> This was a great opportunity to elegantly explain the distinction, sans snark, sans agenda, but they failed so miserably even comments in this HN discussion a

> This was a great opportunity to elegantly explain the distinction, sans snark, sans agenda, but they failed so miserably even comments in this HN discussion are still using the wrong terminology. First, I want to clarify that there is no "they" here: while I share the opinions of GNU and the FSF---and am quite involved with both---this article is not written for or by GNU (otherwise it'd be posted there). Explaining the distinction without explaining the purpose behind it is almost useless---that'd boil down to "please say GNU/kWindows to give credit to the GNU Project". But that completely misses the point. Credit for the GNU Project is important, but the underlying, more important _purpose_ is to talk about users' freedoms. So of course there is agenda involved. And what you call "snark" is a factual analysis of the problem. Hackers are known for their snark; I purposefully left it out of the article. (So I am curious what you think is snarky.)