Re: [gpsd-dev] Another query on terminology

[Chris Kuethe]

Aspirin. Xerox. Kleenex.

They are all a type of product and a specific brand. GPS is the same,
and most of the time the correct interpretation (NAVSTAR system vs any
navigation satellite system) can be inferred from context... and in
the small number of cases where there is a bit of confusion someone
can either ask for clarification or someone can add a footnote to
clarify.

Many receivers advertise FAA WAAS compatibility, when in reality
they're compatible with most existing SBAS systems. As a GPS nerd, I
think it's cool that my phone groks NAVSTAR, GLONASS, WAAS, maybe MSAS
and GAGAN; as a guy just trying to get from here to there I'm happy
that my phone will use as many navigation techologies as possible to
say "stay in the left lane, then take the second ramp."




On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Eric S. Raymond <address@hidden> wrote:
> Gerry Creager - NOAA Affiliate <address@hidden>:
>> As the guy who has little time, hasn't contributed any code to gpsd in
>> recent history, but has spent a little time working with GNSS, and
>> especially GPS, I'll take the position that #1 is a better choice.
>>
>> GPS is a system, although you can say NavStar if you'd like. NavStar GPS
>> dates back a few years, and in general, at the USAF level, has been
>> dropped. GNSS is a system-wide designator, however. GPS refers to a
>> specific constellation of related space vehicles, in a common constellation
>> configuration, just as GLONASS, BeiDou, and Galileo do.
>>
>> Since the project is "gpsd" I can understand the thinking that GPS is
>> generic... but I believe it's incorrect. GPS is a specific system.
>
> I hear your argument, and concede that it has merit. But I'm going to
> side with popular usage this time, because the technically correct language
> doesn't add any functional value.
> --
>                 <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
>



-- 
GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?