<tadni`>The following are names suggested for the distribution of GNU that uses GNU Guix, as a package mananger, and GNU DmD, as an init-system -- amongst other GNU maintained/developed technologies. RMS has expressed concern about calling such a system "The GNU Operating System" and too possibly just "GNU Distro", these are possible solutions."
<jxself>Does the package manager and inist system "make" the GNU Operating System?
<tadni`>jxself: They are the biggest differences between most distributions.
<jxself>And merely having them makes all the difference?
<taylanub>jxself: I don't think anything makes "the" GNU OS; there is no "the" GNU OS. there may be complete and stand-alone distributions of the GNU system though; some by third parties, and one by the GNU project itself.
<jxself>I would imagine that what makes something the GNU Operating System is RMS's blessing that it is :)
<tadni`>The following are names suggested for the distribution of GNU that uses GNU Guix, as a package mananger, and GNU DmD, as an init-system -- amongst other GNU maintained/developed technologies. RMS has expressed concern about calling such a system "The GNU Operating System" and too possibly just "GNU Distro", really endorsing any distribution of GNU, over any other. These are possible solutions, to this naming scheme."
<taylanub>after thinking about this a bit more over a bowl of cereal, I'm really liking this idea. we can use a relatively un-emphasized "code name" for the distribution, which need not be a "hot" name either --I'm beginning to really like Gnudist-- and we would primarily emphasize that this is just "a distribution of the GNU system." the download page would simply say "here, have a complete, stand-alone
<taylanub>distribution of the GNU system," and it would download gnudist.iso
<taylanub>but on the same page, "have some links to other distributions of the GNU system (by third parties)"...
<tadni`>taylanub: I really like gnudist actually, given this context.
<taylanub>so we emphasize 1) the whole GNU system is really ubiquitous, 2) you can get a stand-alone OS distribution of it from _here_
<taylanub>so GuixDistro is just *a* distribution of the GNU system. with some de-emphasized code-name for the sake of having a concrete name for the thing.
<tadni`>taylanub: Can we come up with a formal proposal of this, to send RMS?
<tadni`>Or at least, to hand to civ, to send to RMS.
<taylanub>presumably it will be the only GNU system distribution *by* the GNU project so it will still practically get highlight as more or less the official version of what a GNU distro looks like...
<taylanub>tadni`: I really need to sleep now; can write something up tomorrow if nobody beats me to it
<tadni`>taylanub: Oh, you're one of those night cereal eaters... :^I
<jxself>It's some odd double talk that the GNU Project is working on this and hosting it but it's not the GNU Operating System.
<taylanub>it didn't really need to, since GNU/Linux distros *mostly* offer what the GNU project wanted to offer to people. now we provide an official distro for "convenience" one could say (though a bit more than that probabaly)
<taylanub>jxself: people *wrongfully* think that it doesn't exist, when in fact it's so ubiquitous! calling a single entity "the GNU OS" would in fact mean accepting defeat and settling for a lower position!
<jxself>I understands the arguments. It just seems sad that the efforts of the last 30 years didn't result in the GNU Operating System. Rather anticlimactic.
<jxself>And now the GNU Project exists to remain in a holding pattern... doing nothing...
<taylanub>the problem is that people don't recognize this
<jxself>I don't know why people keep saying that it is.
<tadni`>The problem here, is that we have varrying definitions of "OS".
<taylanub>mind you I'm not saying "OS" but only "system"
<tadni`>jxself, sees an OS needing to have a cannonical implementation somewhere -- which GNU currently doesn't have.
<jxself>Firstly, the GNU Operating System is whatever RMS says it is. He's never called Debian or gNewSense or Red Hat or anything else "the GNU system." So they're not.
<tadni`>Well ... it kinda does, that Src distro we have, with /only/ GNU software, iirc.
<jxself>But RMS doesn't seem to want to recognize this as cannonical
<jxself>That was the whole thing he mentioned on the list.
<tadni`>jxself: Well, they are GNU Variants -- but variants of an OS that doesn't formamly exist.
<taylanub>jxself: I think the problem is that GNU simply did end up hugely fragmented, so there is no one GNU OS to be had anymore. it's not that the effort was wasted; it materialized in a more fragmented and spread-out form.
<tadni`>It exist in a nebulous sense, as all the parts are there ... but not assembled in any grand way, upstream/.
