John Williams wrote: > On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 16:51 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > >>Please, this is just unproductive, the GNU system has was named by >>Richard in 1984, lets keep it like that. > > > I would like to move this debate along, as I don't believe that it is > unproductive. > > I appreciate the points being made on all sides of this debate. Let me > try to summarise. If I misrepresent your opinion or position, please > send corrections to the list. > > 1. Barry wants to name an entity in the same class as (what is known in > the popular press as) a Linux distribution (or a BSD distribution, or > whatever) > > 2. Responders to his idea seem to believe that he is talking about > renaming either (1) the community that produces the software, or (2) the > "system". > > 3. Barry is talking about things from a consumer point of view, others > are taking a producer's point of view. Barry is saying "let's talk to > people in a language they understand" and others are saying "no, let's > teach them new words and concepts". > > 4. "System" is highly ambiguous. When we say "GNU is not Unix" this > begs the question "what is Unix"? It is certainly not a kernel, a > product you can buy, or an ISO you can download. It is a computing > platform (software) in the broadest sense of the word, perhaps most > usefully defined as a set of interfaces (POSIX). All this is geek-speak > of the highest order. > > 5. People able to differentiate between Windows, Mac OS, GNU/Linux etc. > understand the term "Operating System". Nowadays the distinction > between what we think of as an OS and the applications bundled with it > are becoming blurred. But people understand the difference between OSs > in an operative sense like this: A: "Hey, I've found this really neat > software that fulfils my innermost desires!" B: "Cool! Does it run on > Macs?". > > 6. All the above leads me to conclude that we should call it (what Barry > is talking about) the "GNU OS". For those with American accents, this > of course expands to "(guh) new OS", or "New Operating System". To me > GNU is a collection of software that embodies and implements > socio-political principles in addition to IT/CS principles. We should > distinguish between "a bunch of software" and an operating system. > > 7. We should not publicise the existence of the GNU OS until it is in a > state where one can download a bootable CD or DVD image, pop it in the > drive of a computer with an unformatted hard drive, install it, and end > up with a GUI login to (probably) a GNOME session. The GNOME session > should provide ethernet access to the Internet and run the most useful > free software for end users: Email, WWW browser, IM client and Office > suite. (OpenOffice? GNOME Office?). > > OK, that last point was just a wish. But how far away are we from > achieving this? And I presume in all this we are talking about the > kernel being the Hurd, not Linux? > > I am sorry if I am being naive and stupid by butting in here. I have > been waiting 20 years for the release of what I think of as the GNU OS. > I want it to happen, and I am willing to help, but I am a very poor > programmer. Is there room for a non-programmer to help in this project? > > thanks for listening, > > John > John,
This is beautiful. Thank you for putting in to words what I was apparently not able to get across. Oh and from one non-programmer to another, you would certainly be welcome in my little corner of the project :-) Thanks again, Barry deFreese (aka bddebian) _______________________________________________ gnu-system-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-system-discuss
