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

[Brandon Invergo]

Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro <address@hidden> writes:

> Incompatible?  So how are we supposed to release "the GNU system" if
> no distribution could be called that way?  Are you implying that only
> Hurd-based GNU systems deserve the label?

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?

This is why I argued that we should instead talk about having a
"reference GNU/Linux distribution" or something to that extent.
"Official GNU System" might have been imaginable decades ago but things
have turned out differently: we have many thousands of good free
software packages that can interchangeably comprise a GNU-like system
(all for the better, in my opinion).  To declare some specific subset of
them to be the "official" combination is not productive and dismisses a
lot of perfectly fine free software.

A "reference" distribution, on the other hand, is less constrictive and
more like a recommendation.  It allows room for other GNU/Linux distros
to experiment with what they think a GNU System should be like, while
giving them some recommendation about how we think it should be (all the
while, of course, maintaining strict *requirements* with regard to
software freedom).

> If GNU is a system of multiple kernels, *every* GNU project's
> distribution of the GNU system, be it Linux-libre, Hurd or a third GNU
> kernel based, deserves to be called "the GNU system".  Technicalities
> that differ them are for tech-savvy people, not the common public.

Ah, now you've finally seen my point :)  With your above words in mind,
please go back and re-read my original ruminations on terminology.  The
"GNU System" is something that arises out of a combination of software[1].
The specific software building blocks can be interchanged without
affecting the overall status as a GNU system[2].

-brandon

Footnotes:

[1] I would love to bring in analogies from my research in systems
biology but I'll spare everyone.  Maybe sometime over a beer at a
GHM. :)

[2] Of course I recognize that there's a "border issue": at what point
does a free software system stop being a GNU system?  If all core GNU
tools/libraries are swapped out in favor of other (free) alternatives,
is it still GNU?  I would still argue "yes", as long as it's free and
Unixoid, but that's philosophical and arguing it will not get us very
far, so please let's just discuss that over a beer sometime as well.

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature