After receiving the first notification of a Unix-like operating system that ran on PCs, Stallman says he delegated the task of examining the new operating system to a friend. Recalls Stallman, "He reported back that the software was modeled after System V, which was the inferior version of Unix. He also told me it wasn't portable."
Much has been made about the GNU Project's struggles during the 1990-1993 period. While some place the blame on Stallman for those struggles, Eric Raymond, an early member of the GNU Emacs team and later Stallman critic, says the problem was largely institutional. "The FSF got arrogant," Raymond says.
Shortly after the ["DEBIAN"] Manifesto's release, the Free Software Foundation made its first major request. Stallman wanted Murdock to call its distribution "GNU/Linux." At first, Murdock says, Stallman had wanted to use the term " Lignux"-"as in Linux with GNU at the heart of it"-but a sample testing of the term on Usenet and in various impromptu hacker focus groups had merited enough catcalls to convince Stallman to go with the less awkward GNU/Linux.
Although some would dismiss Stallman's attempt to add the "GNU" prefix as a belated quest for credit, Murdock saw it differently.
The deepest split, Murdock says, was over glibc. Short for GNU C Library, glibc is the package that lets programmers make "system calls" directed at the kernel. Over the course of 1993-1994, glibc emerged as a troublesome bottleneck in Linux development. Because so many new users were adding new functions to the Linux kernel, the GNU Project's glibc maintainers were soon overwhelmed with suggested changes. Frustrated by delays and the GNU Project's growing reputation for foot-dragging, some Linux developers suggested creating a " fork"-i.e., a Linux-specific C Library parallel to glibc.
Over time, however, Stallman began to sense that there was an underlying lack of awareness of the GNU Project and its objectives when reading Linux developers' emails.
je vais m'arreter là les citations, la page est tres interessante. et au regret de te faire chier, ayant vecu cette periode, ce n'est pas de l'anti-GNU, anti-RMS que de dire que la FSF passe plus de temps à essayer de communiquer autour d'elle qu'a livrer du code.
je vais me commander le bouquin, j'ai decouvert ce truc au hasard d'une recherche pour verifier des dates : les differents forks de GCC (egcs,gcc-pentium,...)
[^] # Re: GNU/Linux
Posté par Mouns . En réponse au journal Iceweasel : la fin d'un troll?. Évalué à 3.
en 1991, tcc n'existait pas.
en 1991, quand LBT compilait freax avec GCC et la premiere licence n'etait pas la GPL ( cf. http://kde.sw.com.sg/food/linus.html ).
et alors ?
combien d'outils utilise perl ? pourtant tout ne se prefixe pas par perl/* ...
puis, je te rappelle un detail, il disait quoi RMS en 1991-1993 ?
tiens un lien http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch10.html
je vais m'arreter là les citations, la page est tres interessante. et au regret de te faire chier, ayant vecu cette periode, ce n'est pas de l'anti-GNU, anti-RMS que de dire que la FSF passe plus de temps à essayer de communiquer autour d'elle qu'a livrer du code.
je vais me commander le bouquin, j'ai decouvert ce truc au hasard d'une recherche pour verifier des dates : les differents forks de GCC (egcs,gcc-pentium,...)