DaDaDaniel
Still Fresh
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2012
- Messages
- 61
I think you're reading too much into Moxie's statement. I see the emphasis on "just", meaning without political implications. Of course GNU does valuable work.
Linux OS? Not GNU/Linux ? :)
- Thread starter ekianjo
- Start date
DaDaDaniel
Still Fresh
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2012
- Messages
- 61
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
Somehow I think this makes for an interesting characterization of people. Why is asking about what software runs well (rather down to earth, practical, directly useful information) less interesting than carrying on a decades old flamewar about philosophical foundations and political maneuvering?
I was not comparing both side by side. I already have an android device, on which all programs run very well, I have personally no interest in using a Pandora for android. It's just not made for that. Great to see that lots of stuff works, but it's more a "proof of concept" than anything else. I didn't buy a mini-computer to use a slow phone OS on it.
Last edited by a moderator:
+1 on that one.
This is barely relevant to this discussion, but I thought it was cute.
A quote from Linus' first announcement of his hobby OS:
https://groups.googl...GA/SwRavCzVE7gJ
A quote from Linus' first announcement of his hobby OS:
https://groups.googl...GA/SwRavCzVE7gJ
Last edited by a moderator:
Exophase
Nothing good will ever come of Exophase.
Wow, pretty great. It's like reading a totally different person.
DaDaDaniel
Still Fresh
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2012
- Messages
- 61
Yes, creating one of the most used pieces of software on the planet seems to have some effects on your character.
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
Not a very fair comparison. Ubuntu is hardly optimized to run on ARM and embedded devices. Angstrom and Android are.
And Android is still a slow system, compared to Angstrom.
Niko
Still Fresh
GNU/Linux sounds like diarrhea. As a result "Linux" has become synonymous with the kernel but also with an OS that uses Linux as the kernel (usually excluding android).
Technicalities don't matter in language. Popular usage is king. Words get added to the dictionary all the time just because we collectively use the new term in the same way. I'm not a linguist but that's probably how languages evolve and how languages are ultimately created. Language doesn't care about facts, grammar, or giving credit where credit is due. Language only cares about the popular usage.
Technicalities don't matter in language. Popular usage is king. Words get added to the dictionary all the time just because we collectively use the new term in the same way. I'm not a linguist but that's probably how languages evolve and how languages are ultimately created. Language doesn't care about facts, grammar, or giving credit where credit is due. Language only cares about the popular usage.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't quite consider names to be part of languages; otherwise, in what language would "Linux" actually be a word? English? French? Finnish? All languages?
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 11,411
Are you really still discussing this? Just call this forum "default os" or "Angstrom" and move on
With that said, I think it should be something like Default OS/Angstrom, Other OSs and the Android section.. Default os alone excludes a home for alternates like Slackware, Pandebian, Ubuntu...etc.. or even better just cram Android in Other OSs section.
And yes it's sad there has been so much discussion on this...
Last edited by a moderator:
This discussion hasn't held up in the last 15 years - Why end it now?
In all languages in which it is used as a word, of course. Do we want to get all Wittgenstein on this one? If we go by the early Wittgenstein (Tractatus), language really is nothing but names - that is, words that denote things - and words that describe the relations between those things. Everything else is nonsense. Later Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations-era) would say that any word/sign that is used as a word in a language, is a word in that language, in the respect in which it is used. Which means that a word might be a proper name - say "Hoover", for instance" - but if that name suddenly starts to get used as a noun denoting a general class of things, say vacuum cleaners, then it is indeed also a noun. What matters is that all, or at least most, of the people that speaks the language agree on how that particular word/sign might be used in that context.
It is interesting to note that the young Wittgenstein was all normative - He was on a mission to tell the world how proper language ought to be used - whilst the later Wittgenstein is more or less descriptive - that is, describes how language is used in he real world - and argues the point that that, really, is the only way to pin down language.
But why not back to this one:
Because we're not, really. It is not discussion - It is evangelization. To some people, this is not a matter of opinion, that is: something that can be discussed. It is a matter of fact, and the reason the world does not agree is that the world is simply not aware of the facts. Sometimes soft-spoken people arrive outside my door, and they want to inform me of the facts that the end is nigh, that Jesus returned in 1914 and that fortunately for me, it is still not too late to get a proper understanding of the world and the facts in it. Sometimes less soft-spoken people arrive on my computer screen to inform me that the Gnu arrived in 1985 and that the end of free computing is nigh. That is why we have three or four attempts, in this very thread, to enlighten us to the legend of the 15% (the last one with pie charts, even), since the only possible reason we do not already agree is that we must somehow have missed the first two-three retellings.
In religion, this is called zealotry or a cult - The unshakable belief that everybody else is wrong. Not holding other opinions about things, but provably factually wrong about reality. And that is always a bad thing. No matter if it appears in religion, in politics or in computing, it always leads to Bad Stuff. So far we haven't had any mass purges in the FOSS movements, thankfully. But it is interesting to think about how organisations like Church of Scientology or the Plymouth brothers installs special web browsers on members computers that makes sure they won't see any "disturbing" web pages, and compare it to http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ <= that thing.
In all languages in which it is used as a word, of course. Do we want to get all Wittgenstein on this one? If we go by the early Wittgenstein (Tractatus), language really is nothing but names - that is, words that denote things - and words that describe the relations between those things. Everything else is nonsense. Later Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations-era) would say that any word/sign that is used as a word in a language, is a word in that language, in the respect in which it is used. Which means that a word might be a proper name - say "Hoover", for instance" - but if that name suddenly starts to get used as a noun denoting a general class of things, say vacuum cleaners, then it is indeed also a noun. What matters is that all, or at least most, of the people that speaks the language agree on how that particular word/sign might be used in that context.
It is interesting to note that the young Wittgenstein was all normative - He was on a mission to tell the world how proper language ought to be used - whilst the later Wittgenstein is more or less descriptive - that is, describes how language is used in he real world - and argues the point that that, really, is the only way to pin down language.
But why not back to this one:
Because we're not, really. It is not discussion - It is evangelization. To some people, this is not a matter of opinion, that is: something that can be discussed. It is a matter of fact, and the reason the world does not agree is that the world is simply not aware of the facts. Sometimes soft-spoken people arrive outside my door, and they want to inform me of the facts that the end is nigh, that Jesus returned in 1914 and that fortunately for me, it is still not too late to get a proper understanding of the world and the facts in it. Sometimes less soft-spoken people arrive on my computer screen to inform me that the Gnu arrived in 1985 and that the end of free computing is nigh. That is why we have three or four attempts, in this very thread, to enlighten us to the legend of the 15% (the last one with pie charts, even), since the only possible reason we do not already agree is that we must somehow have missed the first two-three retellings.
In religion, this is called zealotry or a cult - The unshakable belief that everybody else is wrong. Not holding other opinions about things, but provably factually wrong about reality. And that is always a bad thing. No matter if it appears in religion, in politics or in computing, it always leads to Bad Stuff. So far we haven't had any mass purges in the FOSS movements, thankfully. But it is interesting to think about how organisations like Church of Scientology or the Plymouth brothers installs special web browsers on members computers that makes sure they won't see any "disturbing" web pages, and compare it to http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ <= that thing.
Well if you just call the ones you don't agree with "zealots" or "cultists" or "sectarians" or whatever, you certainly don't have an actual discussion. You could just as well call people who like to use the name "GNU/Linux" nazis (oh wait, you already kind of did) and conform to Godwin's law.
In my opinion, the issue of naming is not very important, but the issue of freedom is, and for some reason, people who insist on banning references to the name "GNU" also seem to not care about the political issues, and only use open source software because it is often technically superior. The fact that I participate in discussions like the one in this thread is not because the naming itself is important to me, nor because I'm a follower of some kind of cult, but because I consider those political and ethical issues to be quite important (at least in the long run).
In my opinion, the issue of naming is not very important, but the issue of freedom is, and for some reason, people who insist on banning references to the name "GNU" also seem to not care about the political issues, and only use open source software because it is often technically superior. The fact that I participate in discussions like the one in this thread is not because the naming itself is important to me, nor because I'm a follower of some kind of cult, but because I consider those political and ethical issues to be quite important (at least in the long run).
Last edited by a moderator:
DaDaDaniel
Still Fresh
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2012
- Messages
- 61
I'm missing the Nazi reference completely.
I don't think many people insist on banning the word GNU. Some, like me, just don't agree that it HAS to be named GNU/something and that this is the only correct way to refer to a Linux-based OS. I voted "don't care".
Last edited by a moderator:
ZXDunny
Deep avatar
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,585
Hang on, I'm still trying to digest this thread.
So, we're now calling Android "GNU/Android"? Is that it?
Also, my child is ill. He's only 20 weeks old, but I get the feeling that giving proper credit to the FSF in the form of a name is actually more important. Correct?
D.
So, we're now calling Android "GNU/Android"? Is that it?
Also, my child is ill. He's only 20 weeks old, but I get the feeling that giving proper credit to the FSF in the form of a name is actually more important. Correct?
D.
Prometheus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 9,472
^ Best post in thread.
I hope your son gets well soon, Dunmeister.
I hope your son gets well soon, Dunmeister.
ekianjo
Hardcore Member
Android has nothing to do with GNU. There's not GNU in Android, in case you didn't follow
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html
