From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with GNU
applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not much
else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial software,
but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:
> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with GNU
> applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not
> much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial 
> software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much 
> "pure" GNU/Linux?

If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel (http://www.linux.org) 
plus the GNU project's software (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no. 

Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux 
distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE 
software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).

Regards.

Lusotec stated in post i9308h$siu$1@news.eternal-september.org on 10/12/10
5:58 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with GNU
>> applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not
>> much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial
>> software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much
>> "pure" GNU/Linux?
> 
> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel (http://www.linux.org)
> plus the GNU project's software (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
> 
> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).
> 
> Regards.
> 

Wait, isn't Gnome a part of GNU?  And doesn't KDE now fall under the GNU
licenses?  Ae the "pure" distros "pure" GNU/Linux?

    <http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html>

But if so, then there should be others, because the Linux kernel itself is
not fully free (there are non-free "blobs"), so all of the non-Linux parts
follow the GNU licenses does that make it "pure" GNU/Linux?

I wonder if anyone in COLA really knows what "pure" KDE/Gnome is.  I know I
do not.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Verily I say unto thee, that Lusotec spake thusly:
> Snit wrote:
>> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many
>> cases not much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other
>> commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros
>> pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>
> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no. 
>
> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).

Yes, and software like X11 is certainly not GNU, it's MIT.

Techncally, Gnome is GNU, or at least a member of the GNU Foundation
(unless they've since quit, as de Icaza and chums threatened to do), but
it's not part of the "OS".

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights. 
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 03:40:52 up 14 days, 15:45,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:58:56 +0100, Lusotec wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases
>> not much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other
>> commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros
>> pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
> 
> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
> 
> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).

The short answer is "no" there aren't many pure Linux/GNU distributions. I 
think GNU had one that was supposed to be purely open software. I don't 
personally who is using it. As a matter of fact, it doesn't appear to 
exist any more.

GNU.org does have a list of nine Free Gnu/Linux distributions at:

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

Homer stated in post m2jfo7-4js.ln1@sky.matrix on 10/12/10 7:45 PM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Lusotec spake thusly:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many
>>> cases not much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other
>>> commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros
>>> pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>> 
>> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
>> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
>> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
>> 
>> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
>> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
>> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).
> 
> Yes, and software like X11 is certainly not GNU, it's MIT.
> 
> Techncally, Gnome is GNU, or at least a member of the GNU Foundation
> (unless they've since quit, as de Icaza and chums threatened to do), but
> it's not part of the "OS".

So you disagree with TomB when he says that the GNU applications, developer
tools and libraries are a part of the OS.  OK.  Interesting.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB stated in post i937bc$2m8$3@news.eternal-september.org on 10/12/10 7:59
PM:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:58:56 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>>> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases
>>> not much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other
>>> commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros
>>> pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>> 
>> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
>> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
>> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
>> 
>> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
>> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
>> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).
> 
> The short answer is "no" there aren't many pure Linux/GNU distributions. I
> think GNU had one that was supposed to be purely open software. I don't
> personally who is using it. As a matter of fact, it doesn't appear to
> exist any more.
> 
> GNU.org does have a list of nine Free Gnu/Linux distributions at:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

Thanks... I had pointed to that link as well... and admit I am unclear as to
what software is considered a part of GNU and what is not.  Is it just based
on licensing?  Does it have to be a greater part of the GNU project?  Is it
just the programs listed on the gnu.org site?  And, if so, why are those
seen as "special" and a part of the OS (at least by some) where other tools
are not?

Heck, you and TomB and Homer and Peter have been accusing me of being
confused on the simple parts of this - where I was not.  Here are the more
detailed parts where I admit to not knowing - will be interesting if any of
you know.  I sure hope so... but would not be surprised if you guys did not.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 10/13/2010 12:05 AM, Snit wrote:
> RonB stated in post i937bc$2m8$3@news.eternal-september.org on 10/12/10 7:59
> PM:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:58:56 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>>>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases
>>>> not much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other
>>>> commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros
>>>> pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>>
>>> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
>>> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
>>> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
>>>
>>> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
>>> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
>>> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).
>>
>> The short answer is "no" there aren't many pure Linux/GNU distributions. I
>> think GNU had one that was supposed to be purely open software. I don't
>> personally who is using it. As a matter of fact, it doesn't appear to
>> exist any more.
>>
>> GNU.org does have a list of nine Free Gnu/Linux distributions at:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
>
> Thanks... I had pointed to that link as well... and admit I am unclear as to
> what software is considered a part of GNU and what is not.  Is it just based
> on licensing?  Does it have to be a greater part of the GNU project?  Is it
> just the programs listed on the gnu.org site?  And, if so, why are those
> seen as "special" and a part of the OS (at least by some) where other tools
> are not?
>
> Heck, you and TomB and Homer and Peter have been accusing me of being
> confused on the simple parts of this - where I was not.  Here are the more
> detailed parts where I admit to not knowing - will be interesting if any of
> you know.  I sure hope so... but would not be surprised if you guys did not.
>

Trolling approaching~~~

On 10/13/2010 12:01 AM, Snit wrote:
> Homer stated in post m2jfo7-4js.ln1@sky.matrix on 10/12/10 7:45 PM:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Lusotec spake thusly:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>>>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many
>>>> cases not much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other
>>>> commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros
>>>> pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>>
>>> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
>>> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
>>> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
>>>
>>> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
>>> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
>>> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).
>>
>> Yes, and software like X11 is certainly not GNU, it's MIT.
>>
>> Techncally, Gnome is GNU, or at least a member of the GNU Foundation
>> (unless they've since quit, as de Icaza and chums threatened to do), but
>> it's not part of the "OS".
>
> So you disagree with TomB when he says that the GNU applications, developer
> tools and libraries are a part of the OS.  OK.  Interesting.
>
>

Trolling is about to begin~

Marious Barrier stated in post uslfo7-u97.ln1@news.newsgroup.cl on 10/12/10
8:33 PM:

> On 10/13/2010 12:05 AM, Snit wrote:
>> RonB stated in post i937bc$2m8$3@news.eternal-september.org on 10/12/10 7:59
>> PM:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:58:56 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>>>>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases
>>>>> not much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other
>>>>> commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros
>>>>> pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>>> 
>>>> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
>>>> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
>>>> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
>>>> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
>>>> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).
>>> 
>>> The short answer is "no" there aren't many pure Linux/GNU distributions. I
>>> think GNU had one that was supposed to be purely open software. I don't
>>> personally who is using it. As a matter of fact, it doesn't appear to
>>> exist any more.
>>> 
>>> GNU.org does have a list of nine Free Gnu/Linux distributions at:
>>> 
>>> http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
>> 
>> Thanks... I had pointed to that link as well... and admit I am unclear as to
>> what software is considered a part of GNU and what is not.  Is it just based
>> on licensing?  Does it have to be a greater part of the GNU project?  Is it
>> just the programs listed on the gnu.org site?  And, if so, why are those
>> seen as "special" and a part of the OS (at least by some) where other tools
>> are not?
>> 
>> Heck, you and TomB and Homer and Peter have been accusing me of being
>> confused on the simple parts of this - where I was not.  Here are the more
>> detailed parts where I admit to not knowing - will be interesting if any of
>> you know.  I sure hope so... but would not be surprised if you guys did not.
>> 
> 
> Trolling approaching~~~

Of course - I have asked questions about GNU/Linux and been open about my
ignorance in this area.  The fact this will point out the ignorance of some
others will offend them - so instead of reacting rationally they will lash
out.  Look at the posts from "Kernel" which I suspect is HPT (suspect!  I do
not know and do not really care).

