Pete Bessman wrote: > 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. > is too ;) ok - let's agree to disagree on this one - hopefully that will lead somewhere ... i enjoyed it though - there's nothing wrong with these discussions, as they help me understand these things more! shayne
