This is the mail archive of the cygwin@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: name: GNU/Cygwin system



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Smith [mailto:smith@xml-doc.org] 
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 4:37 PM
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: name: GNU/Cygwin system
> 
> 
> I'm not trolling (and maybe for all I know, this has already 
> been talked out) but I wanted to suggest that it might be 
> appropriate for Cygwin to describe and advertise itself as 
> the "GNU/Cygwin system", giving credit where credit it very 
> much due -- just as Debian does by describing itself as a 
> "GNU/Linux" system.

It has been. See the list archives - and then you would have known.
 
> IMO, the fact the GNU system (not the Linux kernel) is really 
> the essential ingredient is pointed to by the fact that many 
> of the same concerns that affect maintainers of the various 
> Linux distros (and especially, maintainers of packages on 
> those distros) also very much affect Cygwin maintainers and packagers.

Yes, I can really see how some of the early packages like openssl owe so
much to the FSF. Don't get me wrong, I've signed copyright assigment for
various project contributions to the FSF and nearly always code under
the GPL. However, the manpower put in my the volunteers here is
certainly a much more important contribution than the existence of the
software itself. 

Firstly, one can, starting with a linux system, generate a windows
system will ALL of the proffered binaries. Thus the actual value added
of the software's existence is minimal. Iy's the maintainer time that
adds all the value to end users by offering binaries.
Secondly, GNU is already in the name: Gnu + Cygnus + Windows = Cygwin is
the logo on the website. Calling it GNU/Cygwin would be redundant.
Thirdly, If we where to look at adding things to the name, I'd be
strongly pushing for cgf/djd/cv/ed/rc/lh/eb/jt/Cygwin. And more could be
added there quite reasonably.

> For example, it seems like representatives from Cygwin should 
> be involved with the Linux Standard Base effort:
> 
>  http://www.linuxbase.org/

That would be nice. I don't know of anyone here with the time. Would you
like to be such a liason?

>And the effort should be called "GNU Standard Base" instead 
> (though I realize that's not s ever actually going to happen).

I disagree here. It's quite feasible to put the BSD cp/tar/mv etc onto a
linux kernel based system, and the LSB should still apply. Likewise the
LSB should still apply to a GNU/Hurd kernel based machine, so I do agree
that the name LSB is wrong - just not with your replacement. Something
like the Unix Standard Base would be appropriate, with
IBM/HP/SUN/QNX/BSD folk also involved.

At this point, I've gone offtopic, so I'll just be quite now :}

Rob

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]