| 1 |
On Wednesday 07 August 2002 07:20 am, Alexander Gretencord wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> And why not let drobbins choose his own name. You can name your ditribution |
| 4 |
> all the way _you_ want to name it. It doesn't matter what the kernel is or |
| 5 |
> what the basic software like libc and utils like mount come from if he |
| 6 |
> chooses to call it after the Kernel it's running let him do that. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Well, if you want to fall back to an appeal to authority that is your |
| 9 |
decision, but my understanding of this entire discussion is that there is a |
| 10 |
desire to reach a consensus on this sort of thing. Otherwise, why even talk |
| 11 |
about it? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Clearly there are two groups, bitterly divided on this one minor point but |
| 14 |
otherwise united in their enthusiasm with respect to Linux in general and |
| 15 |
Gentoo in particular. It seems silly to have free software enthusiasts |
| 16 |
bickering over this point, especially if there is an easy solution that would |
| 17 |
satisfy all but the most extreme zealots on either side. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
My compromise is an effort to bridge that division, by having two very similar |
| 20 |
names (one with and one without the GNU), and a defacto notion that Linux is |
| 21 |
an abbreviation for GNU/Linux in much the same way LA is an abbreviation for |
| 22 |
whatever that gawdauful long name for Los Angeles really is. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> > but I think the vast majority of people on either side could live with |
| 25 |
> > either compromise just fine. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> And quite a lot just don't care what it's called anyway but care about |
| 28 |
> what's in and how it works. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Yes, and I fall into that group as well. But clearly a lot of people DO care, |
| 31 |
so if their is a straightforward and easy way to address the issue and bridge |
| 32 |
these differences, why not consider it? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Jean. |
Archives