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

[Alexander Shopov <ash contact bg>]

> I think you severely over-estimate my power.  I can't force
> people to do anything.  When the GDP makes terminology or
I agree with Shaun for being a leader means herding cats most of the time.

While there could be many reasons put back and forth for or against 
calling the OS GNU/Linux or Linux it will always boil down to the 
argument of educational and promotional usage of "GNU".

My personal reasons for raising the issue is that:
1. We had this discussion in our team.
2. Diverging from the upstream source is very straining on me. I cannot 
follow all the changes and it would be easier for me to have an 
agreement on this.
3. I've had quite enough flame wars.

I also agree with Jason Clinton - there are very few places where the 
word "linux" is used at all in the interface of Gnome programs.

If we take the modules in gnome-2-16 - most of them are indeed for the 
Linux kernel.

The following is a very rough example of what I found.

ekiga.gnome-2-14.bg.po:"Video4Linux is the most common choice if you own 
a webcam."
evolution-data-server.HEAD.bg.po:"Show folders in short notation (e.g. 
c.o.linux rather than comp.os.linux)"
gnome-terminal.HEAD.bg.po:msgid "Linux console"
gnome-utils.HEAD.bg.po:msgid "ext2 for the linux native filesystem or 
fat for the DOS filesystem."
gnome-utils.HEAD.bg.po:msgid "Linux Native (ext2)"
gnome-volume-manager.HEAD.bg.po:"Note: You need Linux kernel 2.6 for 
volume management to work."

(several more about SELinux, which is clearly kernel Linux).

In the gnome-user-manual:
Mentioned once, but is not user visible.

(The word GNU is used several times more often).

I have still not made any analysis on things outside the official packages.

So - a rough consensus will be helpful. Things will work without it, but 
it will be easier for me to have it.

Kind regards:
al_shopov