Re: an introduction to gnulib

[Bob Proulx]

Bruno Haible wrote:
> Karl Berry wrote:
> > -it works on Unix and Windows
> > +it works on GNU/Unix and Windows
> 
> Now this is ridiculous. Do you consider a Solaris or a Tru64 system a
> "GNU/" system?

No, I consider those a Unix system, or at least a Unix-like system.
The Unix part would have described everything that was not MS-Windows
but behaved like a Unix system behaved.  But since GNU is not Unix
people are now listing GNU in there specially or pedantic people say
that Unix does not cover the GNU system.  See how that by fixing one
issue another is created?  I find that ridiculous too.

> This is not even correct if you buy into RMS' arguments,
> see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#why
> 
> If you consider it important to emphasize that "GNU is not Unix", then
> it'd be more logical to write "Unix, GNU and Windows" (listed in the order
> of historical appearance: Unix around 1980, GNU around 1986, Windows around
> 1995).

That is a different argument.  In this case the behavior under GNU and
Unix is, I believe, the same.  Saying GNU/Unix is not related to the
"GNU/Linux" monicker.  (Damn the imprecise nature of language.)
Instead it is saying GNU or Unix-like system.  Those two have more in
common, as compared to MS-Windows, than they have different.  I think
it is more confusing to mix politics in with that statement than it is
just to say GNU/Unix.  Although I find "Unix, GNU and Windows" to be
fine too.  Since the main development platform is GNU today it makes
sense to give it a higher priority in the list.  But if it becomes
required to say a huge volume of information with political innuendo
and include footnotes to background information then I think we have
failed.

And shouldn't it be MS-Windows instead of the plain and generic
Windows?  I definitely run a lot of windows on my system but none of
them are MS-Windows.

Maybe we should coin a new phrase "GNU|Unix" meaning GNU systems or
Unix-like systems?

/me Ducks and runs for cover...

Bob