On Thursday 28 July 2005 15:38, Barry deFreese wrote: > > If users are confused by the name "GNU", then we should unconfuse > > them. The GNU system has always been called GNU, changing it to > > something else would be like changing the name of our movment, Free > > Software, to something else. > > What GNU system has always been called GNU? You could barely have a > "usable" "GNU System" without something like Debian GNU/Hurd. > > And that brings up a point. If I say GNU vs. GNU/Hurd vs. GNU/Linux what > is the differentiation? Hell, if I just said GNU/Linux one could still ask > "Is that Debian, Fedora, Red Hat, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Ututo, YellowDog, ad > nauseum." > > I'm looking at this strictly from a distribution point of view. What if, > in the name of "freedom", someone else wants to create a distribution of > "The GNU System"? Is it still just GNU?
Before reading on, I'd like to point out, that I am somewhat of a newcomer to the GNU world, so forgive any errors I might make. The short version of what I describe below is: The string "GNU" should replace "GNU/Linux" (or "Linux" where "GNU" is erroneously omitted), and the distribution should apply their name. ``Gentoo GNU'', in example. How was it originally thought, that the GNU system was going to be distributed? Was ``the GNU organisation'' going to be distributing the GNU system, or would the GNU system be distributed in various ``GNU distributions''? Drawing the parallel to the modern day, we see various distributions of a so-called operating system of ``Linux''. Let's, for a moment, assume that the marketroids are correct, and that Linux is an operating system. Then the following is correct: ``The operating system Linux may be found in Linux distributions.'' Although kernel.org claims that Linux is in fact an operating system, we in particular consider that incorrect. With no GNU software, Linux wouldn't and couldn't exist -- nor call itself an operating system. The (more) correct term would be GNU/Linux, since the kernel's importance has grown to a point where its name seems immutable. (Or what is the official rationale?) The corrected version of the above sentence is: ``The operating system GNU/Linux may be found in GNU/Linux distributions.'' The GNU system is already shipped en-mas in ``distributions'' with various non-GNU software (Apache, Linux, FreeCiv, KDE, SpamAssassin...), and these distributions carry names of their own. The GNU system in combination with Linux is called GNU/Linux because of the overwhelming emphasis on Linux. When Linux is in no way relevant and a GNU kernel is replacing it, the only decision left is whether the name of the kernel should accompany ``GNU'' in the title. Debian chose to keep it, as their distribution of GNU with no relation to Linux is called ``Debian GNU/Hurd''. From my point of view, it would be more attractive to leave the kernel's name out. Especially in terms of internationalisation, where ``GNU/Hurd'' in example is to be spoken as ``GNU skråstreg Hurd'' (which isn't all that comfortable/effective to say, because of the mixture of languages). Therefore, the distribution should -- IMHO -- be dubbed ``Distributionname GNU'' (and the trouble will then be to replace ``Distributionname'' with something meaningful, compared to the expected target group). Thanks for reading. This sort of debate simply can't be put short, I suppose. Regards, Anders Breindahl/skrewz. [0] = Although, considering the way history turned Linux against the GNU project, Linux IMHO should have been attempted to be included as a member of the GNU project; not as ``the GNU kernel'', but as ``a GNU kernel''.
pgpAEo2IiJnpv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gnu-system-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-system-discuss
