the repos or not, they'll tell us. As far as I know, you're not their spokesman.

[hoppipolla]

Once again a patronizing statement. The Ubuntu packaging and legal team are grown-ups, they don't need you or me to defend themselves. If they consider that it's too much work to examine the licensing terms of non-free software to see whether it's possible to include it in the repos or not, they'll tell us. As far as I know, you're not their spokesman.

Yeah totally, and we can use proprietary software on Open Source operating systems of course we can, just like you can put open source software on Windows, I fail to see the problem...

I mean, if I coded a piece of software, I would choose to make it open or closed depending on what I hoped to achieve with it and the kind of software it was. Open Source will never squash closed source software and vice versa.

And maybe he IS the Ubuntu spokesman O.O lol

[Sinkingships7]

rms...is that you?

This is literally the first thing I thought when I saw that post. I'm actually thinking to myself that this guy might really be RMS, having made an account on these forums only to stumble into a debate and forced to protect his GNU/Name.

[Screwdriver0815]

Yeah, thanks for twisting my words again. *snipp*

it is not twisting of words or anything.

Look, the world out there works like this: you can do whatever you want, as long it is no crime and as long as you do not disturb or **** off anybody.

And even when you ****-off someone, then it is worth a discussion if your behaviour was okay or not, from a neutral point of view.

If you are disturbed/ distracted/ worried or whatever because of proprietary software which is installed on peoples (you even don't know) computers... and when you think about the workload of people who put proprietary software into some repo's... when this is a big issue for you... then, sorry I have to say that, please get a life!

This is literally the first thing I thought when I saw that post. I'm actually thinking to myself that this guy might really be RMS, having made an account on these forums only to stumble into a debate and forced to protect his GNU/Name.

I don't think that he is RMS. Its just a Fanboy.

[s.vladimir]

I must agree, gnu/linux is truly awesome. it rocks > :guitar:

[hoppipolla]

I must agree, gnu/linux is truly awesome. it rocks > :guitar:

What a wicked end to the thread :)