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

[Rik Tindall]

It's a great privilege to have Jim and his years of Unix experience on 
our list. Although I've (no doubt too hastily) come to often different 
conclusions, Jim's concise and accurate purviews of the facts are always 
invaluable. 'Reality check', I think its called.

And then there's the fact that this peculiar list dialogue has only been 
born because of Jim's supportive commitment to software democracy.

So there's a new term, coined especially for GNUz, in Jim's special 
honour: "For an FSANZ vocally dedicated to Software Democracy."

Jim Cheetham wrote:
> Good one Rik. Alienation will help.
> 
> On 20/03/07, Rik Tindall <ask@infohelp.co.nz> wrote:
>> Don't forget, "Linux" = treachery.
> 
> In that case, forget about GNU/Linux, and just promote GNU. Because if
> you persist in attacking people and groups with your tarbrush of
> hostile words like that, the "Linux" people will surely be driven
> away.

That's sort of been the point. To cut out a corner amidst powerful Linux 
monoculture by driving it away. Against great opposition :)

> Why not put your energies into demonstrating that it's possible to
> make a useful system using only GNU project software (that means
> excluding anything with compatible licenses - that means excluding GPL
> licensed software that is not part of the GNU project. Guess what?
> That means no X server).

0. "Don't reinvent the wheel", they say (the Linux kernel is suitable).

1. It's 'extreme' beyond purpose. An economic pragmatist (cousin to the 
programmer) can argue that the GNU GPL is a code component as practical 
as any other, so that anything licensed 'GNU' (GPL) is good enough for 
us. That would be the software authors' intent, indubitably. Now we're 
speaking of a much bigger range of titles - a full terminal library 
environment.

> http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/

"5,308 packages indexed"? - the list may be incomplete. e.g. KDE is 
missing, because of dual-licensing?  KDE is still GPL-available, iirc. 
And that page is GFDL - not to be forgotten, with Wikipedia itself 
amongst its many credits.

> It seems to me that the goal of GNU, to make a replacement for Unix,
> has basically ceased. They have a meritocratic monopoly on the core
> building blocks - it's not broken, so no-one sees the need to fix it
> (read up on how the GNU C Compiler became the GNU Compiler Collection,
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GNU_C_Compiler_Internals
> BTW). But they really seem to have stopped growing in other
> directions.

Hmmm.. I think this is what Tim's getting at really, that anti-DRM, bad 
Vista, etc. etc. is now the higher FSF purpose, from an O/S bedrock. 
Formalising ourselves gives a basis for engaging on all those terms. But 
GPLv3 is probably the main issue we are squaring up for; a healthy 
process is required.

> So, 15 years ago GNU was "it" in the Free Software field. Now they are
> not. They occupy an historically important, almost critical role in
> today's Free Software infrastructure. In the guise of FSF they hold
> stewardship over the GPL. But they are *not* delievering on their
> original promise, and others have had to step up and fill the gap. And
> that gap is widening every day.

I'd say that the x86 boom created an opportunity that Linus et. al. 
filled, imitative of Gates, in running away with the GNU initiative. But 
the important thing is that _someone_ delivered for freenix, and because 
sharing is more important than brands.

So that, much as it seems fuddy-duddy to remind ourselves what made 
Linux possible, and 'do worship' to the specific mantra/principles, this 
is actually about protecting ourselves from a 'futurist' orientation to 
fiction - of unending progress and growth. Our primary task now is to 
(re)cohere the Free and Open Source Software movements, to balance 
attenuated segments, in consolidation. ("FOSS" attracts as signifier of 
  such a truce.)

Programmers are great at the minutiae of code, and we're forever 
grateful for that, but it's definitely worth remembering that RMS 
provided more than just good programs for us. Something has succeeded in 
making Linux famous, after all, and it's a whole lot more than just 
Linus's marvelous kernel. The distributed coherence in itself is worth 
studying, extending, and knowing well.

> GNU's Not Unix, and at this rate they never will be. What is GNU? A
> kernel, a shell, Emacs, and the tools to build more.

Glad to have the contrary case to an A/NZ FSF branch spelled out so 
clearly. Can't see any option but to persevere with it, nonetheless.

Cheers
-- 
Rik