[Ossm-members] Проблем: Make the move ( долго )
gemidjy at lugola.net
Sat May 5 00:57:51 UTC 2007
Како што знаете, го преведувам сајтот Make the move. И е 90% преведен. Испадна
еден прилично сложен проблем. Со оглед на тоа што и без интервенцијата на
Сталман да се нарекуваме ГЛУГ и системот да го нарекуваме GNU/Linux и јас
лично и Лугола како група го правеше тоа, во преводот го користев терминот
GNU/Linux наместо, како што стои во оригиналот Linux. За ова го известив
Chris Smart, авторот на Make the move, но и автор на уште едно многу значајно
за муабетов дело - Корораа. Зошто значајно? Затоа што Корораа беше одбиена
дистрибуција, од заедницата, а исто така му беше забележано и од ФСС:
Веројатно после сето тоа, Корораа Линукс престана да се развива на начинот
како што се развиваше дотогаш и почна да се развива како бинарна верзија на
Џенту. Сето ова можеби влијае да Chris на моето потенцирање дека преведувам
користејќи го терминот GNU/Linux го рече следното:
Well this really depends which side of the fence you are coming from.
GNU set out to make a new operating system called GNU. They didn't get
their kernel done so they grabbed the Linux kernel and said "Here is
GNU! but we used the Linux kernel so call it 'GNU/Linux'". But the Linux
people never set out to be a part of GNU, they just set out to create an
operating system kernel called Linux. So from that side of the fence
Linux was never a part of the GNU projewct, and people grabbed Linux and
put applications with it to make it a complete system - most of the
system tools were done by GNU, but not all of them, plus there are lots
of other applications and toolkit stuff too. So from their point it's
just "Linux" with a range of programs which make up the system, some
from GNU, others not.
Anyway, I would like to leave it as just 'Linux' for now, mainly because
that is less confusing for people. However, in the updated content which
I am working on, I have addressed GNU specifically and mention that some
people call it 'GNU/Linux' but that we will call it simply 'Linux'.
На што јас одговорив:
Ok, now the projects have somehow "merged" and would be good if we give
respect to both teams, even Torvalds and Stallman have deal to call it
So, would it be a problem if we leave it GNU/Linux in the macedonian
Потоа тој ми одговори:
The projects haven't merged at all, and Linux has nothing to do with
GNU. Actually I used to call it GNU/Linux until I was talking to some
Linux kernel hacking friends of mine who gave me the other side of the
I would like you to leave it as just 'Linux', because in the upcoming
content changes I give credit to GNU and mention it as GNU/Linux
But for the purposes of the site and for people new to FOSS, I want to
leave it as 'Linux' throughout the page.
Мојот одговор веќе беше следниот:
Ok, we'll leave it Linux, but we got to tell you that we don't completely
agree on that name for the whole system.
In an oportunity to interview Richard Stallman, our Lug used the terms Linux
user group and stuff, his reply was this:
When people think the system is "Linux", that reduces our influence to
campaign for their freedom, so our ability to help you or anyone is
reduced. If you start helping the GNU Project, by calling the system
"GNU/Linux" and its users "GNU/Linux users", then I would be glad to
help you in this way. Please help us promote the cause of free
And because we appreciate Mr. Stallman (without him there wouldn't be
anything) and because we are GNU/Linux user group, we use the term GNU/Linux
But, in the spirit of your idea, which is great, we will use the term Linux,
if our members and macedonian community don't decide other wise :/
All the best,
И неговиот последен одговор:
Lots of people disagree with each side :) The point is I have to come at
it with a perspective to help new users. Everyone knows it as 'Linux'.
It's RedHat Linux, Mandriva Linux, etc. I don't want to confuse people
with inconsequential issues like whether it's GNU/Linux or Linux. I
think in my mind you can actually call it whatever you like. You don't
have have to call it Linux, you can just call it "Ubuntu". I don't think
we need to bring attention to the controversy.
It is interesting that Stallman called the BSD license "obnoxious
advertising clause" because the BSD license required that any
advertising for software that incorporated BD code MUST display an
acknowledgement of authorship to the University of Berkley. He didn't
like that idea and said it was therefore incompatible with the GPL
And yet now he has taken the exact opposite perspective and wants people
to advertise GNU by calling Linux distributions GNU/Linux! Very
hypocritical in my mind.
Besides people can call their OS anything they want to. They don't even
have to call it Linux, they can just call it "Ubuntu".
Stallman wants credit because in HIS mind HE was the one creating the
free operating system, but he didn't get the finish the last piece of
the puzzle, the kernel. As such in HIS mind he is taking Linux and
putting it into HIS free operating system which HE calls GNU. So yes, of
course he wants to call it GNU/Linux, because it really is GNU but opps,
I didn't finish hurd in time.
But others who are creating THEIR own operating system, RedHat,
Mandrake, Suse etc can call it whatever they like. Stallman has no right
to TELL PEOPLE what they should be calling their software! That's not
To quote Linus:
"Well, I think it's justified [to call it GNU/Linux], but it's justified
if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I
think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux,"
because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to
name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just
Because Linux was never a GNU project.
And to quote Eric S Raymond:
"Some people object that the name "Linux" should be used to refer only
to the kernel, not the entire operating system. This claim is a proxy
for an underlying territorial dispute; people who insist on the term
GNU/Linux want the FSF to get most of the credit for Linux because
[Stallman] and friends wrote many of its user-level tools. Neither this
theory nor the term GNU/Linux has gained more than minority acceptance."
The FSF wrote many of the user-level tools but not all. So really if
we're going to start giving credit, then we should call it:
"There are lots of people on this bus; I don't hear a clamor of support
that GNU is more essential than many of the other components; can't take
a wheel away, and end up with a functional vehicle, or an engine, or the
seats. I recommend you be happy we have a bus."
And to quote Linus again:
"Umm, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, thank you very
much. It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit
is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much
continue to call it "Linux"."
Perhaps it's all just because Stallman didn't get amount of fame he was
hoping for with GNU. To quote Linux Journal:
"Perhaps RMS is frustrated because Linus got the glory for what RMS
wanted to do."
So, there are always other sides to the fence. In my mind I don't want
to kick up a stir, I am promoting free software in general but
specifically Linux. so I'm using 'Linux' as the term.
There is another problem if you change it to "GNU/Linux" and that is
that the site will stop making sense. You will have "What is GNU/Linux"
for the linux.php section, and throughout there where I'm talking about
the Linux kernel you will be talking about GNU/Linux which won't make
I think it is best to leave it as just 'Linux' and have a read of the
next content update, where I explain GNU/Linux so that people know about
Последно му кажав дека после сето ова мора да се консултирам со заедницата во
Македонија која промовира слободен софтвер, па еве, се консултирам со Вас.
Дали воопшто да се користи термин како Linux за име на целиот систем или да
заборавиме на идејата да се преведе сајтот? :/ Тоа можеби ќе значи дека
повторно приврзаници на ФСС и Сталман одат контра Крис, меѓутоа од друга
страна мора да имаме и почит кон човекот кој започна се и без кој ни Линукс
можеби немаше да постои како Јадро или концепт за ОС. Крис вели дека ГНУ не е
многу значаен дел од системот, иако тоа и е системот без кој нема да имаме
алатки, компајлери, уредувачи итн...без ГНУ Линукс би бил само јадро и
веројатно многу покасно ќе се дојдеше до слободен оперативен систем. Мислам
дека разликата е во тоа што ГНУ почна да развива уредувачи и компајлери
приоритетно, додека Торвалдс почна од сржта - развиваше јадро. Можеби целите
им беа исти, да создадат цел систем, но сега тие се на некој начин едно (тоа
merged е во наводници погоре).
Сега е касно морам да спијам, ова нека ви биде доброутро!
Исто го запрашав дали сето ова има поврзаност со спорот меѓу ФСС и Корораа,
gemidjy at lugola.net
Coordinator of the Lugola (www.lugola.net)
More information about the Ossm-members