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.

Choose the next target to save such that it maximizes the number of additional targets that can be saved.

Then why is it still illegal for Tesla to sell in at least 3 states where the decision by a court has been different?

I'll probably get interested in using Wine again when the people who maintain the slackbuild for it are interested in supporting it for 64-bit Linux.

That and the fact that ever even thinking of having to use something like Wine to run Minecraft on Linux fails on so many different levels that I have no words for it.

Uhmmm.... why would you think they cannot? Aren't they a private company?

At least the guy is being honest about where he's at.... he doesn't want to deal with the hassles of being responsible for a product that is this big. Even if that makes him a lazy ass, who the fuck cares? He's at least had the balls to say he's retiring with what he's made so far instead of trying to coast under the illusion of still being in charge of development, while not actually delivering any real product... and given his position, you know that he probably wouldn't even get fired for it.... or at least not for quite a long time, and it would only drag the company down and hurt everybody.

After you have a certain amount of money, having even more just means more responsibility, and it's entirely okay for somebody to actively make a choice to not want to be a part of that.