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

[Rik Tindall]

Hi Pia!

Great to have you dropping by. :) And "Hi!" to gJeff please.

It seems we have gathered sufficient GNU/Linux intelligence to do some 
real work here.

Pia Waugh wrote:
> 
> <quote who="Timothy Musson">
> 
>>> 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.
>> Hmmm! We might be the only "LUG" this side of India that includes GNU in
>> its name, but are we really the only group with a Free Software slant?
>> (I don't know. I'd be surprised/sad if we are though.)
> 
> Just to clarify (and I've been following this thread with interest) there
> are no major FSF groups in Australia, however there are some GNU/LUGs that
> usually consist of one or two people floating about. Having said that I feel
> there is a very strong FLOSS community and a strong representation of Free
> Software philosophy in Australia throughout the community, regardless of the
> names used to group those communities. I think that the assumption that a
> "LUG" doesn't care about FLOSS values beyond a Linux kernel is just a bit
> silly :) I tend to try to focus on the values we all have in common rather
> than looking for the differences that divide us.

The longer we are in this software game the more the rough edges get 
smoothed, in the way Pia points out. Rubbing shoulders with old Unix 
hands can help invert the superficial perception that project titles 
like "GNU", "Linux", "BSD" and "OSS" are objectively divided, to see 
that the underlying culture has a greater unity than appearance 
sometimes indicates. The unity is the big strength, the thing to work 
with and enhance, I agree. The only question is 'How?' Because residing 
in fork heaven does have cultural implications, so important that this 
probably forms our sharpest identifier: "unity, and strength, in 
diversity". Any *nix sub-group having to expend energy to justify its 
right to express the latter noun is just *wrong*. Which is why we have a 
persistent GLU/GNUz, in proving that point.

- We are all opponents of (computing) monoculture, first and foremost. *

Now the population curve would place most comp.users in front of a 
virtual desktop made by a) WinXX, or b) *nix, but in both cases a 
productised environment - as cognicised (tho Dictionary doesn't like). 
Over time, brand "Linux" is more and more conforming to that market 
trend, successfully. Which undermines the point made above and explains 
why occasional newcomers, attracted from whatever liberal non-programmer 
background by GNU/*, face such a shock of cold water when reaching a "LUG".

N.B. If they don't state "GNU/LUG" in their name, then they are 
un/willingly rejecting what RMS has explicitly recommended - for honesty 
and social codebase value - and so they are _not_ GNU/LUGs but "LUGs" 
(contrarily). That much is cut and dried.

But you're right, if one sticks around LUGs long enough, one can see the 
GNU goodness seeping up through the floorboard cracks - despite the 
market drifters / AT&T backsliders dousing from their buckets of tar :)

What is the language of market drift within the "LUGs"? - It is "Unix" 
and it is "Linux". Whereas just a few of us, consciously and 
determinedly, are wanting - specifically - Not-Unix (here). We remember 
the "Unix Wars" too, but our solution differs from yours in not 
reverting to the monoculture of a market brand like "Linux" - the new 
"Unix" (as it is falsely and most hungrily asserted).

I can't tell you how angry I am at having to battle this unexpected and 
suffocating layer, to get at the GNU culture I expected to be mainstream 
in "Linux" life.

So I call it pure hypocrisy to say there's no problem recognising GNU. 
The strongest cultural element I have experienced in my "LUG" is that 
denying GNU, to operate "Linux" as generic "Unix" (and retain Unix's 
faults - hence the long-static user stats) but without the courage of 
stating that through nomenclature etc. "Linux"/OSS branding has become - 
perhaps unwittingly - the potential strangulation of GNU, as far as I 
can tell (while acknowledging the contradictory tension that "Linux" 
extends GNU, and vice versa). Which is why Tim had to raise the point of 
the market drift affecting our favorite kernel and FOSS distributions.

> BTW, I certainly am focused on the freedom, the libre aspect of FLOSS. We
> just haven't got around yet to changing the name of Linux Australia to
> something else (although many people agree this would be a good idea to show
> it is about more that a kernel) and we have already started this discussion
> and process. I highly doubt we would establish ourselves as FSF Australia
> however, FLOSS Australia, FOSS Australia, or something else entirely is all
> on the cards.

That's both good and problematic to hear. Clearly the questions of 
identity await resolution at your, much higher, "Linux" end too. 
Interraction between grassroots (\flaxroots in NZ) and Australasian 
centre rewards both. I happily offer 2 cents worth towards your final 
position. :)

There are just a few, but specific determinants as to which 
"FOSS"/"FLOSS" term we should most frequently. These are, imho, the most 
important:

a) "FOSS" is an abbreviation of "FLOSS", and both are legitimate usages 
for much the same thing - see * above.

b) Most websites, organisations, and F/LOSS projects in our field use 
the catchier, tighter, and shorter acronym "FOSS", for whatever 
additional reason/s.

c) The choice we face is political, where a minority wishes to muddy the 
consumer waters by pushing the longer acronym as much as possible;  why?

d) The answer to c) is for extending assertion of business values over 
community values, imho, by delimiting "Free" to its libre sense.

e) Essentially d) is to remove the freedom of cost-freedom.

0) The freedom to promote "FOSS" - along with the majority that have 
already so decided to do - is absolutely implicit in FLOSS libre, and 
many will fight "FLOSS" marketing, in favour of "FOSS", to the hilt. - 
*For the sake of simpler marketing!* and more.

I am very glad that both Pia Waugh and Don Gould are reading this, 
because it finalises a gross conflict over "FOSS"/"FLOSS" that damaged 
SFD06 in our locale and should not be repeated, please.

Simply put, Don - then new to our "LUG", and raw to SFD - was asked only 
one thing by way of specific contribution to our SFD Team; and that was 
to please not muddy the consumer waters by adding "FLOSS" into two 
years' local SFD/FOSS promotional work, in his support of us. A simple 
enough request; and yet this was precisely, and singularly, the argument 
he rose in significantly undermining SFD/Christchurch.

Please put this debate to rest, as soon as is reasonably possible.

> I think all great outreach and community projects trying to change the world
> need a strong set of underlying values with a pinch of practicality. 

Agreed. Let's find that uncommon essence, of rarified common good.

> Cheers,
> Pia

Regards,
-- 
Rik