TomB and Homer have said they think the OS in all of the GNU/Linux distros
is the same... and while I do not completely agree I have been very kind in
my noting I think Homer's view is internally consistent.  Now I am asking
them (and others) to go a bit deeper into their thinking.  Some people,
though, are offended when asked to think at all.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 10/13/2010 12:48 AM, Snit wrote:
> Marious Barrier stated in post uslfo7-u97.ln1@news.newsgroup.cl on 10/12/10
> 8:33 PM:
>
>> On 10/13/2010 12:05 AM, Snit wrote:
>>> RonB stated in post i937bc$2m8$3@news.eternal-september.org on 10/12/10 7:59
>>> PM:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:58:56 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>    From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>>>>>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases
>>>>>> not much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other
>>>>>> commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros
>>>>>> pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
>>>>> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
>>>>> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
>>>>> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
>>>>> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).
>>>>
>>>> The short answer is "no" there aren't many pure Linux/GNU distributions. I
>>>> think GNU had one that was supposed to be purely open software. I don't
>>>> personally who is using it. As a matter of fact, it doesn't appear to
>>>> exist any more.
>>>>
>>>> GNU.org does have a list of nine Free Gnu/Linux distributions at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
>>>
>>> Thanks... I had pointed to that link as well... and admit I am unclear as to
>>> what software is considered a part of GNU and what is not.  Is it just based
>>> on licensing?  Does it have to be a greater part of the GNU project?  Is it
>>> just the programs listed on the gnu.org site?  And, if so, why are those
>>> seen as "special" and a part of the OS (at least by some) where other tools
>>> are not?
>>>
>>> Heck, you and TomB and Homer and Peter have been accusing me of being
>>> confused on the simple parts of this - where I was not.  Here are the more
>>> detailed parts where I admit to not knowing - will be interesting if any of
>>> you know.  I sure hope so... but would not be surprised if you guys did not.
>>>
>>
>> Trolling approaching~~~
>
> Of course - I have asked questions about GNU/Linux and been open about my
> ignorance in this area.  The fact this will point out the ignorance of some
> others will offend them - so instead of reacting rationally they will lash
> out.  Look at the posts from "Kernel" which I suspect is HPT (suspect!  I do
> not know and do not really care).
>
> TomB and Homer have said they think the OS in all of the GNU/Linux distros
> is the same... and while I do not completely agree I have been very kind in
> my noting I think Homer's view is internally consistent.  Now I am asking
> them (and others) to go a bit deeper into their thinking.  Some people,
> though, are offended when asked to think at all.  :)

For that comment and your typical attempts to flame is why you should be 
added to the trolls list.

Marious Barrier stated in post npnfo7-nd8.ln1@news.newsgroup.cl on 10/12/10
9:05 PM:

> On 10/13/2010 12:48 AM, Snit wrote:
>> Marious Barrier stated in post uslfo7-u97.ln1@news.newsgroup.cl on 10/12/10
>> 8:33 PM:
>> 
>>> On 10/13/2010 12:05 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>> RonB stated in post i937bc$2m8$3@news.eternal-september.org on 10/12/10
>>>> 7:59
>>>> PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:58:56 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>    From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>>>>>>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases
>>>>>>> not much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other
>>>>>>> commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros
>>>>>>> pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
>>>>>> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
>>>>>> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
>>>>>> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
>>>>>> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).
>>>>> 
>>>>> The short answer is "no" there aren't many pure Linux/GNU distributions. I
>>>>> think GNU had one that was supposed to be purely open software. I don't
>>>>> personally who is using it. As a matter of fact, it doesn't appear to
>>>>> exist any more.
>>>>> 
>>>>> GNU.org does have a list of nine Free Gnu/Linux distributions at:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks... I had pointed to that link as well... and admit I am unclear as
>>>> to
>>>> what software is considered a part of GNU and what is not.  Is it just
>>>> based
>>>> on licensing?  Does it have to be a greater part of the GNU project?  Is it
>>>> just the programs listed on the gnu.org site?  And, if so, why are those
>>>> seen as "special" and a part of the OS (at least by some) where other tools
>>>> are not?
>>>> 
>>>> Heck, you and TomB and Homer and Peter have been accusing me of being
>>>> confused on the simple parts of this - where I was not.  Here are the more
>>>> detailed parts where I admit to not knowing - will be interesting if any of
>>>> you know.  I sure hope so... but would not be surprised if you guys did
>>>> not.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Trolling approaching~~~
>> 
>> Of course - I have asked questions about GNU/Linux and been open about my
>> ignorance in this area.  The fact this will point out the ignorance of some
>> others will offend them - so instead of reacting rationally they will lash
>> out.  Look at the posts from "Kernel" which I suspect is HPT (suspect!  I do
>> not know and do not really care).
>> 
>> TomB and Homer have said they think the OS in all of the GNU/Linux distros
>> is the same... and while I do not completely agree I have been very kind in
>> my noting I think Homer's view is internally consistent.  Now I am asking
>> them (and others) to go a bit deeper into their thinking.  Some people,
>> though, are offended when asked to think at all.  :)
> 
> For that comment and your typical attempts to flame is why you should be
> added to the trolls list.

No shame in you not knowing the answer to my question (you clearly do not).
No need to call names, etc.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB wrote:
>[...]pure Linux/GNU distributions. I think GNU had one
>that was supposed to be purely open software[...]
>it doesn't appear to exist any more.
>
It's been a while since they last released,
but it's still listed as active.
http://distrowatch.com/gnewsense

The OP isn't clear on the meanings of
OS (kernel)
Distro
Window manager
That would be a good starting point.
Wikipedia covers all of those.

Verily I say unto thee, that Marious Barrier spake thusly:
> On 10/13/2010 12:01 AM, Snit wrote:
>> Homer stated in post m2jfo7-4js.ln1@sky.matrix on 10/12/10 7:45 PM:
>>>
>>> Techncally, Gnome is GNU, or at least a member of the GNU Foundation
>>> (unless they've since quit, as de Icaza and chums threatened to do),
>>> but it's not part of the "OS".
>>
>> So you disagree with TomB when he says that the GNU applications,
>> developer tools and libraries are a part of the OS.  OK.
>> Interesting.

You really have a problem understanding simply things like sets, don't
you?

Hint: All dogs are mammals is not the same as all mammals are dogs.

GNU is a foundation, comprising members whose software is not part of
the GNU /OS/, nor owned by the GNU Foundation, but such software is
labelled "GNU", because it follows the spirit and goals of GNU software.

GNU is also a vendor of its own software, some of which is part of the
actual OS, and some which isn't. However all their software is labelled
"GNU", obviously, because it's theirs, and all of it is Free Software,
and thus /available/ for any GNU/Linux /distro/.

GNU is also an OS, or at least one half of an OS (currently completed
by the Linux kernel), comprising a /subset/ of software provided by GNU
(the subset of their software that makes an OS).

> Trolling is about to begin~

And Snit's idiocy never ends.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights. 
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 10:50:24 up 14 days, 22:54,  1 user,  load average: 0.34, 0.14, 0.08

Snit wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases
>>> not
>>> much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial
>>> software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much
>>> "pure" GNU/Linux?
>> 
>> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
>> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
>> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
>> 
>> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
>> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
>> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).
> 
> Wait, isn't Gnome a part of GNU?

Yes, it is (me put foot in mouth there).

> And doesn't KDE now fall under the GNU licenses?

KDE and Qt are GPL but that alone does not make it GNU software.

> Ae the "pure" distros "pure" GNU/Linux?
> 
>     <http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html>

At least some of those distributions don't include *just* GNU software and 
Linux.

> But if so, then there should be others, because the Linux kernel itself is
> not fully free (there are non-free "blobs"), so all of the non-Linux parts
> follow the GNU licenses does that make it "pure" GNU/Linux?
> 
> I wonder if anyone in COLA really knows what "pure" KDE/Gnome is.  I know
> I do not.

Ironic, you are the one that used "pure" in your original post. If you don't 
know what meaning you intended, how do you expect us to know?!

Regards.

Snit wrote:

> Heck, you and TomB and Homer and Peter have been accusing me of being
> confused on the simple parts of this - where I was not.  Here are the more
> detailed parts where I admit to not knowing - will be interesting if any of
> you know.  I sure hope so... but would not be surprised if you guys did not.

And the Snit Circus is open for business again.

Did you take trolling lessons from Gary Stewart?

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Windows isn't crippleware: it's "Functionally Challenged"

Snit wrote:

> No shame in you not knowing the answer to my question (you clearly do not).
> No need to call names, etc.

And the Snit Circus is once again open for business.

You've shown yourself to be a somewhat intelligent person who can engage in
interesting, civilized discourse. So why do you inevitably turn everything
into a trollfest?

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Windows isn't crippleware: it's "Functionally Challenged"

On 13/10/2010 01:37, Snit wrote:

>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with GNU
> applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not much
> else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial software,
> but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?

To my thinking, 'pure' GNU/Linux would mean everything in the kernel 
released under the GPL along with the GNU utils that are essential to 
have a working operating system.  That would ultimately mean glibc, 
coreutils and bash.  Initialisation scripts are also required, which are 
provided by each distribution and are not part of the kernel or GNU utils.

Just about every distribution provides X11, either from Xorg or XFree86. 
  Neither are part of the kernel or GNU utils.

A 'pure' GNU/Linux system wouldn't have very much functionality.  Even 
the smallest distributions (without X11) provide a number of libraries 
and tools that are not part of GNU/Linux if we're using a strict 
interpretation.  That's without taking closed source software into 
consideration.

In reality, the term 'GNU/Linux' refers to an operating system that is 
based on the Linux kernel using libraries and utils provided by the GNU 
project but which will invariably include a number of libraries, 
utilities and software from other sources.  It doesn't really make sense 
to talk about 'pure GNU/Linux' as, strictly speaking, there isn't such a 
thing.

On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with GNU
> applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not much
> else.

Your understanding is not correct. Most distros contain way more than
just GNU applications, including - but not limited to:

X.org; KDE; applications part of the KDE suite; Qt-based applications
not part of the KDE suite (eg. oracle's virtualbox or distro-specific
management tools); since some time now the entire Gnome-suite;
GTK-based applications not part of the GNOME suite (eg. Sonata,
Ubuntu's own package manager), Firefox, OpenOffice, slrn, vim,
rtorrent, irssi, Pidgin, ... The list goes on and on.

In fact, the lion's share of applications in your average GNU/Linux
distro are not GNU. Please refer to http://www.gnu.org/software/ for a
complete list of /all/ current GNU applications.

> Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial software,
> but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?

Not even a single one, AFAIK.

-- 
 13:31:44 up  6:34,  8 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.10, 0.08
I am son of Liarmutt.
I am the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and Fries.
	~ Stephen King

Tattoo Vampire posted this message in ROT13 encoding:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> No shame in you not knowing the answer to my question (you clearly do not).
>> No need to call names, etc.
>
> And the Snit Circus is once again open for business.
>
> You've shown yourself to be a somewhat intelligent person who can engage in
> interesting, civilized discourse. So why do you inevitably turn everything
> into a trollfest?

It's a sickness.

-- 
BOFH excuse #73:
 
Daemons did it

TomB stated in post 20101013140259.469@usenet.drumscum.be on 10/13/10 5:23
AM:

> On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with GNU
>> applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not much
>> else.
> 
> Your understanding is not correct. Most distros contain way more than
> just GNU applications, including - but not limited to:
> 
> X.org; KDE; applications part of the KDE suite; Qt-based applications
> not part of the KDE suite (eg. oracle's virtualbox or distro-specific
> management tools); since some time now the entire Gnome-suite;
> GTK-based applications not part of the GNOME suite (eg. Sonata,
> Ubuntu's own package manager), Firefox, OpenOffice, slrn, vim,
> rtorrent, irssi, Pidgin, ... The list goes on and on.
> 
> In fact, the lion's share of applications in your average GNU/Linux
> distro are not GNU. Please refer to http://www.gnu.org/software/ for a
> complete list of /all/ current GNU applications.

Fair enough... so GNU includes all of those applications... and GNU/Linux,
in your view, is a combo of Linux and those.  Right?

>> Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial software,
>> but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
> 
> Not even a single one, AFAIK.

What programs are included in "just" GNU/Linux?

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Lusotec stated in post i941uj$4kd$1@news.eternal-september.org on 10/13/10
3:33 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>>>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases
>>>> not
>>>> much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial
>>>> software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much
>>>> "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>> 
>>> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
>>> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
>>> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
>>> 
>>> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
>>> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
>>> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).
>> 
>> Wait, isn't Gnome a part of GNU?
> 
> Yes, it is (me put foot in mouth there).

No problem - my initial question gave me a bit of athlete's tongue.  :)

>> And doesn't KDE now fall under the GNU licenses?
> 
> KDE and Qt are GPL but that alone does not make it GNU software.
> 
>> Ae the "pure" distros "pure" GNU/Linux?
>> 
>>     <http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html>
> 
> At least some of those distributions don't include *just* GNU software and
> Linux.

Do any of them?  If not, what is included in "just" GNU/Linux?

>> But if so, then there should be others, because the Linux kernel itself is
>> not fully free (there are non-free "blobs"), so all of the non-Linux parts
>> follow the GNU licenses does that make it "pure" GNU/Linux?
>> 
>> I wonder if anyone in COLA really knows what "pure" KDE/Gnome is.  I know
>> I do not.
> 
> Ironic, you are the one that used "pure" in your original post. If you don't
> know what meaning you intended, how do you expect us to know?!
> 
> Regards.

I am curious what is in "just" GNU/Linux.  I admit I do not know.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 10/13/2010 01:14 PM, Snit wrote:
> Lusotec stated in post i941uj$4kd$1@news.eternal-september.org on 10/13/10
> 3:33 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>>>>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases
>>>>> not
>>>>> much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial
>>>>> software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much
>>>>> "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>>>
>>>> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
>>>> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
>>>> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most GNU/Linux
>>>> distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg software, KDE
>>>> software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache software).
>>>
>>> Wait, isn't Gnome a part of GNU?
>>
>> Yes, it is (me put foot in mouth there).
>
> No problem - my initial question gave me a bit of athlete's tongue.  :)
>
>>> And doesn't KDE now fall under the GNU licenses?
>>
>> KDE and Qt are GPL but that alone does not make it GNU software.
>>
>>> Ae the "pure" distros "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>>
>>>      <http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html>
>>
>> At least some of those distributions don't include *just* GNU software and
>> Linux.
>
> Do any of them?  If not, what is included in "just" GNU/Linux?
>
>>> But if so, then there should be others, because the Linux kernel itself is
>>> not fully free (there are non-free "blobs"), so all of the non-Linux parts
>>> follow the GNU licenses does that make it "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>>
>>> I wonder if anyone in COLA really knows what "pure" KDE/Gnome is.  I know
>>> I do not.
>>
>> Ironic, you are the one that used "pure" in your original post. If you don't
>> know what meaning you intended, how do you expect us to know?!
>>
>> Regards.
>
> I am curious what is in "just" GNU/Linux.  I admit I do not know.
>
>

And it seems you also don�t know to search in the fsckin� internet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20101013140259.469@usenet.drumscum.be on 10/13/10 5:23
> AM:
>
>> On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along
>>> with GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in
>>> many cases not much else.
>> 
>> Your understanding is not correct. Most distros contain way more
>> than just GNU applications, including - but not limited to:
>> 
>> X.org; KDE; applications part of the KDE suite; Qt-based
>> applications not part of the KDE suite (eg. oracle's virtualbox or
>> distro-specific management tools); since some time now the entire
>> Gnome-suite; GTK-based applications not part of the GNOME suite
>> (eg. Sonata, Ubuntu's own package manager), Firefox, OpenOffice,
>> slrn, vim, rtorrent, irssi, Pidgin, ... The list goes on and on.
>> 
>> In fact, the lion's share of applications in your average GNU/Linux
>> distro are not GNU. Please refer to http://www.gnu.org/software/
>> for a complete list of /all/ current GNU applications.
>
> Fair enough... so GNU includes all of those applications... and
> GNU/Linux, in your view, is a combo of Linux and those.  Right?

First of all, thanks for not quoting snippets from past discussions.
Those are just teeming with - often just subtle - misunderstandings.

Yes, the GNU project (or just 'GNU' if you like) includes all those
packages. Not all those packages are part of the core GNU OS though.
The FSF also makes that distinction somewhere on their site.

Now, where the split exactly lies is debatable. For some packages it
is clear that they're not part of the 'core' GNU OS; gimp and gnucash
are such examples. For others it is very clear that they're part of
the core OS; coreutils and bash spring to mind. Others are not so
clear; findutils is one such package.

One may also argue that gnustep is part of the core GNU OS - that it
is the graphical shell for GNU - but it still needs X.org to work,
which means that one cannot have a 'pure' graphical GNU OS.

Now, you will probably note that I'm talking about the 'GNU OS', but
actually I should be talking about the 'incomplete GNU OS': it misses
a (complete and functional) kernel. So to make it a 'complete OS',
they had to incorporate a third pty. kernel, which happened to be
Linux. Hence the GNU/Linux OS.

>>> Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial
>>> software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty
>>> much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>> 
>> Not even a single one, AFAIK.
>
> What programs are included in "just" GNU/Linux?

Like I say above: that's debatable. At least it should include GNU's
acct, bash and coreutils, and of course the Linux kernel. But
certainly not all GNU applications, much like Microsoft's OS doesn't
include all of Microsoft's applications.

-- 
 15:19:42 up  8:22,  8 users,  load average: 0.06, 0.04, 0.04
I am son of Liarmutt.
tommy@mordor:~$ telnet mordor
telnet: could not resolve mordor/telnet: One does not simply telnet
into mordor!

On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of White Spirit:
> On 13/10/2010 01:37, Snit wrote:
>
>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with GNU
>> applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not much
>> else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial software,
>> but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>
> To my thinking, 'pure' GNU/Linux would mean everything in the kernel 
> released under the GPL along with the GNU utils that are essential to 
> have a working operating system.  That would ultimately mean glibc, 
> coreutils and bash.  Initialisation scripts are also required, which are 
> provided by each distribution and are not part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>
> Just about every distribution provides X11, either from Xorg or XFree86. 
>   Neither are part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>
> A 'pure' GNU/Linux system wouldn't have very much functionality.  Even 
> the smallest distributions (without X11) provide a number of libraries 
> and tools that are not part of GNU/Linux if we're using a strict 
> interpretation.  That's without taking closed source software into 
> consideration.
>
> In reality, the term 'GNU/Linux' refers to an operating system that is 
> based on the Linux kernel using libraries and utils provided by the GNU 
> project but which will invariably include a number of libraries, 
> utilities and software from other sources.  It doesn't really make sense 
> to talk about 'pure GNU/Linux' as, strictly speaking, there isn't such a 
> thing.

That's a very interesting think process. One could say that GNU/Linux
is a 'virtual' OS, because it doesn't actually exists as such. One
cannot download GNU/Linux, nor can one install it as such (not without
a lot of work anyway).

-- 
 18:39:51 up 11:43,  8 users,  load average: 0.36, 0.22, 0.10
I am son of Liarmutt.
An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.
	~ Benjamin Franklin

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:21:28 -0300, Marious Barrier wrote:

> On 10/13/2010 01:14 PM, Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec stated in post i941uj$4kd$1@news.eternal-september.org on
>> 10/13/10 3:33 AM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along
>>>>>>  with
>>>>>> GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many
>>>>>> cases not
>>>>>> much else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other
>>>>>> commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros
>>>>>> pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> If by "pure GNU/Linux" you mean just the Linux kernel
>>>>> (http://www.linux.org) plus the GNU project's software
>>>>> (http://www.gnu.org) then the answer is no.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe that applies to some minimalist distribution but most
>>>>> GNU/Linux distribution include lots of other software (e.g. Xorg
>>>>> software, KDE software, Gnome software, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache
>>>>> software).
>>>>
>>>> Wait, isn't Gnome a part of GNU?
>>>
>>> Yes, it is (me put foot in mouth there).
>>
>> No problem - my initial question gave me a bit of athlete's tongue.  :)
>>
>>>> And doesn't KDE now fall under the GNU licenses?
>>>
>>> KDE and Qt are GPL but that alone does not make it GNU software.
>>>
>>>> Ae the "pure" distros "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>>>
>>>>      <http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html>
>>>
>>> At least some of those distributions don't include *just* GNU software
>>> and Linux.
>>
>> Do any of them?  If not, what is included in "just" GNU/Linux?
>>
>>>> But if so, then there should be others, because the Linux kernel
>>>> itself is not fully free (there are non-free "blobs"), so all of the
>>>> non-Linux parts follow the GNU licenses does that make it "pure"
>>>> GNU/Linux?
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if anyone in COLA really knows what "pure" KDE/Gnome is.  I
>>>> know I do not.
>>>
>>> Ironic, you are the one that used "pure" in your original post. If you
>>> don't know what meaning you intended, how do you expect us to know?!
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>
>> I am curious what is in "just" GNU/Linux.  I admit I do not know.
>>
>>
>>
> And it seems you also don’t know to search in the fsckin’ internet?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

Putting it in Apple terms:

I remember having several blank 5.25" ProDOS-formatted disks. Using one of 
those disks, I could boot up an Apple //c. I couldn't really do anything 
with it just like that, though. But it prepared the computer for loading 
up programs that I could use.

Today's operating systems are far more complex than that. For example, in 
Macintosh System 7, was SimpleText part of the System 7 OS because it came 
in every single authorized "distribution" of 7.x? How about QuickTime in 
System 7.5?

Some people would claim that QuickTime was never part of the "pure" Mac OS 
System 7, because it was something that could be disabled without bringing 
the system down. (Programs not requiring QuickTime could easily be 
executed.) Yet most people would probably consider QuickTime to be an 
essential part of the Mac OS. Certainly, I would consider it as such. But 
it was an optional extension in the early days of System 7.

So, using that train of thought, the "purest" GNU/Linux (or any operating 
system, for that matter) would be the absolute minimum necessary to be 
able to accept some type of human interface, read some form of media, load 
executables into RAM that were entered manually or from the media, and 
while executing the code, provide some sort of human-recognizable output.

If one is an ascetic, the human interface is nothing more than a set of 
toggle switches, and the output is one blinking light.

That, of course, would mean that Windows XP, 7, and OS X are not "pure."

So layers are added to this OS for keyboard, mouse, monitors with photo-
quality graphics. Some people would claim that those additions are not 
"pure," while others would include them in their definition of "pure."

Is Windows XP in safe mode purer than Windows XP booted normally? How 
about the Mac OS started in single-user mode? Is it purer than a normally-
booted Mac?

That depends on what your goals are with the software. If your goal is to 
get on the internet and watch YouTube videos on your HDMI monitor, then 
I'm not sure that XP's safe mode or OS X's single user mode would do the 
job. However, if your goal was copying files from one hard drive to 
another, then safe mode and single user mode *are* purer, because there's 
less unnecessary code being executed.

And since what people need to do with their computers varies from person 
to person, there cannot be an objective definition of "pure" GNU/Linux 
unless one uses the definition I stated above, which would mean that there 
are NO "pure" GNU/Linux distributions: a "pure" GNU/Linux distribution 
would be as usable as a booted MS-DOS floppy that only gets you to an "A" 
prompt, and contains no additional software on the floppy.

Snit wrote:
> What programs are included in "just" GNU/Linux?

The GNU software is listed here:
http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/

"'just' GNU/Linux" is a subset of the above packages plus Linux. There are 
lots of programs in the GNU project but it is not enough for a full desktop 
OS. Software from other FOSS projects (and possibly some binary blobs for 
hardware support) are needed to make a capable system.

Regards.

On 2010-10-13, White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/10/2010 01:37, Snit wrote:
>
>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with GNU
>> applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not much
>> else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial software,
>> but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>
> To my thinking, 'pure' GNU/Linux would mean everything in the kernel 
> released under the GPL along with the GNU utils that are essential to 
> have a working operating system.  That would ultimately mean glibc, 
> coreutils and bash.  Initialisation scripts are also required, which are 
> provided by each distribution and are not part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>
> Just about every distribution provides X11, either from Xorg or XFree86. 
>   Neither are part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>
> A 'pure' GNU/Linux system wouldn't have very much functionality.  Even 

....this would be something like a Debian or Ubuntu minimal "server" install
without anything else added to it.

[deletia]

-- 

    I want the option of leaving Wally World some time.
                                                                      |||
    That's what distinguishes a real Apple.                          / | \
    You can leave Wally World if you want.

Lusotec stated in post i94r7i$9jo$1@news.eternal-september.org on 10/13/10
10:45 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>> What programs are included in "just" GNU/Linux?
> 
> The GNU software is listed here:
> http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/
> 
> "'just' GNU/Linux" is a subset of the above packages plus Linux. There are
> lots of programs in the GNU project but it is not enough for a full desktop
> OS. 

That much I know - they never made a full kernel and use Linux (mostly).

> Software from other FOSS projects (and possibly some binary blobs for
> hardware support) are needed to make a capable system.

So GNU/Linux, alone, is not enough to make a capable system - even a
minimally capable one?
 
> Regards.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20101013192009.110@usenet.drumscum.be on 10/13/10 10:29
AM:

> On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of White Spirit:
>> On 13/10/2010 01:37, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with GNU
>>> applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not much
>>> else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial software,
>>> but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>> 
>> To my thinking, 'pure' GNU/Linux would mean everything in the kernel
>> released under the GPL along with the GNU utils that are essential to
>> have a working operating system.  That would ultimately mean glibc,
>> coreutils and bash.  Initialisation scripts are also required, which are
>> provided by each distribution and are not part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>> 
>> Just about every distribution provides X11, either from Xorg or XFree86.
>>   Neither are part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>> 
>> A 'pure' GNU/Linux system wouldn't have very much functionality.  Even
>> the smallest distributions (without X11) provide a number of libraries
>> and tools that are not part of GNU/Linux if we're using a strict
>> interpretation.  That's without taking closed source software into
>> consideration.
>> 
>> In reality, the term 'GNU/Linux' refers to an operating system that is
>> based on the Linux kernel using libraries and utils provided by the GNU
>> project but which will invariably include a number of libraries,
>> utilities and software from other sources.  It doesn't really make sense
>> to talk about 'pure GNU/Linux' as, strictly speaking, there isn't such a
>> thing.
> 
> That's a very interesting think process. One could say that GNU/Linux
> is a 'virtual' OS, because it doesn't actually exists as such. One
> cannot download GNU/Linux, nor can one install it as such (not without
> a lot of work anyway).

So you cannot (easily) distribute GNU/Linux (without other stuff).  Hmmmm...


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20101013183951.839@usenet.drumscum.be on 10/13/10 10:17
AM:

> On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20101013140259.469@usenet.drumscum.be on 10/13/10 5:23
>> AM:
>> 
>>> On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along
>>>> with GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in
>>>> many cases not much else.
>>> 
>>> Your understanding is not correct. Most distros contain way more
>>> than just GNU applications, including - but not limited to:
>>> 
>>> X.org; KDE; applications part of the KDE suite; Qt-based
>>> applications not part of the KDE suite (eg. oracle's virtualbox or
>>> distro-specific management tools); since some time now the entire
>>> Gnome-suite; GTK-based applications not part of the GNOME suite
>>> (eg. Sonata, Ubuntu's own package manager), Firefox, OpenOffice,
>>> slrn, vim, rtorrent, irssi, Pidgin, ... The list goes on and on.
>>> 
>>> In fact, the lion's share of applications in your average GNU/Linux
>>> distro are not GNU. Please refer to http://www.gnu.org/software/
>>> for a complete list of /all/ current GNU applications.
>> 
>> Fair enough... so GNU includes all of those applications... and
>> GNU/Linux, in your view, is a combo of Linux and those.  Right?
> 
> First of all, thanks for not quoting snippets from past discussions.
> Those are just teeming with - often just subtle - misunderstandings.
> 
> Yes, the GNU project (or just 'GNU' if you like) includes all those
> packages. Not all those packages are part of the core GNU OS though.

I can understand this - and where it was misworded / misunderstood in the
past has been covered elsewhere.

> The FSF also makes that distinction somewhere on their site.

I have looked (briefly) and not found it.  I will look more later.

> Now, where the split exactly lies is debatable. For some packages it
> is clear that they're not part of the 'core' GNU OS; gimp and gnucash
> are such examples. For others it is very clear that they're part of
> the core OS; coreutils and bash spring to mind. Others are not so
> clear; findutils is one such package.

Again, fair enough: I am not trying to pin you or others down to *exact*
packages and accept there is gray (there is in my view of OSs as well).

> One may also argue that gnustep is part of the core GNU OS - that it
> is the graphical shell for GNU - but it still needs X.org to work,
> which means that one cannot have a 'pure' graphical GNU OS.

So maybe it should be called GNU/Linux/X... or GNU/LinuX.  :)

> Now, you will probably note that I'm talking about the 'GNU OS', but
> actually I should be talking about the 'incomplete GNU OS': it misses
> a (complete and functional) kernel.

Right... hence the Linux part.

> So to make it a 'complete OS', they had to incorporate a third pty. kernel,
> which happened to be Linux. Hence the GNU/Linux OS.
> 
>>>> Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial
>>>> software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty
>>>> much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>> 
>>> Not even a single one, AFAIK.
>> 
>> What programs are included in "just" GNU/Linux?
> 
> Like I say above: that's debatable. At least it should include GNU's
> acct, bash and coreutils, and of course the Linux kernel. But
> certainly not all GNU applications, much like Microsoft's OS doesn't
> include all of Microsoft's applications.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 13/10/10 18:29, TomB wrote:

> That's a very interesting think process. One could say that GNU/Linux
> is a 'virtual' OS, because it doesn't actually exists as such. One
> cannot download GNU/Linux, nor can one install it as such (not without
> a lot of work anyway).

'Pure GNU/Linux' is a virtual OS.  As I said, GNU/Linux is a combination 
of the Linux kernel, GNU utilities and whatever software your 
distribution chooses to bundle with it.  I'm posting from Arch64; the 
fact that it includes the Xorg server and closed source NVidia drivers 
doesn't make it any less GNU/Linux.

Marious Barrier stated in post 8t2ho7-58u.ln1@news.newsgroup.cl on 10/13/10
9:21 AM:

.... 
>> I am curious what is in "just" GNU/Linux.  I admit I do not know.
>> 
>> 
> 
> And it seems you also don�t know to search in the fsckin� internet?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

If you felt better about yourself you would not lash out like that.  By the
way, if you had actually read the page you linked to you would see:

    Determining exactly what constitutes the "operating system" per
    se is a matter of continuing debate.

and:

    The ordinary understanding of "operating system" includes
    both the kernel � the specific subsystem that directly
    interfaces with the hardware � and the "userland" software
    that is employed by the user and by application software to
    control the computer.

and:

    In a similar vein, the debate over the name for the
    operating system is sometimes characterized as a trivial
    distraction; e.g. John C. Dvorak wrote "the Linux
    community spends too much of its energy on things such
    as nomenclature (like the name GNU/Linux versus
    Linux)."

Etc.  It will be interesting to see if you understand what those comments
mean and how they apply to the greater context of this discussion.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

White Spirit stated in post i94714$ob2$1@news.eternal-september.org on
10/13/10 4:59 AM:

> On 13/10/2010 01:37, Snit wrote:
> 
>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with GNU
>> applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not much
>> else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial software,
>> but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
> 
> To my thinking, 'pure' GNU/Linux would mean everything in the kernel
> released under the GPL along with the GNU utils that are essential to
> have a working operating system.  That would ultimately mean glibc,
> coreutils and bash.  Initialisation scripts are also required, which are
> provided by each distribution and are not part of the kernel or GNU utils.

Interesting.  I tend to think of OSs more that way and less the way that
Homer does (which contrary to his insistence, does not mean I do not
understand his basic view).

> Just about every distribution provides X11, either from Xorg or XFree86.
>   Neither are part of the kernel or GNU utils.
> 
> A 'pure' GNU/Linux system wouldn't have very much functionality.  Even
> the smallest distributions (without X11) provide a number of libraries
> and tools that are not part of GNU/Linux if we're using a strict
> interpretation.  That's without taking closed source software into
> consideration.
> 
> In reality, the term 'GNU/Linux' refers to an operating system that is
> based on the Linux kernel using libraries and utils provided by the GNU
> project but which will invariably include a number of libraries,
> utilities and software from other sources.  It doesn't really make sense
> to talk about 'pure GNU/Linux' as, strictly speaking, there isn't such a
> thing.

So you see, in general, different distros as being different OSs?



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire stated in post pfs3zbk3wrb2.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
10/13/10 4:31 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> No shame in you not knowing the answer to my question (you clearly do not).
>> No need to call names, etc.
> 
> And the Snit Circus is once again open for business.
> 
> You've shown yourself to be a somewhat intelligent person who can engage in
> interesting, civilized discourse. So why do you inevitably turn everything
> into a trollfest?

That is what *you* are trying to do right now.  Why blame me for your
actions?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Homer stated in post 5ldgo7-5je.ln1@sky.matrix on 10/13/10 3:18 AM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Marious Barrier spake thusly:
>> On 10/13/2010 12:01 AM, Snit wrote:
>>> Homer stated in post m2jfo7-4js.ln1@sky.matrix on 10/12/10 7:45 PM:
>>>> 
>>>> Techncally, Gnome is GNU, or at least a member of the GNU Foundation
>>>> (unless they've since quit, as de Icaza and chums threatened to do),
>>>> but it's not part of the "OS".
>>> 
>>> So you disagree with TomB when he says that the GNU applications,
>>> developer tools and libraries are a part of the OS.  OK.
>>> Interesting.
> 
> You really have a problem understanding simply things like sets, don't
> you?

No, I do not. Thanks for asking!

> Hint: All dogs are mammals is not the same as all mammals are dogs.

Is this a recent or surprising concept for you?
 
> GNU is a foundation, comprising members whose software is not part of
> the GNU /OS/, nor owned by the GNU Foundation, but such software is
> labelled "GNU", because it follows the spirit and goals of GNU software.
> 
> GNU is also a vendor of its own software, some of which is part of the
> actual OS, and some which isn't. However all their software is labelled
> "GNU", obviously, because it's theirs, and all of it is Free Software,
> and thus /available/ for any GNU/Linux /distro/.
> 
> GNU is also an OS, or at least one half of an OS (currently completed
> by the Linux kernel), comprising a /subset/ of software provided by GNU
> (the subset of their software that makes an OS).

But you never really answered my question as to what you see as a part of
the OS or if you agreed with TomB's poorly worded statement (which he has
since agreed he could have worded better and has explained further).

>> Trolling is about to begin~
> 
> And Snit's idiocy never ends.

See how you lash out when you feel insecure.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

JEDIDIAH stated in post slrnibbunf.di7.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 10/13/10 11:31
AM:

> On 2010-10-13, White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 13/10/2010 01:37, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with GNU
>>> applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not much
>>> else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial software,
>>> but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>> 
>> To my thinking, 'pure' GNU/Linux would mean everything in the kernel
>> released under the GPL along with the GNU utils that are essential to
>> have a working operating system.  That would ultimately mean glibc,
>> coreutils and bash.  Initialisation scripts are also required, which are
>> provided by each distribution and are not part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>> 
>> Just about every distribution provides X11, either from Xorg or XFree86.
>>   Neither are part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>> 
>> A 'pure' GNU/Linux system wouldn't have very much functionality.  Even
> 
> ...this would be something like a Debian or Ubuntu minimal "server" install
> 
> without anything else added to it.
> 
> [deletia]

Interesting - a somewhat different take on it.  Thanks.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

An Old Friend stated in post 4cb5eedb@news.x-privat.org on 10/13/10 10:39
AM:

>>> I am curious what is in "just" GNU/Linux.  I admit I do not know.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> And it seems you also don�t know to search in the fsckin� internet?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
> 
> Putting it in Apple terms:
> 
> I remember having several blank 5.25" ProDOS-formatted disks. Using one of
> those disks, I could boot up an Apple //c. I couldn't really do anything
> with it just like that, though. But it prepared the computer for loading
> up programs that I could use.

A blank disk did that... no, the computer could do that without the disk.
 
> Today's operating systems are far more complex than that. For example, in
> Macintosh System 7, was SimpleText part of the System 7 OS because it came
> in every single authorized "distribution" of 7.x? How about QuickTime in
> System 7.5?

Gray areas... but I would say that those are a part of the OS (even though
they are not needed for the system to operate!)

> Some people would claim that QuickTime was never part of the "pure" Mac OS
> System 7, because it was something that could be disabled without bringing
> the system down. (Programs not requiring QuickTime could easily be
> executed.) Yet most people would probably consider QuickTime to be an
> essential part of the Mac OS. Certainly, I would consider it as such. But
> it was an optional extension in the early days of System 7.

True... but if you deleted it I would consider it an incomplete System 7
installation.

> So, using that train of thought, the "purest" GNU/Linux (or any operating
> system, for that matter) would be the absolute minimum necessary to be
> able to accept some type of human interface, read some form of media, load
> executables into RAM that were entered manually or from the media, and
> while executing the code, provide some sort of human-recognizable output.
> 
> If one is an ascetic, the human interface is nothing more than a set of
> toggle switches, and the output is one blinking light.
> 
> That, of course, would mean that Windows XP, 7, and OS X are not "pure."

Right... they have their cores and a *lot* more.

> So layers are added to this OS for keyboard, mouse, monitors with photo-
> quality graphics. Some people would claim that those additions are not
> "pure," while others would include them in their definition of "pure."
> 
> Is Windows XP in safe mode purer than Windows XP booted normally? How
> about the Mac OS started in single-user mode? Is it purer than a normally-
> booted Mac?

I would say no. 

> That depends on what your goals are with the software. If your goal is to
> get on the internet and watch YouTube videos on your HDMI monitor, then
> I'm not sure that XP's safe mode or OS X's single user mode would do the
> job. However, if your goal was copying files from one hard drive to
> another, then safe mode and single user mode *are* purer, because there's
> less unnecessary code being executed.
> 
> And since what people need to do with their computers varies from person
> to person, there cannot be an objective definition of "pure" GNU/Linux
> unless one uses the definition I stated above, which would mean that there
> are NO "pure" GNU/Linux distributions: a "pure" GNU/Linux distribution
> would be as usable as a booted MS-DOS floppy that only gets you to an "A"
> prompt, and contains no additional software on the floppy.

For the most part I agree with your views on how different people see it.
Thanks for the thoughts.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Software from other FOSS projects (and possibly some binary blobs for
>> hardware support) are needed to make a capable system.
> 
> So GNU/Linux, alone, is not enough to make a capable system - even a
> minimally capable one?

There are some important pieces missing in GNU for both desktops (e.g. Xorg, 
CUPS) and servers (e.g. Apache, Samba, PHP, SSH, SSL).

For some particular use cases "pure" GNU/Linux may be enough but in general 
several components essential for a capable OS are missing from the GNU 
project.

Note that I don't think that the GNU project should develop those /missing/ 
components. Perfectly capable components from other FOSS projects are 
available, and there is no advantage in reinventing them, just because of a 
"Not In House" mentality.

Regards.

Lusotec stated in post i956fg$rje$1@news.eternal-september.org on 10/13/10
1:57 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> Software from other FOSS projects (and possibly some binary blobs for
>>> hardware support) are needed to make a capable system.
>> 
>> So GNU/Linux, alone, is not enough to make a capable system - even a
>> minimally capable one?
> 
> There are some important pieces missing in GNU for both desktops (e.g. Xorg,
> CUPS)

So desktops we should call GNU/Linux/X/Apple.  :)

> and servers (e.g. Apache, Samba, PHP, SSH, SSL).
> 
> For some particular use cases "pure" GNU/Linux may be enough but in general
> several components essential for a capable OS are missing from the GNU
> project.
> 
> Note that I don't think that the GNU project should develop those /missing/
> components. Perfectly capable components from other FOSS projects are
> available, and there is no advantage in reinventing them, just because of a
> "Not In House" mentality.

Makes sense... but weakens the idea that it is "just" GNU/Linux which is the
OS... given that it is more than just those two and not all of those two.

> Regards.
> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 13 Oct, 20:49, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> White Spirit stated in post i94714$ob...@news.eternal-september.org on
> 10/13/10 4:59 AM:

> > In reality, the term 'GNU/Linux' refers to an operating system that is
> > based on the Linux kernel using libraries and utils provided by the GNU
> > project but which will invariably include a number of libraries,
> > utilities and software from other sources. =A0It doesn't really make se=
nse
> > to talk about 'pure GNU/Linux' as, strictly speaking, there isn't such =
a
> > thing.

> So you see, in general, different distros as being different OSs?

I see them as being different flavours of the same OS.  They share the
same core and are binary compatible but they vary in terms of what is
included by default, which package manager they use, the method by
which they are configured etc.

On 10/13/2010 06:50 PM, Snit wrote:
> Makes sense... but weakens the idea that it is "just" GNU/Linux which is the
> OS... given that it is more than just those two and not all of those two.

Hands up who gives a fuck about this!

Marious Barrier stated in post ddmho7-5fc.ln1@news.newsgroup.cl on 10/13/10
2:54 PM:

> On 10/13/2010 06:50 PM, Snit wrote:
>> Makes sense... but weakens the idea that it is "just" GNU/Linux which is the
>> OS... given that it is more than just those two and not all of those two.
> 
> Hands up who gives a fuck about this!

I do... hence the reason I have been asking about it.

If you do not why are you even posting in the thread?  Well, other than to
just troll... which is clearly what you are doing.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

White Spirit stated in post
3a78e486-2b3a-4b5e-b436-7705ed1be4e4@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com on 10/13/10
2:54 PM:

> On 13 Oct, 20:49, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> White Spirit stated in post i94714$ob...@news.eternal-september.org on
>> 10/13/10 4:59 AM:
> 
>>> In reality, the term 'GNU/Linux' refers to an operating system that is
>>> based on the Linux kernel using libraries and utils provided by the GNU
>>> project but which will invariably include a number of libraries,
>>> utilities and software from other sources. �It doesn't really make sense
>>> to talk about 'pure GNU/Linux' as, strictly speaking, there isn't such a
>>> thing.
> 
>> So you see, in general, different distros as being different OSs?
> 
> I see them as being different flavours of the same OS.  They share the
> same core and are binary compatible but they vary in terms of what is
> included by default, which package manager they use, the method by
> which they are configured etc.

Fair enough.  I see them as being related OSs... for the same reason.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> Wait, isn't Gnome a part of GNU?

Not anymore, AFAIK. There's a lot of politics involved.

-- 
 00:21:00 up 17:24,  8 users,  load average: 0.13, 0.17, 0.24
I am son of Liarmutt.
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.
	~ Woody Allen

TomB stated in post 20101014003708.214@usenet.drumscum.be on 10/13/10 3:38
PM:

> On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> 
>> Wait, isn't Gnome a part of GNU?
> 
> Not anymore, AFAIK. There's a lot of politics involved.

How much is politics as to what is in GNU/Linux as opposed to technical?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20101013192009.110@usenet.drumscum.be on 10/13/10 10:29
> AM:
>>> 
>>>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along
>>>>  with GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in
>>>>  many cases not much else.  Some also have closed source drivers
>>>>  and other commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a
>>>>  lot of distros pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>> 
>>> To my thinking, 'pure' GNU/Linux would mean everything in the
>>> kernel released under the GPL along with the GNU utils that are
>>> essential to have a working operating system.  That would
>>> ultimately mean glibc, coreutils and bash.  Initialisation scripts
>>> are also required, which are provided by each distribution and are
>>> not part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>>> 
>>> Just about every distribution provides X11, either from Xorg or
>>> XFree86.  Neither are part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>>> 
>>> A 'pure' GNU/Linux system wouldn't have very much functionality.
>>> Even the smallest distributions (without X11) provide a number of
>>> libraries and tools that are not part of GNU/Linux if we're using
>>> a strict interpretation.  That's without taking closed source
>>> software into consideration.
>>> 
>>> In reality, the term 'GNU/Linux' refers to an operating system
>>> that is based on the Linux kernel using libraries and utils
>>> provided by the GNU project but which will invariably include a
>>> number of libraries, utilities and software from other sources.
>>> It doesn't really make sense to talk about 'pure GNU/Linux' as,
>>> strictly speaking, there isn't such a thing.
>> 
>> That's a very interesting think process. One could say that
>> GNU/Linux is a 'virtual' OS, because it doesn't actually exists as
>> such. One cannot download GNU/Linux, nor can one install it as such
>> (not without a lot of work anyway).
>
> So you cannot (easily) distribute GNU/Linux (without other stuff).
> Hmmmm...

It /could/ be done, but no-one is actually doing it. And
understandable, 'cause you wouldn't be able to do much with your
computer if you installed it.

-- 
 00:37:08 up 17:40,  8 users,  load average: 0.17, 0.25, 0.22
I am son of Liarmutt.
Let me just troll Ubuntu right here:  I like the parts of Ubuntu that are like
Linux.
	~ owl

TomB stated in post 20101014004725.673@usenet.drumscum.be on 10/13/10 4:01
PM:

> On 2010-10-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20101013192009.110@usenet.drumscum.be on 10/13/10 10:29
>> AM:
>>>> 
>>>>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along
>>>>>  with GNU applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in
>>>>>  many cases not much else.  Some also have closed source drivers
>>>>>  and other commercial software, but for the most part, aren't a
>>>>>  lot of distros pretty much "pure" GNU/Linux?
>>>> 
>>>> To my thinking, 'pure' GNU/Linux would mean everything in the
>>>> kernel released under the GPL along with the GNU utils that are
>>>> essential to have a working operating system.  That would
>>>> ultimately mean glibc, coreutils and bash.  Initialisation scripts
>>>> are also required, which are provided by each distribution and are
>>>> not part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>>>> 
>>>> Just about every distribution provides X11, either from Xorg or
>>>> XFree86.  Neither are part of the kernel or GNU utils.
>>>> 
>>>> A 'pure' GNU/Linux system wouldn't have very much functionality.
>>>> Even the smallest distributions (without X11) provide a number of
>>>> libraries and tools that are not part of GNU/Linux if we're using
>>>> a strict interpretation.  That's without taking closed source
>>>> software into consideration.
>>>> 
>>>> In reality, the term 'GNU/Linux' refers to an operating system
>>>> that is based on the Linux kernel using libraries and utils
>>>> provided by the GNU project but which will invariably include a
>>>> number of libraries, utilities and software from other sources.
>>>> It doesn't really make sense to talk about 'pure GNU/Linux' as,
>>>> strictly speaking, there isn't such a thing.
>>> 
>>> That's a very interesting think process. One could say that
>>> GNU/Linux is a 'virtual' OS, because it doesn't actually exists as
>>> such. One cannot download GNU/Linux, nor can one install it as such
>>> (not without a lot of work anyway).
>> 
>> So you cannot (easily) distribute GNU/Linux (without other stuff).
>> Hmmmm...
> 
> It /could/ be done, but no-one is actually doing it. And
> understandable, 'cause you wouldn't be able to do much with your
> computer if you installed it.

Well, to be clear I know you can distribute *any* file... and the only thing
that really affects the ease of that is the size of the file.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Verily I say unto thee, that Tattoo Vampire spake thusly:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Heck, you and TomB and Homer and Peter have been accusing me of being
>> confused on the simple parts of this - where I was not.  Here are the
>> more detailed parts where I admit to not knowing - will be
>> interesting if any of you know.  I sure hope so... but would not be
>> surprised if you guys did not.
>
> And the Snit Circus is open for business again.

I vote we boycott this thread, and leave Snit to troll into thin air.

He's had enough explanation to last any half-way intelligent person a
lifetime.

-- 
K.                           | GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
http://slated.org            |      I know my rights. I want my phone call.
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 15 days  |      if you're unable to speak?

Homer stated in post 056io7-82o.ln1@sky.matrix on 10/13/10 7:22 PM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Tattoo Vampire spake thusly:
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Heck, you and TomB and Homer and Peter have been accusing me of being
>>> confused on the simple parts of this - where I was not.  Here are the
>>> more detailed parts where I admit to not knowing - will be
>>> interesting if any of you know.  I sure hope so... but would not be
>>> surprised if you guys did not.
>> 
>> And the Snit Circus is open for business again.
> 
> I vote we boycott this thread, and leave Snit to troll into thin air.
> 
> He's had enough explanation to last any half-way intelligent person a
> lifetime.

Listen, just because you failed to support your claims there is no reason
for you to get so upset.  Just let it go.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Homer wrote:

> I vote we boycott this thread, and leave Snit to troll into thin air.

Works for me.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

...."La Quinta." Spanish for "Next to Denny's."

Tattoo Vampire stated in post p4ue598hu6io$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
10/13/10 8:09 PM:

> Homer wrote:
> 
>> I vote we boycott this thread, and leave Snit to troll into thin air.
> 
> Works for me.

