read the original post
there was no proposal for changing CLUG's name or list discussion content
Nick Rout wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:50:31 +1200
Jim Cheetham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
InfoHelp wrote:
What name do you prefer for our GLUG:
a) Canterbury GNU/Linux Users Group (CGLUG)
b) GNU/Linux Users Group of Waitaha/Canterbury (GLUGOWC)
c) Other (please specify) _______________________________
<IMHO>
Other - I'm not strongly convinced that "GNU/Linux"[1] is actually the
right thing to say. Changing the name of the group simply to get listed
on a page doesn't sound like a very useful thing to me.
Perhaps RMS should ask Linus to make the kernel an FSF GNU project
officially? Then the confusion would end.
Actually, most of what the list discusses is not Linux. The list
discusses general unix/posix environemnt questions (i.e. how do I use
"this command"), distribution-specific questions (In RedHat, how do I
...) and GUI things (in KDE, how do I ...). Yes, we do talk about
building kernel modules, that's the only real "Linux" specific stuff we
seem to do.
If the name became "GNU/Linux Users Group" we'd still spend our time
discussing unix/posix environments and specific distributions, only now
"half" the GUI questions would be on topic (GNOME) as well as the module
stuff. Big hairy deal.
</IMHO>
well said Jim, the group works well for its intended purpose(s) at
present. as it does not appear to be broken, why fix it? (Ok there are
some things people would like, more meetings, whatever, but changing the
name does not appear to fix those things, neither does being politically
correct about the name (whether your politics are FSF or Tangata Whenua))
-jim
--
InfoHelp Services http://www.infohelp.co.nz/linux.html i686 2.4.20-8
RedHat Linux 9.0 - Gnome 2.2.0 - OpenOffice 1.0.2 - Mozilla Mail 1.2.1
[just SuSE firewall to setup & mail archive to transfer... new system]
