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

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

> > 
> > Thus:
> > 
> > Debian FreeBSD      ->     Debian Forneus (BSD)
> > Debian NetBSD       ->     Debian Naberius (BSD)
> > Debian OpenBSD      ->     Debian Orobos (BSD)
> > 
> > I got these names from the Wikipedia <URL:
> > http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specific_demons_and_types_of_demons>.
> > 
> > Moreover, none of these names are currently registered with the USPTO,
> > so we'd be set in that department.
> I'm not opposed to anything else you've said. I do believe these
> particular names are a bad idea, however. One of the reasons the BSD
> mascot is considered "cute" is that it has no real connection with
> demons, in name, or otherwise. Which to people of several religions are
> _not_ cute.
> Your proposal would change that. I oppose it, and I would oppose it just
> the same if you wanted to call them Loki, Kali or Hitler. (To pick a few
> at random.) Using names of evil, real or imagined, is not something
> that would be helpful to Debian. That kind of publicity we don't need.

Debian wishes to make a port to one of the spreadly known and used Operating
system basic, *BSD. However, I think what *BSD (as talked above and more 
specifically NetBSD) claims is of diluting the NetBSD trademark. Are they
talking about the whole Operating System or just about the kernel? What 
Debian aims is not porting to an operating system as a whole. That would be
nonsense since Debian is an operating system that does not depend on the
kernel it uses. It is such a abstraction you use the term "operating system kernel"
not including the hardware architecture it works on. When you use Linux 
on i386 or sparc64, you do not realise the difference between both architechture
as a whole. 

So what makes Linux that works on i386 and Linux works on sparc64 different 
when using a trademark. Do we specifically make the distinguish using Linux/i386,
and Linux/sparc64? and When I use such naming schedule what kind of a trademark
dilution do I make? What we aim, of course, here, is officially giving a name
to a userland+kernel as a whole. We are looking for a name for the concept
"Debian which is working on the kernel NetBSD". So, rather than modifying the
name to Debian/KLNMOPRSTUWVYZABVCBSD, we'd better let NetBSD people find an
effective name for us that the point "not diluting the NetBSD trademark".
And what I wonder as a second is what kind of a difference they make when
they are calling an Operating System and Operating System Kernel. What is 
the name of NetBSD kernel? In case they use the both names interchangable,
they'd better find a name, for us to use, which is not far from the concept
of the project. 

I'd not use Debian/Forbeis to point logically Debian/FreeBSD. This means
nothing to a person which hears that first except that he finds that something
related to Debian.


Reply to: