Re: When can we expect a version 1.0 of the GNU Operating System?

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() "Garreau, Alexandre" <address@hidden>
() Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:39:31 +0100

   This “compromise” is only a view part of the first view. The
   first view doesn’t say “lot’s not release any system”, we
   still release the system, but in the first view we don’t call
   it strictly “GNU”. Hence it’s not a compromise between “not
   calling it GNU” and “calling it GNU”: they’re completely
   contradictory, and the negation of one implies the other. It
   *is* “not calling it GNU” (here “GNU”’s a substantive, not
   some astract word that could be intended as a sustantive /or/
   an adjective, with in the latter case a hope in the fact we
   can still say to be in the second view calling it “GNU”, but
   using GNU as an adjective and completing it with the
   sustantive “reference”).

If we interpret both "GNU" and "reference" as adjectives, there
can never be "the" ADJ ADJ N, all such N are "a" ADJ ADJ N.

It's easy to see how "GNU" is an adjective; any N described as
such is intolerant of proprietary software.

Re "reference": It describes how the proponents of N view N.
If the creators of N are the only proponents, it is marketing.
If the GNU project direction (i.e., rms) becomes a proponent,
it is still marketing, but w/ endorsement.

As pointed out previously, endorsement risks disenfranchisement.

So i think the best course of action is to put effort into
clearly describing the inappropriateness of "the", or IOW the
appropriateness of considering ADJ ADJ N a family, whose number
must necessarily start w/ 1, but hopefully will not stop there.

Sibling rivalry towards rectitude is just, IMO.  Fratricide: no.

-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature