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

[Rik Tindall]

Hi, thanks for writing Tim.

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.

They're mainly responses to interest and initiative, allowing the same 
to guide where we might go. Little specificity so far, and my answer too 
will be quite 'general' approaches to the issues you raise.

> 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.

Agreed. We have GLU+GNUz so that Free Software can be discussed with 
some constancy, because there is considerable hostility to it being 
prominent, or even notably present, in the local LUG.

> 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 Free Software is our defining 'special interest' - evidenced in the 
GLU/GNUz titles. Here we have the opportunity to push the FSF value set 
as hard and as far as we like.

Logically, we are the only group in NZ (& Oz?) that makes available the 
time and space to consider formation of an 'FSF branch' (without having 
studied what defines that yet..) and already GLU is the only GLUG this 
side of India. This tells us:

a) How little interest exists in formal Free Software in Asia-Pacific

b) How difficult that status will be to change locally.

> But assuming we are a Free Software group, rather than an alternative
> CLUG:

We can be still more so, if you are wanting to help us work towards it.

> How can it be appropriate for us to recommend, distribute and support
> proprietary software in any way?

We don't. We run workshops to support not-unix users, and there shepherd 
them towards the more Free options. It's working, to some extent, but 
only due to what individuals recommend and support there. I.e., 'the 
group' runs venues and a mail-list, and within those, individuals are 
free to do what they like consistent with the GNU theme. E.g. 
individuals hooking up with Software Freedom Day - a similar initiative 
originating in UK/US and taking off bigtime in Oz.

You are correct though, in pointing out that SFD work as been used to 
promote the GLU in a pro-Ubuntu light. Yours is the first complaint 
about that.

> 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.

Individuals do these things, within what "We" have organised together so 
far - new frameworks for cooperation. You can demonstrate an idea for 
better methodology to us any month you like :)

> If we can find excuses to do those things, what differentiates us from
> the CLUG?

All we've done so far is said that we care enough to look at the Free 
Software world, to open up forums to contribute to it directly. Thanks 
for taking up the opportunity, and suggesting we go further.

> Instead, why don't we...
> 
> Consider Free alternatives to Ubuntu (gNewSense, Fedora, others?)

Please specify how Fedora is an advance on Ubuntu.

Want to do a gNewSense talk+demo for us soon?

> Help folks select and track-down decent hardware.

Yes, we could start an index of what hardware is open to Free, to offer 
guidance in purchase decisions. A very good idea :)

CLUG wiki is the best place for such a database, I'd say. I'm sure no 
one would object.

> Come up with a constitution, so that I'm no longer confused :^)

If you like; draft one up for us. Short & sweet, for discussion.

> [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.

Ok. We're better informed now. Thanks for that. Now you just have to 
convince helpers about how much daily we can easily care and act for 
improvements on the matter.

>    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 “technically better” is more important than
>     freedom."

Until reading this, I'd loosely believed Linux to be Free. Now that 
brand appears bogus to me for more than just its (un)ethical face. This 
helps explain the sub-optimal experience one gets as a 'Linux Community' 
memeber :-/

We should start preparing a workshop on the hurd. / Something else?

>    From Mark Shuttleworth, about Ubuntu:
>    http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/95
> 
>    "During the discussion, we re-affirmed the Ubuntu policy of including
>     proprietary drivers where these are required to enable essential
>     hardware functionality. [...] We have always shipped those, and
>     intend to continue to do so."

On the equipment I have, without 'SABDFL's input my user experience of 
GNU/* would be poorer and slower. Therefore I remain nonetheless 
grateful for it - a stable, efficient and 'cleaner' work platform.

- Looking forward to being shown a better O/S, once that can be done.

> Regards,
> 
> Tim

This content rightly continues the recent CLUG thread. I am just glad 
you have found it worthwhile to add to our local documentation somewhere 
Tim, and here in particular. Thanks again.

Cheers, Rik