Re: Is the debian-doc kfreeBSD-ready?
Hi On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:34:52AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: El 11 d’abril de 2012 5:24, David Prévot taf...@debian.org ha escrit: Hi kFreeBSD folks, Hurd folks CC. After taking care of the website (mostly changing “Debian GNU/Linux” to a simple “Debian” where it's accurate), we are wondering if our Debian documentation is kFreeBSD-ready, i.e. can we safely drop “GNU/Linux”, or do we need to tweak the documentation first? maybe ... I can't answer your question, however I wanted to comment something about one of the proposed texts: | Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating | system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your | computer run. Debian uses the Linux or FreeBSD kernel (the core of an | operating system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU | project; hence the name Debian GNU/Linux or Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. This is saying that FreeBSD is a kernel, and that Debian uses it. But that's not true. Debian doesn't use FreeBSD, only a small part of it (its kernel, plus some bits of kernel-related code). The phrase kernel of FreeBSD (or its abbreviation, kFreeBSD) is often used to refer to the situation unambigously. Very good point. I also think placing equivalent weight for GNU/Linux and GNU/kFreeBSD might skew the reality. Just because we released GNU/kFreeBSD does not make it to gain the completely equivalent status as GNU/Linux. When we look at the recent sysyemd/upstart/sysvint discussion, this is obvious. Now we have: | Debian systems currently use the Linux kernel or the FreeBSD kernel. | Linux is a piece of software started by Linus Torvalds and supported by | thousands of programmers worldwide. FreeBSD is an operating system | including a kernel and other software. | | However, work is in progress to provide Debian for other kernels, | primarily for the Hurd. The Hurd is a collection of servers that run on | top of a microkernel (such as Mach) to implement different features. The | Hurd is free software produced by the GNU project. | | A large part of the basic tools that fill out the operating system come | from the GNU project; hence the names: GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD and | GNU/Hurd. These tools are also free. I think adding some historical context should make this balanced. I propose the following to keep this part not too long: | Debian system was created as the Free operating system initially on the | i386 PC platform using the Linux kernel started by Linus Torvalds with | many system tools from the GNU project. Thus Debian was initially called | as Debian GNU/Linux. | | Since then, Debian has been ported to various hardware platforms and | Free kernel platforms. | | Debian has released its ports using the kernel from FreeBSD project with | the same set of GNU tools as Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. | | There are activities in progress to port Debian system to the Hurd from | GNU project as Debian GNU/Hurd. Hurd is a collection of servers that | run on top of a microkernel (such as Mach). This way, a change in future for Debian GNU/kFreeBSD or Debian GNU/Hurd only requires to change one paragraph. (My initial proposal we a bit too much to put all Debian GNU/* together.) Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120413002708.GA7563@localhost
Re: Is the debian-doc kfreeBSD-ready?
El 11 d’abril de 2012 5:24, David Prévot taf...@debian.org ha escrit: Hi kFreeBSD folks, Hurd folks CC. After taking care of the website (mostly changing “Debian GNU/Linux” to a simple “Debian” where it's accurate), we are wondering if our Debian documentation is kFreeBSD-ready, i.e. can we safely drop “GNU/Linux”, or do we need to tweak the documentation first? Hi, I can't answer your question, however I wanted to comment something about one of the proposed texts: | Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating | system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your | computer run. Debian uses the Linux or FreeBSD kernel (the core of an | operating system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU | project; hence the name Debian GNU/Linux or Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. This is saying that FreeBSD is a kernel, and that Debian uses it. But that's not true. Debian doesn't use FreeBSD, only a small part of it (its kernel, plus some bits of kernel-related code). The phrase kernel of FreeBSD (or its abbreviation, kFreeBSD) is often used to refer to the situation unambigously. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXP=alwxvrmjutckyykddzvsdik3kbrrjrh186vq+je...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Is the debian-doc kfreeBSD-ready?
On 11/04/12 07:34, Robert Millan wrote: El 11 d’abril de 2012 5:24, David Prévot taf...@debian.org ha escrit: | Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating | system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your | computer run. Debian uses the Linux or FreeBSD kernel (the core of an | operating system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU | project; hence the name Debian GNU/Linux or Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. This is saying that FreeBSD is a kernel, and that Debian uses it... What about: Debian can use either the Linux kernel or kFreeBSD at its core, but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence the names Debian GNU/Linux or Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. Since kFreeBSD is the the kernel's name. And it is also redundant to speak of a kFreeBSD kernel. But when speaking of Linux it's unfortunately necessary to be specific when referring only to the kernel. And I used the word 'can' to try to leave open the idea that other kernels for Debian could exist (like Hurd) even if only the release architectures are named here. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f8567c9.5030...@pyro.eu.org
Re: Is the debian-doc kfreeBSD-ready?
2012/4/11 Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org: What about: Debian can use either the Linux kernel or kFreeBSD at its core, but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence the names Debian GNU/Linux or Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. Since kFreeBSD is the the kernel's name. FWIW, I have never heard anyone use the term “kFreeBSD” in a non-Debian context; therefore I find it strange to use it at such an introductory location. What about using “kernel of FreeBSD” and indicating that the abbreviation for that is “kFreeBSD”? E.g.: “Debian can use either Linux or the kernel of FreeBSD (called kFreeBSD) at its core” I replaced “the Linux kernel” with just “Linux”, but that may be a personal preference (i.e., according to me, “the Linux kernel” sounds as if Linux is not itself just a kernel). Alternatively one could use: “Debian can use either the Linux kernel or the kernel of FreeBSD (called kFreeBSD) at its core” Nicolas -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Q. Why is top posting bad? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cap-rdtafswtwlutbmszuldnjb5-my9eza2nhz_qj5utbciw...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Is the debian-doc kfreeBSD-ready?
El 11 d’abril de 2012 14:26, Nicolas Barbier nicolas.barb...@gmail.com ha escrit: FWIW, I have never heard anyone use the term “kFreeBSD” in a non-Debian context; therefore I find it strange to use it at such an introductory location. What about using “kernel of FreeBSD” and indicating that the abbreviation for that is “kFreeBSD”? E.g.: “Debian can use either Linux or the kernel of FreeBSD (called kFreeBSD) at its core” I agree. However, the called makes it look like we're an authoritative source (and officially, the kernel of FreeBSD doesn't have a name of its own). How about something like: [...] or the kernel of FreeBSD (often referred to as kFreeBSD) as its core. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXMGQ7NRXcs o-yfiglhffg60cv_oet1pvxkqodtg...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Is the debian-doc kfreeBSD-ready?
On 11/04/12 19:16, Robert Millan wrote: El 11 d’abril de 2012 14:26, Nicolas Barbier nicolas.barb...@gmail.com ha escrit: What about using “kernel of FreeBSD” and indicating that the abbreviation for that is “kFreeBSD”? E.g.: “Debian can use either Linux or the kernel of FreeBSD (called kFreeBSD) at its core” I agree. However, the called makes it look like we're an authoritative source (and officially, the kernel of FreeBSD doesn't have a name of its own). Or... maybe just skip the bracketed part, because the term is already introduced in the second half of the (rather long) sentence: Debian can use the kernel of either Linux or FreeBSD at its core, but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence the names Debian GNU/Linux or Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f85ccca.4040...@pyro.eu.org
Is the debian-doc kfreeBSD-ready?
Hi kFreeBSD folks, Hurd folks CC. After taking care of the website (mostly changing “Debian GNU/Linux” to a simple “Debian” where it's accurate), we are wondering if our Debian documentation is kFreeBSD-ready, i.e. can we safely drop “GNU/Linux”, or do we need to tweak the documentation first? Le 04/04/2012 10:18, David Prévot a écrit : Le 14/02/2012 05:30, Paul Wise a écrit : The attached patch replaces Debian GNU/Linux with Debian where relevant and makes other changes needed to fix #614233. Are the “Debian FAQ”, the “Debian Reference Card” and the “Debian and Java FAQ” “kFreeBSD-ready”? Have the descriptions and contents been updated in the respective packages (if not, we maybe should clone this bug report to the respective packages, and block this one by the clones)? Let's start small (but I won't stop anyone to process all our documentation, of course): is the Debian refcard fine? http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/refcard/ Same question for the Hurd (maybe can we synchronize the doc in advance). Regards David signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
