[SGVLUG] Should this LUG become a GLUG (GNU/Linux Users Group)?

[Jeff Carlson]

David Lawyer wrote:
> Anyway, I've been convinced by Stallman's arguments that it wouldn't
> be a bad idea to become a GNU/Linux Users Group.  In other words, a
> GLUG instead of a LUG.

Fortunately (at least for RMS), I have heard dumber ideas.  So I can't
honestly say this is the dumbest idea I've ever heard.  It's up there,
though.

As many of you know, I participate in a lot of LUGs here in Southern
California.  I don't know if this particular group has any sort of
charter or mandate to only support Linux or excuse me, GNU/Linux, but
most of the LUGs actually have a lot broader vision than that.  I know
that for a fact, the presidents of both SCLUG and SFVLUG have stated
that LUG is just a simplification, and they welcome open source BSD as
well.  Furthermore the USCLUG specifically states they support all types
of Unix (like UUASC, not officially a LUG).  Making this distinction of
being a GLUG is exclusionary and it doesn't really foster a greater
sense of community among all open source users.  I personally feel it
defeats the general intent of a LUG, to support all users of open source
software.

Sure, RMS and others within the FSF would argue they don't support open
source, but really, is it in the best interest of a user group to
portray such an elitist attitude?  I'll admit, I'm already pretty
elitist when it comes to Linux vs Windows, but do we need to extend that
to Linux vs FreeBSD or even Linux vs OpenSolaris?  I hope not.