Re: *BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature
Robert Millan wrote:
RMS would never request placing "GNU/" in the name of a system that is
Let's not get dogmatic about this. TTBOMK, there is no canonical
definition of "GNU-based". The NetBSD port, for example, has many GNU
components. GNU-enough-for-ya? Well of course there won't be consensus
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. Using "Debian" as an identifier is
short-sighted, as Robert pointed out in <20030613014412.GA736@aragorn>.
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).
[Perhaps people would be happier with GNutBSD ;) ]