26 Aug
2005
26 Aug
'05
2:19 p.m.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:58:24 +1000, "Shayne O'Connor"
<forums(a)machinehasnoagenda.com> said:
Then, you think that, to some fuzzily defined extent, we should
say "GNU/Linux" because that's what it *is*.
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.
Not.
-Pete
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*. 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. 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 ...