Re: [directory-discuss] Antifeatures - Names with Controversial Terms: linux

[Ian Kelling]

I changed my mind somewhat about this

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016, at 06:45 PM, Ian Kelling wrote:
> 
> 
> Quite a few of these packages are related to the linux kernel, which is
> not a problematic term.
> 
> And even if it is a reference to the "linux system" which we recommend
> people avoid using, it's a part of a name that means something
> else. Like "new york", is basically never used in reference to how "new"
> it is, and when we say GNU, we are almost never saying how much like or
> unlike unix it is, "syslinux" is the same way.

But there are names which are essentially "foo for linux", where
linux is clearly a meaningful reference to gnu/linux and not the kernel.

> 
> As RMS says, this is not worth contacting the developers about, and that
> being the case, it also does not make sense to have a big red banner
> warning, calling it an antifeature, and implying people should look for
> an alternative.

It seemed contradictory to think we would publish a negative
flag about a software and explicitly not want to tell the developers
about it. But actually, other anti-features are the same way,
because the devs are mostly aware of the issue already.

I don't think this deserves the same kind of warning as other
free software which very directly encourages use of nonfree
software, so I added this to the description:

"When considering which free software to use, this anti-feature is
less problematic compared to the others so it displayed less prominently 
in yellow. "

I haven't changed the template color yet, but I will.

> 
> I'm going to remove it.

I restored it, except some entries where it didn't apply, and 
clarified it to be clear in scope.