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

[Rik Tindall]

Silk purse. Sow's ear.


In defence of Free Software
***************************


There's nothing pleasant about this, but here goes..


Pia Waugh wrote:

[perpetuating the giant lie]

Linux Australia                                     http://linux.org.au/

     "If you have any trouble sounding condescending, find a Unix user to
                    show you how it's done." - Scott Adams *


There is no "Linux" without GNU.

There is no "Linux" except a kernel.

There is no Free operating system except GNU. Kernels included. (BSD OT)

There is no independent "Linux" property except for marketing hype. 
(That kernel is GNU GPL'ed, + common internet).

For the purposes of this User Group, there is just GNU.

So thanks, and later Pia.

> <quote who="Rik Tindall"> 
>> 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".
> 
> I don't think that's true at all. Most people that come to the SLUG (Sydney
> LUG) are amazed and think it much better than they imagined. It includes
> basic news where everyone can share information or issues, then a general
> talk, then we all split into two groups, one for a specific technical talk
> and another more general talk, so something for everyone.

It might not be for you.. / Good for you folks. Sounds well organised, 
but your "LUG" has _nil_ bearing upon the single "LUG" that this 
post-noob got (anti-gnu) experience from. Maybe in ten years we'd be 
where yours is. Maybe even with your help. And maybe not. Let me tell 
you a story..

Last week our local LUG had its monthly meeting. c23 was a good
attendance, attracted by a rapid and technical Unix/"Linux" romp round
memory management, design, some utilities, and a brief history (quite
uncommon for us, and very good to see - it mentioned both GNU & the 
essential GCC - Tim & Nick missed it tho). But the trouble, too often, 
is the attitude that goes with 'our O/S'.

Ascertaining the level of his audience, the "LUG" speaker began by
asking who would put their hands up to:

'Hacking the kernel?' - One or two.

'Programming in Perl or Python?' - four or five.

'Programming in C? '- more than half the room - the clear majority.

'Use [OSS] applications or a Linux desktop?' - sheepishly looking past
my tentatively raised arm, I counted two or three. At which the person
in front of me drawled: "Can somebody find a place where they belong?"

Haw haw.

That guy left quite soon, presumably due to the speaker's halting,
mumbled, and slowish progress through his topic list.

* But I ask you, who wants to share anything around an attitude like 
that? (see Adams ref above) *

This nutshell explains why GLU/GNUz had to be formed, and 'difference
#1' noted to answer Tim's Subject line, in this post:
*GNUz/Freenix cares about new Freenix adopters, first and foremost.*

>> 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.

What follows is the standard sleight of hand, by which "Free Software" 
is attacked, for the last time on this list.

> I think the main difference between a LUG and a GNU/LUG is that the latter
> is political and the former is more about geeks just getting together for

In your area, maybe, but it's about ordinary _users_ here; and kicking 
back at the arrogant mystifiers who've dug away at Free Software for 
long enough, last.

> fun. I think that many people come to the community firstly from a technical
> perspective and it can take them years to understand the bigger story, the
> socio-economic impact of FLOSS on the world. I know it took me 3 years, I

That's why _they_ have got the "LUGs". Let us have singular GNU-space 
too, unmolested.

"FLOSS" is what the "Linux"/OSS branding liars have created to attack 
the 'GNU plaque' of "Free Software". Use that, and you will be attacked 
with equivalent venom.

> started using Linux in particular from a Windows background and in the very
> true words I heard once, "I came for the quality and stayed for the
> freedom". 

So what? So you arrived a politically naive geek. That can be changed, 
as you allude.

For those who "came for the freedom", the quality is highly problematic 
('help' is RTFM, but improving in docs. "Don't talk about the.. [FSF]").

> I think it is naive to create a place for people to come for the
> philosophy but not for the tech, when it is the tech community from which
> much of this springs. And the fact that many tech people use FLOSS for the
> tech and not for the philosophy isn't a bad thing, we are all part of a
> large and complex community with many different goals. Most of our community
> are involved in specific software projects (like GNOME, Apache, Moodle,
> whatever), many of us are involved in local UGs (LUGs, GNU/LUGs, PUGs,
> PyUGs, etc) and then there are people for which the politics and philosophy
> is everything, and that's great too.

So whereas we're geared to ordinary people/newcomers, offering very 
regular support, we do this for the love of the social qualities of the 
software (not the extreme love of tech). The politics is implicit, not 
overt. Contrast to the FSF-hostile "LUGs", and the and anti-GNU/GLU 
tenor thrust at us (here). The maligning tone I'm rebutting..

> I guess what I'm saying in a long-winded way is that being judgemental about
> what is the right and wrong way for our community is very much sitting on a
> high horse that doesn't help you, and unecessarily divides our community.

Wake up. Globally, and closer to home, it is very divided. Your ongoing 
attempts to subsume GNU/Freenix to a Unix-like brand (the no longer 
mentionable L?N?X), and to personally advance from that, are not welcome 
at all.

> Sharing our resources is really important so we can all do better. Software
> Freedom Day is a great example of our _entire_ community comming together
> based on our common values of software freedom, regardless of what they want
> to call their group.

This much is a total joke. An attitude of 'squash Software Freedom Day 
by ignoring it' is all you could say for our "LUG", and a lot of what I 
see in the developed world. So GLU did the work locally; yet you would 
still sink that.[1]

>> 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 does this mean?

tarball. software packaging system. underlies many an unGNUey O/S, 
metaphorically at least - the more 'windows-like' (commercial?) they 
are, the harder they get pushed.

>> 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.
> 
> What do you mean by GNU culture? The freedoms and values we've discussed I
> do find in mainstream FLOSS communities, including many LUGs.

Yep. LUGs are fun and quite On-Topic (though tending technically, and 
not philosophically, deep). "FLOSS" is loaded anti-GNU, however, and 
there are numerous such barbs - at iGnucious etc.

>> 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.
> 
> I disagree. I kind of like FLOSS because it makes the libre, the freedom
> part more obvious. Many people have become wrapped up with either "free
> software" or "open source software", so FOSS kind of just merges them,

(What's wrong with that? You've become twisted in not liking that.)

/ Exactly. That is the point; to create an equal right for those who 
like "free software" or "open source" - FOSS blends them evenly, whereas 
"FLOSS" reads like an OSS assertion that you can't say "free software" 
unless you include "libre". i.e. "FLOSS" is a direct and intentional 
attack upon the "Free Software" movement and name.[1]

Repeat: "libre" essentially does mean "open source", so why say it 
twice? - Only because you're wanting to break "Free Software" up. This 
is where the politics come in, and they are yours, and capitalistic, in 
this case.

It's no coincidence that the developing countries tend to like FOSS and 
the rich, imperialist technocrats are pushing "FLOSS" all over them. Puke.

> whereas FLOSS makes more obvious to us english speakers, for which "free" is
> so readily interpreted as cheap quality or no cost, the freedom bit, libre.

Now we do need to question your intelligence, in thinking that requires 
explaining here? We know that equation already. Negative thinking too.

We distinguish "Open Source" as a most important meaning of Free. Adding 
"Libre" to it in "FLOSS" is just a _false_ assertion that we cannot mean 
good "quality or no cost" when we say Free. And we need that freedom 
also - it's actually a/the? major point of difference.

>> 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?
> 
> That is funny coming from someone wanting to push GNU/LUGs instead of LUGs
> ;)

That would be 'GLUGs', that I am interested in - the "LUGs" can do what 
they like. The "instead of" is only what you are trying to impose here.

Yes. There we go.. Narrow-minded finger pointing from the "OSS" side. 
Just what we're fighting here - pure and negative assumption. The focus 
here is just one G(L)UG - this one. No-one's specified any others 
(except the IFSO & its constitution, which there's notable silence on).

Oh, I get it :)
You actually mean "GLUG" vs "LUG" - but it's just one char!

But you've misread: "a minority wishes to muddy the consumer waters by 
pushing ["FLOSS"] as much as possible" is what it said.

>> 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'm involved in many national and international groups, and FLOSS seems
> quite popular.

Maybe. "Quite", not "more". Sounds "political" too. But you have 
_betrayed_ the important groups:

"Software Freedom Day is a global, grassroots effort to educate the 
public about the virtues and availability of Free and Open Source 
Software [FOSS]" http://www.softwarefreedomday.org

"Ubuntu is and always will be completely free software" 
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/WhatIsUbuntu

"we are committed to not charging for Ubuntu.. we do not see free and 
open source software [FOSS] as either distinct or incompatible" 
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy

; and you need to stop destructively _pushing_ the divisive, aggressive, 
and oppressive minority view:

http://www.google.com/custom?q=FLOSS&sa=Google+Search
7,450,000

http://www.google.com/custom?q=FOSS&sa=Google+Search
9,100,000

I'll sum up with my major point.[1]

>> 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.
> 
> Rik, I think you have your heart in the right place here, but honestly who
> are you to tell someone else what they can and can't do? It goes against the
> very basis of our community and values, freedom. If Don wanted to use FLOSS
> then that is ok. 

Yep. Separately.

> In the same way if you want to have a GNU/LUG and someone
> else wants a LUG, that is also ok.

Yep. Separately.

> If someone wanted to start up a totally
> seperate SFD event with slightly different marketing, really that should be
> ok. In Australia we have around 20 teams last year, some of whom did geeky
> things, some of whom did picnics, some that focused on the AusUS FTA and
> some that focused on software freedom for pensioners. There is room for
> everyone :) There is no need for all this conflict.

No, there's not. So stop feeding it.

[1]. Whatever you're trying to edge into our future here, it does not 
change history, which is this:

Our GLUG/SFD team had been going a couple of years when we advertised 
our SFD06-building meeting. Don 'art of self-promotion' Gould rocked up 
with his WinXX laptop, and spontaneously wrote his company into an event 
business chart for 'us', pushing "FLOSS", hard, against our established 
FOSS usage, and expecting our team to find sponsors to pay him for 
printing his choice of SFD material, with his logo on it. Double-duh!!

I appealed to Don not to make that one term a point of confusion within 
our already-standing SFD publicity, as a means for moving forward 
together, and he refused. He chose to have a damaging argument about it 
instead. Trust has been lost.

Practically all things/people that fail me I'm prepared to a give a 
second chance (though not a third). "FLOSS" has thus become a very rare 
exception to that standard tolerance - purely from Don's aggressive 
abuse of it. But Pia, your ignorant backing of exploitative injustice 
has now deepened my understanding of the problem, and strengthened my 
resolve for dealing with it.

The "FLOSS" term was created, specifically or misguidedly, by "Open 
Source" hacks to attack the integrity of Free Software as a standalone 
term and movement. Your backing of the UserAgent=Windows+Thunderbird 
alien-to-GNU Don Gould, against an SFD team that preceded your own, has 
added conclusive explanation as to why "FLOSS" attacks. And that is 
because "Linux" is a byword for treachery. This goes right back to BSD 
user Ari Lemmke renaming 'Freeax' "Linux", and its author similarly 
forsaking integrity for the geek ego trip, adding every other gnu User 
who's piled on ever since.

Well, that's it for this Free Software project leader. I'll refer to the 
GNU O/S only from now on, and FOSS just if I have to. The rest? - brand 
propaganda to be shredded on sight.

'Difference #2' noted in answer to Tim's Subject line, in this post:
GLU is the only User Group (in Australasia?) ready with the Free truth.

> Anyway, I apologise for getting so involved considering this is a local
> discussion for NZ, but I saw the question about whether Australia had a
> GNU/LUG and just wanted to answer that query. After that I guess I've felt
> like Rik doesn't value the contributions of people like me who don't use the
> "right" terminology, hence my long response. There will be no more
> contribution to this discussion from me.

You can use what you like, wherever you like. But please, don't bring 
"Linux"/LOSS back here. It's completely OT, and worse, in my experience. 
Not interested, sorry.

And it's the (luser) "FLOSS" campaign to quash "FOSS" that's doing the 
terminological repression here, not me, thankyou.

For those dissatisfied with the quantity of Pia's argument, or her 
performance as an SFI representative, google Jeff Waugh.

e.g. http://www.twit.tv/FLOSS

"FLOSS Weekly"? - bad idea.

"We're not talking dentistry here"? - Give me a break!


Don't forget, "Linux" = treachery.


> Cheers,
> Pia

Cheers,
-- 
Rik