Re: Specification v 0.8
While I have great sympathy for the GNU cause, and am a fan of
RMS's, the fact is that the LSB is devising a specification
that could be implemented totally without GNU or Linux source
code. That, along with the fact that a lot of people don't like
the term GNU/Linux being foisted on them, make me hesitate to
chime in and say "Sure, let's call this the GLSB".
Let's focus on the technical issues here, not the marketing issues...
- Dan
Andy Tai wrote:
>
> Hi, I think that the LSB mainly concerns with
> standardizing the de facto "GNU/Linux" system. And,
> that is what the draft specification is doing.
> Concerns with FreeBSD shall fall in the domain of Unix
> standardization, outside the scope of LSB.
>
> What I am suggestion is just the addition of a single
> statement to the LSB spec, say in the introduction
> section, saying "this spec is the Linux Standard Base,
> and the name "GNU/Linux Standard Base" shall be
> equivalent," or something similar. Just a single
> statement, the rest of the spec does not need any
> changes. Or some language like that, acknowledging
> the "GNU/Linux" fraction of the community in some way.
> I am sure the smart leaders of the Linux community in
> the LSB can find a very good compromise.
>
> Thinking not in black and white but gray scale, one
> can see there is some merit in the "GNU/Linux" name.
> The LSB spec is the proof. GNUism has shaped the
> Linux system significantly. Maybe not in the kernel,
> but in the scope of the LSB, the commonly used Linux
> system, the user space. This GNUism distinguishes
> Linux from, say, FreeBSD, in many ways, whether one
> likes or hates it.
>
> Also I am not asking for renaming. LSB is always LSB.
> I am suggesting acknowledging an alternative name.
> Following Example: Russian Constitution, Article 1,
>
> "The Russian Federation -- Russia shall be a
> democratic federal rule-of-law state with the
> republican form of government. The names "Russian
> Federation" and "Russia" shall be equivalent. "
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
>
> --- Jim Knoble <jmknoble@jmknoble.cx> wrote:
> >
> > The problem with using the term "GNU/Linux" is the
> > (originally quite
> > intended) implication that it's a system built
> > around the Linux kernel,
> > the GNU C library, and other GNU tools.
> >
> > The Linux Standard Base, however, should be able to
> > apply to a system
> > that is based around the Linux kernel, a completely
> > different C library
> > that meets the spec, and completely different tools
> > that also meet the
> > spec.
> >
> > In fact, it's possible that systems such as FreeBSD
> > would be able to
> > meet the LSB spec.
> >
> > Putting "GNU" in the name of the spec would seem to
> > be too narrow. If
> > any renaming is necessary, it should be toward
> > widening the implied
> > coverage rather than narrowing it.
Reply to: