Robert Millan wrote: >On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: >> The fact of the too generic package name was mentioned before within >> other arguments against your "linux" package. > >How many software programs called "linux" are around?
When people refer to "linux", they often mean the entire OS. How about calling it "linux-kernel"? Upstram seems happy with this, given that the mailing list for its discussion is "linux-kernel" rather than "linux", and it would remove any ambiguity. It would also allow for consistency with other kernels - "netbsd" doesn't necessarily refer to the kernel, but "netbsd-kernel" is unambigous. >> IIRC you prefered not to >> answer to it but refered to an URL which did not contain the answers. > >I don't recall seeing this question before. So unless you provide a link to >that, you're liing. Technically, no - even if he doesn't provide a link, it may be true. And even if the question wasn't asked before, he may be mistaken. Accusing people of deliberately telling falsehoods (and note the "IIRC" - for this to be a lie, Eduard would have to have known absolutely that what he was saying was not true) makes you look like a fanatic. >I don't recall seeing such "ultimate argument" before. So unless you provide >a link to that, you're liing again. Cough. >> And after removing bogus and irrelevant ones from that list, it became >> empty. > >Indeed. You may want to actually read that. He's referring to the advantages list. >> Why cannot you invent something new to convince us? > >As I said before I'm unwilling to understand your sarcasm. But at the time you were referring to my sarcasm, which confuses me a bit. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]