Names for GNU/Linux that you like

[SNESFAN]

I guess people use linux types of operating systems for a variety of reasons then. Some use it on principal and/or function. Others (like myself) use it purely on function. And still others may use it just because it's free (as in beer) and care little about it being open source, or FOSS

What would be the term for non-GNU "linux's" things like angstrom, debian, ubuntu etc? When I thought of GNU/LINUX I always thought of those distros, but apparently I was wrong.

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

&

http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

 

[diligentcircle]

Distros not endorsed by the FSF are not "non-GNU". They have just as much (approximately) of GNU as FSF-endorsed distros, and they are still GNU/Linux. The FSF endorses GNU/Linux distros based on whether or not they meet the Guidelines for Free System Distributions.[0]

The FSF still makes a point of calling distros that they don't endorse "GNU/Linux", not "Linux".[1]

Also note that if, for example, OpenBSD changed its policies to the point where the FSF endorsed it, it wouldn't be GNU; it would still be BSD.

[0] https://gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html

[1] https://gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html

 

[AngryPie]

http://youtu.be/1b17ggwkR60?t=10m37s

 

[_wb_]

ESR has made his positions quite clear: he's willing to bend over backwards to big business to make "Open Source" more acceptable to them, and argues against using the GPL because "it's slowing down our adoption rate, we should dump it".

He advocates political apathy: essentially he says you should not care about issues like freedom, and focus only on the technical quality of the software, the organizational merits of a bazaar-style decentralized development methodology, and the size of your user base. He avoids even talking about freedom, because that "scares the companies". Keeping the company lawyers happy is more important to him than the long-term victory of the FOSS movement. In that way, ESR is really the anti-RMS

 

[_jr_]

But that is quite a common stance. Lot's here on the board take it too, claiming that software x and y are equal if they have the same features irrelevant of license. The freedom to change it when the original vendor looses interest, the freedom to give it to your mother without breaking the law, the assurance to have third parties use your contribution under fair rules, ..., doesn't have any value to them. It's quite funny seeing the same persons that argue for the author's right to commercially exploit her creation (no legal argument here, that is simply the law!) like to argue against the copyleft provisions of the GPL. GPL software authors seem to not deserve any rights

 

[ZXDunny]

I voted for "lignux" three times because it sounds like slang for testicles.

Seriously, it's just "linux", folks. It's people like Onpon and their attempts to emotionally blackmail people into swinging to their viewpoints that really puts me off an FSF certification for the Pandora2. I mean, really? We really want certification from people like this? That wander into a forum dedicated to a product they've asserted on numerous times they will not buy, and then try to persuade us that their views are the only true representation of how things should be?

Christ, I thought that we were past that sort of behaviour as a species? At least in technical circles?

D.

 

[_wb_]

I voted for "lignux" three times because it sounds like slang for testicles.


Seriously, it's just "linux", folks. It's people like Onpon and their attempts to emotionally blackmail people into swinging to their viewpoints that really puts me off an FSF certification for the Pandora2. I mean, really? We really want certification from people like this? That wander into a forum dedicated to a product they've asserted on numerous times they will not buy, and then try to persuade us that their views are the only true representation of how things should be?


Christ, I thought that we were past that sort of behaviour as a species? At least in technical circles?


D.

Everybody has the right to try to persuade others of their views. That's what a discussion forum is for.

 

[_jr_]

Everybody has the right to try to persuade others of their views. That's what a discussion forum is for.

Especially if they are the one and only true views

 

[diligentcircle]

Seriously, it's just "linux", folks. It's people like Onpon and their attempts to emotionally blackmail people into swinging to their viewpoints that really puts me off an FSF certification for the Pandora2. I mean, really? We really want certification from people like this? That wander into a forum dedicated to a product they've asserted on numerous times they will not buy, and then try to persuade us that their views are the only true representation of how things should be?


Christ, I thought that we were past that sort of behaviour as a species? At least in technical circles?


D.

I didn't start this poll because I want to convince you to say "GNU/Linux", or to support free software. That's not possible. This is an open source community; I accepted that a long time ago. It's why I stopped posting here. (Or rather, I stopped posting here because I found it to be more hostile to my views than, of all places, a Mario fangame community, and I was tired of the stress.)

The reason I started this poll is because I wanted to check for myself what term the open-souce crowd likes best. I know you like the misnomer "Linux", and I also know that many people who use this name like to pretend that Android's market share gets to be bundled together with GNU/Linux's market share just because they both use the same kernel (Hey, Linux is popular! Android is used on many people's phones!). Carry on with that. Meanwhile, I'm going to use a correct name; probably whatever your crowd in general accepts best, so that I get as little backlash as possible.

EDIT: ZXDunny, we went over the "emotional blackmail" claim before, just before I stopped posting here IIRC. I'm neither close to you nor using threats of punishment. The same trick isn't going to work twice. You'll need to find a different term to misapply.

 

[b_o_b]

I don't think anyone should pro-actively mention the GNU/ and try to convince people to use it. You will only receive negative feedback then. If your goal is to 'spread the word' and don't annoy people I would use it in writing only (don't say GNU/Linux that is just... strange... ) and if people ask on forums about it explain it or share a link to an explanation.   

I never use the term GNU/Linux personally and when I tell people I am using Linux. Usually the next question is "what is Linux?" or "what distro are you using". The next question is never "do you mean GNU/Linux or are you only referring to the kernel" 

 

[diligentcircle]

I don't think anyone should pro-actively mention the GNU/ and try to convince people to use it. You will only receive negative feedback then. If your goal is to 'spread the word' and don't annoy people I would use it in writing only (don't say GNU/Linux that is just... strange... ) and if people ask on forums about it explain it or share a link to an explanation.   

I never use the term GNU/Linux personally and when I tell people I am using Linux. Usually the next question is "what is Linux?" or "what distro are you using". The next question is never "do you mean GNU/Linux or are you only referring to the kernel" 

I don't know what kind of people who don't know about the system would give "negative feedback" for calling GNU/Linux "GNU/Linux". In any case, you have a different goal than I do. I don't want GNU/Linux to be popular, necessarily; I want freedom in computing to be popular. Considering how strongly "Linux" is associated with the open source movement, and how readily open source advocates accept proprietary software, I have a huge reason to include "GNU" in every mention of GNU/Linux.

 

[_wb_]

To be honest, when I'm talking to non-technical people, I rarely focus on the freedom thing (they don't need Free software to copy binaries, legally or illegally, and they can't program so they tend to not care about the other freedoms), and mention the price and technical superiority instead. I usually don't even say "Linux" to them, but rather "Ubuntu" or some other user friendly distro.

When I'm talking to technical people, I do focus on the freedom thing, and they can appreciate that.

 

[b_o_b]

 I want freedom in computing to be popular.

I agree and you don't need GNU for that. And if the GNU thing is that important, just fork the Linux kernel create a distro and call it a GNU/GNU distro. 

 

[_jr_]

I want freedom in computing to be popular.

I agree and you don't need GNU for that.

Since when? Are we still talking about full distributions here? I'm genuinely interested.

 

[b_o_b]

I am talking about the word GNU. You don't need it, it is just a word. 

 

[diligentcircle]

"GNU" is associated with free software ideals. Linux isn't. If people know that the system is a GNU system, they are going to listen to the GNU Project and the FSF rather than dismiss them as "just a bunch of hippies".

 

[Binky]

"GNU" is associated with free software ideals. Linux isn't. If people know that the system is a GNU system, they are going to listen to the GNU Project and the FSF rather than dismiss them as "just a bunch of hippies".

The first impression people get from the FSF is "bunch of socialist fanatics" - not much better than "Bunch of hippies" IMO

 

[diligentcircle]

I find that hard to believe. That sounds like something someone would think of the open source movement. Look at what the two movements advocate: The free software movement advocates freedom, and RMS often talks about how free software creates a free market for selling services. The open source movement claims that if you "open" the source code, a bunch of volunteers will help you out for free. Now, this is a grossly over-simplified picture, but it's the kind of picture someone hearing about the ideologies for the first time is going to see. The only way someone could possibly connect the free software movement with socialism is if an open source guy tells them that.

 

[_wb_]

Nothing wrong with socialism.

 

[ZXDunny]

I find that hard to believe. That sounds like something someone would think of the open source movement. Look at what the two movements advocate: The free software movement advocates freedom, and RMS often talks about how free software creates a free market for selling services. The open source movement claims that if you "open" the source code, a bunch of volunteers will help you out for free. Now, this is a grossly over-simplified picture, but it's the kind of picture someone hearing about the ideologies for the first time is going to see. The only way someone could possibly connect the free software movement with socialism is if an open source guy tells them that.

Ok then - "Bunch of Fanatics" will do instead, and meets all your criteria. You have to admit, you're absolutely rabid about this.

D.