From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: guerby@acm.org
Cc: dewar@gnat.com, dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, law@redhat.com, guerby@acm.org
Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:40:00 -0000
Message-id: <200011032136.OAA06778@wijiji.santafe.edu>
References: <20001102025839.62E9B34DAF@nile.gnat.com> <200011022206.XAA02286@ulmo>
X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00239.html

    AFAIK, 3.13p packaged for DOS went out before the Linux version
    (gnuada project on sourceforge) and is actively maintained.

Would you please call it the GNU/Linux version?  Linux is the kernel;
the whole system is GNU/Linux.  This version of GNU Ada probably has
little to do with the kernel in particular, so it is a GNU/Linux
version, not a Linux version.

See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more explanation.

    The Linux x86 RPMs (RH 6.x, 7.0, Mandrake 7.1, SuSE 7.0) for 3.13p are

Please call them GNU/Linux RPMs, because once again you're referring
to the whole GNU/Linux system, not the kernel in particular.

When companies such as Red Hat, Mandrake and SuSE call our system
"Linux", the result is that we (the GNU Project) don't get credit for
the work we have done.  That reduces our ability to do further work
today (see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html ).  Please call
the system GNU/Linux, to help us inform the users where it really came
from.

Meanwhile, I have to wonder why running GNU Ada on a popular version
of the GNU system needs the attention of a group outside the core
developers of GNU Ada.  Supporting GNU/Linu ought to be one of the
main priorities of the core group.