On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 05:02:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > A climate is never a reason for not doing the right thing. The only > > reason the name GNU/Hurd exists is because GNU might be ambigous, but > > the paragraph before it already speaks about GNU/Linux so that doesn't > > really matter. We could say "Hurd-based GNU system" in the first line > > to clear everything up. > > The name GNU/Hurd is clear, convenient, and a proper name for the > system--sez me, sez RMS, sez just about everyone else.
Could you point me to an article or interview in which RMS says "the GNU/Hurd system" instead of "the GNU system"? And I don't really care about what everyone else does, I do something because I think it's the right thing to do, not because everybody else says it's the right thing. > Sometimes we say GNU, sometimes GNU/Hurd. When we are explicitly > contrasting a Linux-based system from a Hurd-based system, it is most > clear to use the two terms GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd. > > We don't have control over the whole document, but we probably get to > put what we want in our section, and in our section, I think using the > more clearly contrasting names is the right thing. The only reason "GNU/Hurd" exists is to prevent confusion. If there is no confusion, "GNU/Hurd" is IMHO just an ugly name. I don't see a reason to hide that GNU/Hurd is GNU's official system. There is another reason why I call it "GNU" instead of "GNU/Hurd", there are people who think that "GNU/Hurd" is just ugly and too long and are referring to the OS as "the Hurd" instead of "GNU". I think that's a bad habit. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC ID: jeroen@openprojects GNU supporter - http://www.gnu.org
msg02345/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
