5 ms·

I can't say I think much of an article talking about Android as "The Linux Dream" that doesn't clearly articulate the difference between the Linux kernel and th

I can't say I think much of an article talking about Android as "The Linux Dream" that doesn't clearly articulate the difference between the Linux kernel and the rest of userland. Android has really demonstrated that Stallman's convention of referring to GNU/Linux and not labeling the whole OS with the name of the kernel should have been adopted for purely practical reasons. If people are happy to call Android "Android", then we should have been calling the desktop os with Linux kernel "GNU" and not "Linux" all this time, shouldn't we? The full names should be Android/Linux and GNU/Linux to differentiate the phone and desktop operating systems. It seems that the power of a corporation to create a brand and call it whatever they want is uncontroversial, and nobody seems bothered by the name Android which makes no mention of the Linux kernel whatsoever, but RMS' thoroughly rational and sensible idea that the right name for the desktop OS should correctly label its major components has been very controversial. I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned here about naming and power relationships, and our implicit acceptance of the dominance of corporate entities such as Google over our discourse.

aikinai 15y ago
"Android" is just a far better name than "GNU." The main difference is probably just that it's easily pronounceable, but it also connects to images in people's minds that make it easy to remember. "Linux," like "Android" is most importantly clearly pronounceable. And anytime you have two words like "GNU/Linux" people are just going to use one, likely the one they can read.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  I liked 'Gnu', but you're right. While such issues might seem trivial, the fact that Gnu has had the same crappy drawing as its logo for >15 years has always struck me as proof that almost nobody in the Gnu project understands or cares about user experience. I got quite excited when Tux the penguin showed up because it suggested there were still people out there who thought the GUI desktop was rather important.
spot 15y ago
If you ship it, you can put your own name on it. That's what's noncontroversial. This has nothing to do with "corporate dominance". RMS was trying to dominate others by telling them how to talk. People find that kind of pedantry annoying. I for one agree with DiBona 100%.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  RMS was trying to dominate others by telling them how to talk. People find that kind of pedantry annoying. On one hand, you are correct that people found it annoying. In late 2000, I got flamed one of the FSF people for using the wrong language. (Referring to them as "Open Source".) That sort of pedantry can be very off-putting. On the other hand, it also says something interesting about our culture that factual correctness in our language and terminology is considered annoying. If the civilizations of India and China can foster a greater respect for facts, precision, and knowledge than what we have here in the US, then they will surpass us in ways that go beyond even the economic potential of their urbanizing populations. Yes, reread that sentence and think about how tall an order that isn't. The mainstream attitude about knowledge in the US can be summed up by the word, "whatever."
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    It's not that facts are unimportant and annoying. The trouble arises when both parties know what is being said, but one derails the conversation and makes a big deal and insists things be said correctly- language is then getting in the way of communication.
  - TDL 15y ago
    "whatever" has always been the mainstream view of knowledge.
  - r0s 15y ago
    Is this a comparison of wrote memorization vs. pragmatic knowledge? The tech world has seen so much change and new language in the last couple decades it's not surprising function description is more useful than names. Reminds me of this: http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mike-cardwell 15y ago
The problem is, GNU is a shit name. It's a stupid acronym and it's not obvious to many people how to pronounce it. If it had a better name, I'm sure we'd be calling GNU/Linux that instead of just "Linux".
- glhaynes 15y ago
  "GNU/Linux" - it's sort-of kind-of maybe a little better than "Lignux". :) http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch10.html http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch10.html
sheffield 15y ago
Android is the name of a distribution like Ubuntu or Fedora.
wmf 15y ago
Android has definitely taught us the long-overdue lesson that it's the UX and userspace that matters, so in that spirit I think the desktop OS should be called GNOME/Linux, or just GNOME for short. http://blogs.gnome.org/mccann/2010/08/01/shell-yes/ http://blogs.gnome.org/mccann/2010/08/01/shell-yes/ Or perhaps Ubuntu. (Substitute KDE if you go that way.)
Sayter 15y ago
Branding matters. Marketing matters. UX matters. Android/Linux? GNU/Linux? Stop, just stop. This goes to the open source community: If you name it GNU/Linux, don't be surprised when Android hits mainstream instead. Stop naming things Ubuntu when the competition is Windows. Stop naming things Diaspora when the competition is Facebook. It doesn't matter what is rational or sensible. Branding is survival of the fittest, and so far it's been a massacre.
tzs 15y ago
"It seems that the power of a corporation to create a brand and call it whatever they want is uncontroversial, and nobody seems bothered by the name Android which makes no mention of the Linux kernel whatsoever, but RMS' thoroughly rational and sensible idea that the right name for the desktop OS should correctly label its major components has been very controversial" It's controversial because it is NOT rational and NOT sensible. If it were sensible and rational, then there would be a plethora of other operating systems named after their major components. In fact, people have almost never named operating systems after their major components. If anything, it is usually the other way around--the major components get named after the operating system. The whole point of a name is so you don't have to identify something by listing its components.

