On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 08:04:01PM -0500, Christopher wrote:
I get the idea that it's useful to draw a distinction between
the
project and the product, and agree with the goal. The upstream naming
preference wasn't really my point in those examples, though. My
examples were an attempt to show that the short name (colloquial name,
even if not the "official" name) often refers to the product, and the
community name is the longer of the two (often with the community
being named after the product, not the other way around). I was also
attempting to emphasize that there's already a distinction made
between Fedora and the Fedora Project that people are already using
that seems to be sufficient, in the same way that those other
projects/communities have a distinction.
This is all fine; I'm not going to fight against colloquial use. This change
is about one aspect of our own formal use.
Clarity can be achieved by context, the use of improper nouns, and
clear writing style (descriptive thinking). I think people put too
much emphasis in names to communicate meaning (nominative thinking).
Adding "Linux" doesn't really give any clarity, since it's implied
already... and... you can already append it to descriptively add
clarity without changing the name.
/etc/os-release doesn't give much room for context like that. I mean, if it
helps, you can think of it as us appending Linux descriptively to add
clarity?
It doesn't matter to me much. I have expressed my opinion, but
am
happy to go with the flow. :)
And I do appreciate it. :)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader