On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 06:18 +0000, Sean Miller wrote:
> Matthew Macdonald-Wallace wrote:
> > Personally, I'd keep Tux and drop the GNU. The
GNU foundation are an
> > excellent organisation and have a very important
part to play in
> > developing F/OSS software and the environment
around it, however in
> > the same way the the Six Nations is referred to as
a Rugby Tournament
> > and not a Rugby Football Tournament, I think that
we should refer to
> > Linux either by distro name or by the simple word
"Linux".
> >
> I think 90% of the world have already dropped the GNU
from Linux, but
> it's still something that purists hold dear, siting the
fact that the OS
> wouldn't exist were it not for the GNU components
therein... myself, I
> don't really care one way or another as in the real
world it doesn't
> happen anyway... "Red Hat Enterprise Linux",
"Fedora Core 4", "Ubuntu",
> "Knoppix"... these are what people call
distros... if we take the
> GNU/Linux debate to its logical conclusion every fork
should acknowledge
> its origin, hence Ubuntu should probably be called
> "Ubuntu/Debian/GNU/Linux/Minix" (but that
would really be a mouthful!)...
>
> I also actually intensely dislike the GNU logo... it
seems sinister to
> me, a bit reminiscent of black magic and ritual whereas
Tux is a jolly
> sort of penguin and a much more appropriate icon for
the OS. Shame that
> these folks appear to have now constitutionally banned
Tux... what will
> they be doing next? Enforcing the "man with the
red flag" law when it
> comes to road vehicles?
>
> Sean
One of the biggest hurdles I've found is that most FLOSS is
free-of-cost. It took me a long time to realise that I
needed to
persuade people of the quality of the software before
mentioning that
there's little, if any, cost and no catch. So, if people
get the wrong
impression from the graphic, my experience is that it's just
a case of
explaining things better.
--
ubuntu-uk lists.ubuntu.com
h
ttps://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.kubuntu
.org/UKTeam/
|
