On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:15:37PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > Why not? > > You said what I expected from you: you revealed that you disbelieve > that the system should be called GNU/Linux. Good to know in this kind > of discussion.
<raised brows> I'm not a True Believer, if that's what you mean. > Why not? > > I will not reply to that question, I think there is enough information > on the web about that, for instance > <http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html> You do realize that you are emulating a garden-variety bible-thumper here? > When I'm told that a system is running GNU/whatever, I expect first to > find there GNU coreutils, GNU bash, GNU Emacs, GNU Compiler > Collection, gzip, GNU awk,GNU make, the GNU Debugger, GNU sysutils, > GNU tar, GNUpg, GNU grep, GNU mailutils, GNU ncurses, GNU readline, > GNU shellutils, GNU wget... > > These are required components of a system. The daemons you install on Oh, really? emacs: priority: optional gawk: priority: optional (BTW, mawk is required) make: priority: standard gcc et.al. ditto (at most) gdb: ditto sysutils: optional gnupg: standard mailutils: optional readline: standard shellutils: eaten by coreutils, what the hell are you talking about? wget: optional > that system are not basis components, as you may well not be using > them at all. Like, say it, init? Or cron/anacron/combination thereof? Or syslogd, or...? > Anyway, your proposal is unrelated to the current subject: the NetBSD > port of Debian GNU. Unless you are about to propose that Debian > completely change it's naming policy, I think we can stop this > dicussion now. As I've said, until the hell freezes and we get a drop-in replacement of glibc, it's moot - Linux-based ports will be glibc-based anyway. I'm not particulary interested in discussing the appropriate names for inexistent objects, so I'm only glad to drop that.
