[GNUz] Another interesting twist ...

[InfoHelp]

Worthwhile dialogue, thanks Jim.

Jim Cheetham wrote:

> InfoHelp wrote:
>
>> It doesn't change the fact that you are in the wrong, until you stand 
>> up and defend hacker culture - without which we'd not be having this 
>> discussion.
>
> I wasn't aware that I was representing any particular position, more 
> just commenting on a set of interesting circumstances. So I'm not sure 
> how there can be a right or wrong ...

The impression I'd gained thus far "here" (as defined below) was of an 
anti-GNU environment, in which the arguments for were much fewer. It's 
encouraging to see the collective view is still up for discussion.

> And "hacker" - there's a word that bas become imprecise ... see below ... 

True. It has been attached to both legal and illegal comp-use - GNU must 
detach it from the latter. I say GNU as my impression is that RMS most 
personifies & articulates legal "hacker culture", though perhaps it's 
ESR? Or Esther Dyson?

Learning..

>> (Please explain your priorities here.)
>
> OK, my priority *here* (on this mailing list) is to discuss the 
> relevance of using the GNU name in relation to free source (lowercase) 
> software. 

Here we find parallel :-). Bridging the perceived gulfs between OSS, FSF 
& Linux itself strikes me as one of our simpler challenges - I like the 
way you've stated it: "free source software". This kind of user-friendly 
distillation of 'FLOSS-G/L-*BSD-etc' debates makes life easier for 
everyone, in finding a common goal - should we be needing one. 
[afterthoughts: For me, inclusion of "source" in "free software" is a 
big change of meaning though.]

> In my mind, one of the biggest problems with the subject is the set of 
> words that are used to describe it. "Free" is an imprecise/multivalued 
> word in English. "Open" isn't significantly better. There is a 
> terminology problem that the M$s of this world are exploiting in order 
> to confuse.
>
> At the same time, RMS (alone, or representing FSF or GNU? More 
> imprecision ...) decided that the word "Linux" when applied to an OS 
> distribution was imprecise. I don't think many people disagree with 
> him in a strict/technical definition. However, his replacement 
> suggestions (LiGNUx and then GNU/Linux) are also regarded as imprecise 
> by many people.
>
> In both cases, the tensions arising from these imprecise terminologies 
> detract from the communication of the core message. 

I wonder if the imprecision is a bigger issue than reality, because of 
our user base. "For programmers, by programmers" is the definition 
that's settled for me, about free source software. Someone (Jim or 
Carl?) recently brought out the word "pedantic", when describing our 
current. This is true due to the exact requirements of coding 
instructions, but perhaps it's taken too far when the same people apply 
it to English. "Semantics", some would say. Simplification and 
unification of our overall trend would aid its marketability, if that's 
desirable. Oh, I see you might feel that it is: "a terminology problem 
that the M$s of this world are exploiting in order to confuse."

> My message about "gnuplot" was just an example of imprecise usage of a 
> term that seemed to be precise - e.g. "gnu" (not "GNU"). I've found 
> one reference in an FSF bulletin that said the "gnu" part of "gnuplot" 
> was coincidental, and completely unrelated to FSF/GNU. But no-one will 
> actually say what it does mean, or why it was chosen. 

Having missed that the first time through, it's a :-) :-)  (x2).

> Actually, I think a lot of people disagree with the core message, too. 
> I don't need to see Microsoft overthrown, and Linux installed on all 
> computers. I'm happy just that it's possible to exercise some choice. 
> I don't personally need to convince people that the choice I've made 
> for me is necessarily a good choice for them. 

Neither do I. Microsoft could potentially make a viable OSS competitor 
(? ;-) - their code would gain by it. So this makes the FSF/GNU position 
sound too/impractically extreme?.. [rethinking acceptance of the deeper 
GNU philosophy (agreement still possible tho) - good enough free 
software would make commercial software untenable, but there's little 
sign of it so far.. Now I'm starting to see the irreconcilability of F/OS..]

>> btw,  :-) ~ amusing post thx
>
> :-)
>
>>> So, "what's in a name"? If GNU were a trademark, it would probably 
>>> be diluted by accepting this usage.
>>
>> Then we're lucky it isn't a trademark, but something much more 
>> adaptable, for growth.
>
> "Linux" is a trademark.
> Is "GNU/Linux" a trademark? (no) Does it's use dilute the "Linux" 
> trademark? (yes, probably) Does Linus care? (no, but he might have to 
> in order to protect the Linux(tm)) 

Yes. Here you've found the nub, I believe.
There's a businessman in all of us, but it's not our better side. The 
point is not to bring it out unnecessarily.

I think RMS & Linus can live with each other's role, and this is the 
status quo. Would GNU/Linux advocacy (in quantity) affect this? I can't 
really see why it should. To me, they're simply alternates, different 
expressions for the same thing. (In some cases you want more salt, in 
others it's pepper - in both cases you are seasoning). There's no 
argument for doing without, or against liberally applying, either. So 
it's live & let live? .. I hope so.

No doubt there's the pedantic argument about which of GNU & Linux would 
not exist without the other - specious, pointless nonsense, imho. The 
reality is, twins exist - double trouble (for proprietries) - let's 
unleash them, for greater computing independence.

> Anyway, I'm trolling, but hopefully intelligently and not offensively. 

Neither of the latter apply, imho.
My aspiration is the same - if floating ideas that others may choose to 
take up defines the former (differs from baited fishing ;-).

> -jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNUz mailing list
> GNUz@inode.co.nz
> http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/gnuz 

~rik