[ubuntu-uk] Race Online 2012 PCs shocker! timeline?

[Avi]

alan c wrote:
> I know that Linux is often used to denote the operating system in 
> addition to being the name of the kernel. I regard Linux as being the 
> kernel, and Stallman started GNU, what he stated was to be a free OS, 
> in 1983.

Well, it's probably possible to argue heritage all the way back, but I
was only talking about Linux, and I did make sure I said it didn't
matter - I just found the age of the OS a peculiar thing to use as a
selling point...

> As an aside, I believe that there is a marketing disadvantage in 
> calling the operating system only 'Linux', and not 'GNU/Linux'. A
> word with two meanings Linux the kernel, and Linux the OS too, looses 
> marketing focus and is easy prey to opposition spin.
> 
> Witness 'Linux is only for geeks, not normal people' or similar,
> which is rolled off the tongue at me when I talk to various computer
> shops. Geekdom is true if I talk about the kernel of course, but *I*
> only ever use and install and lay hands on 'Ubuntu', the operating
> system. GNU/Linux is a better descriptor.

Really? I hardly think adding a forward slash and an initialism (or
acronym if you want to sound *really* inhuman) is likely to make it
seem any less geeky. Especially when people ask what it means...

I've long felt that the ideal descriptor generally is either 'Linux' or
the name of the distro itself. GNU does provide some of the tools,
sure, but so did/do BSD and IBM and Sun and MIT and Xerox and
the distros themselves and millions of other contributors. [0]

'Linux' does a good job as a term of being succinct, low on syllables
and carrying enough meaning to describe a large collection of OSs
(those that run the Linux kernel). I don't think adding 'GNU' does
anything to decrease ambiguity or increase understanding - *all*
Linuxes use GNU tools, so the set of things described accurately to
a non-pedant as 'Linux' matches the set described to same by 'GNU/Linux'
pretty accurately.
Using "GNU/Linux" to mean the Linux kernel with GNU utilities and some
other stuff makes as much sense as calling it "BSD/Linux" because of
the BSD bits (ignoring the fact that BSD also describes a kernel, and a
system using that kernel and a lot of GNU components...), or MIT/Linux
because it's running X11.


The problem with trying to give the impression that Linux (or
GNU/Linux) is Windows-user-friendly (because, generally, that's what we
mean by 'user-friendly' here) is that the majority of distros aren't -
it makes sense in that situation to use the name of a distro that is.

-- 
Avi
[0] The argument over which term is *correct* is an unending one - I'm only
arguing with you over what's better for a non-geeky audience :)