Re: GNU-Linux vs Linux naming [was RE: LAM/MPI Parallel processing]

[Simon Cozens <simon@example.com>]

On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 12:56:29PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "sb" == SL Baur <steve@example.com> writes:
>     >> I believe the BSDs have their own libcs.[1]
> 
> They do.  Fairly ancient versions were used in DJGPP; I believe they
> were updated in DJGPP, I _know_ they've been updated for POSIX and
> maybe Unix9x in the *BSD distros. 

Yes, they do. I took a peek at FreeBSD libc last night; I'm back on that old
"get-ports-to-compile-on-Linux" game again. I'll get there. I keep looking
back on BSD code and rediscovering how beautifully clear it is compared to the
lurking horror that is GNU. This is what /bin/sync *should* look like, dammit:

#include <unistd.h>

int
main()
{
    sync();
    exit(0);
}

I've got BSD make running now, which is half the battle; just a couple of
bash/sh incompatibilities to look after.

libc is looking like an absolute pig to compile under Linux, because of
needing BSD headers in the right place. It might be worth working in a
chrooted environment with a BSD /usr/include; I'll try that this afternoon.

In fact, I should really be keeping track of my modifications and turning
this into a package or something.

> ('Course nowadays Cygwin gives you all the benefits of glibc on your
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> DOS/Windose system.)

I assume this is irony.

> As for "GNU Perl" and "GNU TeX", please show me where those phrases
> are used.  GNU perl sounds familiar, but GNU TeX I rather doubt.

I've certainly *heard* RMS talk about GNU Perl. I've no idea where on the web
it can be found, but you can use a search engine as well as I can. GNU TeX was
a threat for a while until the members of comp.text.tex pointed out several
times that i) TeX's license was nowhere near GPL, and Knuth wasn't going to
change it just for RMS, and ii) even if you ship TeX, you can't ship half the
LaTeX packages because their licenses are incompatible. The end result was
that the CTAN was split into free and non-free directories, and "free" here
includes the LPPL. The GNU people, vilified heavily by comp.text.tex, went
away. I'm sure they'll try again, and I'm sure they'll get the same response.
A deja search for "GNU TeX" on c.t.t should find all this.[1]

> Yes, the Manifesto says they are "part of the GNU system."  I don't
> think that's what rms bases his claims on.

I have no idea what RMS bases his claims on.

SL Baur writes:
> > You can run a Linux system with zero GNU components; I've done it.

> Oh really?  I guess I'm going to have to take a close look at *BSD
> someday soon.

That would be boring. I did it in Perl. I was going to say "I did it after the
GNU/Linux argument in Tengu", but that wouldn't narrow it down any. There's
an article in this quarter's Perl Journal.

[1] I'd do it myself but I'm mainly offline due to the UK's extremely 
backwards Internet connectivity.
-- 
Imbalance of power corrupts and monopoly of power corrupts absolutely.
		-- Genji