[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd, please Cc: me if you feel your reply deserves my attention.]
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 15:51, Joel Baker wrote:
> "GNU represents the Gnu system, running with a native (Hurd) kernel"
>
> "GNU/Linux is the Gnu system, using Linux as a kernel"
>
> What isn't entirely clear to me, here, is just how much composes "the Gnu
> system". It seems fairly clear to me that Robert Millan's work (which is
> Debian's normal core userland, GNU-based, plus GNU libc) is more or less
> identical to Debian's normal situation, but with a NetBSD kernel instead
> of Linux. Therefore, I'm fairly certain it could be called "GNU/NetBSD"
> (or, to make the NetBSD folks happier, "GNU/KNetBSD") and be precisely as
> accurate as "GNU/Linux".
>
No, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
If GNU (or GNU/Hurd) is the GNU system with the Hurd as the kernel;
And GNU/Linux is the GNU system with Linux as the kernel;
Then GNU/NetBSD is the GNU system with the NetBSD kernel.
No 'K' is required there, in fact advocating a 'K' is specifically in
contradiction to what we're being asked to do by placing "GNU/" on the
front in the first place.
If it's GNU/KNetBSD then it should also be GNU/KLinux and GNU/KHurd.
My two cents on this whole deal:
Debian GNU/Linux
1. Debian
This tells you what system you're getting, the package management and
the general selection of stuff. ie. the "user land" is Debian.
2. GNU
This tells you that the core of that system is the GNU system, and I
see the core as the dynamic linker, libc and other essential
components.
3. Linux
This is the kernel.
This is a highly scalable naming scheme, and gives us:
Debian GNU/Hurd
The Debian user land with the GNU core system and GNU Hurd
kernel. This could be "Debian GNU/GNU Hurd" or "Debian GNU"
(I dislike repetition of information.)
Debian GNU/NetBSD
The Debian user land with the GNU core system and the NetBSD
kernel.
Debian NetBSD
The Debian user land with the NetBSD kernel and core system
running on an i386. Again this could be "Debian NetBSD/NetBSD"
except I dislike repetition.
I don't see why what version of 'ls' gets put in the stable distribution
this week has any relevance on the overall name. There are far more
important components to the system, such as the init method, package
management, etc. which if they were changed would cause severe user
shock.
If we replaced the various GNU utilities with (say) BSD ones, how many
people would really notice? Most people think we provide GNU awk as the
default.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
