As the deadline for voting for your preferred name for our to convey to future members who we are, what we do, what we know, and organization-to-be nears, here are a few thoughts I've had on the matter.
You may notice on the voting page <http://www.rlug.org/wiki/NewGroupName> that I mentioned that perhaps emphasizing a focus on "Open" computing might not be a bad idea. There is an immediate counterpoint just below my comment from our very own Mark Ballew, but here is a more complete argument, to clarify what I want. The first thing people will see about our group is our name. (Our acronym may or may not be sensical, but it leads to our expanded name regardless.) I'd like to see this name reflect the desire (and often passion) many of us share for Open Source Software. In addition to allowing fellow Open Source advocates to find us more easily, this will also lend us creedence and weight in the community (should we decide to make our voice heard), since our objective is built-in to our name, rather than some arguably permanent policy. The most strongly voiced opposition to this argument is that it inherently excludes some so-called "closed" people. There are several reasons this is untrue. First, all large software vendors who like having customers have at least *pretended* to support some form of open source software. IBM ships Linux on its servers. Sun offers Linux options on its low-end servers, and is also considering opening Java's source further. Apple has released source code for many of its drivers and applications under the Apple Public License, an Open Source license approved by the OSI. Even Microsoft has joined in with its own "Shared Source" farce. Discussion and inclusion of these matters is certainly not taboo. Second, as this is our group, we can choose how vigorously we want to enforce the relevancy issue. So far, the Linux world has been much more inclusive than the closed source world. Linux magazines include ads for Microsoft software, and many companies who have next to nothing to do with Open Source Software are allowed to purchase booths at the Linux World Expos. Microsoft's booths, for example, offer hundreds of pages of documentation on *Unix* migration and interaction, but they don't hesitate to tell people that Linux isn't a real Unix OS. They also don't mention the several anti-GPL clauses they've placed in at least a half-dozen EULAs in the last few years. They have a few pamphlets on Shared Source in case anyone implies they are afraid of revealing their source. Nevertheless, they are recurring booth-holders. Third, the name (as I've voted) would include the words "Open Computing," which is an even less well-defined term than "Open Source" and in my opinion, merely involves anything regarding the myriad interactions of any computing device, whether PC, mainframe, cellphone, or human brain. Any computer, software, or firmware company, any ISP, any power company, even any contractor that's ever dug a trench for an OC-3 line, is instantly on-topic. Nevertheless, I believe having Open in our name is an important way to convey to future members who we are, what we do, what we know, and what we care about. I believe this is the spirit in which our statement of purpose was written, and it's certainly the direction I would like our organization to take. I only ask that you consider these points in your vote (in addition to how pronounceable our acronym may be). :) I don't claim mine is the only Right Answer(TM), only that my arguments are worth consideration. No opposing viewpoints will be flamed. All opinions are valid. :) Cheers! Tim Hammerquist _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
