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

[Felipe López]

On 24/11/14 12:21, Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro wrote:
> Em Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:44:23 +0000
> Brandon Invergo <address@hidden> escreveu:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> It would only imply that if we intended it to mean so.  However, what
> we are proposing is that using the term "the GNU system" rather than
> "a GNU-variant system" would imply that the distribution at hand is a
> GNU project's distribution of the GNU system, rather than of any other
> organization, being the latter term used to mean this.  Even so, it
> wouldn't imply that every GNU-variant system should have the same set
> of components.  Summing up, the term "the GNU system" is expressing
> mainly a matter of affiliation to the GNU project, rather than any
> technical definition of what a GNU(-variant) system ought to be.
> 
> 
>> 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?
> 
> By our definition, given above, any GNU kernel that the GNU project
> has a GNU system distribution for.  I would insist, though, that it is
> best if the GNU project doesn't have two distinct distributions for
> the same kernel.
> 
> 
>> This is why I argued that we should instead talk about having a
>> "reference GNU/Linux distribution" or something to that extent.
> 
> Making the GNU project's distributions of the GNU system reference
> distributions could well have the effect you are arguing against:
> promoting a strict set of software as mandatory to define any
> distribution as a GNU system according to GNU project's view.  Rather
> we are only talking about naming the GNU project's distributions of
> the GNU system as "the GNU system", whatever the kernel, just to
> convey the sense that they are distributions of the GNU project.  It
> wouldn't imply nothing more than that.
> 
> 
>> "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.
> 
> I will reiterate that it's not a technical issue but rather a
> strategical one.  We are not proposing to declare a particular set of
> software official --- that's not relevant.  What we are arguing for is
> to use the name "the GNU system", or simply "GNU", for every GNU
> project's distribution of the GNU system.
> 
> 
>> A "reference" distribution, on the other hand, is less constrictive
>> and more like a recommendation.
> 
> The GNU project's distributions of the GNU system are not necessarily
> any kind of recommendation at all.  In principle, they are just the
> GNU system distributions of the GNU project, a.k.a, the GNU system.
> 
> 
>> 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).
> 
> Other GNU+Linux-libre distros can always experiment the way they
> please, because GNU is free software.  It's not required that we
> recommend anything about how a GNU system should look like.  Naming
> our distributions as "the GNU system" only imply they are distribution
> of ours.
> 
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> I'm sorry, I really don't follow.
> 
> 
>> The "GNU System" is something that arises out of a combination of
>> software.
> 
> As you said, you are trying to make analogies between computer systems
> and biological organisms.  I'd love to discuss that over a beer,
> however those philosophical questions are out of scope for our
> strategical concerns.  Philosophical questions aside, politically the
> GNU system is, actually, what RMS claims it to be.  We believe he
> should claim it's any of the GNU project's distribution of the GNU
> system.
> 
> 
>> The specific software building blocks can be interchanged without
>> affecting the overall status as a GNU system.
> 
> In fact, according to our definition, any distribution made by other
> organization than the GNU project is not a GNU system, even if
> technically nearly identical to GNU project's distributions, but are
> rather a GNU-variant system.  As you can see, that's a political
> difference, not a technical one.

Exactly (all of the above).


-- 
Luis Felipe López Acevedo
http://sirgazil.bitbucket.org/

ID Klefo PGP  : 0x8A296B99
Marko fingrala: 7ED8 4963 C881 647C 9DA0 FDE6 881B 91ED 8A29 6B99