<jxself>taylanub: A variant is not the thing itself though.
<jxself>taylanub: Yep, and that is what I am lamenting over.
<taylanub>none of them are *the* GNU system, but the GNU system is within them, is the point
<taylanub>one could say there's the GNU OS and there's the GNU system, but that's confusing IMO.
<tadni`>I think that maybe one day, if Gnudist builds up enough steam -- it might get this title from RMS ... I just don's see it happening out of the gate.
<taylanub>(the GNU OS would be GuixDistro, the GNU system would be the widespread thing)
<jxself>And so GNU Maintainers exist to work only on their little islands on their own and have third parties take the stuff and make their own things with it.
<tadni`>taylanub: I think we should drop the OS name, really, and just formaly call us the "GNU Project" -- but RMS would never let that happen.
<taylanub>it just makes sense to codename that one OS. I mean fine, you could name things e.g. gnu-os.iso or so as well... that again would be stealing the prime name though, when there could be alternative bundlings of the GNU OS, akin to how there's Windows XP and there's Windows Vista and such
<davexunit>jxself: yeah, it seems sad. having a system that integrates all of the GNU projects seems so beneficial to the project as a whole.
<taylanub>it's just a matter of emphasizing that it's just a distribution of GNU, where Gnudist is just a codename
<taylanub>(I think we should especially escape the "distro" abbreviation; it's too closely related to the thought of "Linux distros")
<tadni`>I mean OS in the sense of instead of calling the whole thing the "GNU Operating Sytem" we should just call it all the "GNU Project" -- because we have no formal OS, upstream. That will never happen though. :^P
<davexunit>ludo demonstrated in his GHM talk how GNU hackers can use Guix to improve their own development workflow and assist with integration testing. it's a really useful thing.
<jxself>davexunit: Yeah, and this should be an official effort.
<jxself>I wonder if anyone has raised that point, davexunit?
<davexunit>I don't know. I haven't kept up with the discussion
<taylanub>tadni`: calling it GNU Operating System here and there should be fine, but consider what a download page would have to say. "here's the GNU Operating System. and here are, er, other variants of it: [gNewSense, etc.]"
<jxself>I don't think that they've been mentioned on-list.
<jxself>I raised some points with him privately that he said he'd consider.
<jxself>I don't know what else others have done though.
<tadni`>taylanub: Yeah, I don't see RMS going for that.
<tadni`>"This is the officially maintained distribution of the GNU System, here you can find variants thereof." I don't even think RMS would bite for.
<taylanub>so I think emphasizing that we have an entity that is "a complete stand-alone distribution of the GNU system" is key. with some code-name to refer specifically to it, for practical purposes.
<tadni`>taylanub: Yeah, that "the" vs "a" is pretty essential.
<aurelien>thanks for the clarifications (if that word exist in english) :-p
<tadni`>aurelien: Yeah, I'd say it's a lot more "spiritual sucessor" than actual branch.
<mark_weaver>IMO, as a distro we are a new root, but as a package manager we are derived from nix.
<tadni`>I don't even see "NixOS" on the chart linked, actually.
<mark_weaver>tadni`: I don't think it's fair to say that the sentiment of Debian is "screw you" to other kernels, given that they support both Hurd and kFreeBSD.
<aurelien>do you think to make it usuable with a BSD kernel?
<mark_weaver>aurelien: we definitely plan to stick to GNU userland, including glibc, so a BSD userland would be out of the question, but if someone wanted to do the work I see no reason why we couldn't support BSD kernels.
<tadni`>mark_weaver: I'm not sure of the whole situation, but to what I'm aware of systemd becoming default in Debian -- this means that non-Linux kernels are more just side-projects and not serious efforts that should be respected to any grand degree.
<tadni`>They might still be official Debian projects going onward (again, don't know that status) but picking a system-init that doesn't support all the kernels you claim to some-factor of support, seems a bit like you view such things as only side projects. To me at least.
<tadni`>Who knows, I might have a mostly uniformed view. :^P
<mark_weaver>tadni`: as long as sufficient people continue to run debian with other inits and make sure that things keep working, I think it's safe to assume Debian will continue to support other inits.
<tadni`>mark_weaver: Well yeah, I just think the sentiment is more so "well that's cute, but you aren't going to impact us and what we view as progress" in regards to other kernels.
<tadni`>aurelien: Personally, I don't value kFreeBSD or any other BSD kernel, Minix kernel, or really any non-official Kernel -- over that of Linux-Libre.
<tadni`>Linux-libre is just the more practical choice for most people. So if someone wants to package another 3rd partyish kernel, that's great in my book -- as long as it can run the needed bits of Gnudist.
<mark_weaver>tadni`: I'm not sure what you mean by "you aren't going to impact us ...", but anyway remember that Debian is a rather large organization with diverse viewpoints.
<mark_weaver>and obviously a lot of Debian devs feel strongly about making sure other inits continue working, so I'm not concerned.
<tadni`>mark_weaver: I'm saying, it feels like their sentiment was "It's cute that you have these side projects, but your existence is not going to stop use from defaulting to something y'all can't use, due our choice's inherent nature." which to me feels like a bit of a "screw you" choice and furthers these sub-projects to be further from upstream than needed. Package Manager and System init are the biggest differences between most distros,
<tadni`>and now, one of these are forced to be different than upstream.
<tadni`>But yeah, it'll probably be fine -- I just like the general sentiment, such reasoning has to be a result of.
<tadni`>It's irrelevant though, ultimately, I just want to see some grand effort to get the Hurd working on Gnudist.
<mark_weaver>what needs to be different from upstream? I'm confused.
<tadni`>mark_weaver: Systemd. If systemd becomes the default on the standard Debian image (which correct me if I'm wrong), since other kernel-based images can't use such a thing.
<tadni`>You are using a similar, but now different software stack. The only real difference before was kernel, now kernel and init-system would be.
<mark_weaver>so by forcing these sub-projects to be further from upstream than needed, you mean the fact that they'd have to change the default set of packages in the installer? I think that's a rather minor issue.
<mark_weaver>I just can't get that worked up about defaults, as long as the alternatives are well tested. and given how many people dislike systemd, I suspect the other inits will continue to be well tested.
<tadni`>mark_weaver: No, I mean it is a fundementally different experience from upstream. Kernel, assuming that you aren't compiling a custom version, all your hardware is supported, you have desired FS types supported, etc, etc -- it can be ignored for the most part as a casual user ... init systems, if you have to interact with them, say write a service for something, is completly different in say sys-v that systemd.
<aurelien>that is a `detail' in front of what you are doing, but, looking the screenshot, maybe you could also show that it could be free, but have a bit of `design' with transparency in xterm and emacs
<Sleep_Walker>I really liked that the change from 'the' to 'a', more humble :)
<tadni`>Maybe 3rd parties can resolve it to a degree, but still, the defaults between such inter-projects inherently have to default to something different to upstream. And it's not like just a choice, GNU Hurd just can't use full systemd.
<tadni`>aurelien: Well, it's more a placeholder set of images -- to prove we have xorg working, I think.
<tadni`>That being said, I'm not a big fan of transparency. I think it's been way overused to the point of cliche.
<tadni`>Eventually, such a slideshow would probably just display GNOME -- but we are probably a release or two of GNOME away, before supporting it upstream.
<aurelien>it is just to prove it works ... Yes we can
<tadni`>aurelien: Prove fhat works? Transparency in windows?
<tadni`>aurelien: To be fair, we have no marketing or visual team really in place -- hackers don't typically have a great eye for design and I assume, that ludo took these just to prove a point ... not really to sell the system atm. Not only are we still in alpha still in-terms of Gnudist, but too, we aren't really trying to sell the ui right now to anyone.
<aurelien>at the time you put a screen on the www you are selling/sharing something.
<tadni`>But yeah, these screenshot probably could have been snaz'd up a bit. But too, this is the default session one could expect, if you start the slim service.
<tadni`>aurelien: Well, ideally, we'd have some subdomain. maybe gnudist.gnu.org or something, where we could better advertise this to people.
<tadni`>Or just gnu.org/gnudist/, etc, but right now we conflate the two things with Guix and there's not a lot of room to go into great depth for both.
<tadni`>aurelien: The problem, as it stands, is mostly tied to where RMS is with letting Gnudist define itself. It doesn't look like he'll go with the "Gnudist is /the/ GNU Operating System" but even just giving in kind of promienece to Gnudist seems to be something he's not aptly willing to do.
<tadni`>Well, it's parked. But ideally, we would go through official channels. Ideally, you would go on the homepage click the big "Download GNU" button and it would take you to overview of Gnudist and various download options.
