Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles)

[Grant Bowman]

* Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es> [020520 09:56]:
> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 12:50:08AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote:
> > * Richard Kreuter <kreuter@ausar.rutgers.edu> [020512 22:44]:
> > > GNU specific annex:
> > > 
> > > 6.2  GNU
> > > 
> > > This is the annex for the GNU operating system.  We sometimes refer
> > > to this as the GNU/Hurd system, in cases where it is necessary to
> > > distinguish the GNU system from other systems that use large amounts
> > > of GNU software.
> > 
> > Good, but I think this does not acknowledge that GNU/Linux is still a
> > GNU system.
> 
> Considering they call it "the Linux operating system" i don't think they
> are willing to acknowledge that GNU/Linux is a GNU system. :)

They?  Who's they?  Debian officially says GNU/Linux.

> Referring to "GNU" and "Linux" as OSes separately in the same document
> seems inconsistent, but I don't think consistency can be archieved
> when there's a disparity of opinions after all.

Consistency is all the more important now due to the ambiguity and
differing opinions.

> > Generally, I think GNU alone is ambiguous and shouldn't be used given
> > the climate today.
> 
> "GNU" and "GNU/Hurd" are valid names. The climate today is that when people
> read "GNU/Hurd" they think "Hurd".

I agree GNU/Hurd is a valid name.  Actually I believe they think HURD
because that's what the logo says on http://hurd.gnu.org!

> If we avoid the "GNU" term today, tomorrow "Hurd" will be the name of the
> whole system.

Sounds like fear talking.  Standards are sensitive, so you want whatever
you submit to be very "correct."  I'd be happy to help increase the
consistency of what you propose to submit.  Is there a CVS archive I can
submit diffs against?

-- 
-- Grant Bowman                                <grantbow@grantbow.com>