Re: name: GNU/Cygwin system

[Michael Smith <smith at xml-doc dot org>]

"Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au> writes:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Smith [mailto:smith@xml-doc.org] 
> >[...]
> > 
> > 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.

Sorry about that. I just did a search now and see that it was
discussed on the list back in April.

> > 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.

Fair enough. I certainly didn't mean at all to downplay the work that
all of you have done and are continuing to do.

> > 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?

I would. I'm far from the best qualified person to be acting as a rep
for Cygwin in any standards effort, but unless and untile someone else
from core team has the time to do it, I volunteer. I'm actually
already going to be involved with the LSB XML/SGML working group.

> >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.

Well, there is the "Single UNIX Specification":

  http://www.opengroup.org/austin/

Looking at the list of participants there, I see that I see that
Cygnus and Red Hat are (or were) involved.

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

Yeah, I guess the discussion probably isn't of interest to most people
on this list, so I'll shut up about it now too.

But if somebody can let me know off-list who I should follow up with
regarding participation in the LSB, I'd appreciate it.

Cheers,

  --Mike




--
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/