Re: Debian trademark [was: Debian GNU/w32, may ready to be started?]
On 3 Dec 2001, Joe Drew wrote:
>On Mon, 2001-12-03 at 17:37, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>> We also don't use our resources to compile and distribute binary
>> packages for Solaris, or put our name behind an effort to do so. Why
>> should we do anything different for Windows?
>
>Has anybody ever actually made the effort to set up a
>Solaris/[insert-non-free-OS] port? If not, this isn't a particularly
>good argument.
Why should anyone else, when SUN itself has the gnu-tools directory? At
best it'd be redundant. The fact that RMS hasn't insisted to Stanford
University Networks that it be called GNU/Solaris is extremely indicative
that it shouldn't be Debian GNU/win32, and I think that it would be
practically impossible to get the Berkeley zealots to digest Debian
GNU/BSD, so I think it's high time that we remember that it's Debian, not
Debian-GNU. Remember, the FSF tried to dictate Debian internals once,
threatening to remove FSF support from Debian if Debian didn't comply:
Debian didn't comply, and the FSF did a pretty good job of distancing
themselves from Debian. Why is Debian acting like a co-dependent in this
case? The FSF wanted out, they got out, time for Debian to move on and do
its own thing.
>
--
Customer: "I'm running Windows '98" Tech: "Yes." Customer:
"My computer isn't working now." Tech: "Yes, you said that."
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: