Hacker News Reader

"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.

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.

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%.

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."

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.

"whatever" has always been the mainstream view of knowledge.

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

it's not "our culture", it's "language".

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".

"GNU/Linux" - it's sort-of kind-of maybe a little better than "Lignux". :)

http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch10.html

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.

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

"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.

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/ Or perhaps Ubuntu.

(Substitute KDE if you go that way.)