"Linux" for human beings?

[sharperguy]

I know this is an age old debate, but since the new version of ubuntu will include an option to have a completely free system, it seems to me that this issue might need to be addressed.

We all know about the whole "Linux" vs "GNU+Linux" thing, and*I know that "GNU+Linux for human beings" doesn't have the same ring to it.

But calling it Linux doesn't help the issue and I (personally) think that if the ubuntu slogan was changed it should be to "Computing for human beings". This still has a good ring to it and has the advantage of not sounding scary or geek like.

Of course, ubuntu should still acknowledge the fact that it's a GNU/Linux distro, just write it somewhere else and tell the truth about what GNU is and what Linux is. Then if people want to keep calling it Linux that's fine.

[Martje_001]

See 'About Ubuntu' in your menu ;).

[DrMega]

See 'About Ubuntu' in your menu ;).

No good if you haven't got said menu yet because you didn't install Ubuntu because you saw the word Linux and ran a mile because you though it was all for geeks.

[oldsoundguy]

Linux is Linux. They all use the same core kernel, so that IS what they are. The difference being what is wrapped around that kernel and how it is managed.
Earlier days of the system, with it's lack of repositories and lack of being able to modify the system to the users wants EASILY by using some form of package manager, were really weird and totally for geeks. The need to write voluminous amounts of code to get that particular piece of hardware functional for almost EVERYTHING made it a "geeks only" system. (still that way on some hardware, but improving with each build.)
That reputation is what has and is slowing down the spread of the system now that most builds have become extremely user friendly.
(and user friendly forums such as this have vastly aided!)
(In the early days, if you asked a simple question on a user forum, you stood a great chance of getting flamed instead of getting an answer. Too many UBER GEEKS were being allowed to answer in that manner.)
BUT, there are still way too many off build user "help" sites that are totally GEEK. Help written ASSUMING that the person needing help knows a LOT about the system and just needs a small amount of added information.
(the failure to realize that we were ALL Noooooobs ONCE!)

As Linux stands now, if you can run a Mac, you can run a Linux machine. And since Vista has become HARDER to use with all of the added "protection layers" (that really still do not protect just because of the general nature of the kernel), Linux is approaching being EASIER to use than the NEW MS stuff!

[DrMega]

Linux is Linux. They all use the same core kernel, so that IS what they are. The difference being what is wrapped around that kernel and how it is managed.
Earlier days of the system, with it's lack of repositories and lack of being able to modify the system to the users wants EASILY by using some form of package manager, were really weird and totally for geeks. The need to write voluminous amounts of code to get that particular piece of hardware functional for almost EVERYTHING made it a "geeks only" system. (still that way on some hardware, but improving with each build.)
That reputation is what has and is slowing down the spread of the system now that most builds have become extremely user friendly.
(and user friendly forums such as this have vastly aided!)
(In the early days, if you asked a simple question on a user forum, you stood a great chance of getting flamed instead of getting an answer. Too many UBER GEEKS were being allowed to answer in that manner.)
BUT, there are still way too many off build user "help" sites that are totally GEEK. Help written ASSUMING that the person needing help knows a LOT about the system and just needs a small amount of added information.
(the failure to realize that we were ALL Noooooobs ONCE!)

As Linux stands now, if you can run a Mac, you can run a Linux machine. And since Vista has become HARDER to use with all of the added "protection layers" (that really still do not protect just because of the general nature of the kernel), Linux is approaching being EASIER to use than the NEW MS stuff!

I agree with all of the above.

[sharperguy]

I agree with all of the above.

I agree as well but it it's only partially relevant. The issue about "Linux for geeks" is only a small portion of the main reason for not keeping the slogan.

The main reason which I see is that ubuntu is trying to support free software and part of that is helping people understand what it is and what purpose it serves. This is only hindered by referring to the entire system as "Linux" which is in fact only the Kernel, because that in turn leads on to Linus Torvalds, open source, and ignores the issue of freedom.

I suggested "Computing for human beings" because it provides a nice title which infers a similar meaning to the current one but extends it to show that it can be an alternative to proprietary operating systems.

[swoll1980]

I agree as well but it it's only partially relevant. The issue about "Linux for geeks" is only a small portion of the main reason for not keeping the slogan.

The main reason which I see is that ubuntu is trying to support free software and part of that is helping people understand what it is and what purpose it serves. This is only hindered by referring to the entire system as "Linux" which is in fact only the Kernel, because that in turn leads on to Linus Torvalds, open source, and ignores the issue of freedom.

I suggested "Computing for human beings" because it provides a nice title which infers a similar meaning to the current one but extends it to show that it can be an alternative to proprietary operating systems.

It's called Linux, that's what it's been called since I was in middle school to this date I have never met anyone that called it gnu/Linux Stallman and all his fan boys can protest till the end of time it's not going to make a difference

[sharperguy]

Which is why I'm not suggesting "GNU/Linux for human beings" because that would sound ridiculous.

[schauerlich]

I really doubt anyone cares about the distinction between Linux and GNU/Linux if they don't research a product further than liking its marketing slogan.

[DrMega]

I think its a tricky issue, a fine balancing act.

On one hand, people who've heard tales of the great stability and flexibility of Linux but fear the geeky aspects of it, might appreciate being told that this is a flavour of Linux that is not geeky, but for ordinary folk, or more succinctly, "Linux for humans". If the word Linux was dropped, then it is just another OS, and why choose this over Windows or a Linux distro? (I know the answer to that, but someone who only knows Windows might not).

On the other hand there is of course the stigma attached to the name "Linux". Having to compile everything from source and needing to be a command line guru, and needing big glasses and a beard (no offence to anyone with big glasses and/or beards:) ). We know it's not like that but the stigma is still there.

I think any marketing team would be hard pressed to get the balance exactly right, and reach out to the maximum number of people.

[Cap'n Skyler]

Linux is Linux. They all use the same core kernel, so that IS what they are. The difference being what is wrapped around that kernel and how it is managed.
Earlier days of the system, with it's lack of repositories and lack of being able to modify the system to the users wants EASILY by using some form of package manager, were really weird and totally for geeks. The need to write voluminous amounts of code to get that particular piece of hardware functional for almost EVERYTHING made it a "geeks only" system. (still that way on some hardware, but improving with each build.)
That reputation is what has and is slowing down the spread of the system now that most builds have become extremely user friendly.
(and user friendly forums such as this have vastly aided!)
(In the early days, if you asked a simple question on a user forum, you stood a great chance of getting flamed instead of getting an answer. Too many UBER GEEKS were being allowed to answer in that manner.)
BUT, there are still way too many off build user "help" sites that are totally GEEK. Help written ASSUMING that the person needing help knows a LOT about the system and just needs a small amount of added information.
(the failure to realize that we were ALL Noooooobs ONCE!)

As Linux stands now, if you can run a Mac, you can run a Linux machine. And since Vista has become HARDER to use with all of the added "protection layers" (that really still do not protect just because of the general nature of the kernel), Linux is approaching being EASIER to use than the NEW MS stuff!
i have for a few years off and on RAILED against the uber geeks and their eliteist attitudes.Linux has no reason to be so difficult to use,and their excuses were we as user's were too lazy and ignorant.none of us should need a degree in computer science to make this work i replied.
Kudos to Mr Shuttleworth and his team of awesome people.
teh "buntu is by far the easiest of the linux lot,and if it continues to go and grow will be the best threat yet to the MS way of doing things.

[p_quarles]

Linux is Linux. They all use the same core kernel, so that IS what they are. The difference being what is wrapped around that kernel and how it is managed.
Agreed, but that's separate from the Linux vs. GNU/Linux issue. The debate there is about the fact that Linux is a kernel, which is only one major component of an operating system. Since virtually every Linux OS that isn't embedded in a device has shipped with the GNU userland suite (which is what provides the actual user interface that makes the kernel do stuff), the GNU folks argue that they deserve some credit too.

That's the point of the debate, in any case. It's another one of those "KDE vs. Gnome" and "Vi vs. Emacs" type things, though, so don't expect it to get resolved. Ever.

[kahlil88]

Suppose we donated tons of money to the Hurd project? Microkernels are where it's at, and if Hurd ever sees the light of day, people can run GNU without Linux and not even have to worry about the naming issue.

[bboston7]

Computing for human beings sounds lame. Computing is alreading easy. Linux for human beings is great because of the steriotipical linux being for elite nerds only. The name makes people think that this may be easier.

[adamogardner]

Agreed, but that's separate from the Linux vs. GNU/Linux issue. The debate there is about the fact that Linux is a kernel, which is only one major component of an operating system. Since virtually every Linux OS that isn't embedded in a device has shipped with the GNU userland suite (which is what provides the actual user interface that makes the kernel do stuff), the GNU folks argue that they deserve some credit too.

That's the point of the debate, in any case. It's another one of those "KDE vs. Gnome" and "Vi vs. Emacs" type things, though, so don't expect it to get resolved. Ever.

They do deserve credit but how is it pronounced? like the animal, or "gee-en-you"? it's too long to say both. how about Linu? "Oh I don't use notepad, I have Linu." or "linu doesn't get viruses much" Can the two agree to merge?

[rune0077]

They do deserve credit but how is it pronounced? like the animal, or "gee-en-you"? it's too long to say both. how about Linu? "Oh I don't use notepad, I have Linu." or "linu doesn't get viruses much" Can the two agree to merge?

http://labor-liber.org/images/gnu-linux.jpg

[pikseli@work]

i have for a few years off and on RAILED against the uber geeks and their eliteist attitudes.Linux has no reason to be so difficult to use,and their excuses were we as user's were too lazy and ignorant.none of us should need a degree in computer science to make this work i replied.

Hear hear!

If its hard to use, requires a lot of learning or configuring, IT BELONGS IN THE PAST!!

In the 21st century, computers are supposed to work for you!

By the way, Linux is not Linux. Technically its GNU Linux, Debian derivatives anyway. Look into it.