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

[serross at ix.netcom.com]

>
>On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:53:03AM -0700, Jeff Carlson wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Well "GNU/Linux" is aka "Linux" so adding "GNU" doesn't add any
>restriction to supporting other unix-like operating systems.  It's to

No it doesn't "restrict" BUT, the naming implys a restriction to just "GNU".
Just because it isn't free doesn't make it bad. If all companies like your and mine only gave out their services for free, they wouldn't be in business very long (unless the employees paid their own compensation and infostructure costs). I think the name should stay as it is.

Stephen

>remind people that originally almost all of Linux consisted of GNU
>software plus the Linux Kernel, plus some other free programs like a
>vi-clone.  These were all free software and GNU had developed an
>extensive system of free software except for the kernel (which turned
>out to be vaporware).  Today it's not all free software like the GNU
>project (and Stallman) intended it to be and that's kind of sad.
>
>> 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.
>
>Debian is now Debian GNU/Linux and they have non-free stuff in the
>distribution.  So adding GNU doesn't exclude anything.  It's reminds
>people that Linux originated from GNU just as much as it originated
>from Linus.  And GNU seems to be about the only organization today
>strongly supporting the ideal of free software.
>			David Lawyer