Re: Changing "Linux" with "GNU/Linux" or "GNU"

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:34 +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Shaun McCance wrote:
> > 
> > I think you severely over-estimate my power.  I can't force
> > people to do anything.  
> 
> I think I'm not.  I understand that you might feel uneasy about this,
> but it is your duty.  Fearless leaders take decisions all the time.
> Joachim has also, more or less, expressed agreement with our proposal.

Let me rephrase.  People defer to me on issues of language style
because of my judo grip on the English language.  People trust
writers over programmers to write well.  I have the ability to
tell people what words to use only insofar as people choose to
defer to me.  This is not an issue on which people will defer,
and it's not even an issue of language *style*.

I am not saying you don't have my support.  What I'm saying is
that I'm not the silver bullet that you think I am.  Maintainers
will WONTFIX a "use GNU/Linux" bug just as fast with my name on
it as without.

> > My larger concern is where we're even using these words.  Gnome runs
> > on a lot of operating systems, many of which are not GNU systems.
> > Our interfaces and documentation should avoid talking about the
> > operating system whenever possible.  
> 
> This makes sense, but it's always a good practice to emphasize on GNU
> since it is the principal OS for which GNOME was created and GNOME is
> part of it.  Something like "GNU and other Unix-like operating
> systems" would be acceptable, I think.  This is the term that is used
> in most of the GNU documentation, AFAICT.

That's a 41-character phrase, including spaces.

> > > The Linux version does not have this restriction. (GCompris)
> > 
> > This looks valid.  
> 
> No, this has nothing to do with a kernel feature.  The GNU/Linux
> version of GCompris has all activities available, while for the
> Windows version you have to pay a small fee to enable them.  I'm
> pretty sure that Bruno, the maintainer, will correct this, as
> everywhere else in the program he refers to GNU/Linux and GNU.  He
> also insists on educating the children about the Free Software ideals,
> so I salute him.

I'm sorry.  I worded that poorly.  I didn't mean that it looked
like a valid use of "Linux" over "GNU/Linux".  I only meant that
it looked like a valid place to even mention an operating system.
The other examples could easily be recast to avoid mentioning the
operating system altogether.

Although given your comments, it seems that neither "Linux" nor
"GNU/Linux" are the correct thing to say here.  Presumably the
same features work on FreeBSD.

> > But of course, our users aren't necessarily in the in-crowd.
> 
> As I see it, there are two groups of people that call the system
> "Linux".  The larger one just doesn't know that this is a variant of
> GNU, they hear all the time "Linux" and it justs spreads.  They seem
> to think that this is a system that was developed for a student's
> amusement.  When we explain to such users that the system is
> GNU/Linux, they agree and acknowledge their mistake.  The common
> justification for it is "But everyone calls it Linux".
> 
> The second group are people who intentionally omit "GNU", thus
> declaring their disagreement with the ideals of the GNU Project.
> Certainly there are some developers who are in this group and they are
> entitled to have different views, but why they insist to pass them on
> the users this way?

I don't think that's a fair characterization.  There are plenty
of people who agree with the ideals of GNU, who actively hack
on *free software*, but who don't think that saying "GNU/Linux"
is a sufficiently important step towards accomplishing those
ideals.

Differing opinions on the best means to an end does not equate
to a difference in ideals.  Just because a person thinks that
"GNU/Linux" is a mouthful (and it is a mouthful) does not mean
that she doesn't love free software.  Accusing her of such will
only alienate her.

--
Shaun