While I have great sympathy for the GNU cause, and am a fan of RMS's, the fact is that the LSB is devising a specification that could be implemented totally without GNU or Linux source code. That, along with the fact that a lot of people don't like the term GNU/Linux being foisted on them, make me hesitate to chime in and say "Sure, let's call this the GLSB".
Let's focus on the technical issues here, not the marketing issues... - Dan Andy Tai wrote: > > Hi, I think that the LSB mainly concerns with > standardizing the de facto "GNU/Linux" system. And, > that is what the draft specification is doing. > Concerns with FreeBSD shall fall in the domain of Unix > standardization, outside the scope of LSB. > > What I am suggestion is just the addition of a single > statement to the LSB spec, say in the introduction > section, saying "this spec is the Linux Standard Base, > and the name "GNU/Linux Standard Base" shall be > equivalent," or something similar. Just a single > statement, the rest of the spec does not need any > changes. Or some language like that, acknowledging > the "GNU/Linux" fraction of the community in some way. > I am sure the smart leaders of the Linux community in > the LSB can find a very good compromise. > > Thinking not in black and white but gray scale, one > can see there is some merit in the "GNU/Linux" name. > The LSB spec is the proof. GNUism has shaped the > Linux system significantly. Maybe not in the kernel, > but in the scope of the LSB, the commonly used Linux > system, the user space. This GNUism distinguishes > Linux from, say, FreeBSD, in many ways, whether one > likes or hates it. > > Also I am not asking for renaming. LSB is always LSB. > I am suggesting acknowledging an alternative name. > Following Example: Russian Constitution, Article 1, > > "The Russian Federation -- Russia shall be a > democratic federal rule-of-law state with the > republican form of government. The names "Russian > Federation" and "Russia" shall be equivalent. " > > Thanks for your consideration. > > --- Jim Knoble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The problem with using the term "GNU/Linux" is the > > (originally quite > > intended) implication that it's a system built > > around the Linux kernel, > > the GNU C library, and other GNU tools. > > > > The Linux Standard Base, however, should be able to > > apply to a system > > that is based around the Linux kernel, a completely > > different C library > > that meets the spec, and completely different tools > > that also meet the > > spec. > > > > In fact, it's possible that systems such as FreeBSD > > would be able to > > meet the LSB spec. > > > > Putting "GNU" in the name of the spec would seem to > > be too narrow. If > > any renaming is necessary, it should be toward > > widening the implied > > coverage rather than narrowing it.
