This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
- To: dewar at gnat dot com
- Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
- From: Richard Stallman <rms at gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:00:29 -0700 (MST)
- CC: dewar at gnat dot com, dstarner98 at aasaa dot ofe dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, guerby at acm dot org, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu, law at redhat dot com
- References: <20001105162359.C7C8F34D82@nile.gnat.com>
- Reply-to: rms at gnu dot org
I will definitely point this out. It is hard to persuade people to say
Redhat GNU/Linux, since this is really incorrect,
"Redhat GNU/Linux" would be incorrect, since that would misrepresent
their name for the product. In contrast, "Redhat's GNU/Linux system"
is legitimate, since that clearly doesn't present itself as their name
for the product.
"Redhat [GNU/]Linux" is another good option; it clearly states both
what the product really is and what their name for it is.
What I find in practice is that people think that GNU/Linux is a special
version of Linux. I sometimes wonder whether it would be good idea to
simply make this happen ....
We already did sponsor a version of the GNU/Linux system. It is
called Debian GNU/Linux. But we want people to know that the versions
distributed by Red Hat and other such companies are also versions of
the GNU system.