Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: discussion: June 2003:
[aclug-L] Re: GNU.ORG says:

[aclug-L] Re: GNU.ORG says:

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: discussion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aclug-L] Re: GNU.ORG says:
From: "Jonathan Hall" <flimzy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:38:35 -0500
Reply-to: discussion@xxxxxxxxx

That's interesting, yet repeats everything we already said.  His last
statement may be accurate within the very narrow context of your original
statement.  It is not the popularly accepted definition, however, as was
overwhelmingly demonstrated during the previous thread.

Furthermore, GNU is hardly an defining authority on Linux definitions.
Perhaps on the Hurd, but not Linux.

-- Jonathan

----- Original Message -----
From: "jeffrey l koehn" <caveman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <discussion@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:10 PM
Subject: [aclug-L] GNU.ORG says:

> Brett Smith of sent an email to me today
> and he says:
> "You are correct: there is no Unix code in GNU/Linux.
> There are even a number of significant end-user differences between
> the two systems. Hence, while GNU/Linux is a Unix-like system, and
> falls under the category of Unix systems, it is not a Unix clone."
> -------------------------------------cyclox
> -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> visit

-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]