&#62; Seriously, GCC existed since like ever<p>Absolutely, I remember using the GCC tools way back when. Not disputing that. But there are certainly older (and arguably better) compilers. And there will be newer ones (like the upcoming LLVM setup). GCC does not hold a monopoly on converting and optimizing high-level language constructs into localized machine code.<p>&#62; My personal setup could be called Gnome/Xorg/GNU/Linux<p>Which is fine. Either call it "Linux" or call it a string of alphabet soup if you like.<p>My problem with RMS is his insistence on only GNU/Linux. Which is absolutely disrespectful to the hard work Linus and others put into the Kernel, which RMS and the GNU foundation was unable to accomplish, and to the folks who've written numerous other things that are the bread and butter of what many people think Linux boxen are for - like the Apache Foundation or XFree86/X.org or the KDE folks or Sun or the various thousands of volunteers that have toiled away writing drivers or firmware or whatever...It's a great exemplar of near infinite hubris to insist it be "GNU" (first) / Linux.<p>From wikipedia (and I've seen similar quote from him over the years) "Stallman argues that not using "GNU" in the name of the operating system unfairly disparages the value of the GNU project..."<p>It's unfortunate that he doesn't understand co-opting the work of others under your own umbrella is what's disparaging the GNU project's name. I don't think anybody who is marginally familiar with the topic thinks that the GNU foundation isn't an important thing. But do I have to stick GNU on the front of anything I build out of GNU stuff? What if I decide to write a cookbook about French Cooking? Do I have to call it the "Houghton Mifflin/French Tarts for Tarty People" since Houghton Mifflin published Julia Child's books which I used to learn the French culinary arts?<p>That's silliness.<p>Linus happily acknowledges the role the Foundation has played, with very little prompting. The credit is already being granted.<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ugRM3-twc" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ugRM3-twc</a><p>But he also says<p>"Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous."<p>And this same feeling is voiced by others like Jim Gettys<p>"There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus."<p>and other unhappy voices in the community including Eric S. Raymond,<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy</a><p>It all boils down to sour grapes which the Linux Journal correctly identified in this single summary statement<p>"Linus got the glory for what [Stallman] wanted to do."