Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Dan Ritter]

Stefan Monnier wrote: 
> > The first generation was hybrid 16/32 bit internally, and came in
> > variants selected for cost vs performance: 8, 16 or 32 bit external bus.
> 
> I've never heard of a version of the 68000 with a 32bit external bus.

You're right. I was misremembering the 68012, which had 31 bits
of address select, but 16 bit wide data.

-dsr-

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Brad Rogers]

On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 16:08:44 -0500
John Hasler  wrote:

Hello John,

>That processor was targeted at embedded systems and it made sense in
>some applications.  I don't understand why anyone would put it in a
>desktop.

Cost.

-- 
 Regards  _   "Valid sig separator is {dash}{dash}{space}"
 / )  "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
/ _)rad   "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
No rotten apple's gonna spoil my fun
Get The Funk Out - Extreme


pgpukHayFEt1J.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Motorola's 68000 line had an internal 32 bit architecture, which made
> the CPU both performant and expensive.

Hmm... it had a (non-internal) 32bit instruction set architecture
(i.e. programmers could directly manipulate 32bit entities), but
internally it manipulated only 16bit at a time (e.g. a 32bit addition was
performed by using twice the 16bit adder).  The external bus sent and
received 16bit as well.

> But a manufacturer of systems could contain the overall cost by using
> 8-bit devices outside of the CPU.

Indeed, for this reason the 16bit bus of the 68000 had some details that
made it easier to interface with 8bit peripherals.

But it still made the cost of the overall system higher than a 68008
since it needed 16bit memory, i.e. twice as many memory chips.

> The first generation was hybrid 16/32 bit internally, and came in
> variants selected for cost vs performance: 8, 16 or 32 bit external bus.

I've never heard of a version of the 68000 with a 32bit external bus.

AFAIK the first CPU with  32bit external bus in the 68k family was the
68020, which was a completely new design released several years later,
not just a "variant".


Stefan

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Charlie Gibbs]

On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 23:10:01 +0200 John Hasler  wrote:

> Bret writes:
>
>> With bits and bytes, one strange thing that I remember, is that, in
>> 1985, in Australia, a particular computer was introduced, that had a
>> 32 bit processor with 8 bit buses. It was a Motorola 68008 CPU, and,
>> I could not understand why a company would produce a 32 bit CPU wit
>> 8 bit buses.
>
> That processor was targeted at embedded systems and it made sense in
> some applications.  I don't understand why anyone would put it in a
> desktop.

For the same reason that IBM put the 8088 (an 8086 with an 8-bit bus)
into their original Personal Computer: to save money by interfacing
with existing 8-bit support chips.  In addition, rumour has it that
the 8-bit bus helped cripple the machine enough to not pose a
marketing threat to their other product lines.

--
/~\  Charlie Gibbs  |  You can't save the earth
\ /|  unless you're willing to
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus |  make other people sacrifice.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |-- Dogbert the green consultant

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[gene heskett]

On 7/7/23 17:24, Dan Ritter wrote:

Bret Busby wrote:


With bits and bytes, one strange thing that I remember, is that, in 1985, in
Australia, a particular computer was introduced, that had a 32 bit processor
with 8 bit buses. It was a Motorola 68008 CPU, and, I could not understand
why a company would produce a 32 bit CPU wit 8 bit buses. The computer was
named the Telecom Computerphone, and, it was an oddity in itself.


Compatible parts make for cheaper systems.

In the late 70s and early 80s, most mass-produced systems were 8-bit
microprocessors with an 8-bit bus, connecting to peripherals that assumed
an 8-bit bus.

Motorola's 68000 line had an internal 32 bit architecture, which made
the CPU both performant and expensive. But a manufacturer of systems
could contain the overall cost by using 8-bit devices outside of the
CPU. The first generation was hybrid 16/32 bit internally, and came in
variants selected for cost vs performance: 8, 16 or 32 bit external bus.

The 2nd generation 68030 was 32 bits inside and out, and had a hardware
memory manager, which meant it was the first one that we, sitting here 36
years later, would think of as a system with enough features that we could
reasonably compile software for it. Debian supported 68030s and later
from 2.0 through 4.0, though by that time it was clearly a doomed target.

-dsr-

.
Which could have done better, but debians support of accessory stuff was 
non-existent. I had a set of cd's that put an early Debian Linux on a 
68040 based machine with 64 megs of 32 bit ram on the PP board. It did 
not recognize the ram so was running on the 2 megs on the 2090 SCSI 
controller so obviously it spent 98% of the 68000 CPU on the A-2000's 
main board hammering on the swap on a 1Gig seagate drive. It did not 
recognize the 68040 either, so just opening a shell was a 5 minute 
process.  I went back to AmigaDos3.1 as it was usable until the battery 
leaked and ate the motherboard. I built by first Linux box, with a 
400MHz k6 and installed Red Hat 5.0 circa 1998, used the Amiga for a net 
gateway back in dial-up days.  Computing was fun then and I had lots of 
fun demoing to the dos lovers just how blazingly fast the Amiga was 
compared to their dos boxes. It was also a lot faster than the first 
McIntosh's from Apple.  Then the 2 idiots that started Commode Door took 
the accounts receivables to Bermuda for a rum and coke and never came back.


