This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: environ and -D_GNU_SOURCE
- To: glibc-linux at ricardo dot ecn dot wfu dot edu
- Subject: Re: environ and -D_GNU_SOURCE
- From: Wolfgang Sourdeau <wolfgang at ultim dot net>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:22:03 -0400 (EDT)
- Reply-To: glibc-linux at ricardo dot ecn dot wfu dot edu
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> 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"
It's not a matter of licence nor of components. Else, you would just
call it Windows because of "if ever we compile Windows with gcc".
It's just that GNU was meant to be what "Linux" is today, except that it
uses Linux as a kernel. So, if you replace everything with BSD
components you'll have a BSD system, but the system here is GNU, with
bash as shell, gcc as compiler, gdb as debugger, the glibc as for system
library (GNU C library...), ...give me more, and GNOME as desktop
If we were using bsd sh, gcc, bsd libc, bsd kernel, etc... I would urge
you to call it BSD, but here it happens to be GNU.
> 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
This is true, because Linux is a major system component without which we
wouldn't have a complete GNU system.
But I don't think the system would lack 75% of its components if we
removed those that are coming from BSD.
Take Linux, sysvinit, bash, glibc, gcc, gdb, emacs, the gnu binutils,
the gnu fileutils, the gnu netutils and you have a complete system made
only with GNU components (except Linux and sysvutils...). Add Xfree86 if
you want another non-GNU, non-BSD, non-whatever component, and make run
GNOME on top of it and everyone is happy, with a GNU system...
> 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
> something other.
Well. The free BSD's were originally freed because of the action of the
FSF. And I think we could argue for hours... There is no point here.
If the FSF had decided that more of 50% of its system's component would
be taken from any free bsd, you would obtain a BSD/GNU or GNU/BSD
But here it happens to be a GNU/Linux system.
A chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs.