new port: the never ending story
--- still on the name
let's start by a few quotations:
"an arch is an arch is an arch is an arch"
"an arch by any other name would work the same"
"shut up and show them the arch"
it: "l' arch e' l'apostrofo rosa fra le parole 'package' e '.deb'"
en: "the arch is the pink apostrophe between 'package' and '.deb'"
what I mean is: is the name of the arch so so so so relevant?
when we are sure that it makes reasonable sense, and that
it has no legal problems, doesnt this suffice?
so lets see at it again. here is a list of names for the new arch;
'arch64' means 'the name of the Debian port using cygwin inside MSWindows
on intel 64 bit architectures' (if we would ever come to that, since
I do now doubt that even this port i386-cygwin will ever be born;
moreover I am told that Microsoft is making a mess on ia64 machines,
and even 'printf' will not work as GNU programs expect!)
then you see my _personal_ ideas on those
note that 'Microsoft Windows', 'cygwin', 'win32'
are trademarks; if we build up a product that has a name
that is/contains a trademark, we are definitively into trouble;
did you hear the 'killustrator' mess, with adobe suing for
2500eur? see http://slashdot.org/articles/01/07/02/1648243.shtml
Shipping a product that has , in its description or documentation or
dependencies, a trademark, is different ; I think this is fair (when the
trademark is honored), since it is routinely done.
pro: it is a mixture of 'Microsoft Windows', 'cygwin', 'win32'
but it is neither of the 3, and this is good, since they are
trademarks. The arch64 name is reasonable. The layuser would
easily associate this port to its end usage.
con: some people dislike it badly
pro: it has been proposed by many parts (and actually it was my
second-nearly-first choice); no trademark problems
con: I think it is not so appealing to the layuser; and
I dont like the arch64 <-> arch relationship
pro: indeed this port uses 'cywin'
con: 'cygwin' mainly substitutes the libc; but no Debian port
is named 'glibc' ; trademark problem? (we need to ask redhat
permission for this)
con: I think it is out of question: we risk problems on the trademark;
I even heard that Cygnus changed the name of its library from
'cygwin32' to 'cygwin' for the same reason
arch=??? any other proposal?
my end word on this is: I personally do not want to call a
general election on this issue; but if someone whinks that we
need to vote on this issue, please speak up (and organize it)
following, I will use 'Debian GNU/win'; please dont flame me
(I am overburned)
--- and on GPL
someone stated that the whole port should go in contrib,
since it depends on a non free OS; I do not agree, since I can
use a cygwin port of a package inside 'wine'
(I have actually done this),
and I could use it inside any other free replacement of the MS OS:
it is up to the end user to install 'Debian GNU/win' where they like
someone said that we cant have a GNU system on Windows; again I
do not agree, since there are GNU tools in Solaris, SUNOS, etc etc.
"È un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa!" (Renato Carotone)