GNU Mes 0.25 released

[ahojlm at 0w.se]

Thanks to everyone for putting up with the argumentation.
Hope that you find at least some of the points being relevant for this list.

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 06:19:31PM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> The very thing the "Full-Source Bootstrap" builds is a C development
> toolchain; that is arguably the whole point of the "Full-Source
> Bootstrap" ... to avoid starting with a C development toolchain, by
> starting from source, and building up to a working C toolchain...

Before addressing in detail, TL;DR:
The above looks regrettably like a persuasive definition[1].

Vagrant,

Why would "full-source" mean something other than
that dependencies on anything but source are excluded?

The term by itself does not even mention the programming language(s)
involved.

My quick search of a definition on the web did not uncover anything like
your suggestion of the "very thing" either.

> So by citing some other project that allegedly got there first, by
> depending on an already existing C development toolchain; it seems like
> comparing apples to oranges or maybe even broccoli.

The blog pretends to be "there" first, you are trying to redefine "there"
to fit Guix but not VSOBFS.

* Why is the use of a random C toolchain in a solution "less of a
solution" than a use of a random binary loader? How do you verify the
latter without doing the bootstrap on various loaders and comparing
the result?
* How is the result (if reproducible and verifiable all the way)
of one of those routes better than the corresponding result of the other?
* Both of the contending platforms (Guix and VSOBFS, alphabetical order)
can be used to bootstrap further into anything else and/or each other.
In this meaning they are equivalent.

The feat accomplished and presented in the contended blog
entry is making a certain almost-fully-from-source bootstrap to
host a Linux distribution. That's nice.

At the same time the blog in question goes out of its way[2] to create an
impression that there haven't been any from-source-bootstrap-solutions
comparable to the one it talks about.

This is very far from a fair depiction and this is where the potential
for distrust and flames comes from.

In other words, the blog strikingly pretends that VSOBFS never
existed, despite VSOBFS having presented a pedantic solution to
source-only-bootstrap and illustrated that a binary seed is redundant.

> and replying to each
> and every post referencing the alleged "false claims" seems actively
> disruptive to me.

A post publicly promoting an untrue priority claim, in this case regarding
"Full-Source Bootstrap", is an insult against someone having made a
substantiated corresponding claim earlier.

Notably, this insult has been repeated despite my protests.
Yes, I try to be actively disruptive against unfair practices.

Misrepresentations disorient the actual people who the solutions are
meant to benefit. They affect also where public resources are invested.

I do not chase any funding but I care about being recognized as the first
at full-source Unix/Posix bootstrap.

> live well,
>   vagrant

Regards,
 an

[1] "a form of stipulative definition which purports to describe the true
    or commonly accepted meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating
    an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition

[2] For a casual reader, this is what caused my reaction:
"[...] something that had never been achieved, to our knowledge, since the
birth of Unix.
We refer to this as the Full-Source Bootstrap"