Cheers, Gene Heskett.
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page 

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[David Wright]

On Fri 07 Jul 2023 at 16:08:44 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> Bret writes:
> > With bits and bytes, one strange thing that I remember, is that, in
> > 1985, in Australia, a particular computer was introduced, that had a
> > 32 bit processor with 8 bit buses. It was a Motorola 68008 CPU, and, I
> > could not understand why a company would produce a 32 bit CPU wit 8
> > bit buses.
> 
> That processor was targeted at embedded systems and it made sense in
> some applications.  I don't understand why anyone would put it in a
> desktop.

Perhaps be thankful that they did, though:

 "Linus Torvalds has attributed his eventually developing the Linux
  kernel, likewise having pre-emptive multitasking, in part to having
  owned a Sinclair QL in the 1980s. Because of the lack of support,
  particularly in his native Finland, Torvalds became used to writing
  his own software rather than relying on programs written by
  others. In part, his frustration with Minix, on the Sinclair, led,
  years later, to his purchase of a more standard IBM PC compatible on
  which he would develop Linux. In Just for Fun, Torvalds wrote, "Back
  in 1987, one of the selling points of the QL was that it looked
  cool", because it was "entirely matte black, with a black keyboard"
  and was "fairly angular". He also wrote he bought a floppy
  controller so he could stop using microdrives, but the floppy
  controller driver was bad, so he wrote his own. Bugs in the
  operating system, or discrepancies with the documentation, that made
  his software not work properly, got him interested in operating
  systems. "Like any good computer purist raised on a 68008 chip,"
  Torvalds "despised PCs", but decided in fall 1990 to purchase a 386
  custom-made IBM PC compatible, which he did in January 1991."

Cheers,
David.

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2023 07 Jul 12:59 -0500, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> There is lots of cross-pollination, though. Before the advent of Clang
> there weren't many credible alternatives to the GCC toolchain; I don't
> think any BSD sysadmin worth their salt would renounce using rsync just
> because it's GPL. Conversely, ssh is probably one of the nices gifts
> BSD gave to the GPL folks. PostgreSQL is a wonderful thing and is,
> again, BSD.
> 
> So, thanks to both :)

Oh, absolutely!

What I like about the majority of the Linux ecosystem is that it has a
rather low level of dogma.  To be sure, I prefer Free Software and any
code I've contributed over the years has been under one sort of copyleft
license or another.  Debian, like all of the major distributions, pull
software from many sources.  There is no such thing as a "pure" Linux
distributions as they're all collections from many projects.  Probably
the most dogmatic distributions are Trisquel and Guix but I doubt they
have the NIH attitude I sense from OpenBSD.

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Dan Ritter]

Bret Busby wrote: 
> 
> With bits and bytes, one strange thing that I remember, is that, in 1985, in
> Australia, a particular computer was introduced, that had a 32 bit processor
> with 8 bit buses. It was a Motorola 68008 CPU, and, I could not understand
> why a company would produce a 32 bit CPU wit 8 bit buses. The computer was
> named the Telecom Computerphone, and, it was an oddity in itself.

Compatible parts make for cheaper systems.

In the late 70s and early 80s, most mass-produced systems were 8-bit
microprocessors with an 8-bit bus, connecting to peripherals that assumed
an 8-bit bus.

Motorola's 68000 line had an internal 32 bit architecture, which made
the CPU both performant and expensive. But a manufacturer of systems
could contain the overall cost by using 8-bit devices outside of the
CPU. The first generation was hybrid 16/32 bit internally, and came in
variants selected for cost vs performance: 8, 16 or 32 bit external bus.

The 2nd generation 68030 was 32 bits inside and out, and had a hardware
memory manager, which meant it was the first one that we, sitting here 36
years later, would think of as a system with enough features that we could
reasonably compile software for it. Debian supported 68030s and later
from 2.0 through 4.0, though by that time it was clearly a doomed target.

-dsr-

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[John Hasler]

Bret writes:
> With bits and bytes, one strange thing that I remember, is that, in
> 1985, in Australia, a particular computer was introduced, that had a
> 32 bit processor with 8 bit buses. It was a Motorola 68008 CPU, and, I
> could not understand why a company would produce a 32 bit CPU wit 8
> bit buses.

That processor was targeted at embedded systems and it made sense in
some applications.  I don't understand why anyone would put it in a
desktop.
-- 
John Hasler 
j...@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Bret Busby]

On 8/7/23 03:30, mick.crane wrote:

On 2023-07-07 19:19, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:


Thr rest, is, as they say...


.."A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen bit patch 
to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit 
microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand 
one bit of competition."


I don't know about the bits and bytes but I like the sound of it anyway.
mick



With bits and bytes, one strange thing that I remember, is that, in 
1985, in Australia, a particular computer was introduced, that had a 32 
bit processor with 8 bit buses. It was a Motorola 68008 CPU, and, I 
could not understand why a company would produce a 32 bit CPU wit 8 bit 
buses. The computer was named the Telecom Computerphone, and, it was an 
oddity in itself.


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[gene heskett]

On 7/7/23 13:33, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On Fri Jul  7 09:59:56 2023 fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote:

 >> Microsoft for good or bad has made major advances in software

Yup.  Like surveillance, flakiness, and an endless merry-go-round
of forced upgrades into ever-increasing bloatware.

 >> and is responsible for a fair fraction of what we experience in
 >> our Linux world.

And the Taliban is responsible for a fair fraction of what we
experience in our Western world.  So what?

 > true
 > if microsoft had ever produced a decent product
 > linux may not have ever become as popular as it is

"The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck
is the day they make vacuum cleaners."  -- unknown


+5. Thanks for the chuckle of the day Charley.

Cheers, Gene Heskett.
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page 

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[debian-user]

jeremy ardley  wrote:
> On 7/7/23 19:28, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> >
> > That may be or not, but is irrelevant. Accurate attribution of
> > quotes is important, IMHO, and not difficult to do. So doubling
> > down on your mistake instead of a simple mea culpa means you move
> > further down in my hierarchy of respect. :(
> >  
> 
> I suspect that my saying Microsoft is not an absolute evil may be
> your issue rather than any (mis?) attribution of quotes.

Did you say something abot Microsoft? I didn't notice.

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[mick.crane]

On 2023-07-07 19:19, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:


Thr rest, is, as they say...


.."A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen bit patch 
to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit 
microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand 
one bit of competition."


I don't know about the bits and bytes but I like the sound of it anyway.
mick

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[tomas]

On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 08:43:04AM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2023 07 Jul 08:13 -0500, jeremy ardley wrote:
> > 
> > My error:
> > 
> > I should have said
> > 
> > "Linux is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but not
> > much like Unix. "
> 
> If you mean MS Windows NT and later, it apparently owes much to VMS and
> OS/2.  Certainly, some POSIX support was added along the way as well,
> but I don't think that other than market speak 20+ years ago, Windows
> NT+ was intended to be a Unix implementation.

Right: NT (and NTFS) was brought over from DEC by Dave Cutler (yet another
thing Microsoft didn't invent). And Cutler *hated* UNIX. So he might get
angry if someone compares NT to UNIX :-)

NT was micro-kernel-ish (actually inspired by Mach, so it shares some
ancestry with OS/X and Hurd), until Microsoft dumped all that graphic
goodnes into it.

Thr rest, is, as they say...

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[tomas]

On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 04:59:48PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 7/7/23 16:51, jeremy ardley wrote:
> > 
> > On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:
> > > Microsoft didn't invent anything.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I did not post that statement as the original poster of that statement.

Oh, goody. No, that was me. And I stand by what I say. I did follow
the whole thing all along: the second platform I wrote C for was
Windows 3.1. The first was an AT microport of UNIX, the third was
HP/UX (ISTR around 9).

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[tomas]

On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 11:08:57AM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2023 07 Jul 09:12 -0500, BRN wrote:
> > I could be accused of nitpicking here, however; I'd suggest that GNU was
> > inspired by the original UNIX rather than being a clone.  A clone in
> > the original biological context refers to an exact genetic copy - "byte
> > for byte" if you like.
> 
> That is probably why the term "bug-for-bug" came about as
> "byte-for-byte" would prove quite problematic in a copyright dispute.
> 
> > As for the *BSDs; OpenBSD most certainly does *not* rely on a GNU
> > framework.
> 
> Indeed, most of the work on BSDs these days is to excise as much GNU
> from their systems as they can (I don't follow their development
> closely, it's just the impression I get).

There is lots of cross-pollination, though. Before the advent of Clang
there weren't many credible alternatives to the GCC toolchain; I don't
think any BSD sysadmin worth their salt would renounce using rsync just
because it's GPL. Conversely, ssh is probably one of the nices gifts
BSD gave to the GPL folks. PostgreSQL is a wonderful thing and is,
again, BSD.

So, thanks to both :)

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Charlie Gibbs]

On Fri Jul  7 09:59:56 2023 fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote:

>> Microsoft for good or bad has made major advances in software

Yup.  Like surveillance, flakiness, and an endless merry-go-round
of forced upgrades into ever-increasing bloatware.

>> and is responsible for a fair fraction of what we experience in
>> our Linux world.

And the Taliban is responsible for a fair fraction of what we
experience in our Western world.  So what?

> true
> if microsoft had ever produced a decent product
> linux may not have ever become as popular as it is

"The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck
is the day they make vacuum cleaners."  -- unknown

--
/~\  Charlie Gibbs  |  Microsoft is not
\ /|  a necessary evil.
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus |  Microsoft is not necessary.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |-- Ted Nelson (paraphrased)

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2023 07 Jul 09:12 -0500, BRN wrote:
> I could be accused of nitpicking here, however; I'd suggest that GNU was
> inspired by the original UNIX rather than being a clone.  A clone in
> the original biological context refers to an exact genetic copy - "byte
> for byte" if you like.

That is probably why the term "bug-for-bug" came about as
"byte-for-byte" would prove quite problematic in a copyright dispute.

> As for the *BSDs; OpenBSD most certainly does *not* rely on a GNU
> framework.

Indeed, most of the work on BSDs these days is to excise as much GNU
from their systems as they can (I don't follow their development
closely, it's just the impression I get).

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[BRN]

jeremy ardley  writes:

> On 7/7/23 21:05, jeremy ardley wrote:
>>
>> On 7/7/23 20:47, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>>> What MS has done has never been relevant to the creation of GNU, X, or
>>> the Linux kernel.
>>
>>
>> Agreed, those technologies were mostly independent of anything
>> Microsoft has done.
>>
>> GNU is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but
>> not much like Unix.
>>
>> Note Windows NT was built to be Posix compliant which is a Unix
>> derived standard.
>>
>> X is a product well left alone by MS.
>>
>> The Linux Kernel is one of several options including at least one
>> GNU kernel. All are designed to run under a GNU framework.
>>
>> One option I've not seen yet is a MS kernel running with a GNU
>> framework. It's entirely feasible, but unlikely to date.
>>
>
> My error:
>
> I should have said
>
> "Linux is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but
> not much like Unix. "
>
> I should also have noted FreeBSD and other clones of Unix that also
> rely on a GNU framework

I could be accused of nitpicking here, however; I'd suggest that GNU was
inspired by the original UNIX rather than being a clone.  A clone in
the original biological context refers to an exact genetic copy - "byte
for byte" if you like.

As for the *BSDs; OpenBSD most certainly does *not* rely on a GNU
framework.

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2023 07 Jul 08:13 -0500, jeremy ardley wrote:
> 
> My error:
> 
> I should have said
> 
> "Linux is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but not
> much like Unix. "

If you mean MS Windows NT and later, it apparently owes much to VMS and
OS/2.  Certainly, some POSIX support was added along the way as well,
but I don't think that other than market speak 20+ years ago, Windows
NT+ was intended to be a Unix implementation.

> I should also have noted FreeBSD and other clones of Unix that also rely on
> a GNU framework

Actually, the BSDs have a rightful claim to be true descendants of AT
Unix and not clones or derivatives.

I also have a hard time calling GNU or Linux "clones" as they are
independent work-alike implementations but not bug-for-bug clones of
AT Unix or BSD.

Pedants R Us...

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Arno Lehmann]

While I found most of this discussion not very appealing...

Am 07.07.2023 um 15:05 schrieb jeremy ardley:
...
One option I've not seen yet is a MS kernel running with a GNU 
framework. It's entirely feasible, but unlikely to date.



How about this:
  07/07/2023   15:19.32   /home/mobaxterm  uname -a
CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW Mitochondrium 3.3.5(0.341/5/3) 2022-06-12 08:16 i686 
GNU/Linux



--
Arno Lehmann

IT-Service Lehmann
Sandstr. 6, 49080 Osnabrück

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[jeremy ardley]

On 7/7/23 21:05, jeremy ardley wrote:


On 7/7/23 20:47, Nate Bargmann wrote:

What MS has done has never been relevant to the creation of GNU, X, or
the Linux kernel.



Agreed, those technologies were mostly independent of anything 
Microsoft has done.


GNU is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but 
not much like Unix.


Note Windows NT was built to be Posix compliant which is a Unix 
derived standard.


X is a product well left alone by MS.

The Linux Kernel is one of several options including at least one GNU 
kernel. All are designed to run under a GNU framework.


One option I've not seen yet is a MS kernel running with a GNU 
framework. It's entirely feasible, but unlikely to date.




My error:

I should have said

"Linux is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but 
not much like Unix. "


I should also have noted FreeBSD and other clones of Unix that also rely 
on a GNU framework

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[jeremy ardley]

On 7/7/23 20:47, Nate Bargmann wrote:

What MS has done has never been relevant to the creation of GNU, X, or
the Linux kernel.



Agreed, those technologies were mostly independent of anything Microsoft 
has done.


GNU is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but not 
much like Unix.


Note Windows NT was built to be Posix compliant which is a Unix derived 
standard.


X is a product well left alone by MS.

The Linux Kernel is one of several options including at least one GNU 
kernel. All are designed to run under a GNU framework.


One option I've not seen yet is a MS kernel running with a GNU 
framework. It's entirely feasible, but unlikely to date.

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Kent West]

On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 4:00 AM Bret Busby  wrote:

> On 7/7/23 16:51, jeremy ardley wrote:
> >
> > On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:
> >> Microsoft didn't invent anything.
> >
> >
>
> I did not post that statement as the original poster of that statement.
>
> In responding to messages, please properly quote the message, or excerpt
> of the message, to which the response is being made.
>
>
You wrote:

On 7/7/23 12:28, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> 
>
> Microsoft didn't invent anything.
>
> Yes they did - the highest level of system security - the Blue Screen Of
> Death 
>

Although tomas originally wrote "Microsoft didn't invent anything", when
you quoted him, you lost the quotation markers, so it *looks* like you said
it. jeremy did actually quote what you said, even though you meant it to be
understood as a quotation from another person.


-- 
Kent West<")))><
IT Support / Client Support
Abilene Christian University
Westing Peacefully - http://kentwest.blogspot.com

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2023 07 Jul 06:54 -0500, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote:
> > Microsoft for good or bad has made major advances in
> > software and is responsible for a fair fraction of what we experience in
> > our Linux world.
> 
> true
> if microsoft had ever produced a decent product
> linux may not have ever become as popular as it is

What MS has done has never been relevant to the creation of GNU, X, or
the Linux kernel.  GNU has always been a project to develop RMS' vision
of a Unix compatible system.  The Linux kernel came about because even
though Linus had access to Minix, Tanenbaum had no interest in applying
the patches Linus, et. al. wanted to apply to make it a more general
system.  Linus was only interested in a Unix he could afford and since
GNU lacked a kernel that is what he focused on.  MS was never part of
the focus regarding the creation of GNU or Linux.

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[jeremy ardley]

On 7/7/23 19:28, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:


That may be or not, but is irrelevant. Accurate attribution of quotes
is important, IMHO, and not difficult to do. So doubling down on your
mistake instead of a simple mea culpa means you move further down in my
hierarchy of respect. :(



I suspect that my saying Microsoft is not an absolute evil may be your 
issue rather than any (mis?) attribution of quotes.

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[fxkl47BF]

> Microsoft for good or bad has made major advances in
> software and is responsible for a fair fraction of what we experience in
> our Linux world.

true
if microsoft had ever produced a decent product
linux may not have ever become as popular as it is

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[debian-user]

jeremy ardley  wrote:
> On 7/7/23 16:59, Bret Busby wrote:
> >> On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:  
> >>> Microsoft didn't invent anything.  
> >
> > I did not post that statement as the original poster of that
> > statement.   
> 
> Your comment about  BSOD strongly suggests you agree with the
> sentiment.

That may be or not, but is irrelevant. Accurate attribution of quotes
is important, IMHO, and not difficult to do. So doubling down on your
mistake instead of a simple mea culpa means you move further down in my
hierarchy of respect. :(

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[jeremy ardley]

On 7/7/23 16:59, Bret Busby wrote:

On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:

Microsoft didn't invent anything.





I did not post that statement as the original poster of that statement. 



Your comment about  BSOD strongly suggests you agree with the sentiment.

I reiterate. Microsoft for good or bad has made major advances in 
software and is responsible for a fair fraction of what we experience in 
our Linux world.


My view is that much of what Microsoft produces is plain awful, mainly 
on commercial grounds, but a lot of what they have produced is highly 
influential and relevant to the Linux community.


The latest Microsoft incursion is Visual Studio Code. It's a real 
innovation. If you are a Linux Developer and not competent in using it 
you will shortly be consigned to history. Now add in ChatGPT (a 
Microsoft product) and you have the road-map of most software generation 
for Linux as well as Microsoft for the next five years.


Jeremy

(Native language English, Variant Australian, Uses GPT4 and VSCode)

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[hlyg]

On 7/7/23 10:14, Charles Curley wrote:


What, you couldn't figure that hlyg is not a master of the English
language from his|her|its sentence structure and vocabulary?

Furthermore, this is a world-wide list. We get all levels of English
mastery here, and courtesy calls for not assuming mastery.

Finally, even experts in a language can err and use the wrong word from
time to time.

