This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: environ and -D_GNU_SOURCE
On Wed, May 17, Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:
> Btw, another "bug" I found in the documentation was the naming of the
> "GNU/Linux system" as "Linux system". IMHO, since the glibc is by
> definition the C Library for GNU, it should be corrected for
> consistency with the GNU philosophy; either to "specific advice for
> systems running the Linux kernel" (although the glibc won't probably
> run under any other Linux-based system such as the next AmigaOS). Or
> simply name it the "GNU/Linux" system.
I know that people think "GNU/Linux" would be political correct.
Have you ever thougt what would be happen if you really build a
system only with GNU software ? In a second stage, I would allow
you to use GPL software. I don't think that you will get a useable,
running system. At least, you don't have a network and no Window
The GNU software is important for Linux, but the BSD software is it,
So we need to call it "BSD/GNU/Linux". Stop, what is with the
artistic license ? A lot of important programs are under this
license -> "Artistic/BSD/GNU/Linux System".
What is with the software, which is GPL, but not GNU ?
-> "Artistic/BSD/GNU/GPL/Linux System"
I don't like this. If you speak about "GNU/Linux", you ignores
over 75% of the necessary Linux software.
And, without Linux, I doubt that we would have so many GNU
In the moment, there is only one GNU project which could not
be replaced with something other: GCC. But for other platforms
than ia32 this changes already.
A lot of people say: If we don't had the GNU software, we wouldn't
have Linux. I think, if we don't had the GNU software, we had used
the *BSD sources and port them to Linux, not the GNU software. Or
Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ firstname.lastname@example.org
SuSE GmbH Schanzaeckerstr. 10 90443 Nuernberg
Linux is like a Vorlon. It is incredibly powerful, gives terse,
cryptic answers and has a lot of things going on in the background.