Hi, On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:20:32AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I am thinking about the idea of calling Guix "the reference > distribution" of GNU. That term seems inappropriate in two ways: > > * It comes from "reference implementation", which means an > implementation intended mainly to be studied when making other > implementations, rather than for real use. Guix is not meant only to > be studied. > > * It suggests something that is basic and not at all fancy, whereas > Guix is an innovative experimental approach. I don't feel these are serious problems: it's not uncommon in the Free Software world for a "reference" implementation to actually be the most used and/or most advanced one... I for my part at least do not associate such negative connotations with the term. > This leads me to think of calling it an "avant-garde distribution". > Perhaps "The GNU Project's avant-garde distribution of GNU/Linux". After looking up what "avant-garde" actually means, it does seem fairly appropriate... But that's already the first problem right there: although I have seen the term "avant-garde" many times before, I never bothered to check what it means. I'm probably not the only one... As others pointed out, it also feels strange to see it used for a technical thing rather that a work of art. But most importantly, I think it is actually worse than "reference" in suggesting that it's not something meant for regular users... > This also avoids the undesirable effect of suggesting that other free > distros are rejected. I don't believe "reference" has such an effect... As another suggestion in a similar spirit, we could also go for "standard GNU distribution". Not sure about the merits compared to "reference"... -antrik-
