Re: name: GNU/cygwin system
Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] > It's never been a goal of Cygwin to adhere to something like the LSB > and we already refer to the Single UNIX Specification for reference. > This is another thing that you could have gleaned from inspection > of the mailing list archives. > > Anyone who might be interested in participating in something like the > LSB is undoubtedly already aware of it. > > Respectfully, you seem rather new to the project. I wouldn't feel > comfortable with you representing it in any way. You're right of course. I just intended the LSB and name suggestions in part as suggestions to maybe help raise more awareness of Cygwin in the free software community (though I can see now that these particular suggestions weren't terrifically thoughtful ones). In hindsight, I realize that the name suggestion was pretty simple-minded (and I apologize once again for not having the courtesy to first take the time to check the list archive to see if it had already been discussed). Anyway, though I think just about everybody who's got any familiarity with the free software world at all knows that Linux packages (RPMs and Debian packages) are available for all sorts of things, I'm not sure how many are aware that: * through Cygwin, many of the same tools available as packages for Linux distributions are also available as packages for Windows (and Cygwin provides an environment for compiling and installing many others that aren't packaged yet) * Cygwin provides a sophisticated package management system that makes it easy to install and update packages I don't what can be done to raise more awareness about Cygwin -- especially about the availability of packages; but in part, I guess that more people should -- when, on mailing lists or websites, they're pointing out that certain applications are available as Linux packages -- take the time to check to see whether particular packages are available for Cygwin, and acknowledge when they are. That's what I've tried to do for the DocBook/XML/SGML packages that Jon Foster and Markus Hoenicka put together -- by adding information about them to the DocBook Wiki: http://docbook.org/wiki/moin.cgi/DocBookPackages http://docbook.org/wiki/moin.cgi/CygwinPackages About the page at the second URL: I hope I'm not using the Cygwin logo inappropriately. If I am, somebody please let me know (I couldn't find any information at the Cygwin site about use of the logo). Are there other promotional logos/buttons/banners I could/should use instead? Maybe a version of the Cygwin banner (http://cygwin.com/cygwin.jpg)? 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/
Re: name: GNU/Cygwin system
"Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > -Original Message----- > > From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >[...] > > > > 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/
name: GNU/Cygwin system
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. 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. For example, it seems like representatives from Cygwin should be involved with the Linux Standard Base effort: http://www.linuxbase.org/ And the effort should be called "GNU Standard Base" instead (though I realize that's not s ever actually going to happen). --Mike Smith -- Michael Smith, Tokyo, Japanhttp://sideshowbarker.net マイク Just as there are four letters in the name of God, there are four seasons. This is because of THE LAW OF PSYCHIC EQUIVALENCE. the law of psychic equivalence is encoded in the Bible. ALL modern problems stem from the failure to recognise God's law of electro-atomic-universal compensation. http://www.logopoeia.com/wisdom/ -- 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/