<tadni`>A big issue, again, is RMS not wanting to give promience to Gnudist over other Free GNU variants.
<tadni`>So we'd have to find away, to make a potiental user aware of the alternatives.
<tadni`>It's been suggested that we have another button bellow it on the homepage, that says something along the lines of "Download other GNU Variants". I'd personally like the Gnudist default page when clicking "Download an officially supported distribution of GNU" but have a banner at the top of the connected web-page of that button, that says, "see unofficially supported variants" or similar.
<tadni`>The homepage, of gnu.org is cluttered as-is.
<tadni`>Until Gnudist has a defined spot, we can mostly agree on, in the GNU project though -- I don't see a /huge/ case for trying to market to as many people as possible ... especially since, we don't even have a beta release of said distro yet. :^P
<tadni`>Anyways, time will tell and hopefully will sway in such a way -- whereas the most ideal solution possible, will befall us. But, for tonight/this early morning hour ... assuming that said discussion remains absent in the immediate future in here, I should probably head out and either go back to bed, or study a bit.
<taylanub>we surely shouldn't need a domain though, the way I see things. Gnudist or w/e would simply be an "internal" code-name for this one distribution of the GNU system, managed by the GNU project. like GNU is Windows and Gnudist is XP, but with even less emphasis on the XP because we aren't interested in fancy marketing and will unlikely make large changes to the system so there will continue to be
<taylanub>I think RMS might agree to privilege GuixDistro as a more canonical distribution of the GNU system, since it's independent of other distros and more closely tied with the rest of the GNU system... refusing to call it *the* GNU OS is understandable, but giving it a spotlight as the first and for starters only by-GNU (project) distribution of GNU (system) should be agreeable.
<tadni> taylanub: The problem is how do we separate maintained by GNU, and maintained by others, in a agreeable way?
<tadni>Whoever suggested the two buttons on the homepage is certainly a solution, but I don't think it is a great one. It even more clutters the GNU Homepage.
<tadni>My preferred method, would be that "Download GNU" would take you to the Gnudist page -- but have a banner of some sort, that makes people aware of third-party efforts.
<tadni>So "download gnu now" would go to gnu.org/gnudist/ and somewhere relatively prominent, there would be mention of 3rd-party maintained distros -- which links to the free-distros.html page.
<tadni>But, this would give clear -- direct privilege to gnudistro ... but though again, this is an official GNU effort, so I don't see that much harm, if we were to be clear there were alternative efforts and to clearly link to such.
<taylanub>I think "gnudist" (or w/e) really should be a "code-name" and be highly de-emphasized; I envision the name not being mentioned at all in most documentation, URLs, titles, etc., except those really specifically talking about the GuixDistro effort from a *technical* point of view. there would be no gnu.org/gnudist, but rather gnu.org/download would let you download "distributions of the GNU system"
<taylanub>maybe the page could also mention the name Gnudist as a minor point, like "the GNU project offers the following distributions of the GNU system: Gnudist: _download_ [GnuWhatever: _download, ...]" but no more
<taylanub>because we really want to emphasize that it's a distribution of the GNU system. I think we should avoid at all cost that people start referring to Gnudist as "some [GNU/]Linux distro"
<taylanub>the whole "Linux distro" mindset seems toxic .. it really frustrates me when I think of all the people I meet in daily life who know about "Linux" and its many "distros" but know nothing of GNU
<tadni> My concern, is would the default install be gnudist-1.x.iso, from said download button on the homepage?
<tadni>How would we handle mentioning other 3rd-parties in some grand degree, as it seems RMS wants?
<tadni>We'd probably also want some control options, for the gnudist download. Like eventually, we would want to offer most users the graphical based installer -- but there should be somewhere on that page that offers a "minimal" text install. Etc, etc.
<tadni>I mean, would we just add a table for "officially maintained distros" to free-distro.html?
<tadni>And have it be the only entry, and towards the top of the page?
<tadni>And then above the third parties, something along the lines of "These are 3rd-party maintained variants of the GNU System -- but still highly recommended."
<tadni>That's probably not an ideal suggestion, but something RMS would probably side with -- actually.
<tadni>Just give it a little prominence above 3rd party distros, by it just being in a separate table -- to clearly state, that it is officially maintained by members of the GNU project.
<tadni>You could even throw in that "GNU Source code release" think, that only ships source code of GNU software.
<taylanub>"the GNU project offers the following distributions of the GNU system: Gnudist Home Edition: _download_, Gnudist Server: _download_ [GnuWhatever XY: _download_, ...] additionally, the following flavors of the GNU system are available from other parties: gNewSense: _homepage_link_, Trisquel: _homepage_link_, ..."
<tadni>taylanub: Well, I just think RMS would be likely to buy into this more -- because it's such a minor change.
<taylanub>well, if the Guix thing just links to gnu.org/guix (for example) then that would still be GNU, but it would feel awkward for a casual user. someone who comes to gnu.org with the premise of being able to download an operating system (as also strongly implied by the "Download Now" button at the home page) should be able to do so without jumping through many more project pages...
<tadni>I mean, it's pretty clear to me. It's an extra step, but seeing that RMS seems steadfast in wanting to be clear we promote 3rd parties, I don't think he'd scrap the current download now page.
<taylanub>yeah, this might be the most agreeable/small change, but something slightly more than that would be nice IMO. a proper "download" page (brought to you by the, ahem, "Download Now" button), which says "here's a GNU distribution" and doesn't burden you with having to know about some "Guix" or "Gnudist" subproject...
<taylanub>the third parties can still be further down on the main download page
<tadni>Wnat would a download page include, that is non on this page? Actual links to said distribution's *.iso?
<tadni>Download GNU, (you see Officially Maintained Distro first) and click on it.
<taylanub>given that "Download Now" already brings me to another page, I would at least expect *that* page to have a real download button...
<tadni>Why don't we rename it to, "Get GNU!" then?
<taylanub>I'd say .iso links should definitely be directly on that page, under text saying "here, a complete distribution of the GNU system as offered by us," possibly with the code-name of the distribution on the side...
<taylanub>currently, there's that big Download Now button getting your hopes high, then you end up on some page that just links to *more* pages
<tadni>Well, again, if we just change the wording a bit -- it's a non-issue.
<tadni>I don't think we shold really push to be super prominently featured, if RMS thinks we might be attemptinp to overstep our boundaries as is.
<tadni>Maybe if we gain mass growth, in a few years, we can fight for this.
<tadni>But right now, I'm happy with changing the name of the download button to "Get GNU!" and then just linking to Gnudist, on the free-dist.html page, in a prominent place.
<taylanub>it won't be "super prominently featured" .. it will just be the only distribution downloadable on that page that's offered by the GNU project
<tadni>I personally think RMS will have trouble even listing Gnudist seperate from the 3rd-parties, I can't see him allowing a download link featured on that page for it and it only.
<tadni>I'm 20 minutes or-so, from going afk for several hours though -- so I'll likely see were we are at then and continue from there.
<tadni>But, as is my understanding of RMS main objections ... I just really can't see him allowing Gnudist to be that prominently showcased. You may see it as not a big deal, taylanub, but RMS seems to object of any special promotion of Gnudist over 3rd-parties, even making a table where it's a sole entry above said, seperated 3rd parties ... I expect him to object. And this is the most practical solution I can come up with.
<tadni>Okay, since there's now been a bit dead air -- I'm gonig to take this as an excuse to hop off for now. Peace people, I'll be back in say 6-8 hours? Give or take 2.
<taylanub>Sleep_Walker: supported by who/what? I'm guessing it will be supported "automatically" by virtue of it having no effect on any APIs except for low-level kernel filesystem stuff which Guix won't ever touch...
<Sleep_Walker>it seems it is the only option for me to install grub correctly...
<Sleep_Walker>taylanub: I meant - if it is valid configuration value for mount configuration, if it is tested by anyone...
<iyzsong>Sleep_Walker: I can load the btrfs kernel module, add it to initrd will work. not tested by me :)
<Sleep_Walker>tadni: there is also moustache and tongue - cheeky logo :D
<tadni>Sleep_Walker: Oh wow, didn't even notice the tounge bit.
<tadni>Yeah, I noticed that the horns, ripped from Guix's logo, looked a bit like a moustache.
<tadni>sneek: later tell civodul Hey, so I worked on a general mockup for the GNUDist logo/insignia and too, came up with my semi-practical and easy solution to seperate us from 3rd party distros (that I'm hoping RMS would be fine with) ... just make a seperate table above the 3rd party distros. My general mockup is at http://a.pomf.se/qslbzn.png -- make sure to ping me what you think!
<tadni>Really though, I'd love to alternative solutions -- but I'm pretty happy with GNUDist, because it's essentially GNU Dist and if we want such a thing to ever become GNU /the Operating System/ it'll be an awkward transistion if we give it some sort of strong branding. This is the absence of a name, given a name out of nescitiy.
<tadni>It is very clear what it is, a GNU Distribution. But also happens, to relate to a jokish title.
<sneek>civodul, tadni says: Hey, so I worked on a general mockup for the GNUDist logo/insignia and too, came up with my semi-practical and easy solution to seperate us from 3rd party distros (that I'm hoping RMS would be fine with) ... just make a seperate table above the 3rd party distros. My general mockup is at http://a.pomf.se/qslbzn.png -- make sure to ping me what you think!
<taylanub>tadni: I continue to think it's important to de-emphasize the name of the distro-project, instead emphasizing that it's just "some distribution" of GNU, with a code-name serving to disambiguate only when really needed. it would follow naturally that it has no logo of its own; it should just use a GNU logo where one is due.
<taylanub>also too much text. I was thinking of pushing all the text on the page down --essentially all of the current content, including the "Free GNU/Linux distributions" title-- but beginning to think a stand-alone page that just links to this one would be better.
<toothbrush0>argh, `guix system reconfigure ..` is telling me "system locale lacks a definition", but i haven't changed locale from the default "en_US.UTF-8"...
<alezost>toothbrush0: it should be "en_US.utf8" now
<civodul>tadni`: BTW, did you have a chance to set up a wiki page?
<tadni`>civodul: Regarding earilier. I'd hope that most people would refer to such a thing (gnudist) as just GNU Distro, causually. That's just a decent way of branding it -- just enough, that we are not formally called "GNU Distro" or something similar uspstream ... but are technically, a differenent entity.
<tadni`>civodul: Also, no, just took a nap and was planning on that.
<tadni`>civodul: Should It /just/ be the name and a quick explinatation of the reasoning for people? I was thinking of putting a "reasons for" and "reasons against", but if the community does any sort of vote ... this may have some bias.
<taylanub>civodul: has RMS considered sanctioning GuixDistro as the first (and for starters only) GNU distribution by the GNU project, without the pretense that the distribution *is* the GNU OS?
<taylanub>if he insists on calling it a "GNU/Linux distribution" then I give up, but if the only problem is the pretense that it *is* the GNU OS (because the GNU OS is much more than that -- it's a major part of all GNU/Linux distributions, and parts of it are even in, say, Apple OS X), then that problem can be solved by calling our distribution *a* distribution of the GNU system.
<civodul>i'm not sure i understand what he has in mind, and i think we should just move forward
<taylanub>a mostly nameless one, so the focus is on the fact that it's a distribution of the GNU system, period. for disambiguation where it's really needed, an "internal code-name" would be used (in filenames, etc.) like gnudist or w/e
<civodul>yeah i think the name is mostly useful when needing to distinguish between the standalone OS and the package tool
<tadni`>civodul: Yeah, a big appeal for gnudist -- is that you don't have to really define any real branding. It is just a GNU Distro. The only reason I even came up with a logo, is because we needed something that just wasn't the guix-logo.small.png as the table image.
<taylanub>it pushes us straight into "just another [GNU/]Linux distro" territory
<tadni`>bavier: Well, if gnudist is picked up as a name and too people want to use such an image -- I'm fully ready to hand such a thing over to the GNU Project.
<tadni`>I actually like it a lot myself and I often don't like graphics that I do. :^P
<tadni`>taylanub: The thing is, we need at least a base-line amount of branding to work with what is given to us -- such as, the free-distro.html table. We could go with absoluetly zero real branding, if we were allowed to completly restructure the download link from the homepage ... I just don't see it happening though.
<taylanub>we really want a differently structured pade IMO. something that just has direct .iso file links to official GNU distributions, with the third party stuff at the bottom or just a link to the current free-distros page.
<tadni`>taylanub: I mean, this is my more ideal solution too ... I just don't see RMS buying into it.
<taylanub>I wonder if I'd be bothering him if I tried to talk to RMS myself
<tadni`>taylanub: Does anyone have a formal understanding of RMS' position? I've heard people state that they have spoken to him in a non-public fourum and I think this is problematic, when a multitude of people are trying to figure out wheere he stands on this.
<tadni`>Knowing where RMS stands right now, I would be shocked if he would like a major structural change to the page that "Download GNU Now" takes one to. I could be wrong, but again, I would be shocked.
<tadni`>I am also worrysome, that my semi-practical solution as I proposed in my earlier mockup is too "extreme" for him. As in, seperating "officially maintained" and 3rd-Party Distros.
<jxself>I don't think he would approve due to the reason I just said.
<tadni`>What's the difference between something being sponsored and endorsed, by the FSF?
<taylanub>it would be unfortunate if he's opposed to adding a page that links directly to installation images of GNU distributions, hosted on www.gnu.org, officially developed and supported by the GNU project. I don't really see a reason not to do this; what I can understand so far is only why any such distributions shouldn't be called *the* GNU operating system
<jxself>At most I think we can hope for an entry in the free distro list, sorted alphabetically, with some netural description that doesn't place anything under or over anythng else.
<tadni`>gNewSense was actively "Endorsed" directly by the FSF for some time.
<jxself>The FSF paid to give the gNewSense people servers.
<jxself>Trisquel uses their own servers, apart from the FSFs.
<tadni`>jxself: Yeah, that's what I fear would of been the result. Just thrown in the default Free Distro list.
<jxself>It is the most we can hope for, I think, lest the other free distros feel somehow like something "less"
<taylanub>hm, in that case, does anyone know why gNewSense wasn't sanctioned in the way I'm suggesting? maybe the answers I'm looking for are there.
<jxself>Because RMS's position has always been that there shouldn't be any preference given to any distro over another.
<taylanub>is there some elaboration of that idea somewhere?
<jxself>Avoid anyone feeling slighted, no preference.
<jxself>it's with the GNU Webmasters somewhere but they don't have public archives.
<taylanub>today's getting late; tomorrow I might re-read his mails in that gnu-system ML thread, and if the reason isn't there I might start a new thread? a public explanation would be more beneficial for the future, and others might already know the reasons...
<tadni`>I guess, we can just hope for -- if such a thing is the end result, as I suspect it will be, is that eventually we can amass a large enough following in x, let's say 5 years, that Gnudist ... RMS could maybe waiver on this point a bit.
<taylanub>I'll probably have to be extra careful not to start another flamewar :(
<tadni`>I guess we could run a 3rd party site to host gnudist, or whatever -- like gnudist.me or something ...
<taylanub>I see no reason to be pessimistic wrt. RMS's position and give up without a clear explanation; I'd much rather figure out what his reasons are.
<tadni`>It just seems sad, that we won't probably be able to actively promote Gnudist in an active way, via official means -- being an official project.
<jxself>He did already state his concerns with blessing it as the GNU Operating System on the mailing list.
<nkar>what's the difference between inputs and native-inputs?
<jxself>THose were very much aligned with his existing reasoning for not giving other things on that distro list any preference over any other.
<taylanub>jxself: but did he do so about blessing it as *a distribution* of the GNU Operating System?
<tadni`>jxself: Yeah, lack of HURD support and not wanting to give any Distro special status over another were his big two complaints.
<taylanub>nkar: native-inputs are compile-time, from what I understood. they seem undocumented so far :( maybe someone should file a report on their undocumented status (or document them, if you know or can figure out their precise meaning)
<jxself>taylanub: I don't think so, unless I missed it. In that case if such a thing were not considered to be the GNU Operating System then, as I've said, the most that can be hoped for is an entry in the free distro list, sorted alphabetically, with some neturally-worded description to not promote anything over anything else.
<tadni`>I mean, if we just even get gnu.org/gnudist/, gnu.org/jitsu/, etc, etc, and be able to advertise on there ... that's something... even if we get no special treatment on free-distro.html as is.
<jxself>But that is getting special treatment, since no other distro gets to live on there.
<taylanub>jxself: no, there's an in-between: we don't say "this thing *is* the GNU OS" but we say "here is *a* distribution of the GNU system (((codenamed gnudist, if you really need to know)))"
<jxself>I suspect the only way we'd get such URLs is if he were to decide that we could be called the GNU Operating System.
<tadni`>It's special treatment by it's project page being hosted on gnu.org? Is it not a GNU Project?
<jxself>Yes, and there have been thousands of distributions of the GNU system over the years.
<taylanub>jxself: not ones hosted on gnu.org, have there?