In addition to a lack of an up front recognition of the Freedom ethic, the use of the word 'Linux' *only* when referring to an operating system creates an uncertainty. This is because Linux is formally the name of the kernel, not an OS. I note that we do not really have a generic name for a Linux based Operating System in its own right except perhaps 'GNU/Linux', or a brand name such as Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.
Opposition to Linux based OS use comes in many forms, including well funded 'FUD'. Fear Uncertainly and Doubt. By unwittingly underwriting Uncertainty in the Linux using culture we do ourselves a dis service.
Posted Jun 1, 2011 12:59 UTC (Wed) by daniels (subscriber, #16193)
[Link]
> In addition to a lack of an up front recognition of the Freedom ethic, the use of the word 'Linux' *only*
Maybe because people are discussing an operating system rather than an ethic which some hold to be the most important thing, and others less so?
> when referring to an operating system creates an uncertainty.
It's not an uncertainty that really has any practical effect. For example, I'm unsure whether GNU/Linux refers to a system running sysvinit, upstart, or systemd? Does it run X or not? What about GNOME, KDE, other (GNUstep)?
If people are referring to Android, they're pretty good at calling it Android. The people running uclibc and other exotic userlands are such a niche that it is not in any way a useful distinction to go out of your way to make.
Note here when I say 'useful distinction', I mean in purely technical terms; it's apparently a useful distinction for an organisation seeking to hang on to their relevance by piggybacking on the work of others who do not necessarily share their goals.