labeling the CD set
Hello i recently had a discussion with Philip Charles <philipc@copyleft.co.nz> (the maintainer of http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/) regarding the labelling the CD set
--
Robert Millan Debian GNU user
zeratul2 wanadoo es http://getyouriso.org/. This is probably interesting to discuss here so i'm just posting it.
Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es> wrote:
> hello!
>
> I think in the CD page it's missing some kind of instructions about
> labeling the Debian GNU/Hurd CD. Do you think something like this is
> correct?
>
> "Debian GNU Unstable
> Unofficial i386 binary 1"
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 04:49:36 +0000 (GMT), Philip Charles <philipc@copyleft.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Thanks. I had not thought about this.
> What about?
>
> Debian GNU/Hurd
> Unofficial Snapshot F2
> Binary disc 1 (Main)
>
> Ideas welcome.
Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es> wrote:
> mmh i had put 'unstable' because i didn't know there was some kind of 'version'. Considering the 'version number' is Snapshot F2, and adhering to the Debian labeling directives, i think it should be:
>
> Debian GNU Snapshot F2
> Unofficial i386 binary - 1
>
> which comparing to the GNU/Linux flavor, seems logical:
>
> Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r3
> Official i386 binary - 1
>
> of course this is just an idea, as long as this image is unofficial can be labelled in any preferred way.
>
> also note i used 'Debian GNU' instead of 'Debian GNU/Hurd' because i believe the term 'GNU/Hurd' is redundant. The Hurd is yet another part of the GNU operating system, and when i say 'GNU', i refer to the whole OS including the Hurd and Mach.
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:31:49 +0000 (GMT), Philip Charles <philipc@copyleft.co.nz> wrote:
>
> The images probably have the status of the "Official unofficial images" so
> naming has some importance.
>
> > also note i used 'Debian GNU' instead of 'Debian GNU/Hurd' because i
> > believe the term 'GNU/Hurd' is redundant. The Hurd is yet another part
> > of the GNU operating system, and when i say 'GNU', i refer to the whole
> > OS including the Hurd and Mach.
>
> I take your point and I like it. The reservation that I have is that
> while you, I, and Hurd hackers in general will know exactly what is meant
> and agree with the sentiments, GNU/Linux users would be confused and not
> have the same understanding.
Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es> wrote:
>
> >
> > I take your point and I like it. The reservation that I have is that
> > while you, I, and Hurd hackers in general will know exactly what is meant
> > and agree with the sentiments, GNU/Linux users would be confused and not
> > have the same understanding.
>
> Yes, i know they could get confused but, won't they get even more confused if they start naming Hurd -not GNU/Hurd- the whole system?
> I mean, if you tell the users that system is GNU/Hurd, they will think: "Oh these GNU people are morons." Not to mention every GNU user comes from GNU/Linux and they're already used to name a system by its kernel 'Linux'.
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 06:02:02 +0000 (GMT), Philip Charles <philipc@copyleft.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I see what you mean. Linux is not GNU, but the Hurd is. So the
> equivelent of GNU/Linux would be something like GNU/GNU-Hurd where the
> GNU/ refers to applications etc and GNU-Hurd to the GNU-mach kernel. Not
> nice. There could already be some naming convention worked out.
Reply to: