[GNUz] How does GLU/GNUz differ from CLUG?

[Nick Rout]

Timothy Musson wrote:
> Okay, here's the post I promised over on the CLUG mailing list :^)
>
> I'm not so much interested in discussing binary blobs, as figuring out
> what GLU/GNUz is all about... and that kind of discussion belongs on
> _this_ list. So here goes.
>
>
> Let's start with the CLUG.
>
> The CLUG isn't a Free Software user group. Most of the people there
> don't have ethical problems promoting and supporting proprietary
> software, even when Free alternatives exist. Now, I'm not complaining -
> I happen to think that CLUG is a fantastic resource. I'm just saying
> that CLUG has no interest in Free Software philosophy.
>
>  =20

I think you confuse the collection of individuals with being a group=20
with one combining philosophy. There are undoubtedly as many views on=20
software freedom/open-ness as there are subscribers to the CLUG list.=20
Also many people (in CLUG and elsewhere) don't regard freedom of=20
software as a moral imperative, they see it as a bonus in getting their=20
computer to work. If the hardware is open and the driver is free, there=20
is more chance of keeping it working in 1, 5 or 50 years from now.

> Now to GLU/GNUz.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, the GNUz list got started as a place for people
> interested in Free Software (regardless of Operating System) and the
> philosophy behind it.  Actually, I vaguely remember Jim saying the list
> would become whatever we made it. There was no "mission statement" or
> anything like that. So we're not _necessarily_ a Free Software
> interest/support group ;^)
>
> But assuming we are a Free Software group, rather than an alternative
> CLUG:
>
> How can it be appropriate for us to recommend, distribute and support
> proprietary software in any way?
>
> We recommend and support Ubuntu[1], which includes non-Free software.
> We help folks install binary-only drivers (wireless, video, ...)
> We help folks set up win32 codecs, flash, etc.
>
> If we can find excuses to do those things, what differentiates us from
> the CLUG?
>
> Instead, why don't we...
>
> Consider Free alternatives to Ubuntu (gNewSense, Fedora, others?)
> Help folks select and track-down decent hardware.
>  =20

These are good points, but I think hard to reconcile with a desire to=20
get more people using GNU/Linux. The point being that the fence sitters=20
still want stuff that "just works" - yes including their atheros=20
wireless cards, and their ATi/nVidia network cards.

So do you push "freedom purity" at the expense of bringing large numbers=20
of people on board? If we push purity to the point where it puts a lot=20
of people off (either because they think we are deranged fringe nutters,=20
or simply because stuff doesn't work) does that help persuade the=20
atheros/ATi/nVidia people that theres a big enough market to cater to?

These are difficult questions, and worthy of debate.

> Come up with a constitution, so that I'm no longer confused :^)
>
>
> [1] Rik, there's no doubt that Ubuntu includes non-Free software, and
>     intends to include more in future. To "opt out", you need to pick a
>     GNU/Linux distro that does gymnastics to compile a truly free Linux
>     kernel. Ubuntu doesn't do that.
>  =20

I asked on the CLUG list earlier this week if Rik's support of ubuntu=20
arose out of whether it refused to install non-free software by default=20
(at that time I thought it didn't install anything non-free by default=20
and that you had to go out and install it if you wanted it. However on=20
watching a newly installed ubuntu box boot last night it clearly says=20
"loading restricted drivers" - so now I am not so sure.

>    From RMS:
>    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html
>
>    "The Linux sources themselves have an even more serious problem
>     with non-free software: they actually contain some. Quite a few
>     device drivers contain series of numbers that represent firmware
>     programs to be installed in the device. These programs are not
>     free software."
>
>    "Linux, the kernel, is often thought of as the flagship of free
>     software, yet its current version is partially non-free. How did
>     this happen? This problem, like the decision to use Bitkeeper,
>     reflects the attitude of the original developer of Linux, a person
>     who thinks that =E2=80=9Ctechnically better=E2=80=9D is more import=
ant than
>     freedom."
>
>    From Mark Shuttleworth, about Ubuntu:
>    http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/95
>
>    "During the discussion, we re-affirmed the Ubuntu policy of includin=
g
>     proprietary drivers where these are required to enable essential
>     hardware functionality. [...] We have always shipped those, and
>     intend to continue to do so."
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>  =20