Granted, free software would not be where it is today had it not been for GNU and the FSF and they do deserve a lot of credit for their hard work from which i am benefiting every day.
Granted, free software would not be where it is today had it not been for GNU and the FSF and they do deserve a lot of credit for their hard work from which i am benefiting every day.
So, isn't it fair to give GNU Project some attribution for the OS that they made, that no one dares to call by its name but calls it by the kernel's name instead?
It's somewhat like as everyone would've called "Dropbox" as "Amazon" because they've used EC2 and S3 as an important parts of their infrastructure (I know, I know, they've moved, doesn't really matter).
On top of that, their obsession with names and attribution (for non-legal reasons) is almost comically immature and obsessive. The GNU/Linux kerfluffle in the '90s (continuing to this day!) might as well be a giant billboard advertising to the world that they are people obsessed with trees but blind to forests. When people get that emotionally invested in what is truly just distracting minutiae, it's hard not have fundamental questions about their basic rationality.
I don't think it's unreasonable that FSF/GNU Project feel that it's not right. They did a large project, and it had "lost" its name, like their project doesn't exist or is irrelevant. I surely can't speak for GNU Project authors, but I believe, for authors, that may probably feel unfair if not even offensive. I'm not sure what's the "trees" (must be naming) or "forest" (?) here, when they just want their fair share of recognition for something that they did but that's not ever called by its name. Is it really immature?
And, duh, it's not like they're asking something unreasonable or unnecessarily complicated, so, personally for myself, I had decided I have no reasons to not respect this request.
Edit: added about forest/trees - not sure what you meant of those.