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

[Yavor Doganov <yavor doganov org>]

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.

> When the GDP makes terminology or other language recommendations, we
> are attempting to capture community or industry consensus.  We
> typically try to find the words that are most familiar to people,
> because that's what helps our users most.  The great thing about
> picking the most familiar words is that they're probably the least
> controversial ones.

Well, calling the system "Linux" is, perhaps, the most common and
familiar to users, but we're aiming to correct this.  If a common
error is widespread, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to fix it.
The reasons for this are explained in detail in the gnu.org article
that RMS posted.

> Occasionally, we have to make somewhat arbitrary choices between
> words that have equal popular usage.  When this happens, people will
> generally follow our lead because they value consistency more than
> they like their choice of words.  Basically, we can enforce our
> recommendations only because people don't care enough to go against
> them.
> 
> The choice of "GNU" vs. "GNU/Linux" is not one of these cases.  The
> people who say GNU/Linux are going to continue to say GNU/Linux, and
> the people who say Linux are likely going to continue to say Linux.
> A recommendation from the GDP won't change anything.

We shouldn't give up so easily.  This is like saying "People who use
free software will continue to do so and people who use non-free
software are likely to continue to do so".  Our goal is to liberate
everyone, including those that are still slaves and believe that it is
a good thing to be a slave.  We want the people to use free software
as a result of an ethical choice, not a practical one.  Knowing the
history and philosophy of the Free Software Movement will help
achieving this and calling the system with its actual name is
something that doesn't require dramatic efforts.

> 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.

> > 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.

For examples like HAL, Linux console, etc. both usages are justified.
It is the policy of the GNU Project to say "GNU/Linux console", for
instance, because that is the console of the system.  I think GNOME
should follow the same policy.  After all, people say "Foo driver for
Windows" not "Foo driver for w32kernel.exe". 

> 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?

To summarize, the real question is: Is the GNOME Project going to help
its users in understanding the ethical and social issues of software
freedom?  Is it going to encourage them to learn more about our
philosophy?

-- 
JID: doganov jabber minus273 org