Re: RFC - GNU System Distribution

[Barry deFreese]

John Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 16:51 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> 
>>Please, this is just unproductive, the GNU system has was named by
>>Richard in 1984, lets keep it like that.
> 
> 
> I would like to move this debate along, as I don't believe that it is
> unproductive.
> 
> I appreciate the points being made on all sides of this debate.  Let me
> try to summarise.  If I misrepresent your opinion or position, please
> send corrections to the list.
> 
> 1.  Barry wants to name an entity in the same class as (what is known in
> the popular press as)  a Linux distribution (or a BSD distribution, or
> whatever)
> 
> 2.  Responders to his idea seem to believe that he is talking about
> renaming either (1) the community that produces the software, or (2) the
> "system".  
> 
> 3.  Barry is talking about things from a consumer point of view, others
> are taking a producer's point of view.  Barry is saying "let's talk to
> people in a language they understand" and others are saying "no, let's
> teach them new words and concepts".
> 
> 4. "System" is highly ambiguous.  When we say "GNU is not Unix" this
> begs the question "what is Unix"?  It is certainly not a kernel, a
> product you can buy, or an ISO you can download.  It is a computing
> platform (software) in the broadest sense of the word, perhaps most
> usefully defined as a set of interfaces (POSIX).  All this is geek-speak
> of the highest order.
> 
> 5. People able to differentiate between Windows, Mac OS, GNU/Linux etc.
> understand the term "Operating System".  Nowadays the distinction
> between what we think of as an OS and the applications bundled with it
> are becoming blurred.  But people understand the difference between OSs
> in an operative sense like this:  A: "Hey, I've found this really neat
> software that fulfils my innermost desires!"  B: "Cool!  Does it run on
> Macs?".
> 
> 6. All the above leads me to conclude that we should call it (what Barry
> is talking about) the "GNU OS".  For those with American accents, this
> of course expands to "(guh) new OS", or "New Operating System".  To me
> GNU is a collection of software that embodies and implements
> socio-political principles in addition to IT/CS principles.  We should
> distinguish between "a bunch of software" and an operating system.
> 
> 7. We should not publicise the existence of the GNU OS until it is in a
> state where one can download a bootable CD or DVD image, pop it in the
> drive of a computer with an unformatted hard drive, install it, and end
> up with a GUI login to (probably) a GNOME session.  The GNOME session
> should provide ethernet access to the Internet and run the most useful
> free software for end users:  Email, WWW browser, IM client and Office
> suite.  (OpenOffice?  GNOME Office?).  
> 
> OK, that last point was just a wish.  But how far away are we from
> achieving this?  And I presume in all this we are talking about the
> kernel being the Hurd, not Linux?
> 
> I am sorry if I am being naive and stupid by butting in here.  I have
> been waiting 20 years for the release of what I think of as the GNU OS.
> I want it to happen, and I am willing to help, but I am a very poor
> programmer.  Is there room for a non-programmer to help in this project?
> 
> thanks for listening,
> 
> John
> 
John,

This is beautiful.  Thank you for putting in to words what I was
apparently not able to get across.

Oh and from one non-programmer to another, you would certainly be
welcome in my little corner of the project :-)

Thanks again,

Barry deFreese (aka bddebian)