Hello i recently had a discussion with Philip Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (the maintainer of http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/) regarding the labelling the CD set -- Robert Millan Debian GNU user zeratul2 wanadoo es http://getyouriso.org/. This is probably interesting to discuss here so i'm just posting it.
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hello! > > I think in the CD page it's missing some kind of instructions about > labeling the Debian GNU/Hurd CD. Do you think something like this is > correct? > > "Debian GNU Unstable > Unofficial i386 binary 1" On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 04:49:36 +0000 (GMT), Philip Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks. I had not thought about this. > What about? > > Debian GNU/Hurd > Unofficial Snapshot F2 > Binary disc 1 (Main) > > Ideas welcome. Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mmh i had put 'unstable' because i didn't know there was some kind of > 'version'. Considering the 'version number' is Snapshot F2, and adhering to > the Debian labeling directives, i think it should be: > > Debian GNU Snapshot F2 > Unofficial i386 binary - 1 > > which comparing to the GNU/Linux flavor, seems logical: > > Debian GNU/Linux 2.2r3 > Official i386 binary - 1 > > of course this is just an idea, as long as this image is unofficial can be > labelled in any preferred way. > > also note i used 'Debian GNU' instead of 'Debian GNU/Hurd' because i believe > the term 'GNU/Hurd' is redundant. The Hurd is yet another part of the GNU > operating system, and when i say 'GNU', i refer to the whole OS including the > Hurd and Mach. On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:31:49 +0000 (GMT), Philip Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The images probably have the status of the "Official unofficial images" so > naming has some importance. > > > also note i used 'Debian GNU' instead of 'Debian GNU/Hurd' because i > > believe the term 'GNU/Hurd' is redundant. The Hurd is yet another part > > of the GNU operating system, and when i say 'GNU', i refer to the whole > > OS including the Hurd and Mach. > > I take your point and I like it. The reservation that I have is that > while you, I, and Hurd hackers in general will know exactly what is meant > and agree with the sentiments, GNU/Linux users would be confused and not > have the same understanding. Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I take your point and I like it. The reservation that I have is that > > while you, I, and Hurd hackers in general will know exactly what is meant > > and agree with the sentiments, GNU/Linux users would be confused and not > > have the same understanding. > > Yes, i know they could get confused but, won't they get even more confused if > they start naming Hurd -not GNU/Hurd- the whole system? > I mean, if you tell the users that system is GNU/Hurd, they will think: "Oh > these GNU people are morons." Not to mention every GNU user comes from > GNU/Linux and they're already used to name a system by its kernel 'Linux'. On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 06:02:02 +0000 (GMT), Philip Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I see what you mean. Linux is not GNU, but the Hurd is. So the > equivelent of GNU/Linux would be something like GNU/GNU-Hurd where the > GNU/ refers to applications etc and GNU-Hurd to the GNU-mach kernel. Not > nice. There could already be some naming convention worked out.
