Observing recent events I notice that prejudice is at work. Prejudice is often invisible and hard to identify. But it does harm to society, especially when it is widespread. When we sense that prejudice exists we are forced to drop the assumption that people are thinking and acting rationally. Few people enjoy being told that they are acting irrationally. Most people don't like to admit that they are affected by prejudice. Prejudice exists nowhere but in people's minds but the very minds that harbor it tend to refuse to accept that it exists.
It is wrong to hold the victim of prejudice responsible for the problems prejudice and consequential actions bring about. Such blame won't solve the problems. On the other hand the victim of prejudice must understand that it exists if he or she wants to improve the situation. Before discussing recent events I would like to tackle an issue that all subscribers are aware of: "Why do most people say 'Linux' instead of 'GNU/Linux'?" I understand that prejudice plays an important role in this long-standing problem. I'd like to share this insight with you in the hope that it will have an enlightening effect and ultimately lead to new approaches of coping with vexing problems we have at hand now. If I see that many of you don't like this message I shall refrain from discussing recent events. --- What is GNU? GNU is an operating system, and it is a clone of UNIX. It is not UNIX in the sense that it borrows no code from the original UNIX from Bell Labs. Subscribers of this mailing list know what an operating system is. But the ordinary citizen does not. I would like to demonstrate how this lack of knowledge translates to a rejection of the term "GNU/Linux." Most people know the word "operating system" or "OS" in short. What they know is heavily influenced by the marketing practices of Microsoft, which is the leading for-profit manufacturer of operating systems. Microsoft wants people to know that the operating system is very, very important. Microsoft wants people to know that applications are useless without the operating system: they won't work. I observe that this propaganda is not always conducted directly by Microsoft; PC makers play an active role in spreading the message. As we here all know Microsoft does not make public the source code or internal specifications. Thus people do not know what is inside an OS. Less known is the fact that Microsoft does not desire to define the contours of the operating system. This strange behavior, considering the immense profit of the OS business, requires explanation. The computer business is still in its growth stage and nobody, not even Microsoft, can be sure what the future holds. Microsoft would like to control the new growth field once it is identified. The obvious way to do that is to introduce a new product and promote it using the vast funds available in its chests. But Microsoft does not want to do it that way. Bundling the new product to the immensely popular Windows OS is a more effective method, only that as we all know, bundling is illegal. One clever way to defy antitrust regulations is to claim that the bundled product is not an independent product but rather an extension or improvement of the existing OS. A statement on what an operating system is may imply what it is not and this may be picked up by an opponent in a future court. The ordinary computer user who has been educated through Microsoft's marketing propaganda is likely to see the operating system as one entity. I notice that even among IT specialists who write books and magazine articles for popular consumption there are people who hold this view. The problem with the term "GNU/Linux" is that it requires the understanding that the operation system is not one single program but rather a collection of programs with distinct functions. The casual computer user rejects the term for it goes against his vague but persistent assumption that an operating system should be one single thing. The opponents of "GNU/Linux" can easily shoot it down. One simple way is to go to Linus Torvalds and ask whether Richard Stallman contributed any code to Linux. If Torvalds says "It is true that I used certain tools made by Stallman to make Linux, but he did not contribute any code" that settles matters for those who assume that the operating system is a single, monolithic entity. Another good method is stress the date when Linux was born. This is effective because most people think that the operating system comes first and must exist before anything other program can be written. It is not my intention to state that the term "GNU/Linux" will never be widely adopted and to urge GNU supporters to reckon that the effort is fruitless and should be terminated. My message is that through careful observation of the current situation new approaches can be found, ones that won't easily be dismissed as "politically-charged." I observe that as more and more businesses become computer-reliant, managers who know no more about operating systems than the average hairdresser are drawn into situations in which they are held responsible for problems. Some of them are waking up to the idea that they need to know more about computer software to discuss problems and solutions, to assess cost estimates and hire competent specialists. Introduce yourself to this kind of person as someone who knows OS internals through development work and you may get an attentive hear. I also recommend explaining Microsoft's desire to keep the concept of "operating system" blurry at its edges, mentioned above. Some of your acquaintances including those who currently don't accept "GNU/Linux" may find it amusing. If it kindles interest, or curiosity, your tale of what an operating system is would be better accepted. References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. U.S. v. Microsoft: The Inside Story of the Landmark Case by Joel Brinkley and Steve Lohr Thank you for reading. Akira Urushibata
