[GNUz] Re: Naming Groups was: UTP Cables from Solid Core

[Rik Tindall]

Jim Cheetham wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:01:29PM +1300, Nick Rout wrote:
>   
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:00:28 +0000 Jim Cheetham <jim@inode.co.nz> wrote:
>>     
>>> Personally, any group called "Linux" is limiting themselves to some
>>> arbitrary technical definition. If it's the *activity* of a group
>>> that's your main interest, why not name them in that manner?
>>>       
>> The existing Canterbury Linux Users Group does not limit itself to linux. There are often discussions about hardware, OSX, BSD, interoperability with Windows, GNU, 
Incorrect on that point. Whether it's the UniCanterburyLU list, or the 
'CLUG' meeting that's been spawned from it - and claims monopoly right 
to the former - GNU discussion specifically is anathema to both. With 
emphasis, along the lines of 'we've heard it all before and it only 
causes arguments. anyway, we mostly disagree with RMS' - to paraphrase 
Zane, the UCLU sysad.

So stating something, even in text, does not make it true. Otherwise, 
there'd have been no reason to form GNUz, right? But don't see it as any 
personal fault, as I'm sure we're plumbing the tenor of LUGs worldwide 
here, which is probably useful.

However, asserting unity, out of the wish that it were so, will not 
necessarily work.

N.B. the exception here is the CLUG wiki, which does have an opening for 
GNU.

>> freedom of intellectual property (patent/copyright/ etc) and sometimes more wideranging. And that is proper. Occasionally it gets too off topic, but restricting stuff too much reduces the community feel. 
>>     
>
> Which means perhaps taking the name too seriously/literally is a problem
> in itself?
>
> -jim

Could be, but I'd argue the contrary. The title banner around which we 
congregate says the most, most succinctly, about what we are on about. 
So if we're going to use "Linux" (a Free kernel), then GNU (its Free 
O/S) belongs in the same breath, by rights.

Answering the question of "Why don't we use GNU/Linux?" is the more 
telling - because those Users mean Unix, which is quite a different thing.

I wholly support our BSD+OSX Users forming a CUUG, so that they're 
saying what they mean*. This would allow GNU/Linux Users, more clearly, 
to say what they mean too. In the strongest sense the GLUG belongs 
within a CUUG, playing a distinctive and specific part - advocating FSF 
Freedom, amongst the other license types. The same hierarchy would be 
administering the local *nix scene as today, but honestly under this new 
framework.

I know that Jim, for one, supports a CUUG formation. The job seems to be 
to get Nick and Chris to admit what their main desktop is too. There are 
popularity issues affecting that, but I only see "winners all round" 
from refining - through adding subtlety to - our 'united in diversity' 
O/S message.

* CUUG = Canterbury Unix Users Group

Point of clarification: a University list gathering itself together 
around "Linux" (or whatever summary term) is understandable. But it is 
quite a different thing for any segment of that list to project itself 
into the wider community, forming a social group, and expect no debate 
as to what summary term is the most appropriate, for growth, within the 
new setting.

hth, Best wishes of the day,

-- 
Rik