Subject: Re: Your article in the globe (2/5)
From: Pat Eyler <peyler@nortom.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:32:54 -0800 (PST)

I think that your summation (below) is fairly accurate (though, there
are a number of folks who debate it hotly).  I guess the part that I
felt was an error was the implication that the FSF was somehow
guiding, or leading, the development of linux.  The FSF tools
(compiler and devel tools, most of the unix-like tools, and some of
the other software) were a huge enabler of the linux project.  There
are significant parts of linux that the FSF has nothing to do with
though (e.g., the networking code and utilities, the XFree86 stuff,
and the installation tools).

If you are interested, I think I could scrape up some relevant 
information -- you could also try writing to Linus to get his slant
on this conversation (in my experience he is very approachable).

Again, I don't think it was a major deal, I just wanted to point it
out.  (This is the sort of topic that breeds huge religous wars, and
I'd just as soon avoid that.)

Thanks for the reply, and I hope you'll keep writing good things 
about free software.

-pate


>>>>> "H" == H Bray <H_Bray@globe.com> writes:

    H> Glad you liked the article.  As for the FSF, here's how Richard
    H> Stallman explained it to me.  Their GNU project had already
    H> written pretty much everything they needed for a freeware Unix
    H> run-alike except the kernel.  That they got from Linus
    H> Torvalds.  Most of the rest of Linux was developed by people
    H> working on the GNU project.  This comports with other research
    H> that I've done, so I don't think my article is in error.


    H> Thanks for the note.

    H> Hiawatha