Let's stop talking about both Linux *and* GNU (in OS names)
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
Obviously, we shouldn't call Debian, Trisquel, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc "Linux"; it's an inaccurate name and gives a false impression of the system. I'm going to suggest something further: both Linux *and* GNU should not normally be mentioned.
Here's my reasoning behind this: what is actually similar between Debian, Fedora, and Arch that actually matters to a user? Well, there's one: binary compatibility. That's where it might be worth mentioning that they are all GNU systems.
But other than that, to a user, they are completely different systems; different types of repositories, different software selection, etc. What do you do when you have a huge collection of software, all completely unrelated to each other? You come up with a new name to describe the collection. That's what "Debian", "Ubuntu", "Fedora", "Trisquel", etc do.
We can leave the mention that they are all GNU systems to descriptions, for the point of mentioning binary compatibility, the same way we leave what the default interface is and what kind of software repository is used in the description.
So what's the point of this? Put simply: to kill the blind "Linux" fandom that has been so prevalent for so long. People are over-obsessed with a technical detail that doesn't really matter with them, because they don't understand that it is a technical detail. Kill this obsession, and Linus Torvalds will stop having the undue influence and worship he currently has, putting free software and open source views on more equal footing.
So if someone tells you they like "Linux", tell them, "Yes, Linux has pretty good hardware compatibility." Of course, if they're confused by that statement, ask them why the kernel is so important to them if not because of hardware compatibility.
When telling others about Trisquel, just tell them that it's an operating system that respects your freedom, perhaps with a mention that it's a variant of Ubuntu. If they say they've never heard of it, that's fine; there's no need to pretend that it's familiar to them by saying "Linux".
Am I wrong when I say "I installed Trisquel. I use Trisquel."
I say "I use Linux." only with people who don't know the different distributions. Quickly I tell them that there are many different free distributions.
Normally, I don't use the word "Linux". I use the words "Trisquel", "Ubuntu", "Ututo", etc.
I show them this page : http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html .
"But other than that, to a user, they are completely different systems; different types of repositories, different software selection, etc. What do you do when you have a huge collection of software, all completely unrelated to each other? You come up with a new name to describe the collection. That's what "Debian", "Ubuntu", "Fedora", "Trisquel", etc do."
What are you talking about?
A normal user who's using the system superficially will not even notice that he's at the moment using fedora and not debian (gnome shell looks and feels exactely like gnome shell); they include almost the same DEs and the software selection might be a bit different but in general is more ore less the same. The most popular and important programs can be used on all of this distributions - perhaps not version x but version y.
Different repos...ok, but they all include the repository system, they all include the bash with the according syntax.
I would say they are *extremely* related and it would be really confusing if a user finds out that hundreds of operating systems turn out to be quite similar without any hint in their names.
We aren't naming systems after desktop environments currently, except for "editions" (that's something I think is a good idea, by the way, but not necessary). We are currently naming systems after an implementation of POSIX and a kernel.
Of course they're similar. But OS X is also extremely similar in certain ways, also being POSIX-compliant, and people don't get confused that "Unix" or "POSIX" isn't in OS X's name.
Ok, you're first saying:
"what is actually similar between Debian, Fedora, and Arch that actually matters to a user? "
and when I tell you what matters the most, then "We aren't naming systems after desktop environments currently"?
I mean yeah, the DE is not the only thing which comes along with almost every Gnu/Linux Distribution; there are also all the GNU utilities and... the linux kernel.
So if we don't select the name of an OS because of this fact, we really should change this... but actually we do. We call it Gnu/Linux.
What kernel and implementation of POSIX are being used doesn't matter to a user unless, as I mentioned, binary compatibility is being talked about. But you don't name an OS off of binary compatibility. OS/2 was partly binary-compatible with MS-DOS, but they didn't include "DOS" in the name because of this, worrying that users would be confused. That's something for the description. Namely, that Trisquel, Debian, Fedora, etc are all GNU systems. The kernel matters even less to most users; replace the kernel with something else, and they would only notice if the new kernel doesn't work on their hardware.
If you show Debian and OpenBSD with the same DE to a user, they're not going to notice any more difference than between Debian and Fedora with the same DE, unless the difference has to do with binary compatibility.
Different "GNU/Linux distros" are so different from each other in practice, that they are intended for completely different audiences. Arch, the "geek's" OS, is what many people used to think of when they thought "Linux", though I haven't checked if this is the perception still. But Ubuntu is clearly for a different, more mainstream audience, then Mint is for yet another audience, and Trisquel is for yet another audience. Their similarities in practice are so technical, it's absurd.
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti