From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?= =?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=) Subject: Re: New year, new name! Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:29:14 +0100 Message-ID: <87k311v52t.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> References: <87egra60mo.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57300) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y85qb-0001hf-4Z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2015 06:29:22 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y85qa-0000nJ-5t for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2015 06:29:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87egra60mo.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:12:15 +0100") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Hi, Guix! > > As you know, we=E2=80=99ve been having this lengthy discussion about what= to > call the Guix-based standalone distro. RMS and others have argued that > we can=E2=80=99t reasonably call it =E2=80=9Cthe GNU system=E2=80=9D, and= many people have > proposed alternative names. > > Long story short, I=E2=80=99m tempted to refer to the standalone distro as > =E2=80=9CGuixotic=E2=80=9D. The name was proposed by RMS; it=E2=80=99s a= play on words that > makes fun of criticisms that have depicted the GNU project as > =E2=80=9Cquixotic=E2=80=9D. And it has the advantage of starting with = =E2=80=9CGuix=E2=80=9D. (The > other name that I liked is =E2=80=9CGeist=E2=80=9D, which someone propose= d on IRC, but > it lacks those traits.) > > As I see it, we would change the baseline on the Guix logo to, say, > =E2=80=9Cdependable, hackable, liberating=E2=80=9D. And we could have an= alternative > logo with =E2=80=9Cotic=E2=80=9D appended=C2=B9, and with a different bas= eline, say, =E2=80=9CGNU=E2=80=99s > reference distribution=E2=80=9D. (I count on Nikita or Felipe for this. = ;-)) > > Thoughts? > > Ludo=E2=80=99. > > =C2=B9 Bonus points to anyone who comes up with a stylized gnuish Quixote= . :-) Happy new year! :-) A while ago I had the idea that we might be able to convince RMS to sanction Guixotic as *an* (rather than *the*) official distribution of the GNU system, using a de-emphasized code-name (guixotic it is) to refer to it in filenames, technical docs, etc. but otherwise have it listed mainly as "a distribution of the GNU system" on a hypothetical gnu.org/download page. (The download link would also be preceded by said code-name or "model name", but it wouldn't have a logo, page, or any such branding of its own.) Might be a bad analogy but: think of it like Opel and Astra perhaps (the car brand and model), except if Opel had no other model. Astra has no logo or fame of its own, and you usually say you have an Opel if people ask you. Makes sense? I think it deserves such special status over projects such as gNewSense because GuixDistro is much more under GNU's control than any of those distros that are "GNUified" as an afterthought. I didn't further bother anyone with that after mentioning it on IRC, but I still think it might be worth a shot. The situation with GNU/Linux distros and how most people think Linux is the main component is pretty nasty. If we brand Guixotic as a stand-alone GNU/Linux distro with a fancy name and logo of its own, on a page of its own, it will become "yet another Linux distro" in the minds of the masses. This might be because they're misinformed, but the fact doesn't change. Any special branding we apply to Guixotic will be actively harmful, I think. Taylan