[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: *BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature

On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 06:03:06PM +0100, ${john}$ wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> >RMS would never request placing "GNU/" in the name of a system that is
> >"*not* GNU-based".
> Let's not get dogmatic about this. TTBOMK, there is no canonical 
> definition of "GNU-based".

Of course not. There's a definition of GNU and a definition of "based".

Then "GNU-based" is constructed using common-sense... and the conclusion is
that common-sense is different for every hat around :)

> The NetBSD port, for example, has many GNU 
> components. GNU-enough-for-ya?

well i just said i don't think it is but..

> Well of course there won't be consensus 
> on that.

..here is why i'm not going to discuss that :)

> 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.

good point.

> 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).

what worries me here is that "GNU/" is added without fully understanding
what it means, just to keep RMS happy.

> [Perhaps people would be happier with GNutBSD  ;)  ]

oh not that, i don't think we want to go through this [1] again ;)

[1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#long

Robert Millan

Reply to: