Re: GNU within the name
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:15:37PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Why not?
> You said what I expected from you: you revealed that you disbelieve
> that the system should be called GNU/Linux. Good to know in this kind
> of discussion.
I'm not a True Believer, if that's what you mean.
> Why not?
> I will not reply to that question, I think there is enough information
> on the web about that, for instance
You do realize that you are emulating a garden-variety bible-thumper here?
> When I'm told that a system is running GNU/whatever, I expect first to
> find there GNU coreutils, GNU bash, GNU Emacs, GNU Compiler
> Collection, gzip, GNU awk,GNU make, the GNU Debugger, GNU sysutils,
> GNU tar, GNUpg, GNU grep, GNU mailutils, GNU ncurses, GNU readline,
> GNU shellutils, GNU wget...
> These are required components of a system. The daemons you install on
emacs: priority: optional
gawk: priority: optional (BTW, mawk is required)
make: priority: standard
gcc et.al. ditto (at most)
shellutils: eaten by coreutils, what the hell are you talking about?
> that system are not basis components, as you may well not be using
> them at all.
Like, say it, init? Or cron/anacron/combination thereof? Or syslogd, or...?
> Anyway, your proposal is unrelated to the current subject: the NetBSD
> port of Debian GNU. Unless you are about to propose that Debian
> completely change it's naming policy, I think we can stop this
> dicussion now.
As I've said, until the hell freezes and we get a drop-in replacement of
glibc, it's moot - Linux-based ports will be glibc-based anyway. I'm not
particulary interested in discussing the appropriate names for inexistent
objects, so I'm only glad to drop that.