Re: When can we expect a version 1.0 of the GNU Operating System?

[Omar Radwan]

>I came across GNU Guix [1] last year. At that time, they had plans to
>build a standalone distribution of the GNU Operating System. I watched
>GNU Guix developers work during this year and they did build a
>standalone distribution. [2] But the name of this distribution is GNU
>Guix (the same name of the package manager). If Guix is the GNU package
>manager and integrates the components of GNU, why can't the resulting
>distribution be called The GNU Operating System (or GNU, for short)? [3]

Guix is a distribution of GNU, so far the only distribution than is officially under the umbrella of the GNU project. 

>Because this will incentivise people to say that that "Acme Linux", referring to GNU+Linux, "is not GNU, because GNU is only available >from gnu.org" which would be misleading. 
>"Acme GNU" or "GNU Acme" or "Acme GNU+Linux" are all the GNU operating system.

Technically, its not GNU, it's GNU/Linux, GNU is running on top of Linux. But if GNU was running on HURD, I think it would just be called GNU because HURD is part of GNU.  

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Dave Crossland <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi

Personal opinion only

On 20 November 2014 15:42, Felipe López <address@hidden> wrote:

I'd like to know what is
holding the GNU developers back from releasing the first version of the
GNU Operating System.

It was released in the early 90s, with the Linux kernel substituted for HURD.

 

why can't the resulting
distribution be called The GNU Operating System (or GNU, for short)?

Because this will incentivise people to say that that "Acme Linux", referring to GNU+Linux, "is not GNU, because GNU is only available from gnu.org" which would be misleading.

"Acme GNU" or "GNU Acme" or "Acme GNU+Linux" are all the GNU operating system.

--

Cheers
Dave