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

Re: GNU within the name

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:15:37PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Why not?
> You said what I expected from you: you revealed that you disbelieve
> that the system should be called GNU/Linux. Good to know in this kind
> of discussion.

<raised brows>

I'm not a True Believer, if that's what you mean.

> Why not? 
> I will not reply to that question, I think there is enough information
> on the web about that, for instance
> <http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html> 
You do realize that you are emulating a garden-variety bible-thumper here?

> When I'm told that a system is running GNU/whatever, I expect first to
> find there GNU coreutils, GNU bash, GNU Emacs, GNU Compiler
> Collection, gzip, GNU awk,GNU make, the GNU Debugger, GNU sysutils,
> GNU tar, GNUpg, GNU grep, GNU mailutils, GNU ncurses, GNU readline,
> GNU shellutils, GNU wget... 
> These are required components of a system. The daemons you install on

Oh, really?

emacs:      priority: optional
gawk:       priority: optional (BTW, mawk is required)
make:       priority: standard
gcc et.al.  ditto (at most)
gdb:        ditto
sysutils:   optional
gnupg:      standard
mailutils:  optional
readline:   standard
shellutils: eaten by coreutils, what the hell are you talking about?
wget:       optional

> that system are not basis components, as you may well not be using
> them at all.

Like, say it, init?  Or cron/anacron/combination thereof?  Or syslogd, or...?

> Anyway, your proposal is unrelated to the current subject: the NetBSD
> port of Debian GNU. Unless you are about to propose that Debian
> completely change it's naming policy, I think we can stop this
> dicussion now.

As I've said, until the hell freezes and we get a drop-in replacement of
glibc, it's moot - Linux-based ports will be glibc-based anyway.  I'm not
particulary interested in discussing the appropriate names for inexistent
objects, so I'm only glad to drop that.

Reply to: