The game takes fundamental elements of a roguelike dungeon exploration game, and adds a beat-matching rhythm game set to an original soundtrack written by Danny Baranowsky. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?Ĭrypt of the NecroDancer is an independent video game developed by Brace Yourself Games.
I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks.
4CHAN DOOM 2016 TORRENT CODE
Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) = (more important). There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
4CHAN DOOM 2016 TORRENT SOFTWARE
Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer.
(An operating system) != (a distribution). You don't want to be known as a nag, do you? The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. You named your stuff, I named my stuff - including the software I wrote using GCC - and Linus named his stuff. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS - more on this later).
4CHAN DOOM 2016 TORRENT FREE
GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.įollowing are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'.