Re: HURD/Linux/BSD* ... Loosing focus.
On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 10:46, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 09:36:57AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > So if /proc is allowed for compatibility reasons, why is libexec not so
> > allowed?
> Because mandating libexec in debian would cause us to move things in
> existing packages for multiple architectures. Or have hurd be a special
How would allowing libexec mandate anything?
> libexec does not encompass items that exist only on the hurd--is
> that so hard to understand?
And that disproves the existence of a double standard how? If there is
a Linux bias, it's likely to affect the BSDs as well as the Hurd.
> I don't see any need to repeat the details
> to someone who's trying to prolong a discussion that seems fairly well
> > I'm also amused that the thought of a Linux bias engenders such fear,
> > uncertainty, and doubt in you.
> Your accusation engenders no such in me, because I'm aware of the facts.
> But repeating the fallacy in your attempt to instill FUD may confuse
> other people, which is why I called you on it.
If bias is a sin, then we must fear bias. You appear to have a fear of
bias; otherwise, you wouldn't be twisting like crazy to try to avoid it.
I assert that bias is not a sin; it is a necessary part of the human
condition. *Inappropriate* bias is bad, but it should be dealt with
just like any other problem. Bias is not unforgiveable in and of
itself, and should not be feared.
We all appear to agree (besides you) that the FHS may contain some
inappropriate Linux bias, but we are content to wait until the Hurd
people can propose some corrections to eliminate that bias. Your
apparent opposition to this is what prompts me to speak.
> > Indeed, I see no such sections for any OS other than Linux. Is that
> > evidence of a bias? I think so.
> You're wrong again. It means the hurd people haven't gotten around to
> submitting their stuff.
Neither have any of the BSDs, or Solaris, or HP-UX, or Tru64, or SCO,
In the case of BSD, we already know that they seem to need such a
submission. Its absence is telling, especially given that BSD has been
around for much longer than Linux has, and is no less free (if such a
consideration is even relevant).
> The document was intentionally designed with
> extensibility in mind, which is hardly indicitive of a bias; the very
> fact that fhs attempts to seperate generic material from linux-specific
> material demonstrates the fallacy of your argument.
I am not speaking about the FHS's goals to be free of bias; I am
speaking of the current implementation. If their implementation does
not live up to their goals, it simply means that they have more work to
You seem to see that as some form of failure. Do you consider the FHS
to be a failure because it might not be adequate for the Hurd's needs?
Or, rather, do you think that the FHS *must* not fail, and that the Hurd
must therefore change?
> I won't claim that
> it's perfect, but few things are.
Then we agree that the FHS has not yet met its goal to eliminate a Linux
> If you have specific problems with the
> fhs you should take them up with the fhs people, not sling obviously
> false accusations that debian is clinging to a biased document.
*I* have no problems with the FHS people, particularly. I have a
problem with people who claim their writings to be incorruptible Holy
Writ, and who then establish their own Inquisition to accuse other
projects of heresy.
Thankfully, from your quote above ("I won't claim that it's
perfect..."), you don't appear to be in that group. Thus, I must have
been mistaken when I took your calls for the Hurd to be Debian-compliant
to have any relevance. I am glad to admit my error.
> > > Instead of the hand-wringing, could you provide some concrete examples
> > > of cases where the Debian organization has forced hurd to abandon a
> > > technical enhancement, so we could discuss some factual material?
> > Sure.
> > "HURD doesn't need /hurd, and should learn to get along without it."
> You're wrong again. Doesn't seem to me that any decision has been made
> or that the hurd developers have changed anything. I guess you misread
> "has forced hurd to abandon"--because I don't see that the hurd's been
> forced to do anything in your example.
Not for lack of trying, if I read this thread correctly (although,
again, I acknowledge that those assertions have mostly been withdrawn).
I suppose I consider attempts to force as morally equivalent to actual
force, and I also consider low-intensity coercion to be coercion
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org