Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:12:10 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@attbi.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD logo... Message-ID: <3E9C9FDA.50809@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <37of37bi5i.f37@localhost.localdomain> References: <BAY1-DAV71D585c9HZT00005d43@hotmail.com> <3E9C2965.5080504@potentialtech.com> <37of37bi5i.f37@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary W. Swearingen wrote: >>To shorten the history: the >>term "daemon" means "something that is always there" in the archiac sense. > > [snip] > >>Similarly, the mainstream movie/telivision industry was giving the term "demon" >>(and it's image) a bad name by portraying it as evil and/or an emissary of satan. >>The modern view of what a daemon is (in addition to the confusion between the >>two terms: daemon and demon) was probably created mostly by the film industry. > > So you're going to hold people to the archiac view? Bad plan. No ... I'm asking them to understand the origin of the term and not be ignorant. I'm also asking them not to arbitrarily associate symbols with ideas they aren't supposed to represent. > My large American Heritage dictionary says that "daemon" means "demon". > (Actually, it says it's a variant of "demon", and that's all it says). Never been a big fan of the American Heritage either but it's not even relevent. The fact is: the original prompting for the use of the daemon image was the archaic meaning. Archaic means no longer used, so it warrants an explanation. The fact that he decided to be offended in spite of the true reason is his right. I did my part by educating. If I decide to name my dog "Daemon" because I think Daemon means dog, then that's the reason the dog it named Daemon. There is not other reason ... and the fact that I was wrong about the definition of Daemon does not change the reason. Some people would claim that the hidden thing going on is that I was posessed by Satan when I made that decision or something, and they may well be correct ... I'm not going to argue with them. I just state the facts and allow them to make their own decisions. > So it's not a good idea to make assumptions about what people might > think either term might mean, outside of good context. In the case of > BSD, the context is good enough for me and for most, but of course it > will not be enough for others who have stonger feelings about religious > imagery. It's a shame they can't be accommodated in this trivial matter. You're absolutely correct. It's poor form to make assumptions. That's why myself and others explained the reason. That's why the reason is explained on the official web page for the BSD Daemon. Just because you think something at one point doesn't mean you have to think that forever. If you can't adapt to new information, then you're incapable of learning. >>Look up the history of the "thumbs up" gesture, to get an idea of how this sort >>of thing happens ... or the history of the work "hacker" which is misunderstood >>by 99% of the US population due to the mass media's terror tactics. > > You might also look up the history of the swastica and the star of > david; neither had their current associations before the 19th century. > I doubt that any OS producer would use those in their logo, despite any > desire to avoid their modern associations. The case is much less strong > for a demon image, but I sure wish the BSD logo people would be more > accommodating of the feelings of others. I have no doubt that thier > choice has reduced the support of BSD OSes significantly; it is a > frivolous and foolish choice made for mostly prideful reasons. Truely ... if, in the early 1900s I had adopted the swastica as a symbol for a peace movement and was then overshadowed by the use of the same symbol for the terrible Nazi activities of WWII ... then I would be in the same boat. AND I would have every right to continue to use that symbol if I so chose as well as explain (at great length) to everyone what it really meant if I desired to. That's called freedom. It may not be good marketing, I agree. However, I don't feel that the same situation applies for the beastie. These "I won't use FreeBSD because of the symbology" complaints occur very seldom. There are more cases per month of people crying that they'll use Windows instead because they couldn't figure BSD out. I can only state my opinion. I'm not part of FreeBSD in any "offical" capacity, and I don't have the right to say what logo can or can't be used. I just think that it's a good logo becuase it's cute, it's well- recognized and it's got a proud tradition. Someone else may overrule me to have it changed ... but (as is my right) I will still have my opinion. >>If you find him offensive, please do not compromise your religious beliefs just >>to use FreeBSD. You'll be much better off using Windows. A company that lies, >>cheats, and steals may sit much better with your religious beliefs than a >>community-oriented organization that happens to use a daemon as a logo. > > That's a good example of the spirit behind much support of the continued > use of the logo: to spite and humiliate the religious among us. It's an > attitude that might make this athiest switch to Windows, if I thought > such ugly religious intolerance was any less common amoung Windows users. I'm not intolerant of religions. I am intolerant of ignorance. He has his free will to decide. He can continue to use FreeBSD and be offended, or use any number of other available alternatives to relieve his upset. I simply stated my opinion that basing his decision on the package and not the contents is wrong. I stand by that opinion as I always have. To base ones use of an OS on whether or not they like the logo instead of the practices of those generating the OS and the usability of the OS is foolish in my opinion. >>I don't know of any OS that uses a demon as a logo. > > But other people with other definitions than yours do know of such OSes; > namely, FreeBSD and NetBSD. I'm not sure about OpenBSD; they seem to > have switched the logo on their CD (many releases ago) from the > demon/daemon to some kind of fish (which looks nothing like the > Christian fish logo, but I wonder...). Or the Darwin fish logo ... which is silly. And with that paragraph ... you make my point exactly. Most people know that the OpenBSD fish is a blowfish ... modeled after the blowfish algorith used for encrytion ... but others may find it offensive if they believe that it relates to Christianity and they're not Christian. They may find the OpenBSD Cop offensive because it reminds them of Police creulity and totalitarianism. This is why lawyers rule this planet ... becuase everyone wants to be sooooo careful to offend nobody. I say "be offended". That's part of life. I'm offended by many things: spam, the constant marketing concept that everything can be solved with a drug, the food preparation done by most fast-food stores, the constant requirement to validate of my non-criminality to almost the entire world. Nobody's worried about offending me. If I turn on the TV, I get it at every commercial break. Perhaps it goes on because I don't raise a big fuss about it. And perhaps that is a failing on my part. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E9C9FDA.50809>