Re: *BSD and GNU/*BSD nomenclature (was: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 12:23:22PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> >
> > erm, so that was a typo?
>
> Well, if you read the part of the message you elided, I laid out exactly
> what the system is and isn't. You haven't answered my question about "What
> is a GNU-based system?", so I cannot tell you whether it was a think-o, or
> actually an accurate statement.
You're expected to have an opinion yourself. So far you've said it is not
GNU-based but then changed your mind and said it is GNU-based.
There's a definition of GNU, and a definition of "based". The question is
like asking how much concrete should a house have to say it's "concrete-based",
it depends on each person's opinion on concrete and houses.
> My opinion is that it has enough GNU stuff in it that, per the reasoning I
> saw in the archives on debian-devel, it was reasonable to name it "Debian
> GNU/NetBSD". If you don't agree, fine, but I'm not going to chance my mind
> just because you assert it should be otherwise; provide something to back
> it up.
I haven't asked you to change your mind, just to be consistent.
--
Robert Millan
Reply to: