On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:58:24 +1000, "Shayne O'Connor" <forums@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > your long ass email assumed that i was saying everyone should refer to > linux as "GNU/Linux" 100% of the time, I assumed nothing about your position. My email was about why GNU-approved terminology is a stumbling block to adoption, and why I think we should not use it ever. This isn't even affected but how often you think we should say "GNU/Linux." I don't care about that, anyway. If it's greater than 0%, I think it's too much. > 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 don't understand this passage. > 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: This is a rehearsal of the standard GNU position. As my previous email addressed, the issue of software freedom is a complete non-starter outside of our circle. Ergo, the pragmatically oriented open-source-and-Linux movement is better at growing the userbase. This is, I think, easy to verify empirically. > 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. I have attempted to demonstrate that the "GNU way" retards adoption, to a degree that makes naming an important domain in a "GNU approved" manner "asking too much." > "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. I don't understand what this is supposed to prove vis-a-vis "free software." > > 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*. Then, you think that, to some fuzzily defined extent, we should say "GNU/Linux" 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. I should hope that I'm right about determing what I'm thinking. As it pertains to growing the userbase, I still think that my position is realistic, and yours ideological. > > 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 ... Not. -Pete
