Re: When can we expect a version 1.0 of the GNU Operating System?

[Brandon Invergo]

"Jason Self" <address@hidden> writes:

> Brandon Invergo <address@hidden> wrote ..
>
>> 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?
>
> The GNU Operating System can have more than one thing. It already
> does: Look at GNOME and GNUstep for example. GNOME is more popular but
> both are official GNU packages. GNU already has two official kernels:
> HURD, and Linux-libre was also made an official GNU package back in
> 2012. But, really, the GNU Operating System is whatever RMS says it is.

I know, and I argued as much just a couple paragraphs below that.  I'm
mostly speaking on the level of pedantry at the moment, arguing against
talking about The *Official* GNU operating system as a single,
downloadable entity at this point in 2014, 30-something years after GNU
was announced.

I don't think it makes much sense to offer multiple official systems
that differ in some of their core components (aside from variants
targeting different CPU architectures...same software, different
compiled result, basically).  And if one of the arguments in favor of
offering a "Download GNU" link on gnu.org is to reduce the confusion of
then being faced with a choice of distros, I don't see how being faced
with a choice of "official variants" improves the situation.

Since so many parts can be freely swapped around with other free
software, even other GNU packages, it only makes sense to speak in terms
of reference implementations.  Free software development has grown far
beyond the exclusive purview of the GNU project.  It would be a bad idea
to shut all of that out, close in on ourselves and say, "no, *this and
only this* set of software is GNU".  We need to openly accept all of
that free software, see how it is effectively *all* a part of GNU, and
think about "The GNU System" in terms of how all of that massive body of
software works together, whether they be official GNU software or not.
Some subset of it will then be selected to represent the specific
GNU/Linux or GNU/Hurd distributions that we provide, but it would be
foolish and dishonest to say that any other subset is not the GNU
system.

That's not to say we should be left in the dust as just another small
part of the free software world.  I'll reiterate that I'm a big fan of
what the Guix team is doing.  I view that project as an excellent way
for GNU to continue to lead the way by setting the best example, not as
a way to overtake and replace other efforts.  In my opinion, we should
absolutely put on offer a reference GNU/Linux distribution alongside the
others listed by the FSF and, once it's ready, we should absolutely put
on offer a reference GNU/Hurd distribution.  But there's no need to
sweep all the other free distros under the rug just because they're not
"official".

-brandon



-- 
Brandon Invergo
http://brandon.invergo.net

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature