It would be more like saying that everyone should be calling your home an El-Gaz home because you got central heating from El-Gaz, even though your home is not owned in any way by El-Gaz... but calling it that would suggest it...

Really, if Stallman had ever suggested that Minix should be called GNU/Minix because of the full suite of GNU tools that it used to come with, Tannenbaum would have probably dropped their use almost immediately (he eventually did anyways, but if it wasn't using the GNU tools back when Linux was first being developed, there's every likelihood that Linux wouldn't have been dependent on GNU tools either, if it had ever been developed at all).

And besides, everything else that uses the GNU project name in its title is at least intended to be strongly affiliated with the GNU project, if not actually *part* of the GNU project itself. Linux uses the GPL, and most distros use GPL tools, but Linux is *NOT* a GPL project, nor it is really affiliated with it.

Of course not.... but II was just offering a conjecture for what their possible problem with it might be... that merely even *imagining* something else being infinite would amount to putting something else as being somehow equal to Allah, which is why they would view it as objectionable.

My point is that names are important, and they should do so in a way that isn't going to leave a person confused about what something is. Prefixing the name of a piece of software with the name of the GNU project carries the connotation that it is something that is actually *PART* of that project, or else it was at least explicitly the intent of its creators to be strongly affiliated with the GNU project. Linux uses the GPL, but is not actually affiliated with the GNU project in any way, so calling it GNU/Linux is misleading at best, an outright lie at worst. If one really feels a need to have to point out that Linux is being distributed with GNU software, then it would make sense to explicitly point out that fact... nobody is stopping anybody from being honest about the origins of the software most Linux distros come bundled with. But calling Linux GNU/Linux as some sort of a shorthand form carries the connotation that Linux is somehow actually part of the GNU project, which it isn't... or at least implies that they actively support or publish some specific distribution of Linux (in which case, the term would refer specifically to that distribution), but that's not the case either.

If true, I suspect that it may be because it includes concepts like infinity... and they might be concerned that even merely imagining the existence of such a thing would be tantamount to challenging the infinite nature of Allah.

I can't see any religious reason to ban math

I was puzzling over this for a while myself, but then I considered that it may be because it includes concepts like infinity... and even merely acknowledging the existence of such a thing, and even though it is purely an abstract concept, it may be considered tantamount to challenging the infinite nature of Allah, and thus not something that should be taught.

I don't argue that they sell, but really... if they were just selling the vehicle, it would cost half of what it does.

Tesla, and Mercedes, can charge what they do because there are enough people out there that are willing to pay top dollar for a brand name.

In Tesla's case, it's also because it doesn't really have a competitor that offers anything resembling the same automobile features... all the other EV manufactures can't boast anything close to Tesla's range, and most look like crap (and the few that don't have abysmal range, not good for anything but commuting, and if I could afford to own a second car, I would be able to afford to own a Tesla in the first place).

Then just friggen call it Linux plus mostly gnu stuff. Calling it gnu/Linux is essentially rebranding it, suggesting that Linux is part of gnu. It is not. Linux may be GPL, but it is not part of the GNU project, where everything else that refers to the gnu project explicitly on its appellation is.

The distros you mentioned actually maintain the distribution of Linux that they provide, so prefixing it with a a distro name is entirely fine.... GNU does not officially support or maintain their own distro of Linux... if they did, then that distro could also reasonably be called GNU Linux. There is no such distribution, however, while calling it GNU/Linux suggests that Linux is in some way affiliated with the GNU project, which it is not, and why I have as much problem with that name as I would somebody calling a Linux machine that may be running Virtualbox most of the time a Windows computer.

Also, Minix distributions at the time that the Linux kernel was first being built depended on GNU to no much less of a degree for utilities and applications (beyond the kernel source code itself) than Linux does, but nobody ever suggested that such publications of Minix should have been called GNU Minix (if it had been, Tanenbaum probably would have dropped usage of GNU software from Minix almost immediately).

Honestly, the whole GNU/Linux naming thing comes across as Stallman throwing up his hands in frustration at Hurd not being completed, finding he biggest name on the block that happens to depend on GNU software, and then trying to piggyback the popularity of GNU on top of the notoriety of Linux, using that as an excuse to not rush on the development of Hurd, or at the very least, trying to buy more time until Hurd is completed.

Really, it had always been Stallman's intent that absolutely any OS which might be developed in the future, and which extensively depended on GNU should itself be publicly labeled or branded as GNU, even if it is not part of the GNU project, then that requirement should have been stipulated in version 1 of the GPL. Such a requirement would have likely flown like a proverbial solid lead balloon when the GNU project first started, however... and I can see no reason it should be somehow any more acceptable to apply it to Linux today.

So why didn't he insist before Linux came around that *ALL* OS's that make extensive use of GNU tools and utilities take on the branding of GNU to refer to them?

Linux wasn't the first.... There were several releases of Minix that depended on GNU no less heavily, for example. And Minix isn't even GPL, let alone part of the GNU project. I think if anyone had ever even suggested that release of Minix should have been called GNU/Minix, it would have made quite a few people in both the Minix and the open source community in general uncomfortable, to say the least. Linux itself is based on Linus Torvald's experience with Minix, and originally, Linus used a Minix system to develop Linux.... the software tools that came with Linux where GNU because most of the tools that came with the version of Minix that he used were also GNU, not because there was ever supposed to be an affiliation between GNU and Linux beyond the license that Linus chose to release it under.

My point is that Stallman wanting it to be called that is just trying to draw attention to his own project by piggy-backing on Linux's popularity, making him no better than a patent troll, IMO. That's not to belittle the significance that GNU software plays in the state of Linux, but this still amounts to a blatant rebranding of what is supposed to be a trademarked term. If he wants to call something GNU/Linux, then he should make his own distribution, and have that distro officially supported by the GNU project. Linux may depend on GNU software, but the GNU project does not maintain it, which is what calling it GNU/Linux suggests.

If Stallman had always wanted any OS that might ever be made which extensively depended on GNU software to exist to be branded with GNU, then that requirement is something he should have stipulated in the very first version of the GPL.

When somebody can make a decent range electric car that doesn't look like a piece of shit *coughleafpriusvolt*, and isn't priced at nearly double what you'd otherwise spend on a decent-looking brand new car made by another auto manufacturer, I might consider buying one... Tesla is the only player so far in the electric vehicle market that has made attractive cars with respectable range. But until Tesla can actually compete with gasoline cars on the amount it will actually cost to own one, they are just never going to be anything but a luxury automobile. That's not to say that they won't sell... they certainly will, But they are selling their name... not the vehicle. And there are lots of people out there who will pay top dollar for a brand name. However, not everyone can practically afford a luxury car, even though they can quite comfortably afford an otherwise really nice looking car that isn't a hybrid or EV.

When I was in university,I used an HPUX system that had been heavily retrofitted to use all of the gnu applications and utilities that were available at the time. Nobody ever insisted that it ever should have been called GNU/HPUX. At east one release of Minix extensively used gnu software as well. If that was ever an expectation of Stallman's for operating system installations that heavily depended on GNU, then should have been in v1 of the GPL. Doing otherwise, and pulling this only after Linux had started to acquire some notoriety of its own makes him look just as bad as people who sit on patents until some really big company start to use it without knowing about the patent, and start enforcing it only then.

Who said I was talking about the kernel? Stallman's insistence that distros should be called gnu/Linux simply because of how extensively it relies on them is rebranding, pure and simple, and it's something that Stallman should have pointed out in v1 of the GPL. Doing otherwise just makes Stallman as bad as the patent trolls he objects to so much.

It's Linux, not GNU/Linux, no matter what Stallman insists. Linux is released under the GPL, but it is not, itself, part of the GNU project.

3dldf, a2ps, acct, acm, adns, alive, anubis, apl, archimedes, aris, aspell, auctex, autoconf, autoconf-archive, autogen, automake, avl, ballandpaddle, barcode, bash, bayonne, bazaar, bc, bfd, binutils, bison, bool, bpel2owfn, c-graph, ccaudio, ccd2cue, ccide, ccrtp, ccscript, cflow, cgicc, chess, cim, classpath, classpathx, clisp, cobol, combine, commoncpp, complexity, config, consensus, coreutils, cpio, cppi, cssc, cursynth, dap, datamash, dc, ddd, ddrescue, dejagnu, denemo, dia, dico, diction, diffutils, dionysus, djgpp, dmd, dominion, dr-geo, easejs, ed, edma, electric, emacs, emacs-muse, emms, enscript, eprints, epsilon, fdisk, ferret, findutils, fisicalab, fontutils, freedink, freefont, freeipmi, freetalk, fribidi, gama, garpd, gawk, gcal, gcc, gcide, gcl, gcompris, gdb, gdbm, gengen, gengetopt, gettext, gforth, ggradebook, ghostscript, gift, gimp, gleem, glib, global, glpk, glue, gmediaserver, gmp, gnash, gnat, gnats, gnatsweb, gnome, gnowsys, gnu-c-manual, gnu-crypto, gnu-pw-mgr, gnuae, gnubatch, gnubg, gnubiff, gnubik, gnucap, gnucash, gnucobol, gnucomm, gnudos, gnue, gnufm, gnugo, gnuit, gnujdoc, gnujump, gnukart, gnulib, gnumach, gnumed, gnumeric, gnump3d, gnun, gnunet, gnupg, gnupod, gnuprologjava, gnuradio, gnurobots, gnuschool, gnushogi, gnusound, gnuspeech, gnuspool, gnustandards, gnustep, gnutls, gnutrition, gnuzilla, goptical, gorm, gpaint, gperf, gprolog, grabcomics, greg, grep, gretl, groff, grub, gsasl, gsegrafix, gsl, gsrc, gss, gtick, gtk+, gtypist, guile, guile-dbi, guile-gnome, guile-ncurses, guile-opengl, guile-rpc, guile-sdl, guix, gurgle, gv, gvpe, gxmessage, gzip, halifax, health, hello, help2man, hp2xx, httptunnel, hurd, hyperbole, icecat, idutils, ignuit, indent, inetutils, intlfonts, jacal, java-getopt, jel, jwhois, kawa, kopi, leg, less, libc, libcdio, libdbh, liberty-eiffel, libextractor, libffcall, libgcrypt, libiconv, libidn, libjit, libmatheval, libmicrohttpd, libredwg, librejs, libsigsegv, libtasn1, libtool, libunistring, libxmi, lightning, lilypond, lims, linux-libre, liquidwar6, lispintro, lrzsz, lsh, m4, macchanger, mailman, mailutils, make, marst, maverik, mc, mcron, mcsim, mdk, mediagoblin, melting, metaexchange, metahtml, mifluz, mig, miscfiles, mit-scheme, moe, motti, mpc, mpfr, mpria, mtools, nana, nano, ncurses, nettle, network, ocrad, octave, oleo, orgadoc, osip, panorama, parallel, parted, pascal, patch, paxutils, pcb, pdf, pem, pexec, pgccfd, phantom_home, pies, pipo, plotutils, polyxmass, powerguru, proxyknife, pspp, psychosynth, pth, pyconfigure, pythonwebkit, qexo, quickthreads, r, radius, rcs, readline, recutils, reftex, remotecontrol, rottlog, rpge, rush, sather, scm, screen, sed, serveez, sharutils, shishi, shmm, shtool, sipwitch, slib, smalltalk, social, solfege, spacechart, speex, spell, sqltutor, src-highlite, stalkerfs, stow, stump, superopt, swbis, sysutils, talkfilters, tar, termcap, termutils, teseq, teximpatient, texinfo, texmacs, thales, time, tramp, trans-coord, trueprint, unifont, units, unrtf, userv, uucp, vc-dwim, vcdimager, vera, vmgen, wb, wdiff, websocket4j, webstump, wget, which, womb, xaos, xboard, xhippo, xlogmaster, xmlat, xnee, xorriso, and zile are all GNU. Linux is not.

The objection to calling it GNU/Linux should not be taken as a refusal to acknowledge the important role that GNU software has played in Linux's development and success, but that role does not spontaneously give Stallman permission to rebrand Linux, as if it were always part of his own project. If Stallman had really wanted any products to get publicly rebranded as GNU simply because they utilized GNU products so extensively, that's something that should have been clearly written into GPL v1. Such an explicit claim, however, probably would have resulted in GNU never becoming particularly popular in the first place.

Plus, take the images and invert the colors. You can clearly see editing work.

I expected to see some sort of obvious contrast in the background when I tried this, but I didn't notice anything. What does one look for?

Yes it is... but you can do an approximation to it in polynomial time, which for most practical purposes is going to be just as good.