new names (was Re: custom vs. derivative)

[vagrant@freegeek.org]

On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 04:57:47PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:31:08PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >> Maybe it would be wise to introduce a new term, for Debian based 
> >> distributions, which are not CDDs according to our definition. That 
> >> would prevent us from using "(official) CDDs" and unoffical ones. So 
> >> I suggest DBD (Debian Based Distributions) for those :-) What do you 
> >> think?

i think "based" isn't much of a change from "derived" is isn't much of a
change (though arguably "based" is more accessible language). having
both those terms, one meaning one specific thing, and the other meaning
some other specific thing seems likely to get confused- as the words are
so similar in meaning. but i like "based" instead of "derived".

> > I think we should find a new name for what is currently called CDD and 
> > it desperately needs the term "internal" in the name.  Anything else 
> > is missinterpreted

> I fully agree.

one thing that i'm not so fond of with "internal" is ... it's a little
bit unwelcome or exclusive feeling. but maybe the accuracy of it is
worth that... hard to say. we can hopefully make up for that by being a
welcoming community.

> I also suggest avoiding "custom" - Debian itself is customizable, CDDs 
> just automate what must already be possible within the distro.
> 
> Perhaps squeeze in "subset", "slice", "fraction" or similar - to 
> emphasize relationship.
 
> A verbal test that I would like to pass is that it should feel natural 
> to mention the term in same sentence as the main Debian Distribution.
 
> A concrete suggestion:
> 
> Formal name when presented alone: Debian internal subdistribution
> 
> Name when directly together with Debian: internal sibdistribution
 
> Relaxed name: subdistro

or simply "Debian Subdistribution" or "Debian Sub-distro" ? or is it
still too open to interpretation by leaving out internal? 

i think the "sub" prefix is a good choice or direction, as it indicates
that it is part of the larger whole, and not something merely based on
or derived from debian.

i think the context keeps us relatively free of misinterpreted meanings
of "sub" like inferior or below.

> Test: "We are proud to release the next stable release of the Debian 
> distribution, including the internal subdistributions Debian-med, 
> -junior and -edu".

indeed, it passes the verbal use test fairly well, yes.

live well,
  vagrant