On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 06:03:06PM +0100, ${john}$ wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> >RMS would never request placing "GNU/" in the name of a system that is
> >"*not* GNU-based".
>
> Let's not get dogmatic about this. TTBOMK, there is no canonical
> definition of "GNU-based".
Of course not. There's a definition of GNU and a definition of "based".
Then "GNU-based" is constructed using common-sense... and the conclusion is
that common-sense is different for every hat around :)
> The NetBSD port, for example, has many GNU
> components. GNU-enough-for-ya?
well i just said i don't think it is but..
> Well of course there won't be consensus
> on that.
..here is why i'm not going to discuss that :)
> However -- apologies if this point has been made before -- I'd like to
> suggest that there is in fact a better argument for calling BSD ports
> "GNU/..." than there is for Linux. If GNU software is such an important
> component of Linux systems, why didn't people call them that from day
> one? Simple -- because it's redundant. In practice, there is no other
> userland that you could be talking about, and we all know it. Usage
> choices tend towards parsimony.
>
> However in the *BSD case there *is* now variety in userlands, and the
> name needs to reflect that somehow.
good point.
> Just in case anybody cares that perhaps a name should describe and
> distinguish, rather than keep RMS happy (god help a world where that was
> the #1 priority).
what worries me here is that "GNU/" is added without fully understanding
what it means, just to keep RMS happy.
> [Perhaps people would be happier with GNutBSD ;) ]
oh not that, i don't think we want to go through this [1] again ;)
[1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#long
--
Robert Millan
