From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor_Boskovits?= Subject: Re: Roadmap for Guix 1.0 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 22:12:36 +0200 Message-ID: References: <878t5udq9u.fsf@gnu.org> <20180730012352.k56ka6psrtsofjv2@thebird.nl> <3950fd65549969614ebbcd16ed974f26@hypermove.net> <875zzsdqm2.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87wos8xdqm.fsf@gnu.org> <87k1o89flh.fsf@elephly.net> <87a7p3zmzu.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ff46070574acb2f4" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59450) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvTJE-0004rV-6I for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 16:12:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvTJC-00008A-U4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 16:12:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87a7p3zmzu.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: myglc2@gmail.com Cc: Guix-devel , guix-devel-bounces+amirouche=hypermove.net@gnu.org --000000000000ff46070574acb2f4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable George Clemmer ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2018. aug. 3= 0., Cs, 21:14): > > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > > > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I think =E2=80=9CGuix System=E2=80=9D is OK. > > > > I think so too. > > I recommend against renaming GuixSD >> "Guix System". Here is Why: > > 1) A noob would expect "guix system" to refer to the whole Guix > enchilada. If we use it to refer to GuixSD, a specific Guix deployment > mode, we have created a new, counter-intuitive thing we have to explain. > > 2) As Ricardo points out below, the "guix system" command clashes with > this use of Guix system. This is a second counter-intuitive thing we > would have to explain. > > Bottom line: we shouln'd use the general term "Guix System" in any way > beyond, perhaps in a descriptway way, e.g., The Guix project develops > the Guix System, a set of tools that manage software environments. > > >> Most of the time we=E2=80=99ll just say =E2=80=9CGuix=E2=80=9D, as > >> is already the case, and when we need to disambiguate (for instance wh= en > >> addressing bugs), we=E2=80=99ll ask =E2=80=9CAre you using Guix System= ?=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CAre you > >> using the Guix distro?=E2=80=9D, and everything will be fine. :-) > > > > Exactly. > > > > I wrote this on IRC: > > > > The name =E2=80=9CGuixSD=E2=80=9D is opaque and creates an arbitrary di= stinction between > > the system running on bare metal and the systems you can create with th= e > > =E2=80=9Cguix system=E2=80=9D commands. It makes it difficult to commu= nicate about > > Guix. Do we really offer =E2=80=9Ca package manager=E2=80=9D and a =E2= =80=9Cdistro=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 or is it > > really all one thing with various levels? > > > > The =E2=80=9Cguix system=E2=80=9D command can be used without GuixSD to= create Guix > > virtual machines or containers. Describing =E2=80=9Cguix system=E2=80= =9D is difficult > > when we think in terms of =E2=80=9Cpackage manager=E2=80=9D vs =E2=80= =9Cdistro=E2=80=9D. Guix itself is > > also a distro =E2=80=93 none of the packages it provides link with the = host > > system, and the collection of packages is a distribution of free > > software. > > > > I think that simplifying the name by using =E2=80=9Cguix=E2=80=9D as a = category will > > make communication easier. > > > >> The motivation for this name change is that =E2=80=9CSD=E2=80=9D is ob= scure to most, as > >> you note, plus it creates confusion when people visit the web site: th= e > >> web site has a =E2=80=9CGuixSD=E2=80=9D logo, but then it talks about = features of the > >> package manager. Designating the whole tool set as =E2=80=9CGuix=E2= =80=9D will simplify > >> this, and we can always be more specific when we need to. > > > > I agree. > > I agree too. You may recall that I recommendi this approach when we > discussed the web site in January. That thread includes a product > description [1] that might be a good place to start when describing the > "whole tool set". > > [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2018-01/msg00457.html > > What do you think about GuixSD >> "Guix Distribution"? This naming seems to resolve the ambiguities mentioned so far, and has a widespread use, that exactly matches the intended meaning. WDYT? --000000000000ff46070574acb2f4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
George Clemmer= <myglc2@gmail.com> ezt =C3= =ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2018. aug. 30., Cs, 21:14):

Ricardo Wurmus <= rekado@elephly.net> writes:

> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think =E2=80=9CGuix System=E2=80=9D is OK.
>
> I think so too.

I recommend against renaming GuixSD >> "Guix System". Here = is Why:

1) A noob would expect "guix system" to refer to the whole Guix enchilada. If we use it to refer to GuixSD, a specific Guix deployment
mode, we have created a new, counter-intuitive thing we have to explain.
2) As Ricardo points out below, the "guix system" command clashes= with
this use of Guix system. This is a second counter-intuitive thing we
would have to explain.

Bottom line: we shouln'd use the general term "Guix System" i= n any way
beyond, perhaps in a descriptway way, e.g., The Guix project develops
the Guix System, a set of tools that manage software environments.

>> Most of the time we=E2=80=99ll just say =E2=80=9CGuix=E2=80=9D, as=
>> is already the case, and when we need to disambiguate (for instanc= e when
>> addressing bugs), we=E2=80=99ll ask =E2=80=9CAre you using Guix Sy= stem?=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CAre you
>> using the Guix distro?=E2=80=9D, and everything will be fine.=C2= =A0 :-)
>
> Exactly.
>
> I wrote this on IRC:
>
> The name =E2=80=9CGuixSD=E2=80=9D is opaque and creates an arbitrary d= istinction between
> the system running on bare metal and the systems you can create with t= he
> =E2=80=9Cguix system=E2=80=9D commands.=C2=A0 It makes it difficult to= communicate about
> Guix.=C2=A0 Do we really offer =E2=80=9Ca package manager=E2=80=9D and= a =E2=80=9Cdistro=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 or is it
> really all one thing with various levels?
>
> The =E2=80=9Cguix system=E2=80=9D command can be used without GuixSD t= o create Guix
> virtual machines or containers.=C2=A0 Describing =E2=80=9Cguix system= =E2=80=9D is difficult
> when we think in terms of =E2=80=9Cpackage manager=E2=80=9D vs =E2=80= =9Cdistro=E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 Guix itself is
> also a distro =E2=80=93 none of the packages it provides link with the= host
> system, and the collection of packages is a distribution of free
> software.
>
> I think that simplifying the name by using =E2=80=9Cguix=E2=80=9D as a= category will
> make communication easier.
>
>> The motivation for this name change is that =E2=80=9CSD=E2=80=9D i= s obscure to most, as
>> you note, plus it creates confusion when people visit the web site= : the
>> web site has a =E2=80=9CGuixSD=E2=80=9D logo, but then it talks ab= out features of the
>> package manager.=C2=A0 Designating the whole tool set as =E2=80=9C= Guix=E2=80=9D will simplify
>> this, and we can always be more specific when we need to.
>
> I agree.

I agree too. You may recall that I recommendi this approach when we
discussed the web site in January. That thread includes a product
description [1] that might be a good place to start when describing the
"whole tool set".

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive= /html/guix-devel/2018-01/msg00457.html

What do you think about=C2=A0 GuixSD >> "G= uix Distribution"? This naming seems
to resolve the ambiguit= ies mentioned so far, and has a widespread
use, that exactly matc= hes the intended meaning. WDYT?
--000000000000ff46070574acb2f4--