On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Paul Sack wrote: > Is it *really* necessary to change the SIG's name to SIGFree? This is > making it more difficult, not less difficult, for newbies to find out > about this group's existence.
I completely agree. I agree enough to come out of my months-long read-only mode (commercial mail-server changed it's MX name, which bounced my SIGLinux posts.) This irritated me enough to actually unsub & resub. > According to the SIGFree web page: > The purpose of the change is to avoid the idea that a GNU/Linux system > is called a Linux system. Umm. I have 15 or 20 Linux systems in my house. I don't have ANY freakin GNU/Linux boxen. Somebody has been eating acid with Stallman again. > If you have to be a pedant, then let's call it SigGNULinux or SigLinux. > (The operating system is not called ``free'' either.) I do know one and only one person who insists on calling it GNU/Linux. Pedant is vary accurate. > P.S. I talked offline to two other list members. Both also thought this > new name is idiotic. So the only remaining question is "Who the hell DID think it was a good idea? and Why did they think bouncing it off the list was unnecessary?" _______________________________________________ Sigfree mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.utacm.org/mailman/listinfo/sigfree
