I can't help but think RMS is shooting himself in the foot with the name
GNU, and GNU/Linux
I mean, has anyone ever tried explain to a normal person what a
self-referential non-descriptive acronym IS? And what it has to do with
software.
Take for example, RNT. RNT's Not Telstra. That could be the name of a
garbage removal service and still be correct.
The problem with GNU/Linux is not about giving credit where credit is due,
for example Redhat Linux ( ignoring Radhat/GNU/Linux issues for a second ),
but that by having such a difficult name for his organisation, he makes the
adoption of it much more difficult. People will always use a shorter name
where one can be found.
When people say Linux, or course they are referring to the system
contributed to by GNU people, Linux people, Perl people etc, but when
describing it an a single entity, it is much more useull and efficient to
tag it with a one word description, and the name of the kernel is an obvious
choice, just like I often refer to just Debian, rather than Linux, when it
is convenient to do so.
Personally, I think that the only time we should NEED to use GNU/Linux is
for situations where you refer to it formally, that is, in similar
situations to when you would refer to Redhat as Redhat Linux...
GNU/Linux is longer, harder to type, harder and say, and a nonsensical
acronym anyways, so it's common use should not really be nescesary or
expected. And that's not even starting with the whole GNU/Linux/Perl/Python
etc etc argument.
And I don't see RMS enforcing GNU/debian, or GNU/FreeBSD... or does he. Why
pick on Linux for any reason other than frustration for not being
recognised?
Adam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bevan Broun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matthew Davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Trevor Gunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "SLUG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fw: Side issue about Sydney Linux User Group
> on Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 01:26:42PM +1000, Matthew Davidson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > He was responding to the Mundie comments and so forth, giving the usual
> > history of the GNU project, etc. I found his arguments for calling
> > the system GNU/Linux quite compelling. On the other hand, SLUG would
> > lose it's snappy acronym and mascot if it were SGLUG.
>
> I agree. Without gcc we are all lost.
>
> > How about a compromise? Everybody who uses GNU/Linux by definition uses
> > Linux, so SLUG is still a technically correct name. However I suggest
> > (audaciously, as a non-member) that SLUG adopt a policy of when
> > referring to the kernel the term "Linux" is used, otherwise "GNU/Linux",
> > particularly in public forums, publicity material, etc.
>
> This sounds like a good proposal. Perhaps the website should have some
> changes.
>
> BB
> [who will join slug with $s at tomorrows meeting]
>
> --
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
> More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