Thank Charles! we all make mistakes. Bret's argument against deb12 is 
that we shall not forget Ian.


i think it's quite possible that Ian in heaven will agree to let his 
wife represent him so that debian users can save a little time in typing

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Bret Busby]

On 7/7/23 16:51, jeremy ardley wrote:


On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:

Microsoft didn't invent anything.





I did not post that statement as the original poster of that statement.

In responding to messages, please properly quote the message, or excerpt 
of the message, to which the response is being made.


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[jeremy ardley]

On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:

Microsoft didn't invent anything.



This is highly off topic, but Microsoft 'invented' a lot of stuff much 
in the say way that many GNU developers 'invented' stuff.


This is a process of continual adaptation of existing software and 
methodology. In the Microsoft case a lot if that was bought in, but a 
lot was independently developed internally.


Specifically Windows NT was a custom evolution of several operating 
systems including VMS. FWIW I think the core Microsoft NT OS is not that 
bad a design.


The Microsoft Windows model was evolved from earlier Xerox software and 
provides at the very base a decent GDI programmer model. The look and 
feel of Windows was then adopted by the likes of Gnome - but not the 
clean API and graphic engine model.


As an aside, one of the really good decisions of Microsoft was to steer 
clear of the X server model. X-server alone has hampered Linux GUI 
development for decades now.


And, for reference, I use Windows when I have to and prefer Debian in a 
Mate environment. I'd be an awful lot happier if X on Linux died a well 
deserved death. I also have a lot of experience developing GUI 
applications on Windows, X-Windows, and custom hardware.



Jeremy

(Native language English, variant Australian)

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Bret Busby]

On 7/7/23 12:28, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:



Microsoft didn't invent anything.

Yes they did - the highest level of system security - the Blue Screen Of 
Death - if a computer is made completely inaccessible, then it cannot be 
breached. Hence, the Blue Screen of Death is the highest level of system 
security, invented by Microsoft...


:)

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[tomas]

On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 06:42:47AM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:
> > it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12
> > 
> > deb for debian as in file name extension of package
> > 
> 
> I believe that using the abbreviation "deb" as the file name extension for
> packages, is due to, at the time of the creation of Debian, the limitation
> on file name extensions [...]

This is only for the FAT file system. Actually, for the UNIX variants which
existed before Debian was born, the dot is just one normal character in the
file name. Only slash (directory separator) and null (because C strings) were
treated specially. And there were just two special file names, "." (for "this
directory" and ".." for "parent", that's all.

Some utilities (ls) also treat a file name starting with a dot especiall,
but the underlying operating system doesn't care.

Internally, FAT allocated exactly 11 characters for the file name (8 for
the "base", 3 for the extension: the dot was implicit). The operating
system treated some of these names specially, and with the arrival of
Windows, the UI started hiding the extension, which led to lots of fun
for trojans ("foo.jpg.exe", anyone?)

So no, this "file extension" thing is something popularized by Microsoft
(they seem to have copied it from NCR: Microsoft didn't invent anything).

It tends to creep into sane environments, though.

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Charles Curley]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 08:14:44 +0800
Bret Busby  wrote:

> > i have used wrong word, i don't mean that. you know English is my
> > 2nd language. when we learn foreign language, we tend to parrot
> >   
> You do not include in each of your messages, your name and your
> location (at least, the country), and that English is not your
> primary language, and therefore, we have no reason to expect that
> English is not your primary (and possibly, only) language.

What, you couldn't figure that hlyg is not a master of the English
language from his|her|its sentence structure and vocabulary?

Furthermore, this is a world-wide list. We get all levels of English
mastery here, and courtesy calls for not assuming mastery.

Finally, even experts in a language can err and use the wrong word from
time to time.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Bret Busby]

On 7/7/23 08:31, Bret Busby wrote:

On 7/7/23 08:22, hlyg wrote:


On 7/7/23 08:14, Bret Busby wrote:
You do not include in each of your messages, your name and your 
location (at least, the country), and that English is not your 
primary language, and therefore, we have no reason to expect that 
English is not your primary (and possibly, only) language.




do i speak like native speaker??

my english is different from that of native speaker

Every person's English is not the same as every other person, regardless 
of whether English is the person's primary and possibly, only, language.


And, each "English speaking" country has a different version of English, 
within which, many different versions exist.


And that is quite apart from the variance in the quality of English 
taught in formal education, which varies from individual teacher, to 
individual teacher, so that it is not surprising that Masters degree 
students and graduates, have English quality levels, about equivalent to 
middle primary (or, in some countries, named elementary) school 
education levels.


Which also means that, in many cases, where a person from Asia, for 
example, has English as a second language, the person's level of 
English, is far superior to locals, who have English as the primary and 
only language.


It all depends on the quality of teaching, and, the quality of the 
English that is being taught, both of which, vary considerably, apart 
from the differences between different versions of English.


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Bret Busby]

On 7/7/23 08:22, hlyg wrote:


On 7/7/23 08:14, Bret Busby wrote:
You do not include in each of your messages, your name and your 
location (at least, the country), and that English is not your primary 
language, and therefore, we have no reason to expect that English is 
not your primary (and possibly, only) language.




do i speak like native speaker??

my english is different from that of native speaker

Every person's English is not the same as every other person, regardless 
of whether English is the person's primary and possibly, only, language.


And, each "English speaking" country has a different version of English, 
within which, many different versions exist.


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[hlyg]

On 7/7/23 08:14, Bret Busby wrote:
You do not include in each of your messages, your name and your 
location (at least, the country), and that English is not your primary 
language, and therefore, we have no reason to expect that English is 
not your primary (and possibly, only) language.




do i speak like native speaker??

my english is different from that of native speaker

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Bret Busby]

On 7/7/23 07:39, hlyg wrote:

On 7/7/23 06:42, Bret Busby wrote:

On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:

it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...

Of course,if you want compliance with MS Windows, then, perhaps, 
Linux, and, especially, Debian, might not be appropriate for you...





i have used wrong word, i don't mean that. you know English is my 2nd 
language. when we learn foreign language, we tend to parrot


You do not include in each of your messages, your name and your location 
(at least, the country), and that English is not your primary language, 
and therefore, we have no reason to expect that English is not your 
primary (and possibly, only) language.


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Bret Busby]

On 7/7/23 06:42, Bret Busby wrote:

On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:

it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12

deb for debian as in file name extension of package



I believe that using the abbreviation "deb" as the file name extension 
for packages, is due to, at the time of the creation of Debian, the 
limitation on file name extensions, to three alpha characters  (and, I 
accept correction on that assumption, if I am wrong), like, as for 
gTLD's, originally, the names of the domains (as opposed to domain 
names), were limited, also, to three alpha characters, such as .com. 
.net, .org, etc.


Over time, with longer computer word lengths, such name length 
limitations, were no longer needed, so that, for .jpg files, .jpeg 
files, also arose, and, in gTLD's, names of domains, also, became not 
limited to three characters, and, so, now, gTLD's include .apartment, 
.bargain, .associates, etc, etc, etc.


However, given that the .deb file name extension does not indicate that 
a .deb package is limited to only Debian (Ubuntu, Linux Mint, and, 
others, accept .deb packages), and, that .deb is known and has its 
reputation, as indicating a compatible package, I believe that the 
Debian Project would have no reason, to choose and implement another 
file name extension; for example, .debian, to replace the .deb file name 
extension; and, given that the name Debian, is associated with 
stability, I believe that the .deb file name extension, would likely, be 
unchanged, as, amongst other reasons, no worthwhile reason exists, to 
change the file name extension, from .deb, which is a well known file 
name extension. That is my, and, only, my, opinion.



it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...



Of course,if you want compliance with MS Windows, then, perhaps, Linux, 
and, especially, Debian, might not be appropriate for you...



but others don't think so, i google with deb12, few means debian

in past 20 years few call it debN (N=1,2,3...)

why few are interested in saving 4 characters (ian )?


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..


Another aspect also arises.

The name deb12, especially,given that the "Deb" component of the name 
Debian, refers to a woman named Debra Lynn, indicates being the name of 
a gynoid such as Cherry2000, or, a created humanoid, such as Jessica6.


Thus, I am not sure that Debra Lynn would approve of either being named 
after her, and, the name "deb", indicating being a version of her.


So, I would expect that Debra Lynn would be entitled to be required to 
approve of each version of "deb", before it would be released, as the 
inference would be that such a product, would be a direct reflection 
upon her.


So, unless each version of "deb", would be required to be personally 
approved by Debra Lynn, before being released, as it would, by name, be 
a reflection upon her character, I suggest that the prospective use of 
the name "deb" for a release version of Debian, should not be 
entertained, because of what it entails.


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[hlyg]

On 7/7/23 06:42, Bret Busby wrote:

On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:

it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...

Of course,if you want compliance with MS Windows, then, perhaps, 
Linux, and, especially, Debian, might not be appropriate for you...





i have used wrong word, i don't mean that. you know English is my 2nd 
language. when we learn foreign language, we tend to parrot

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[hlyg]

On 7/7/23 06:42, Bret Busby wrote:

On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:

it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...

Of course,if you want compliance with MS Windows, then, perhaps, 
Linux, and, especially, Debian, might not be appropriate for you...





i have used wrong word, i don't mean that. you know English is my 2nd 
language. when we learn foreign language, we tend to parrot

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Bret Busby]

On 7/7/23 06:02, Bret Busby wrote:

On 7/7/23 05:40, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:

On 07.07.2023 01:23, hlyg wrote:

it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12

deb for debian as in file name extension of package

it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...

but others don't think so, i google with deb12, few means debian

in past 20 years few call it debN (N=1,2,3...)

why few are interested in saving 4 characters (ian )?