aikinai 15y ago

"Android" is just a far better name than "GNU." The main difference is probably just that it's easily pronounceable, but it also connects to images in people's minds that make it easy to remember. "Linux," like "Android" is most importantly clearly pronounceable. And anytime you have two words like "GNU/Linux" people are just going to use one, likely the one they can read.

anigbrowl 15y ago
I liked 'Gnu', but you're right. While such issues might seem trivial, the fact that Gnu has had the same crappy drawing as its logo for >15 years has always struck me as proof that almost nobody in the Gnu project understands or cares about user experience. I got quite excited when Tux the penguin showed up because it suggested there were still people out there who thought the GUI desktop was rather important.

spot 15y ago

If you ship it, you can put your own name on it. That's what's noncontroversial. This has nothing to do with "corporate dominance". RMS was trying to dominate others by telling them how to talk. People find that kind of pedantry annoying. I for one agree with DiBona 100%.

stcredzero 15y ago
RMS was trying to dominate others by telling them how to talk. People find that kind of pedantry annoying. On one hand, you are correct that people found it annoying. In late 2000, I got flamed one of the FSF people for using the wrong language. (Referring to them as "Open Source".) That sort of pedantry can be very off-putting. On the other hand, it also says something interesting about our culture that factual correctness in our language and terminology is considered annoying. If the civilizations of India and China can foster a greater respect for facts, precision, and knowledge than what we have here in the US, then they will surpass us in ways that go beyond even the economic potential of their urbanizing populations. Yes, reread that sentence and think about how tall an order that isn't. The mainstream attitude about knowledge in the US can be summed up by the word, "whatever."
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  It's not that facts are unimportant and annoying. The trouble arises when both parties know what is being said, but one derails the conversation and makes a big deal and insists things be said correctly- language is then getting in the way of communication.
- TDL 15y ago
  "whatever" has always been the mainstream view of knowledge.
- r0s 15y ago
  Is this a comparison of wrote memorization vs. pragmatic knowledge? The tech world has seen so much change and new language in the last couple decades it's not surprising function description is more useful than names. Reminds me of this: http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mike-cardwell 15y ago

The problem is, GNU is a shit name. It's a stupid acronym and it's not obvious to many people how to pronounce it. If it had a better name, I'm sure we'd be calling GNU/Linux that instead of just "Linux".

glhaynes 15y ago
"GNU/Linux" - it's sort-of kind-of maybe a little better than "Lignux". :) http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch10.html http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch10.html

sheffield 15y ago

Android is the name of a distribution like Ubuntu or Fedora.

wmf 15y ago

Android has definitely taught us the long-overdue lesson that it's the UX and userspace that matters, so in that spirit I think the desktop OS should be called GNOME/Linux, or just GNOME for short. http://blogs.gnome.org/mccann/2010/08/01/shell-yes/ http://blogs.gnome.org/mccann/2010/08/01/shell-yes/ Or perhaps Ubuntu. (Substitute KDE if you go that way.)

Sayter 15y ago

Branding matters. Marketing matters. UX matters. Android/Linux? GNU/Linux? Stop, just stop. This goes to the open source community: If you name it GNU/Linux, don't be surprised when Android hits mainstream instead. Stop naming things Ubuntu when the competition is Windows. Stop naming things Diaspora when the competition is Facebook. It doesn't matter what is rational or sensible. Branding is survival of the fittest, and so far it's been a massacre.

tzs 15y ago

"It seems that the power of a corporation to create a brand and call it whatever they want is uncontroversial, and nobody seems bothered by the name Android which makes no mention of the Linux kernel whatsoever, but RMS' thoroughly rational and sensible idea that the right name for the desktop OS should correctly label its major components has been very controversial" It's controversial because it is NOT rational and NOT sensible. If it were sensible and rational, then there would be a plethora of other operating systems named after their major components. In fact, people have almost never named operating systems after their major components. If anything, it is usually the other way around--the major components get named after the operating system. The whole point of a name is so you don't have to identify something by listing its components.