Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 3 Jan 1999 09:44:14 +0800 (WST) | From | Greg Mildenhall <> | Subject | [OFFTOPIC] Gnumenclature was Re: IBM, was never Re: Linux Kernel |
| |
On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, Larry McVoy wrote: > "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <allbery@kf8nh.apk.net>: > : "i386-redhat-linux", eh? On S.u.S.E.? Debian? [....]
> His point, I think, was that i386-redhat-linux is quite a bit more > accurate and useful than i386-gnu-linux. Ditto for i386-suse-linux > and i386-debian-linux. Is it? The same package ought to work on all of them, and if it doesn't, you _should_ (you won't always) be able to tell from the .deb or .rpm extension, not from the name of the package. The main reason for this? They all use glibc2. How 'bout we call it 1386-glibc2-linux. Oh. Damn. I just remembered what the g in glibc stands for. Obviously we can't have that then. ;)
> But to take {redhat,suse,slackware,debian} and call them all gnu is > (a) incorrect, It is? Which one of these does not use GNU-owned software for most of it's basic userspace components? GNU certainly does not have a monopoly on such, but it certainly is responsible for more than any of the distributions. It seems the best approximation to correctness.
> (b) somewhat annoying, To you. To others it's annoying the other way. Such is life.
> (c) loses important information. If the software won't run on all platforms that could be called i386-glibc-linux, then the fault lies in the software. If it is inherently distro-specific, then you don't need to have the platform as part of the name.
Anyone that wants to debate the gnomenclature issue, should be aware that it is going to take an extended discussion that you should _not_ invite here. If it was possible to demonstrate either side of the argument in the space allowable to an offtopic thread in a technical mailing list, then the issue would have died long ago. Having said that, I hope the following might help people see that the topic is worthy of it's own discussion area, and that you cannot trivially brush Richard&co. off, however much you would like to end this tiresome thread.
GNU own a very small proportion of the code we run, on the whole, but what they do own comprises a great many of the most fundamental and universal components of a system. Depending on your definition of "operating system" GNU might own a very large proportion of it, or a minor part if you count everything on your distro CD, or none if you equate "OS" with "kernel".
When you are considering a "platform" for porting purposes or similar, what matters most (after the CPU) is the standard library. If you port to glibc, you can create a single i386 binary that can run on Linux, FreeBSD and Hurd, but _won't_ run on libc5-based Linux.
I know a lot of people won't agree, but hopefully they can see that there is enough depth here that the issue will never be laid to rest within the narrow confines of this list.
-Greg Mildenhall
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |