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

Re: Add an extra item to the CD faq: write image to USB

On 12/09/11 06:22 AM, Luca Capello wrote:
> NB, this will be my last "contribute" to the subject.

Why? Because of my dissenting reply? I kept it friendly and did not
flame, and I trust others to do the same. I don't think you should bow
out of discussion at the first sign of disagreement.

> I do not think that adding Linux/Unix is a complication by itself.  dd
> is included in coreutils, which is available in other Unixes as well.

I do. When we say "the most common", it means exactly that. There are
other Unices, but when was the last time you dd'd an install image from
one of those? From HP/UX? From AIX? So "Linux", or more correctly,
"GNU/Linux" is appropriate in the context of this statement.

> While my POV differs from yours*** [1], being consistent has nothing to do
> with being pedantic, please see the other links Raf reported for CD
> burning:
>   <http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20110911090651.GA21763%40linuxstuff.pl>
>   <http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/#record-unix>

I'm composing offline on the bus, so I can't follow these at this time,
but will later for my own enlightenment. I do agree we should be
consistent and I did not mean to imply the two were equivalent. If we
say "GNU/Linux" elsewhere to refer to it generically, then yes, we
should do the same here.

> I fully agree that we need a policy, but once this will exist, we should
> stick with that.


> [1] again, please no flame, but technically speaking there is *no*
>     broadest sense for the term "Linux" and given that we share more
>     with GNU than with any other F/LOSS project I see a point in being
>     called GNU/Linux
>       <http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2011/09/msg00004.html>

I really do not think you need to walk on eggshells around this topic.
We are all adults here, aren't we, and can discuss politically charged
topics without fear of it devolving into an ugly flamewar? My objections
were based on my idea (quite possibly incorrect -- when I go back
online, I'll read the links) about what would be the clearest and most
consistent way to communicate our meaning to the reader, nothing more.
You have made your point regarding consistency, and I concede that
point. Please stay in the discussion, as you have made valuable input
into this thread.

Kind regards,

*** Don't be so sure that our points of view differ. I understand that
at the request of the FSF and in recognition of the contribution the GNU
project has made to our distribution we switched to using "Debian
GNU/Linux" instead of "Debian Linux" some time ago, (and I have adopted
it myself as much as I can in formal and casual communication, though I
will admit I still slip back to using the still broadly used term
"Linux"). This switch was, and is, a political statement, and was not
done to make it any clearer to the reader what we are referring to (as
the world by and large still uses the term "Linux" to refer to what we
call "GNU/Linux"). So when I said "pedantic" and "broadest sense" I
really was thinking "what is the term that the new initiate to Debian
would recognize and understand the most?" On reconsideration it does
introduce an inconsistency to say "Linux" here where we say "GNU/Linux"
elsewhere, and consistency (not just editorially, but in our political
stance) is indeed more important than the matter of using a slightly
awkward construct that the average reader may find a bit odd at first
(but in my opinion is no less understandable than the term "Linux", and
is easy enough to get used to).

Reply to: