Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNU/kFreeBSD


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 05:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

GNU/kFreeBSD
This page offers no information that isn't in Debian GNU/kFreeBSD or Gentoo/FreeBSD, nor will it ever be able to. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "GNU/kFreeBSD," as no one applies that term to Gentoo/FreeBSD. See also the Talk page for comments by User:Janizary and User:65.94.52.193. -- Karnesky 01:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep: GNU/kFreeBSD is a generic system, not just a Debian port. If we follow your logic, GNU/Linux and GNU/NetBSD should be removed aswell; nothing in there isn't already in Debian GNU/Linux, Ubuntu, Suse etc. Geronimooo 11:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. I second Geronimooo.  I'm one of the principal parents of this beast, and since I started working on it never considered it a Debian-specific system.  You can see a reflection of this in config.guess triplets or uname output, which are totaly distro-agnostic.  Also the GNU/kFreeBSD page itself links to an experimental port of the same system (with GNU userland, Glibc, etc) based on Gentoo (not to be confused with Gentoo/FreeBSD.  Besides, there's also Ging, which is Debian-based but it's not Debian.
 * Besides, before saying "nor will it ever be able to", you'd have to check with a crystal ball (and I don't think any of us has one) ;) 62.57.140.216 11:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * GNU/Linux is currently a redirect to Linux, which is a detailed article. Is your preference to keep and expand GNU/kFreeBSD (as you seem to argue), or to redirect (and/or merge), as is done for GNU/Linux (and as Gronky lists as a possible solution both here and on GNU/NetBSD? Thanks for your clarification of Gentoo/kFreeBSD and Gentoo/FreeBSD. If this is kept or merged, this information should explicitly be in the article.-- Karnesky 18:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep: I do think the information in articles about GNU using *BSD kernels could be organised better, but I don't think deleting GNU/kFreeBSD is a solution. Indeed, if there is so much overlap with Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, (for as long as the two articles are both small anyway, if that's the case) it should be the latter that gets merged into the former.  Debian may be by far the largest distro of FreeBSD-kernel-based GNU systems but there will be more to say about the system itself than there will be to say about Debian's experience in packaging it (and some or all of that info could go on Debian pages).  One possible way to get the GNU/*BSD information into shape - and this is just an idea which can be discussed on Talk pages afterwards - would be to collect the info onto one page (maybe GNU/*BSD) and on that page present the flavours of *BSD kernels that GNU can run on,  contrast those systems with GNU and GNU/Linux, and discuss the Distros that package and distribute various *BSD-kernel-based GNU systems.  The similarities in these systems, I think, will be more than then differences.  If this unified page is too big, or becomes too big, the largest section could always be split of at a later date.  I'd be willing to help with the merge.  I've never run a GNU/*kBSD system, but I have lurked on related mailing lists, and I have a good knowledge of GNU history and workings. Gronky 13:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why we shouldn't discuss merging now. Merging is one possible outcome of AfD and, in this case, I guess it might be a good one. -- Karnesky 18:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My main reason for not discussing a merge now is that I don't have the time this week, and probably not next. But I have already done some thinking on this, so here's what's in my head:


 * The logical way to avoid duplication would be for each operating system to have an article about the operating system, and for each distribution to have an article about the distribution. So there should be an article for GNU, and GNU/Linux, and GNU/kFreeBSD, and GNU/kNetBSD (see later).  And Debian GNU/kFreeBSD should be merged into Debian and GNU/kFreeBSD, and Gentoo/FreeBSD should be merged into Gentoo and FreeBSD.  The GNU, GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, and GNU/kNetBSD pages should have links to distributions of them, and the Distribution pages should say (and link to) what operating systems they publish versions of.


 * About "(see later)": GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/kNetBSD are a special case for two reasons. First, they share a lot of characteristics - and if I recall correctly, it was even the same person that did the bulk of both ports of GNU (was it Robert Millan?).  Second, despite being made of very mature and widely used software, neither operating system itself is widely used (as a side note, this will greatly reduce the pool of Wikipedians' experience that the articles on them can draw from).  These two factors suggest to me that the two things should be discussed in a joint article GNU on *BSD kernels, or GNU/*BSD, or something.  If this seems unpalatable, keep in mind that nothing's permenant.  If that unified article gets so big that it should be split, then Net/Free would be one way to consider splitting the info.


 * To clarify: the unified article should be written like an article on any other operating system (so it should include the and should be in the Free software operating systems Category.  GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/kNetBSD would then redirect there.  Also, the name should not be given too much importance "GNU/kFreeBSD" is just a name invented quickly by the Debian porter after the FreeBSD guys didn't like his original name "GNU/FreeBSD" (since it could be interpretted as implying that the user would get a complete FreeBSD system).  The most important thing for the name is accuracy, and since neither "GNU/FreeBSD" or "GNU/kFreeBSD" conveys a clear meaing (without additional explanation), I recommend using a descriptive name (such as GNU on BSD kernels, or the same with an asterisk before BSD). Gronky 20:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. &mdash;Crypticbot (operator) 03:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no such entity. Besides, the specific articles for Gentoo/FreeBSD and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD should be footnotes in their respective articles, not their own ones. GNU/NetBSD doesn't exist either, there is no group doing it, there is Debian GNU/NetBSD, a minor project within the scope of Debian.  Gentoo/OpenBSD?  Notes in both the OpenBSD and Gentoo articles.  Gentoo/ALT should just be a part of Gentoo.  Janizary 05:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep helix84 02:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Two users have suggested merging content. This could be a good idea. Can future voters please indicate how they feel about a merge? I have also put in merge suggestions for Gentoo/FreeBSD and Gentoo/OpenBSD to Gentoo/ALT. See (and use) Talk:Gentoo/ALT for discussion on that merge. -- Karnesky 15:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * merge please I want a merge in the way Gronky describes it. Geronimooo 21:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.