On 24/11/14 12:21, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote: > Em Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:44:23 +0000 > Brandon Invergo <[email protected]> escreveu: > >> 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. > > It would only imply that if we intended it to mean so. However, what > we are proposing is that using the term "the GNU system" rather than > "a GNU-variant system" would imply that the distribution at hand is a > GNU project's distribution of the GNU system, rather than of any other > organization, being the latter term used to mean this. Even so, it > wouldn't imply that every GNU-variant system should have the same set > of components. Summing up, the term "the GNU system" is expressing > mainly a matter of affiliation to the GNU project, rather than any > technical definition of what a GNU(-variant) system ought to be. > > >> 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? > > By our definition, given above, any GNU kernel that the GNU project > has a GNU system distribution for. I would insist, though, that it is > best if the GNU project doesn't have two distinct distributions for > the same kernel. > > >> This is why I argued that we should instead talk about having a >> "reference GNU/Linux distribution" or something to that extent. > > Making the GNU project's distributions of the GNU system reference > distributions could well have the effect you are arguing against: > promoting a strict set of software as mandatory to define any > distribution as a GNU system according to GNU project's view. Rather > we are only talking about naming the GNU project's distributions of > the GNU system as "the GNU system", whatever the kernel, just to > convey the sense that they are distributions of the GNU project. It > wouldn't imply nothing more than that. > > >> "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. > > I will reiterate that it's not a technical issue but rather a > strategical one. We are not proposing to declare a particular set of > software official --- that's not relevant. What we are arguing for is > to use the name "the GNU system", or simply "GNU", for every GNU > project's distribution of the GNU system. > > >> A "reference" distribution, on the other hand, is less constrictive >> and more like a recommendation. > > The GNU project's distributions of the GNU system are not necessarily > any kind of recommendation at all. In principle, they are just the > GNU system distributions of the GNU project, a.k.a, the GNU system. > > >> 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). > > Other GNU+Linux-libre distros can always experiment the way they > please, because GNU is free software. It's not required that we > recommend anything about how a GNU system should look like. Naming > our distributions as "the GNU system" only imply they are distribution > of ours. > > >>> 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. > > I'm sorry, I really don't follow. > > >> The "GNU System" is something that arises out of a combination of >> software. > > As you said, you are trying to make analogies between computer systems > and biological organisms. I'd love to discuss that over a beer, > however those philosophical questions are out of scope for our > strategical concerns. Philosophical questions aside, politically the > GNU system is, actually, what RMS claims it to be. We believe he > should claim it's any of the GNU project's distribution of the GNU > system. > > >> The specific software building blocks can be interchanged without >> affecting the overall status as a GNU system. > > In fact, according to our definition, any distribution made by other > organization than the GNU project is not a GNU system, even if > technically nearly identical to GNU project's distributions, but are > rather a GNU-variant system. As you can see, that's a political > difference, not a technical one.
Exactly (all of the above). -- Luis Felipe López Acevedo http://sirgazil.bitbucket.org/ ID Klefo PGP : 0x8A296B99 Marko fingrala: 7ED8 4963 C881 647C 9DA0 FDE6 881B 91ED 8A29 6B99
