THE past few hours were spent arguing with the "corporate Linux" types (like Linux Foundation) in Twitter, basically disagreeing on a number of issues (as my views were being deliberately misrepresented). We may never manage to reach an agreement because we view things differently and our goals vary. Let's break it down like this, based on what one advocates:

1. "Open Source": the group of people looking to distract from (2) as a goal (often using Windows or a "Mac"-branded PC)



2. "Software Freedom": adhering to the goals and philosophy of the GNU Project from the early 1980s (reactionary; the time code sharing was being discouraged by emerging monopolies/monopolists)



3. "G[I]AFAM Linux": obsessed with market share even if it's attained by concession to monopolies that do not share code (or share about 1% of their code for openwashing purposes). Also see: "Clown Computing" (a.k.a. "The Cloud").



4. "GNU/Linux": This is the group that firstly cares about the history of the platform, hence attributes GNU, and generally looks to spread GNU's principles/values along with the operating system. This often means that proprietary software packages are discouraged if not verboten.

"What is the guiding raison d'être anyway?"Of course it's possible to come up with more sub-categories, but the broader picture is, some people strive purely for market share (a subset of them would even cheer when Microsoft hijacks everything, calling it a "win") and some remember that the very purpose of it all isn't to spread a mere "brand" (like "Apple") or replace one brand for another, often swapping one monopolist with another. What is the guiding raison d'être anyway? ⬆