Re: What to call Guix

[Olaf Buddenhagen]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:20:32AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:

> I am thinking about the idea of calling Guix "the reference
> distribution" of GNU.  That term seems inappropriate in two ways:
> 
> * It comes from "reference implementation", which means an
> implementation intended mainly to be studied when making other
> implementations, rather than for real use.  Guix is not meant only to
> be studied.
> 
> * It suggests something that is basic and not at all fancy, whereas
> Guix is an innovative experimental approach.

I don't feel these are serious problems: it's not uncommon in the Free
Software world for a "reference" implementation to actually be the most
used and/or most advanced one... I for my part at least do not associate
such negative connotations with the term.

> This leads me to think of calling it an "avant-garde distribution".
> Perhaps "The GNU Project's avant-garde distribution of GNU/Linux".

After looking up what "avant-garde" actually means, it does seem fairly
appropriate... But that's already the first problem right there:
although I have seen the term "avant-garde" many times before, I never
bothered to check what it means. I'm probably not the only one...

As others pointed out, it also feels strange to see it used for a
technical thing rather that a work of art.

But most importantly, I think it is actually worse than "reference" in
suggesting that it's not something meant for regular users...

> This also avoids the undesirable effect of suggesting that other free
> distros are rejected.

I don't believe "reference" has such an effect...

As another suggestion in a similar spirit, we could also go for
"standard GNU distribution". Not sure about the merits compared to
"reference"...

-antrik-