[I am not subscribed to debian-bsd, please Cc: me if you feel your reply deserves my attention.] On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 15:51, Joel Baker wrote: > "GNU represents the Gnu system, running with a native (Hurd) kernel" > > "GNU/Linux is the Gnu system, using Linux as a kernel" > > What isn't entirely clear to me, here, is just how much composes "the Gnu > system". It seems fairly clear to me that Robert Millan's work (which is > Debian's normal core userland, GNU-based, plus GNU libc) is more or less > identical to Debian's normal situation, but with a NetBSD kernel instead > of Linux. Therefore, I'm fairly certain it could be called "GNU/NetBSD" > (or, to make the NetBSD folks happier, "GNU/KNetBSD") and be precisely as > accurate as "GNU/Linux". > No, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If GNU (or GNU/Hurd) is the GNU system with the Hurd as the kernel; And GNU/Linux is the GNU system with Linux as the kernel; Then GNU/NetBSD is the GNU system with the NetBSD kernel. No 'K' is required there, in fact advocating a 'K' is specifically in contradiction to what we're being asked to do by placing "GNU/" on the front in the first place. If it's GNU/KNetBSD then it should also be GNU/KLinux and GNU/KHurd. My two cents on this whole deal: Debian GNU/Linux 1. Debian This tells you what system you're getting, the package management and the general selection of stuff. ie. the "user land" is Debian. 2. GNU This tells you that the core of that system is the GNU system, and I see the core as the dynamic linker, libc and other essential components. 3. Linux This is the kernel. This is a highly scalable naming scheme, and gives us: Debian GNU/Hurd The Debian user land with the GNU core system and GNU Hurd kernel. This could be "Debian GNU/GNU Hurd" or "Debian GNU" (I dislike repetition of information.) Debian GNU/NetBSD The Debian user land with the GNU core system and the NetBSD kernel. Debian NetBSD The Debian user land with the NetBSD kernel and core system running on an i386. Again this could be "Debian NetBSD/NetBSD" except I dislike repetition. I don't see why what version of 'ls' gets put in the stable distribution this week has any relevance on the overall name. There are far more important components to the system, such as the init method, package management, etc. which if they were changed would cause severe user shock. If we replaced the various GNU utilities with (say) BSD ones, how many people would really notice? Most people think we provide GNU awk as the default. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part