[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: