Re: name: GNU/cygwin system

Re: name: GNU/cygwin system

[Charles Wilson]

Please do not send me private mail concerning cygwin. These questions 
belong on the cygwin mailing list.  I've redirected this mail and set 
the Reply-To appropriately.

--Chuck


zhlg_shuhan wrote:
> Mr. chales,
>      I know to you through  cygwin mail list.I am a beginner of cygwin,so many problems occur when I use it.for example:
>  bash always alarms at beginning of new command line:
>   "I have no name!@HZ_RD_ZHANGL ~
>     $_
> 
>   "
>   I want "useradd" command but failed for lack of useradd command.
>   how can I name it?
> 
> tks.&regards                              
>                                                     zhangliang
> 
> ______________________________________
> 
> ===================================================================
> ÐÂÀËÃâ·Ñµç×ÓÓÊÏä (http://mail.sina.com.cn)
> ÐÂÀË·ÖÀàÐÅÏ¢£º¶þÊÖÊг¡×ßÒ»×ߣ¬¸Ã³öÊÖʱ¾Í³öÊÖ£¡ (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/)




--
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

[Kilroy, David]

The file /etc/passwd needs to be properly created.

Type 'man mkpasswd' for better directions than I can give, and search for
mkpasswd in the mailing lists. Also
http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using-utils.html

If that doesn't work, change the environment variable PS1 to something less
alarming :)

Question to everyone else: Should setup attempt to run mkpasswd as part of
the postinstall of cygwin (or any of the shells)? Or at least get a mention
in the FAQ? It was a while before I realised this for myself.

Dave.

> zhlg_shuhan wrote:
> >      I know to you through  cygwin mail list.I am a 
> beginner of cygwin,so many problems occur when I use it.for example:
> >  bash always alarms at beginning of new command line:
> >   "I have no name!@HZ_RD_ZHANGL ~
> >     $_
> > 
> >   "
> >   I want "useradd" command but failed for lack of useradd command.
> >   how can I name it?
> > 
> > tks.&regards                              
> >                                                     zhangliang
> > 


--
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

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> However, I do agree that cygwin is pretty well known -- if only as the
> black sheep of the free software family (Imagine! Allowing Gatesians to
> use GNU software.  The horror!)

To quote the great Maurice 'Mad Dog' Vachon, "What matters is not necessarily
the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."

Or maybe that was Eisenhower.

--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer.  Patriot.


--
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

[Robb, Sam]

> I don't disagree with your conclusion, Chris, but you're 
> using a flawed 
> model.  So *what* if cygwin is the most popular project on 
> sources.redhat?

Just for the record: any number of "unix + windows" related
searches ("bash for windows", "gnu for windows", "unix for
windows", "gcc for windows", "free windows compiler", etc.)
turn up the Cygwin home in the top ten links (in most of my
examples, as the #1 link.)

At my previous company - with many hardcore Windows software
folks - I think that just about everyone had at least heard
of Cygwin, and a majority of us had used it at one point or
another (either at work, at home, or both.)  Keep in mind,
this was in Pittsburgh, PA - not Silicon Valley, Boston, or
any other traditional hotbed of cutting-edge technology.

Anecdotal evidence, perhaps.  But I honestly don't think that
Cygwin has any kind of visibility problem.

-Samrobb

--
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

[Charles Wilson]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> 
> You're working from an assumption that cygwin is an unknown project.
> It is currently the most popular project on sources.redhat.com, so I
> don't think it is suffering too badly from lack of awareness.


I don't disagree with your conclusion, Chris, but you're using a flawed 
model.  So *what* if cygwin is the most popular project on 
sources.redhat? Sure, sources.redhat hosts gcc and binutils -- but how 
many people actively hack gcc, and/or download it directly from its 
homepage?  Most people just get gcc (and bzip, and ... ) from their 
distributor.  Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people use gcc 
daily (now THAT's publicity) -- but only a tiny tiny tiny fraction will 
ever visit sources.redhat.

With cygwin, everyone who uses it will at some point visit 
sources.redhat...that is cygwin's primary locus of publicity.  The other 
projects have many more publicity locii.

However, I do agree that cygwin is pretty well known -- if only as the 
black sheep of the free software family (Imagine! Allowing Gatesians to 
use GNU software.  The horror!)  Or better, as the dangling carrot of 
the free software world within the walls that Bill built.

--Chuck




--
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

[Charles Wilson]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> 
> You're working from an assumption that cygwin is an unknown project.
> It is currently the most popular project on sources.redhat.com, so I
> don't think it is suffering too badly from lack of awareness.


I don't disagree with your conclusion, Chris, but you're using a flawed 
model.  So *what* if cygwin is the most popular project on 
sources.redhat? Sure, sources.redhat hosts gcc and binutils -- but how 
many people actively hack gcc, and/or download it directly from its 
homepage?  Most people just get gcc (and bzip, and ... ) from their 
distributor.  Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people use gcc 
daily (now THAT's publicity) -- but only a tiny tiny tiny fraction will 
ever visit sources.redhat.

