On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 11:23:58PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:57:37PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > You want to make the GNU system a real operating system for general > > > use. Debian already is a real operating system for general use, so you > > > can't *make* it that way. > > > > Debian is a distribution. > > Of what? Of software. > A kernel? There are some kernels yet. There are about 50 kernels in Debian, most of them are just different versions of Linux however. > That's hardly an operating system, is it? Or do you suddenly think it's no > longer necessary to call it 'Debian GNU/Linux'? No. > Linux is not a complete operating system. As of now, there's no complete > GNU operating system either. However, Debian is an operating system. There is a complete GNU Operating System. Please don't spread lies about GNU. Debian distributes 3 different operating systems, GNU/Linux, BSD and GNU. Debian itself isn't an operating system. > > The DFSG are just guidelines, not definitions. > > The DFSG defines what Debian calls 'Free Software'. If that would not be > the case, then why do we call something that is not DFSG-free 'non-free'? > > The DFSG is *way* too strict to be something general as a 'guideline'. In > fact, the GNU definition of Free Software fits the term 'guideline' better > in my opinion (not that there's anything wrong with that...) No. Because the DFSG is some mere approximation. To give you an example, clause 8 of the GPL could be conflicting with DFSG clause 5. But if you use the FSF definition (which specify the 4 freedoms you *must* have) and apply logic, you see that the GPL is free software. Now only if people would do the same for the FDL... > > > > The only incompatible I know of is the atistic > > > > license. > > > > > > Think FDL. > > > > You said "free software". > > Granted. Still, it clearly shows that although for the most parts Debian > and GNU agree, there are places where they do not. True. > > > > A very big part of Debian is implementing the GNU Coding Standards > > > > upstream. Why change it in Debian? > > > > > > One could also argue that a very big part of Debian implements the FHS > > > upstream. This argument is bogus. > > > > That would be compatible, the other way around isn't. > > Bull. If not having /libexec on a BSD-system makes the ABI incompatible, > then having /libexec where it is not expected does exactly the same thing. No, because the ld.so can just keep to be in /lib for the reason of compatibility. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org IRC ID: jeroen@openprojects GNU supporter - http://www.gnu.org
Attachment:
pgpHdRJ2YCG5E.pgp
Description: PGP signature