On 09/22/2016 03:10 PM, Francis Gerund via arch-general wrote: > Hi Simon. > > Thank you for the link you provided. > > "You say 'tomayto', I say 'tomahto' . . ." > "You say Arch (or Arch Linux, or archlinux), I say GNU/Linux . . .) > > Either way, what does it matter? > > I live in a culture that at least gives "lip service" to freedom of > speech. Thus, I try not to tell other people what to say or not to say, > and I would hope for the same from others in return.
You are of course welcome to call Arch Linux anything you want. You can in fact call it an *actual* tomato, if you really want. That doesn't make you right. And that doesn't mean other people know what you are talking about, if you insist on using your own private references to things, although I concede in this case, that your mistake is common enough that people will likely recognize what you really mean. Arch Linux is a distribution, not an operating system. It is a *distribution* of Linux or GNU/Linux or whatever you feel the compulsive need to call it. It is the prerogative of the distribution leaders to choose the nomenclature. But even according to the logic of the FSF, it is simply factually wrong to call a *distribution* the "Arch GNU/Linux distribution" or whatever, when their actual beef is with the operating system. It doesn't really matter though, since the FSF and their political activism is still deeply wrong. For perspective, a couter-argument: http://linux.topology.org/lingl.html Also, ISTR a mention, somewhere, about the FSF trying to *tell* Arch Linux that they should change their name -- and the official Arch response was "how utterly rude of you to tell us what to call ourselves. Please never speak again." (I have no idea where though, so if anyone recognizes this and has a link, I'd appreciate it.) ... In short, take your political activism elsewhere, it is inappropriate on this thread. Alternatively, stop offering suggestions for distributions that are not Arch Linux, on the Arch Linux mailing list. -- Eli Schwartz