Talk:GNU/Archive 1

message: gzip was not written by the GNU project, surely? Even though its name appears to stand for 'GNU zip'.
:Hmm...  says that gzip "has been adopted by the GNU project". I'll move it to the "adopted" section, then. --pne 11:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gzip 

message: Somehow GnuPG was left out of the list.  Oversight rectified.  --Ardonik 11:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  GnuPG 

message: "Gnu's NOt ME" :) --Joakim 12:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is related to the GNU article how? //Ae:æ 13:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Not even true.  GNOME stands for GNU Network Object Model Environment, but that is not in use anymore.  GNU's NOt ME is not, has never been, will never be, and has never even been considered to be what GNOME stood for.  66.191.161.169 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNOME is a similarly recursive acronym 

message: The content of the article now needs to be refactored.  I'm doing some work on this and I presume others will too in the near-term future.  Some refactoring will require reorganisation of content, which will mean that for some limited periods, there may be duplicate info, or info out of sequence.  It can probably be assumed that the people working on this article are aware of this, so reverting changes that cause duplication which haven't been fixed in 24hrs is probably not helpful during this transition period.  That's just my opinion though, and it's not a reaction to a current problem, just trying to prevent something that could slow the process or frustrate others. Gronky 14:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  transitioning content from Project to OS 

message: I will merge the GNU/Hurd article into GNU soon.  The merge tags haven't been there long, but I raised this on Talk:GNU/Hurd last Friday and have had no objections since.  It's also been mentioned in the course of above discussions.  There is actually not much unique content on GNU/Hurd, so merging it in will not be difficult and will not add much size to this article. Gronky 15:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I merged everything in, so as we now prune out the duplicate stuff, it'll still all be in the edit history.  The only thing I didn't know what to do with was the interwiki link: nl:GNU/Hurd, pl:GNU/Hurd, and sv:GNU/Hurd.  Any speakers of those languages are requested to give a hand :-) Gronky 16:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed all of the interwiki links that linked to GNU/Hurd. ~Linuxerist  E/L/T 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging in GNU/Hurd 

message: According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation), putting the pronunciation at the beginning of the article is a good thing, so I put it back.  Also I updated the pronunciation to more accurately reflect the one shown on GNU homepage. -- Foofy 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see section 8 above. --KJ 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me bad. Sorry. --Foofy 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: The current article has a section on the various "distributions" of GNU. I think there is a need to clearly distinguish between what are modified versions of the GNU systems (no matter who distributes it) and what we popularily call "distributions" such as those of Debian and Gentoo. In other words, Debian has a distribution of GNU/Linux (a variant of GNU), GNU/Hurd ("main" variant I guess), GNU/kFreeBSD (yet another variant) etc. The variants and the distributions are distinct, yet I don't find that clearly stated in the section on the distributions. It probably is very confusing the the average reader. -- Mathieugp 14:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants and distributions 

message: The split was agree during a long thread and I see no reason to undo the consensus decision. Gronky 20:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge OS and project? huh? 

message: Wasn't TRIX originally for the motorola 88k? Calling the 68k "obscure" for the time would be strange to say the least. Needs verification, don't you think? (Not that I didn't consider an obscure 68000 box to be equally possible, given that use of paged memory management with a 68000 would've required extraordinary contortions of system architecture, like running a second 68000 "one step behind" the first since the 68000's instructions weren't restartable, interrupting the primary with an external bus-snooping processor [a Z80 was apparently used for this in some architectures] and so forth... so the architecture as a unit would certainly qualify for obscure.) 62.236.124.118 10:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expensive, obscure 68k box?