Re: Are the FSF helpful?

["Bert de Jong" <brrrrrrt@xs4all.nl>]

Personally, I've never liked people going on about having to use the name
GNU/Linux if you mean GNU/Linux instead of just Linux.

I can understand your point that people should be more aware of GNU and
the FSF (I agree), and I can also understand Richard Stallman and his
constant wheening over people who call 'his' software Linux; it's not nice
if someone puts so much effort in software only to see people use the
'wrong' name for it all the time.

But my points are:

- if you look at it from a practical angle, people will dislike to use the
name GNU/Linux because it's too long and not easy to pronounce. This is
partly the FSF's own fault, because they chose an awkward - if playful
-acronym as a name for their os-without-kernel collection of software.

- if you look at it from a linguist's point of view - which is a
reasonable thing to do if you're talking about names - this is a
non-issue. What has occured with the names GNU, GNU/Linux and Linux is
referred to by linguists as "metonymia pars pro toto", or "calling a thing
by a part of it." People have started to call the entire OS Linux because
it's nice and short. This is a common style figure which also occurs if
you ask for "another cup" if you mean "another cup of coffee" for
instance.

- what can you do if even the biggest GNU/Linux distribution distributors
call their product "SuSE Linux", "Red Hat Linux" etc. instead of SuSE
GNU/Linux? If you want to start somewhere, I think that's where you should
go first..
You know, I'd go along with you if you proposed a sort of compromise to
say we should use "GNU/Linux" if we mention it in FAQs, HOW-TOs or
technical documentation, because there it's appropriate to use precise
technical terms. But you know, Linux is a household name, among techies
and lay-people alike. I like it that way, and I don't think GNU/Linux will
ever become one.

So much for my 2c.

cheers,

Bert



> Hello all.
>
> I am a Free Software developer.  My platform of choice is GNU but I
> try to write software that works on any unix-like Free OS.  I recently
> decided to install OpenBSD so that I could check for portability
> issues.  While reading the OpenBSD docs I was surprised that GNU/Linux
> is referred to as "Linux".
>
> The OpenBSD community are quite a technical group, it is obviously
> known that Linux is a kernel, not an OS.  So what reason is there for
> choosing "Linux" over "GNU" or "GNU/Linux".
>
> The name "Linux" is used constantly by proprietary software companies.
> It allows them to ignore the issues of Freedom and openness thus
> encouraging people to run (and trust) the binary software packages
> they distribute.
>
> Users and developers in the general Free Software community can make
> their own decisions as to what name they want to use.  Why not band
> together to help eachother?
>
> The GNU project has created many good pieces of software that are used
> by OpenBSD people. (GCC, GDB, binutils, wget, textutils, gnupg,
> gnuchess, fileutils, emacs, bash, automake, autoconf, etc.)  The
> campaigning the Free Software Foundations does against anti-programmer
> laws also aids the Free Software community as a whole.
>
> Calling the system "GNU" or "GNU/Linux" is not only more accurate but
> also raises awareness about the GNU project.  This helps attract
> developers which benefits all Free Software OSs.
>
> This is not an all-or-nothing issue, it's the-more-the-merrier.  Even
> if a quarter (or even one) of the OpenBSD community used the term
> "GNU" or "GNU/Linux", it would be helpful.  OpenBSD developers owe the
> FSF nothing, that's what sharing is about, many GNU/Linux users use
> openssh etc. (thanks).
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Ciaran O'Riordan
> (I am speaking for myself alone and present no FSF opinion/thoughts)