Much as I predicted... you and yours have low self esteem.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 10/13/2010 04:47 PM, Snit wrote:
> Marious Barrier stated in post 8t2ho7-58u.ln1@news.newsgroup.cl on 10/13/10
> 9:21 AM:
>
> ...
>>> I am curious what is in "just" GNU/Linux.  I admit I do not know.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And it seems you also don�t know to search in the fsckin� internet?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
>
> If you felt better about yourself you would not lash out like that.  By the
> way, if you had actually read the page you linked to you would see:
>
>      Determining exactly what constitutes the "operating system" per
>      se is a matter of continuing debate.
>
> and:
>
>      The ordinary understanding of "operating system" includes
>      both the kernel � the specific subsystem that directly
>      interfaces with the hardware � and the "userland" software
>      that is employed by the user and by application software to
>      control the computer.
>
> and:
>
>      In a similar vein, the debate over the name for the
>      operating system is sometimes characterized as a trivial
>      distraction; e.g. John C. Dvorak wrote "the Linux
>      community spends too much of its energy on things such
>      as nomenclature (like the name GNU/Linux versus
>      Linux)."
>
> Etc.  It will be interesting to see if you understand what those comments
> mean and how they apply to the greater context of this discussion.
>

What does understanding those comments have to do with you being unable 
to use Google to do a simple search?

Verily I say unto thee, that Tattoo Vampire spake thusly:
> Homer wrote:
>
>> I vote we boycott this thread, and leave Snit to troll into thin air.
>
> Works for me.

BTW: if you add: "^References:.*gallopinginsanity.com" to your leafnode
filter, you won't even see any replies to him.

Ironically, this also means I won't see this message :)

-- 
K.                           | GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
http://slated.org            |      I know my rights. I want my phone call.
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 15 days  |      if you're unable to speak?

Homer stated in post udlio7-c9.ln1@sky.matrix on 10/13/10 11:43 PM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Tattoo Vampire spake thusly:
>> Homer wrote:
>> 
>>> I vote we boycott this thread, and leave Snit to troll into thin air.
>> 
>> Works for me.
> 
> BTW: if you add: "^References:.*gallopinginsanity.com" to your leafnode
> filter, you won't even see any replies to him.
> 
> Ironically, this also means I won't see this message :)

That is one way to deal with your insecurities... feel free.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:43:42 +0100, Homer wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Tattoo Vampire spake thusly:
>> Homer wrote:
>>
>>> I vote we boycott this thread, and leave Snit to troll into thin air.
>>
>> Works for me.
> 
> BTW: if you add: "^References:.*gallopinginsanity.com" to your leafnode
> filter, you won't even see any replies to him.
> 
> Ironically, this also means I won't see this message :)

+1

-- 
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit

White Spirit wrote:

> On 13/10/2010 01:37, Snit wrote:
> 
>>  From what I understand, most distros have the Linux kernel along with
>>  GNU
>> applications, developer tools, libraries, etc... and in many cases not
>> much
>> else.  Some also have closed source drivers and other commercial
>> software, but for the most part, aren't a lot of distros pretty much
>> "pure" GNU/Linux?
> 
> To my thinking, 'pure' GNU/Linux would mean everything in the kernel
> released under the GPL along with the GNU utils that are essential to
> have a working operating system.  That would ultimately mean glibc,
> coreutils and bash.  Initialisation scripts are also required, which are
> provided by each distribution and are not part of the kernel or GNU utils.
> 
> Just about every distribution provides X11, either from Xorg or XFree86.
>   Neither are part of the kernel or GNU utils.
> 
> A 'pure' GNU/Linux system wouldn't have very much functionality.  Even
> the smallest distributions (without X11) provide a number of libraries
> and tools that are not part of GNU/Linux if we're using a strict
> interpretation.  That's without taking closed source software into
> consideration.
> 
> In reality, the term 'GNU/Linux' refers to an operating system that is
> based on the Linux kernel using libraries and utils provided by the GNU
> project but which will invariably include a number of libraries,
> utilities and software from other sources.  It doesn't really make sense
> to talk about 'pure GNU/Linux' as, strictly speaking, there isn't such a
> thing.

I guess this is the closest you're likely to get to a pure GNU/Linux distro
http://www.toms.net/rb/

William Poaster wrote:
> Homer wrote:
> 
>> BTW: if you add: "^References:.*gallopinginsanity.com" to your
>> leafnode filter, you won't even see any replies to him.
>> 
>> Ironically, this also means I won't see this message :)
> 
> +1

Snit also nymshifts.

http://csma.sandman.net/pages/michael_digest_new_sock_puppet

But fortunately, those are easily spotted and killed as well.  :-)

-- 
HPT

High Plains Thumper wrote:

> William Poaster wrote:
>> Homer wrote:
>> 
>>> BTW: if you add: "^References:.*gallopinginsanity.com" to your
>>> leafnode filter, you won't even see any replies to him.
>>> 
>>> Ironically, this also means I won't see this message :)
>> 
>> +1
>
> Snit also nymshifts.
>
> http://csma.sandman.net/pages/michael_digest_new_sock_puppet
>
> But fortunately, those are easily spotted and killed as well.  :-)
>
I've had 'news.x-privat.org' filtered for a long time., as many trolls 
use it in other groups.  :-)

-- 
FireFox - Why, wtf did he do?
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit

High Plains Thumper stated in post 4cb83508$0$6276$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org
on 10/15/10 4:03 AM:

> William Poaster wrote:
>> Homer wrote:
>> 
>>> BTW: if you add: "^References:.*gallopinginsanity.com" to your
>>> leafnode filter, you won't even see any replies to him.
>>> 
>>> Ironically, this also means I won't see this message :)
>> 
>> +1
> 
> Snit also nymshifts.
> 
> http://csma.sandman.net/pages/michael_digest_new_sock_puppet
> 
> But fortunately, those are easily spotted and killed as well.  :-)

Ah, the best evidence is that Sandman claims to not "doubt".  Yes: this is
the core of his "evidence":

     I don't think anyone doubted that "Steve Carroll's Dog"
     was Snit

This is one of Steve Carroll's socks - Steve *admitted* to it.  So now his
"evidence" means he thinks I am also Steve Carroll.

And you accept it.

The attempt to pin one of your fellow trolls actions on me was just shot
down.

But you will keep repeating your BS... you want the attention.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:22:56 +0100, Homer wrote:

> I vote we boycott this thread, and leave Snit to troll into thin
> air.

I vote snit is boycotted in all threads.

> He's had enough explanation to last any half-way intelligent person
> a lifetime.

Snit is not very intelligent. He's a failed teacher after all. :-)

Hardon stated in post Uujuo.2661$xe3.707@newsfe02.iad on 10/16/10 8:26 AM:

> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:22:56 +0100, Homer wrote:
> 
>> I vote we boycott this thread, and leave Snit to troll into thin
>> air.
> 
> I vote snit is boycotted in all threads.
> 
>> He's had enough explanation to last any half-way intelligent person
>> a lifetime.
> 
> Snit is not very intelligent. He's a failed teacher after all. :-)

You heard it here first.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Hardon wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:22:56 +0100, Homer wrote:
> 
>> I vote we boycott this thread, and leave Snit to troll into thin
>> air.
> 
> I vote snit is boycotted in all threads.
> 
>> He's had enough explanation to last any half-way intelligent person
>> a lifetime.
> 
> Snit is not very intelligent. He's a failed teacher after all. :-)

Well, if you define "failed teacher" as "having angry students demanding their 
money back"

Snit Michael Glasser is no teacher. He is a parasite, squandering his wifes 
hard earned money by trolling usenet 24/7 and doing *no* real work at all
-- 
We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms.

Peter K�hlmann stated in post i9cnb0$q43$00$1@news.t-online.com on 10/16/10
10:27 AM:

> Hardon wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:22:56 +0100, Homer wrote:
>> 
>>> I vote we boycott this thread, and leave Snit to troll into thin
>>> air.
>> 
>> I vote snit is boycotted in all threads.
>> 
>>> He's had enough explanation to last any half-way intelligent person
>>> a lifetime.
>> 
>> Snit is not very intelligent. He's a failed teacher after all. :-)
> 
> Well, if you define "failed teacher" as "having angry students demanding their
> money back"
> 
> Snit Michael Glasser is no teacher. He is a parasite, squandering his wifes
> hard earned money by trolling usenet 24/7 and doing *no* real work at all

If you have some self worth you would not post like that.  Really.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

freelance writer

freelance writer

On Apr 26, 1:13=A0am, SAUNDRADoyle32 <u...@compgroups.net/> wrote:
> freelance writer

Hey, at least gluehead admitted he was merely trolling this time (not
like it wasn't already obvious):

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/84db8cae623d246e