Re: naming
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 01:58:06AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> ...which is exactly why I favor the term "pure blend" as a new name for
> what is currently defined as CDD: you can "blend" (as in stir, shake,
> sort) the priority of packages to favor postfix over Exim or XFCE over
> Gnome, but pure can only mean 100% Debian.
it is almost certainly impossible to find perfect language, and pure
blends sounds promising.
i am not so sure that in the context of blending, essentially mixing
things together, that pure will clearly define the scope of the blend.
maybe word order is important here: "pure debian blend" seems clearer to
me that "debian pure blend", and i'm not quite sure why.
i also see a bit of an ambiguity: if you blend things purely from debian
and put them onto a CD image outside of debian, is the blend still pure?
if you put a blend of tea into a different box, i don't think it
questions the purity of the blend itself. i think pure/officialness of
CD images is worth noting.
i also really like the slices of pie a nice analogy, as it clearly
indicates something that is *part* of a larger whole, and i can't deny
the enjoyment of pie.
a slice of pie can be complimented by a little extra almond topping (CDD
in development), or side of ice cream (derivatives), though the
simplicity of a tasty slice of pie alone cannot be denied(CDD).
"debian pure blend" almost makes me think of "debian pure-breeds", which
seems sort of accurate language, though looses the food-related
anologies that i like so much.
live well,
vagrant
Reply to: