[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Social-discuss] "GNU social" sucks.

From: Adam Moore
Subject: Re: [Social-discuss] "GNU social" sucks.
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:01 -0800
User-agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.1

On 2015-01-18 12:31, Bob Jonkman wrote:
I think that consensus has already occurred, and the resulting name of
the network is the Fediverse.

Any usage I've seen of "Fediverse" has been inclusive of all the other
software that intercommunicates: Diaspora, Friendica; even Twitter has
been included as a single instance courtesy of the Twitterbridge.

And it doesn't matter that a name is chosen by a committee or
developers or standards body.  The people using the network will call
it what they will.

And if that's the way it stays, then that's fine by me.

I brought the whole issue up, not just because I have some kind of personal grudge against the name GNU social -- I mean, I do have a personal grudge against the name, but if that's all it was, I wouldn't have bothered the mailing list with it. The problem is: I was working on a GNU social tutorial for users of the instance we have running on, and I've been wanting to do a comic-style introduction/advocacy poster to try and attract some new users outside from outside the free software community (I'd love to at least rope-in some of my followers on Tumblr and deviantART), but I immediately run into the issue of confused/confusing terminology. Do I invite people to come join us on GNU social? Or do I invite them to join us in the Fediverse? Do I recommend that they find a GNU social server specifically, or do I say, hey, there are a lot of different services you can use to link-up with people using OStatus-friendly services? To what extent do I have to describe OStatus, the Fediverse, GNU social, and how they relate? And so-on.

Committees and standards bodies are a pain in the neck, sure, but having some kind of semi-formal recommendation coming from some kind of semi-organized body saying "we would like the network to be called X, and we would like this activity to be referred to as Y, and this activity as Z" is extremely useful for people who want to write documentation, for journalists who want to report on it, and for advocates who simply want to bring their friends and associates on-board.

People on the network might be calling it the Fediverse, but no one else is. If I send a message to my friends and say, hey, things are better in the Fediverse, they're going to look on Wikipedia and find nothing because there's no Fediverse article. If you Google "fediverse" and start looking through the results, you'll see that the blogosphere is already starting to conflate "Fediverse" with "GNU social". And if the website of the predominant Fediverse server is going to start referring to the network as GNU social, then usage of the term Fediverse is only going to erode more and more.

It's still a network of thousands, not millions, of users, and nothing is set in stone right now. I think if you/I/everyone-else wants the network to be called this or that, it's time to start saying so. I like HORD. Lots of people like Fediverse or The Federation. The people who are writing the copy on seem to like GNU social. You're right: people using the network will call it what they will -- but they're going to be steered by what they read and hear elsewhere.

Adam Moore/LÆMEUR (@SDF) <address@hidden>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]