Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro <[email protected]> writes: > Incompatible? So how are we supposed to release "the GNU system" if > no distribution could be called that way? Are you implying that only > Hurd-based GNU systems deserve the label?
This goes back to my point that the problem with calling something "The GNU System" is that it implies that there is a single, specific set of software that defines the system. The kernel issue then comes crashing to the forefront: if the GNU project has two kernels, and obviously only one can be in use at any time, which kernel does "The GNU System" use? This is why I argued that we should instead talk about having a "reference GNU/Linux distribution" or something to that extent. "Official GNU System" might have been imaginable decades ago but things have turned out differently: we have many thousands of good free software packages that can interchangeably comprise a GNU-like system (all for the better, in my opinion). To declare some specific subset of them to be the "official" combination is not productive and dismisses a lot of perfectly fine free software. A "reference" distribution, on the other hand, is less constrictive and more like a recommendation. It allows room for other GNU/Linux distros to experiment with what they think a GNU System should be like, while giving them some recommendation about how we think it should be (all the while, of course, maintaining strict *requirements* with regard to software freedom). > If GNU is a system of multiple kernels, *every* GNU project's > distribution of the GNU system, be it Linux-libre, Hurd or a third GNU > kernel based, deserves to be called "the GNU system". Technicalities > that differ them are for tech-savvy people, not the common public. Ah, now you've finally seen my point :) With your above words in mind, please go back and re-read my original ruminations on terminology. The "GNU System" is something that arises out of a combination of software[1]. The specific software building blocks can be interchanged without affecting the overall status as a GNU system[2]. -brandon Footnotes: [1] I would love to bring in analogies from my research in systems biology but I'll spare everyone. Maybe sometime over a beer at a GHM. :) [2] Of course I recognize that there's a "border issue": at what point does a free software system stop being a GNU system? If all core GNU tools/libraries are swapped out in favor of other (free) alternatives, is it still GNU? I would still argue "yes", as long as it's free and Unixoid, but that's philosophical and arguing it will not get us very far, so please let's just discuss that over a beer sometime as well. -- Brandon Invergo http://brandon.invergo.net
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