With cygwin, everyone who uses it will at some point visit 
sources.redhat...that is cygwin's primary locus of publicity.  The other 
projects have many more publicity locii.

However, I do agree that cygwin is pretty well known -- if only as the 
black sheep of the free software family (Imagine! Allowing Gatesians to 
use GNU software.  The horror!)  Or better, as the dangling carrot of 
the free software world within the walls that Bill built.

--Chuck



--
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]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Smith [mailto:smith@xml-doc.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:37 PM
 
> 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

One of the things is that Cygwin's package list is still pretty small.
On Debian  for instance, one can grab 3 or even 4 different IMAP
daemons. On Cygwin, you're lucky to get one. This is a maturity thing,
but still a significant difference. Don't get me wrong - we do
appreciate extra awareness of Cygwin - but there is a lot to do.

One of the most significant things you can do is maintain a package.
Just a single one. Then it's one more thing available for use on cygwin,
and one more community that becomes aware of us. The libxml/libxslt
community is aware of cygwin for instance - because as maintainer I am
present on the upstream lists.
 
> 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.

IMO the biggest awareness raiser is someone present in both the cygwin
and the upstream community who raises the presence of binary packages in
peoples awareness.
 
> 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:

Cool. You might like to point out that in the near future those packages
will be available without needing the custom URL. They will be mirrored
globally.

> 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).

That seems fine to me. I'm not aware of any strict policy about the
logo. Chris?

> Are there other promotional logos/buttons/banners I could/should use
> instead? Maybe a version of the Cygwin banner
(http://cygwin.com/cygwin.jpg)?

I think that the banner is a beter promotional tool. Words help!

Rob

--
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

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 12:37:22AM -0500, Michael Smith wrote:
>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.

You're working from an assumption that cygwin is an unknown project.
It is currently the most popular project on sources.redhat.com, so I
don't think it is suffering too badly from lack of awareness.

cgf

--
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

[Michael Smith]

Christopher Faylor <cgf-cygwin@cygwin.com> 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

[Peter Ring]

LSB is not just about binary compatibility; it's also about 
file hierarchies, configuration mechanisms, and utilities 
for installation and maintenance.

I'd like to bring attention to standardisation of XML
resources.

Some packages are more or less architecture-independent, 
e.g., TeX/LaTeX formats and SGML/XML DTDs. Keeping in line 
with LSB minimizes the porting effort. While there's an 
established way to handle TeX resources, things are not 
quite sorted out for SGML/XML. A proposed standard for 
installation and maintenance of SGML resources [1] didn't 
make it into the LSB 1.1. The standardisation effort was 
recently restarted [2]. 

XML and data- and transaction-oriented applications must 
now be taken into consideration; the original proposal 
was strictly SGML-and-document oriented (and focused 
rather narrowly on DocBook). This has been discussed and 
is, to the best of my knowledge, acknowledged.

Just as XML is not just about documents, it's also rather 
promiscuous about platforms. Java is very important in 
this respect, but Cygwin might also play a role here. 
Cygwin seems to be popular with some of the XML hot-shots 
when they for some reason or another have to work on 
Win32 boxes. 

I'm afraid I can't offer much more -- except that I think 
we should continue discussing such matters here and on 
the cygwin-apps list.

kind regards
Peter Ring


[1] http://people.debian.org/~mrj/lsb-sgmlspec_cvs20020308/index.html
[2] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/lsb-xml-sgml

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson@ece.gatech.edu]
Sent: 17. maj 2002 18:49
To: Michael Smith
Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: name: GNU/Cygwin system


<snip />

To tell you the truth, I don't see there being much hope -- or reason 
for -- the LSB to take cygwin into account.  Thanks to various 
microsoftisms, we're too weird.  Non-ELF shared libraries split into 
"runtime" and "linktime" pieces.  Runtime loader works completely 
differently than ld.so, so library versioning is handled completely 
differently.  Then, we have two different windowing systems..."native" 
and "X" which must coexist.  The best I can see is for cygwin to take 
what LSB does, and try to follow it as best we can while making 
allowances for the uniqueness of the platform.  We are the best ones to 
judge where those allowances must be made -- not them.  While the linux 
distributors can (eventually) reach a compromise position that all linux 
distributions can follow, there is no "compromise" here -- they'd have 
to put "special case exceptions" in their document specifically for 
cygwin.  But there's no need to uglify the LSB with all that:

What is the main purpose of the LSB?  Binary interoperability, so that 
third party software vendors can ship ONE package that is guaranteed to 
work on every LSB-compliant Linux platform.  Doesn't really apply to 
cygwin...and oh, yeah, how does RMS feel about making life easier for 
proprietary (possibly closed source) vendors?  Would he want the name 
GNU associated with THAT?

