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

[Brandon Invergo]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Yet, the question of how to name things is interesting.  While (say) the
> “Debian operating system” (sic, as per www.debian.org) can indeed be
> downloaded and installed, the “GNU operating system” seemingly cannot,
> to the www.gnu.org visitor¹.  This is arguably a hindrance for GNU as a
> project.

Personally I disagree with Debian referring to itself as an operating
system, since it's clearly a distribution of software that can comprise
operating system, ("distro" being, of course, not an uncommon
description of Debian).  The problem is that the whole notion of a
"distribution of an operating system" is really unique to the free
software world, and thus unfamiliar to newcomers.

In the case of, say, the BSDs, sure, I think it makes sense to describe
them as operating systems because the core components are all developed
and shipped together without interchangeability in mind.  They are
monolithic wholes.  But something like what we have is entirely
different, since everything is developed and distributed as individual
building blocks that can be swapped in and out as pleased (and indeed,
it was like this even in the beginning when they were being used to
replace parts of Unix).  So in a sense, offering a download of "The GNU
Operating System" is a bit misleading, since the system isn't some set
of software but rather it's the interactions between a vast amount of
interchangeable software.  It's like offering a download of the
Internet: it's nonsensical.

But I agree that it's nevertheless confusing to someone new to free
software that they can't just download the operating system, that
instead they have to download a loose collection of software that
together comprise an entire system.  The very definition of a distro, of
course, is a diverse collection of software distributed together to make
installing and running the software easier, but nowadays it's become
conflated with "operating system".  This is perhaps for the sake of
convenience and to convince newcomers.

I don't think that bundling the software together is enough to make that
bundle a definable operating system, though.  It's hard to argue that
Debian is a distinct operating system from Parabola; sure, some building
blocks may be different, but you can easily morph one to look almost
exactly like the other by the simple virtue of them compiling sets of
software with a large intersection.  But I understand that they probably
did it for the very reason that we're discussing now: it's more clear to
a new person what it means to download an operating system than it is to
download a software distribution.

Sorry, a bit rambling, but hopefully my meaning is clear.

-brandon

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature