begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Friday 30 June 2006 14:48 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Da'Punk-A <dapunka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Perhaps the use of the word "Linux" alone is the best way to go, at the
>>>> expense of 'political correctness'. Maybe even something catchy like an
>>>> existing name would do, e.g. Macintosh (*cough* DRM, Intel, closed-source
>>>> kernel).
>>>
>>> Not only is "Linux" by itself perhaps the best way to go, it is the way
>>> that most of the world /has/ gone. Linux is, strictly speaking, just
>>> the kernel, I think we all know that here. But in the wider world,
>>> whenever people talk about Linux, they call it Linux. What's this NG
>>> called? COLA, not COG/LA. People who are thinking of migrating from
>>> Microsoft or Apple, when looking for info on the web, type "Linux" into
>>> Google. Talking about "GNU/Linux" will elicit blank stares from these
>>> people. And if you explain the issue to them, they're likely to think:
>>> "So what? Who cares?"
>>>
>>> Stallman has lost this particular battle. And it's no big deal. How
>>> many people do you think really care?
>>>
>>
>> I suspect that the people who did all the work to make it even possible
>> probably care; personally, I think it's right that people should get
>> the credit for what they have done.
>
>
> Exactly. But lest we forget that it's mutual. Without a kernel that's better
> than others (e.g. Hurd) and without rigour from kernel hackers, who knows if
> GNU would have received as much recognition. I'm in favour of giving full
> credit though. I just feel like I confuse people when mentioning GNU and the
> association with RMS is unnerving to some.
He's been demonised quite effectively by the Microsoft spin-machine,
but I think to a point because he probably is the most dangerous to the
proprietary lock-in software model; his mission has been about having
software which doesn't lock the user in. New threats have come along to
the freedom he's been pursuing, particularly DRM and software patents.
He's done much to highlight the dangers of such things to free software,
which is a positive thing. I think his positions appear extreme to
people who've accepted the status quo for decades, and he appears extreme
to people who've perhaps never been familiar with bearded, long-haired
sandaled guru types.
The GNU project was critical, and I think linux would not exist were it
not for GNU. If nothing else, a compiler and libc are very basic
requirements.
>
>
>> I wouldn't see it as a battle, to be honest, more as correcting mistakes
>> due to people being ill-informed - like those yanks who say "I could
>> care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less" - it's an education
>> problem - people don't learn if you don't take the time to explain
>> things to them.
>
>
> How about conceptual simplifications (omissions) that never help? Things like
> "I can't go on the Internet" (often meaning "I can't reach Web pages").
>
I always take the time to explain things to people (okay, except some of
our trolls here, who don't seem to want to learn).
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
This fortune is false.
|
|