<snip />

--
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

[Charles Wilson]

Michael Smith wrote:
> 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).

Yes.  It's already been discussed and dismissed. A non-troll would have 
the decency to search the mailing list archives first and verify that 
YES, this issue has been discussed already, and acknowledge the points 
raised in the previous discussion -- BEFORE bringing it up again.

IMNSHO, the GNU Glory Brigade can go to hell.  I appreciate what 
GNU/FSF/RMS has done for truly free software -- but turning around and 
attempting to claim ownership and naming rights on every piece of free 
software on earth is NOT acceptable.

Cygwin (the platform) has software from apache (not GNU), XFree86 (not 
GNU), openssh/openssl (not GNU), pine (not GNU), unzip/zip (not 
GNU)...and many others that are NOT GNU.  Cygwin is not GNU/Cygwin. For 
the same reasons, Linux is not GNU/Linux.  Anyone who thinks differently 
is buying in to the cult of personality (sic) of RMS.  Just because 
Debian has followed the pied piper doesn't mean we have to line up with 
the other children.

And on a cygwin-specific note, I'm sure RMS doesn't want anything to do 
with us.  I think he's probably a bit PO'ed that ANY GNU software is 
running on a proprietary platform like windows. He views that as 
enabling behavior...enabling people to stay locked in the proprietary 
prison.  For RMS, like all ideologues, it is all or nothing -- there is 
no half loaf.  I sure he doesn't WANT the name GNU associated with 
Cygwin/Windows.  (To be clear: I'm glad RMS/FSF/GNU is out there.  The 
world NEEDS such ideologues -- to keep the rest of us honest.  But that 
doesn't mean we must always agree with them or obey them.)

Further, for the same reasons, no GNU-purist would EVER have put the 
hundreds of hours into porting and packaging that the volunteer 
maintainers here have done -- for a "platform" that exists on top of a 
(gasp, horror) proprietary OS.  As Robert has pointed out, the 
contributions of those maintainers are equally if not more important to 
cygwin than those of GNU.  Without the VM's, there would be no GNU 
software -- or non-GNU software -- on the cygwin platform.  Without GNU, 
we would be missing many packages -- some very important, like gcc.  So, 
if we rename stuff, it would be just as valid to say, as Robert does, 
that it should be cgf/djd/cv/ed/rc/lh/eb/jt/Cygwin.  But English is not 
Entish -- we don't tell the entire lifestory of a project within the 
project's name.

As far as the LSB goes, currently it applies only to linux-based 
systems; GNU/Hurd isn't "out" yet.  But, there's no reason why the LSB 
wouldn't apply equally well to BSD systems, which don't necessarily have 
any GNU software on them.  So GNU-SB is also incorrect.  (The GNU Glory 
Brigade reminds me of US Senator Byrd of West Virginia -- there's not a 
bridge or a hospital or park bench built in that state that isn't named 
after "Robert C. Byrd".  They don't call Byrd the king of pork for nothing.)

To tell you the truth, I don't see there being much hope -- or reason 
for -- the LSB to take cygwin into account.  Thanks to various 
microsoftisms, we're too weird.  Non-ELF shared libraries split into 
"runtime" and "linktime" pieces.  Runtime loader works completely 
differently than ld.so, so library versioning is handled completely 
differently.  Then, we have two different windowing systems..."native" 
and "X" which must coexist.  The best I can see is for cygwin to take 
what LSB does, and try to follow it as best we can while making 
allowances for the uniqueness of the platform.  We are the best ones to 
judge where those allowances must be made -- not them.  While the linux 
distributors can (eventually) reach a compromise position that all linux 
distributions can follow, there is no "compromise" here -- they'd have 
to put "special case exceptions" in their document specifically for 
cygwin.  But there's no need to uglify the LSB with all that:

What is the main purpose of the LSB?  Binary interoperability, so that 
third party software vendors can ship ONE package that is guaranteed to 
work on every LSB-compliant Linux platform.  Doesn't really apply to 
cygwin...and oh, yeah, how does RMS feel about making life easier for 
proprietary (possibly closed source) vendors?  Would he want the name 
GNU associated with THAT?

--Chuck


--
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

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 02:51:22AM -0500, Michael Smith wrote:
>>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.

We are rather adamant here about keeping discussions public unless they
really really have to be public.

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.

cgf

--
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

[Michael Smith]

"Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au> writes:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Smith [mailto:smith@xml-doc.org] 
> >[...]
> > 
> > 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/

RE: name: GNU/Cygwin system

[Robert Collins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Smith [mailto:smith@xml-doc.org] 
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 4:37 PM
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: 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.

It has been. See the list archives - and then you would have known.
 
> 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.

> 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?

>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.

At this point, I've gone offtopic, so I'll just be quite now :}

Rob

--
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

[Michael Smith]

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, Japan    http://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/