Re: [Fsfe-uk] Why FS is a Good Thing

[hobbit]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 05:04:13PM +0000 or thereabouts, MJ Ray wrote:
> address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:
> > If you talk to people about Linux and use the term `GNU/Linux' they get
> > all confused.
> 
> That's only because some people are inconsistent and won't call the ensemble
> GNU/Linux instead of just the name of the kernel, surely?  Before this

Do you consistently refer to XFree86 or do you just say X? I know
which I do :) There *are* other people making X-servers out there,
but how many people spell out XFree86 except in the rare circumstances
where you need to distinguish it from Accelerated X or Exceed? 

> discussion, I don't think I'd ever heard a reason other than laziness for
> using just the kernel's name.

I have heard several, actually.

However, in an introductory leaflet, the most cogent one is that *yes*, 
people will start thinking "Red Hat Linux, SuSE Linux, GNU/Linux..."

Distributions are not an easy concept for all people to grasp. 

At one London Linux show, I ended up reducing "What a distribution
is" to roughly two sentences, because I was asked it *all the time*.
And a lot of people were baffled to be told by people on the RH 
stand "We don't support that architecture, but if you go and 
talk to the Debian people.." (or whatever, but typically Debian).
The confusion was basically: "But they're your competition. Why are 
you recommending your competition?"

It is a *completely* different mind-set, and unless you move in
and out of both worlds you start to forget how different the
attitudes and basic premises are.

(Another source of confusion was "So you're all talking about this
upcoming 2.2 kernel, but yet there's this RH 6.0, SuSE 6.1... where's
the 6.x kernel? This is what led to the two-sentence distribution 
explanation :)) 

I do think the "confusing the readers" thing is a very cogent
issue here. 

> > Just use `Linux'.  Trying to explain it isn't worthwhile since it isn't
> > of importance to your audience *at this stage* and the single page of
> > A4 has already become slightly crammed IMHO compared to the earlier
> > version.  We can't spare the space on something that isn't important to
> > them.
> 
> I disagree.  What is the point of that list?  It is to give lists of
> successful Free Software projects.  GNU is probably the largest, so it
> should definitely be included.  Maybe GNU should be listed as a seperate
> bullet point?

Actually, that's not a bad idea. Something like: 

  A distribution of "Linux" which you can buy or download will include
  contributions from many sources:

        * The program used to build all the other software along
    with the vast bulk of the basic utility programs are from the 
    GNU Project.
        * The graphical interface which allows you to have windows
    from several machines on one monitor is from the XFree86 Project.
        * Three alternative 'desktop environments' that sit on top
    of the graphical interface are from... (Gnome, KDE, XFce)
        * The webserver used by (current netcraft stats %age) is
    from the Apache project.
        * Word processors come from several sources ranging from
    Sun (who contributed OpenOffice) to Abisource (who contributed
    Abilword)
        * The kernel of the operating system, so-called because it's
    at the centre, is the Linux you see on the CD name. 

I am deliberately using descriptions rather than "Evolution is
from.. Apache is from..." because I think people that new are
going to look at the names and look absolutely blank. Sit down
with a friend and get them to install a Linux distro and they'll
probably end up saying "I dunno. What's glibc? What's sudo? 
What's wget? Do I need them?" 

Now back to lurkerdom.

Telsa