Well said, Chris.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Toshok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Aaron M. Renn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Prasad, Ganesh C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, September 12, 1999 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Congratulations
>"Aaron M. Renn" wrote:
>
>> Prasad, Ganesh C ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> > P.S. I am however, a bit puzzled that you have package names beginning
with
>> > "gnu". Shouldn't that be "org.gnu" according to the Sun naming
conventions?
>>
>> See the following for our position on this.
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/java/why-gnu-packages.txt
>
>i've read this, and it sounds like personal arrogance to me more than
anything
>else.
>
>"we don't want to follow the standard because, well, i think it's stupid
and
>therefore doesn't apply to us."
>
>What if GNU Snowboards (yes, there is a company named GNU) decides to start
>writing java code for their website? Bothner seems unwilling to believe
that
>some other entity might have just as much claim to the word/acronym "GNU"
as the
>FSF does - but I've just given one example of an entity that does.
>
>I disagree with many, many things sun has done with java, and you may too.
it
>does (to me) seem a pointlessly small and rather silly battle to fight to
say
>"we're just going to use gnu instead of org.gnu." The package naming
>recommendations sun has made actually make sense. They may not serve all
the
>purposes Per Bothner sees them as trying to serve, but they keep global
names
>from conflicting, and add (on the outside) 20 or 30 characters per file.
why
>bother fighting this?
>
>Chris
>
