From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brandon Invergo Subject: Re: Guix != GNU GSD ==> True Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:22:02 +0000 Message-ID: <1422454922.1090.83.camel@invergo.net> References: <8761dcc693.fsf@invergo.net> <87sigemze4.fsf@gnu.org> <20150121193716.GF11138@alien.local> <874mrgo399.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9vccs2h.fsf_-_@unicorn.home> <54C7B7B9.6050706@gnu.org> <20150128004919.088295fb@freedom-laptop> <87k307rxg3.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87k307rxg3.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gnu-system-discuss-bounces+gcgs-gnu-system-discuss=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: gnu-system-discuss-bounces+gcgs-gnu-system-discuss=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Taylan Ulrich =?UTF-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, gnu-system-discuss@gnu.org List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org I recognize that the Guix / GSD naming matter is settled, but some extra, more general thoughts, prompted by this: On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 11:50 +0100, Taylan Ulrich Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer= wrote: > We really need a break from, or almost a fight against, this whole > "distro" culture More practically, perhaps we should push a more accurate term than "distribution". Setting aside what this word has come to mean today, when I think of "software distribution", I think of simply a collection of software packages that one can install (e.g. a bunch of independent software archives distributed on a CD-ROM...in fact, I guess this could fairly well describe the first distros). In this sense of the word, the GNU Source Release Collection (GSRC) is more accurately described as a software distribution: it consists of a means to easily install a variety of GNU software packages. GSD, Parabola, etc offer more than that, so calling them "distributions" does them a disservice. What we call software distributions today encompass a lot more than just the collection of software that they offer. In particular, this includes all of the configuration, init scripts, package management tools, and other glue that tie it all together. The "GNU System", on the other hand, is a bit different and more general: it is the result of the interactions between that software (a system is always more than the sum of its parts), regardless of the specific configuration. That's why Trisquel, Parabola, GSD, et al. can all implement the GNU system, even though the specific software packages (and versions), their configuration and the "glue" that ties the software together are very different: the overall pattern of interaction between the components is the same, resulting in a recognizable system. So, I would say that "distro" is not sufficient to describe what these projects do, while the "system" is something else that they ultimately implement in common. This is why I previously suggested referring to Guix (now GSD) as the "reference implementation of the GNU system" (ignoring now the argument over "reference", please). =20 I would suggest changing our terminology in general from "GNU/Linux distro" to "GNU implementation" but it's feels a bit clunky to say. "GNU variant" implies that one can find reference (which was resolutely rejected). "GNU version" just doesn't have a good ring to it. I don't know...Any other suggestions? Or am I talking nonsense? -brandon --=20 Brandon Invergo http://brandon.invergo.net