> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 4:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: name: GNU/Cygwin system > > > I'm not trolling (and maybe for all I know, this has already > been talked out) but I wanted to suggest that it might be > appropriate for Cygwin to describe and advertise itself as > the "GNU/Cygwin system", giving credit where credit it very > much due -- just as Debian does by describing itself as a > "GNU/Linux" system.
It has been. See the list archives - and then you would have known. > IMO, the fact the GNU system (not the Linux kernel) is really > the essential ingredient is pointed to by the fact that many > of the same concerns that affect maintainers of the various > Linux distros (and especially, maintainers of packages on > those distros) also very much affect Cygwin maintainers and packagers. Yes, I can really see how some of the early packages like openssl owe so much to the FSF. Don't get me wrong, I've signed copyright assigment for various project contributions to the FSF and nearly always code under the GPL. However, the manpower put in my the volunteers here is certainly a much more important contribution than the existence of the software itself. Firstly, one can, starting with a linux system, generate a windows system will ALL of the proffered binaries. Thus the actual value added of the software's existence is minimal. Iy's the maintainer time that adds all the value to end users by offering binaries. Secondly, GNU is already in the name: Gnu + Cygnus + Windows = Cygwin is the logo on the website. Calling it GNU/Cygwin would be redundant. Thirdly, If we where to look at adding things to the name, I'd be strongly pushing for cgf/djd/cv/ed/rc/lh/eb/jt/Cygwin. And more could be added there quite reasonably. > For example, it seems like representatives from Cygwin should > be involved with the Linux Standard Base effort: > > http://www.linuxbase.org/ That would be nice. I don't know of anyone here with the time. Would you like to be such a liason? >And the effort should be called "GNU Standard Base" instead > (though I realize that's not s ever actually going to happen). I disagree here. It's quite feasible to put the BSD cp/tar/mv etc onto a linux kernel based system, and the LSB should still apply. Likewise the LSB should still apply to a GNU/Hurd kernel based machine, so I do agree that the name LSB is wrong - just not with your replacement. Something like the Unix Standard Base would be appropriate, with IBM/HP/SUN/QNX/BSD folk also involved. At this point, I've gone offtopic, so I'll just be quite now :} Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
