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

[Steve Bibayoff]

Hello,

On 3/22/07, Max Clark <max.clark at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is just Technology Extremism - refuse to bow to the demands of
> terrorists.

OK. I would love to hear how people who support Free Software are
terrorists. From a lay person definition, terrorists=people who use
terror for coercion, Please explain in what ways you, or anyone else,
has been terrorized?

> ... RMS's demand that all Linux be called GNU/Linux because it
> includes GNU software is like Intel demanding everything be called
> Intel/GNU/Linux because you are running a Xeon processor - or how
> about Intel/Seagate/GNU/Linux, but wait - we use Savvis bandwidth so
> does that make us Intel/Seagate/Savvis/GNU/Linux?

Are you on of those (in name only) conservative talk show people? You
know, the ones who say what the other people argument is? AFAIK, RMS
has never demanded that Linux be called GNU/Linux because it "includes
GNU software". Think about this last statement, any try to think of
how many OS include GNU software, that RMS has NEVER said anything to
the affect of "call it GNU/(whatever the OS name is)". It might be
easier to try and think of OSs that don't include GNU.

Linux is NOT an OS. It is a kernel, a small but important part of an
OS, but no where near a complete OS. GNU is an OS(also a project to
create a completely Free OS). Redhat (whatever the current middle name
is) Linux is an OS. So are Madriva Linux and SuSE Linux. But these
last few examples are from people/companies that had put together an
OS. NO person or company has put an OS together and called it simply
Linux(I dare you to try, and see if you don't get slapped w/ a
trademark infringement ;-) ).

Calling all OS that use the Linux kernel w/ the generic name of
"Linux" is not correct or even fair for a number of reasons.
1) The GNU project was started to put together a COMPLETE and
completely Free OS(also called GNU).
2) GNU was started and had done a lot of the work before Linux(the
kernel) was ever started.
3) Linux(the kernel) was NEVER meant to be and isn't a complete OS.
4) Most of the companies(and/or people) who put distributions
together, started w/ Linux(the kernel) and put the GNU OS on top of
it.
5) There has been attempts and projects to run a Linux kernel under a
BSD OS.  IIRC, all of these used some type of Linux/BSD naming
convention to distinguish itself from a GNU/Linux OS. And there wasn't
any large(or even small) furor over the name.

What it comes down to is the GNU project was started to put together a
completely Free OS. It was assembled from software that was found that
was already Free. Parts that weren't already Free, the GNU project
wrote those parts themselves. When you use a GNU OS and actually call
it a GNU (or GNU/Linux) OS, you are saying the Freedom is important to
you. You don't have to agree w/ all of the philosophies of the FSF,
but you do agree w/ the FSF "four kinds of freedom" of Free Software.
If you don't give a rats ass about Freedom, you are free to call it
whatever you want. You are even free to call it whatever you want,
even if you say you believe in Freedom(or are a closet Freedom
person), but have no desire to be counted or show your support for
Freedom(and Free Software). Calling this "Technology Extremism" and
"demands of terrorists" is way beyond than just overboard.

m2c

Steve