[linux-audio-user] linux audio wiki

[Shayne O'Connor]

Pete Bessman wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:58:24 +1000, "Shayne O'Connor"
> <forums at machinehasnoagenda.com> 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