Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/05/17/03:52:20
"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au> writes:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Smith [mailto:smith AT xml-doc DOT 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/
- Raw text -