by +Katherine Noyes
As
a young reporter just starting to cover Linux not so very many years
ago, I quickly learned that simply calling it “Linux” is a grave
mistake
in the eyes of some.
That
distinction was made crystal-clear for me when I had the opportunity
to interview none other than Richard Stallman, whose willingness to
be interviewed was actually
conditional
upon LinuxInsider's agreement to use the term “GNU/Linux.” (Image credit: springfieldpc.dyndns.org)
“Linux
is just one component of the GNU/Linux system, which is, in turn,
just a part of the world of free software,” Stallman told
me back then. “You'll have no chance of understanding or
explaining anything about the Free World if you don't keep those
distinctions straight.”
Rarely
sighted
Fast
forward to today, and I still occasionally hear the same argument
made. Just the other day, in fact, I was reminded by a reader of the
distinction.
Take
a quick scan through the Linux media, however – including not just
LinuxInsider but also Linux Today, Linux Journal, the
Linux Line
section at PCWorld, and the site you're reading now, among
numerous other publications
– and you'll soon
get a
pretty strong indication that the distinction is rarely upheld.
You
won't see it made routinely
by the
Linux Foundation or on Linux.com, and Linux creator Linus Torvalds
himself has reportedly dismissed
it.
My
question to you, fellow Linux Advocates, is whether it's
really still worth making. Personally, I don't think it is.
More
than a mouthful
I
realize that there are strong historical and philosophical reasons
for separating the Linux kernel from the GNU system.
I
also realize that it's technically
more accurate to call it GNU/Linux.
What
I'm also aware of, however, is that few beyond the inner core of free
software enthusiasts still adhere to or
understand the
distinction; to most mainstream users, it's baffling. The
term GNU/Linux
is klunky and unwieldy in printed text, and even more so when you're
speaking.
Meanwhile,
as Linux advocates,
we all want to promote Linux, and to advance its use over proprietary
counterparts – right? We'd like to see Linux covered as much as
possible for all its many successes, making clear to the mainstream
world that it is now a fully competitive alternative.
Are
those goals worth sacrificing in the interests of a linguistic
distinction? I'm thinking not.
Connecting
the dots
Please
make no mistake: I am nothing if not an advocate for Linux and free
software in general.
Personally,
however,
I'd
rather see Linux trumpeted on the pages of PCWorld and
other mainstream publications as
“Linux” than see stories passed by because of the
niggling debate
over its name,
which tends to make editors groan. Personally, I'd rather be able to
have a conversation with an SMB about the advantages of “Linux”
than have to bog down my speech with the clumsy “GNU/” as well, thereby potentially confusing them.
Realistically,
we're lucky if mainstream users and readers today are familiar with
Linux, per se; I generally make sure to add the “Linux” name to
headlines involving distros such as Ubuntu and Fedora to help them
make that connection.
But
to add “GNU/” to the conversation? It's
unreasonably idealistic, and
just doesn't make sense. If we want to advance the use of Linux in
the mainstream world, let's leave the history and the deep-seated
philosophy for the background.
It
won't get lost, I promise; rather, it will still be fully available
for those who care. For all others, it will free up the “Linux”
term to help us chip away faster at all the many proprietary
monopolies in this computing world.
In closing, I offer you this last bit of evidence. Go to Wikipedia.org's home page and search on "GNU/Linux." What do you get? It redirects you to "Linux." That, I think, sums up the prevailing sentiment nicely.
-- Katherine Noyes
