[pp.int.general] Master's thesis | derailed

[Patrick Godschalk]

I actually did read through that article. Multiple times, even, as I've
regularly used it to *defend* usage of the term GNU/Linux in formal
writing. But I'm not arguing the proper term; I'm arguing the common
term in informal situations. I've had much more success in getting my
peers interested in free software by mentioning "Linux" or "Debian",
than I have with using "Gnoo Slash Linux". That is what, in my opinion,
really does matter: getting people to use free software *regardless* of
what they call it.

Secondly, using a FAQ written by GNU to defend why people should credit
GNU is rather biased to say the least. And that's fine, arguments are
biased by definition, but I don't use it as a credible source as to why
it should really be called GNU/Linux all the time, including in informal
settings.

That said, I was pleasantly surprised to read this:
> You can explain it in a few seconds.  You could also call it "Debian"
> for the first few minutes.

This would probably be a lot more workable in getting people to use free
software. Refer to it as the name of the distribution first, pique
people's interests with a simple term. Later on, when they're interested
anyway, you can mention that it's a GNU/Linux distribution. Even if the
GNU is confusing, you've already got their interest, and you can explain
why it's called GNU/Linux from there. This way, people actually remain
interested in what you're talking about (switch to free software),
rather than thinking, "nah, sounds complicated, I'll stick with the
proprietary stuff I already know".
-- 
Patrick Godschalk
patrick.godschalk at piratenpartij.nl
GPG: <https://argure.nl/identity/ecc14594.asc>
This e-mail falls under the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.