I'd save Ian if I could.


--
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄

I understood that it is some years too late to save Ian -

"
Ian Ashley Murdock (April 28, 1973 – December 28, 2015) was an American 
software engineer, known for being the founder of the Debian project and 
Progeny Linux Systems, a commercial Linux company.

"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Murdock

Debian should always be mentioned as Debian, and, not Deb. I expect that 
his ex-wife, Debra, from whose name, is the Deb of Debian, would agree 
with that.


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..



To use "Deb" to represent Debian, would be like renaming Linux, to 'X'.

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Bret Busby]

On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:

it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12

deb for debian as in file name extension of package



I believe that using the abbreviation "deb" as the file name extension 
for packages, is due to, at the time of the creation of Debian, the 
limitation on file name extensions, to three alpha characters  (and, I 
accept correction on that assumption, if I am wrong), like, as for 
gTLD's, originally, the names of the domains (as opposed to domain 
names), were limited, also, to three alpha characters, such as .com. 
.net, .org, etc.


Over time, with longer computer word lengths, such name length 
limitations, were no longer needed, so that, for .jpg files, .jpeg 
files, also arose, and, in gTLD's, names of domains, also, became not 
limited to three characters, and, so, now, gTLD's include .apartment, 
.bargain, .associates, etc, etc, etc.


However, given that the .deb file name extension does not indicate that 
a .deb package is limited to only Debian (Ubuntu, Linux Mint, and, 
others, accept .deb packages), and, that .deb is known and has its 
reputation, as indicating a compatible package, I believe that the 
Debian Project would have no reason, to choose and implement another 
file name extension; for example, .debian, to replace the .deb file name 
extension; and, given that the name Debian, is associated with 
stability, I believe that the .deb file name extension, would likely, be 
unchanged, as, amongst other reasons, no worthwhile reason exists, to 
change the file name extension, from .deb, which is a well known file 
name extension. That is my, and, only, my, opinion.



it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...



Of course,if you want compliance with MS Windows, then, perhaps, Linux, 
and, especially, Debian, might not be appropriate for you...



but others don't think so, i google with deb12, few means debian

in past 20 years few call it debN (N=1,2,3...)

why few are interested in saving 4 characters (ian )?


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Bret Busby]

On 7/7/23 06:02, Bret Busby wrote:

On 7/7/23 05:40, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:

On 07.07.2023 01:23, hlyg wrote:

it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12

deb for debian as in file name extension of package

it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...

but others don't think so, i google with deb12, few means debian

in past 20 years few call it debN (N=1,2,3...)

why few are interested in saving 4 characters (ian )?


I'd save Ian if I could.


--
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄

I understood that it is some years too late to save Ian -

"
Ian Ashley Murdock (April 28, 1973 – December 28, 2015) was an American 
software engineer, known for being the founder of the Debian project and 
Progeny Linux Systems, a commercial Linux company.


... He named Debian after his then-girlfriend (later wife) Debra Lynn, 
and himself.



"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Murdock

Debian should always be mentioned as Debian, and, not Deb. I expect that 
his ex-wife, Debra, from whose name, is the Deb of Debian, would agree 
with that.


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..




..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Bret Busby]

On 7/7/23 05:40, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:

On 07.07.2023 01:23, hlyg wrote:

it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12

deb for debian as in file name extension of package

it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...

but others don't think so, i google with deb12, few means debian

in past 20 years few call it debN (N=1,2,3...)

why few are interested in saving 4 characters (ian )?


I'd save Ian if I could.


--
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄

I understood that it is some years too late to save Ian -

"
Ian Ashley Murdock (April 28, 1973 – December 28, 2015) was an American 
software engineer, known for being the founder of the Debian project and 
Progeny Linux Systems, a commercial Linux company.

"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Murdock

Debian should always be mentioned as Debian, and, not Deb. I expect that 
his ex-wife, Debra, from whose name, is the Deb of Debian, would agree 
with that.


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[Alexander V. Makartsev]

On 07.07.2023 01:23, hlyg wrote:

it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12

deb for debian as in file name extension of package

it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...

but others don't think so, i google with deb12, few means debian

in past 20 years few call it debN (N=1,2,3...)

why few are interested in saving 4 characters (ian )?


I'd save Ian if I could.


--
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄

why bookworm isn't called deb12?

[hlyg]

it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12

deb for debian as in file name extension of package

it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...

but others don't think so, i google with deb12, few means debian

in past 20 years few call it debN (N=1,2,3...)

why few are interested in saving 4 characters (ian )?