Pete Bessman wrote: > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:25:25 +1000, "Shayne O'Connor" > >>sorry to snip so much, but as i said ... who wants/needs to use >>GNU/Linux in everyday conversation and in general discussion. i >>only suggest that if you're getting some sort of wiki or web page >>that is going to be a primer in all things related to linux >>software, then gee >>- it's pretty damned easy just to write GNU/Linux. > > > Where are you going with this? I just wrote a long ass email about why > GNU-approved terminology is a stumbling block to adoption. The fact > that it's a subtle concept which is not immediately grasped was only > part of the picture. And ease of typing has nothing to do with it. > > your long ass email assumed that i was saying everyone should refer to linux as "GNU/Linux" 100% of the time, and that whenever you refer to it - however briefly - one should then launch into a spiel on the concept of Open Source, its history and so on ... while this was convenient for you to get your opinion across, it sort of melodramatizes what i'm saying, i think, if not downright misrepresents me. i should let Stallman explain things himself, cos in the biggest coincidence today, my mate sent me this article from today's Sydney Morning Herald ... what timing: > The fuss over the Linux trademark has diverted attention from the real issue - the freedom to change and redistribute software, the founder of the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation, Richard M. Stallman, says. > > Last week, senior members of the Linux community had to clear up a misunderstanding over the Linux trademark, created when an Australian lawyer sent letters to nearly 90 companies, demanding payment of a sub-licence fee for use of the Linux name. > > Stallman launched the GNU Project in 1984 to develop a complete UNIX style operating system which is free software. > > Many applications developed by the project are used with Linux distributions, prompting him to often issue reminders that the name GNU/Linux would be more appropriate. > AdvertisementAdvertisement > > "Most of the time, when people call something 'Linux', it's the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. Maybe this policy (the sub-licence fee for using the name Linux) will encourage people to call it GNU," Stallman said. "I prefer to say GNU/Linux' so as to give the kernel's developer a share of the credit." > > He said the main point of free software was freedom. > > "Free software means you're free to run it, study it, change it, redistribute it, and distribute modified versions -- the way cooks do with recipes. What names you're allowed to call a program is a side issue." > > Asked whether he would support the model of paying for a sub-licence, Stallman said he was concerned over issues of naming only when they helped to focus attention on the freedom to change and redistribute software. > > "In this particular case, though, the naming issue seems rather to distract attention from freedom, so I'd rather focus the attention back where it belongs," he said. > > Stallman said he would not seek payment to allow people to use the GNU name. "Anyone who makes a GNU/Linux distribution ought to call it such, but most of them don't. We won't ask people to pay to give us credit for our work," he said. > > "However, if you want to call a program 'GNU this-or-that', which would imply it's a GNU package, you should first contact the GNU Project and really make it one." this is pretty much what i'm talking about - it's not complicated, and it's hardly asking too much ... but as you know (voting for bush and all, heh heh) it's your right to do anything you want. >>seriously, if the concept of Free software is that hard to grasp, >>then i doubt anyone's going to have any luck with the stuff that >>*actually is confusing* - like getting a piece of software installed. > > > *I* had trouble with "GNU/Linux" and "Free Software," and I *wrote* > Specimen. A task which, in my experience, is almost as confusing as > installing software. > "What is open source software?" "It is software whose code is freely available for anyone to modify, copy or distribute. As opposed to proprietary software, the use of which is highly regulated by patents and copyright law." i'm sure there's better, briefer answers out there. > >>it's got nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with >>reality. GNU/Linux. Three letters and a backslash. The FSF is so much >>more than just a pain in the arse - as its name implies, it is a >>foundation on which *lots* of stuff has been built. > > > You've got it backwards. The reality is that the use of GNU/Linux pales > in comparison to Linux, and that's not changing. A further aspect of > this reality is the use of GNU/Linux is a stumbling block to adoption by > the "unwashed masses." A musician contemplating the use of Linux is not > going to expect freeaudiosoftware.org to have a damn thing to do with > it. Hell, even the Gnome home page says "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux," > and it's a fraggin' GNU project. > > You think that, to some fuzzily defined extent, we should say > "GNU/Linux" because that's The Right Thing. This is ideological. > No - because that's what it *is*. > I think that, to an absolute extent, we should say "Linux" because > that's what the rest of the world says. This is realistic. > apart from the "absolute extent", you are right. you just don't seem to have read what i wrote properly. > >>when yr mate asks how you roll beats in future, shouldn't you just say >>"with a program called Specimen"? > > > These days, I say "I use an open source program called Specimen that I > wrote for Linux," and everybody understands me fine. meh - same diff ... shayne
