[Gllug] GLLUG ->Gnu Linux London Users Group

Nix nix at esperi.demon.co.uk
Wed Feb 20 08:56:24 UTC 2002


On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Dan Kolb uttered the following:
> Changing the group name is about as effectual as the Post Office changing 
> their name to Consignia, or Andersen Consulting changing their name to 
> Accenture. It's a name change, it doesn't change anything; merely irritates 
> people by wasting their time.

Agreed. Name changes are beloved of upper management and other creatures
who need reassurance that they're important. They're a waste of time for
truly useful projects; note how many times X has changed its name :)

> I, for example, will not use Debian GNU/Linux on my i386-type PCs precisely 
> for that reason. There have been too many people saying "Debian r0x! I7 i5 
> t3h 31337 l1nuX d1str0!".

That's a bloody stupid reason to rule out a distribution. How about
looking for the distro that serves your needs and choosing it, rather
than engaging in some sort of reverse popularity contest? That's a
tactic I'd expect of someone who was using Linux `to get away from
Microsoft', not because Windows is closed, constraining, or restrictive,
but merely because it is successful; the tactic of a ten-year-old (and I
fear I'm maligning some ten-year-olds).

>                           I have had someone saying (not on this list) that I 
> shouldn't use Slackware (my distro of choice) because 'the package manager is 
> shit, so you should use Debian'.

That's mildly OTT. Given a choice between Slackware-and-no-decent-
package-management and Debian (i.e., if Stow, epkg, Depot, STORE and
similar programs didn't exist) that argument would be more
reasonable. But they do, and it's perfectly possible to keep a system
running without apt (although it's a time sink).

>                                  That sort of fanaticism put me off using it, 

*sigh*

>                             Yes, I may be being arsey here, but I have a 

`Bloody stupid' is what I'd describe it as. You can always find idiots
and rabid frothing zealots supporting any system; indeed, I have
tendencies that way myself (although I try to add some *reason* to my
arguments ;) )

`There is no cause so right that fools will not follow it.'

> As for making efforts, please say what they are. Which GNU project are you 
> contributing to? Are you talking like Richard Stallman about Freedom, or are 
> you talking like Eric Raymond about cost-effectiveness in adopting Linux?

The former, in my case. I've used non-free systems and they're horrible
*precisely because of that non-freeness*. i.e., the lack of source
availability and amenability to modification/redistribution. It's damned
*useful* to be able to fix bugs or add the occasional feature and lob
the changes at all the sites you admin at the same time as contributing
them upstream.

> I admit that I am merely a user of Free software (and some non-free). 
> However, I do answer questions people have on software/hardware to the best 
> of my abilities (and am happy to learn new stuff by listening on various 
> lists, too), and I have contributed by helping give some talks about Linux. 
> This, IMO, is more worthy than merely changing a name.

I agree. Let's call ourselves the Greater London Unix and Unix-Clone
Pedants' Society with a Really Long Name to Delineate All the
Possibilities, or GLUUCPSRLNDAP. People will easily be able to remember
that.

>> Without the philosophy, GNU/Linux would not exist. Without Richard
>> stallman, the philosophy probably wouldn't exist. Without copyleft, Linux
> 
> Without RMS, the philosophy as *he* has it wouldn't exist. That's not to say 
> that there wouldn't be any free software. The *BSDs are quite happily free 
> without GNU/GPL. If GNU userland didn't exist, people would have taken the 
> BSD userland

The BSD C compiler and toolchain, to name but a part, wouldn't have been
usable (AT&T copyrights). They'd have had to take lcc and extend it (or
write a new compiler from scratch), and write their own assembler &c
from scratch. And that would have been a *long* job (not least because
lcc, while a wonderful example of literate programming in action, isn't
exactly amenable to constant modification in the way that more
conventional programs are ;) )

I expect the BSDs would have been going by now, but if they'd had to
start by writing a toolchain back in '92 or thereabouts, I doubt that
they'd have got something reasonably useful before '96.

<opinion type=flameworthy>

There might be free software, but corporate entities would always have
been hiving off it, taking the high points and keeping them for their
own good, then turning them against us. The more GPLed code there is,
the less likely that becomes; and a good thing too.

</opinion>

>> will probably be proprietary and not be as practical as you would like. You
> 
> Bollocks. Linus started it for fun because he didn't like Minix. He released 
> the source code so people could play with it. Without the GPL, it'd have been 
> under a 'do what you like, but don't use it commercially' licence, which is 
> what it originally had (IIRC).

Er, note that he *did* change license, and it wasn't because he was
forced by some kind of slavering RMS beast. (Which beast bears no
obvious resemblance to RMS himself, I have to say.)

>> are reaping th practical rewards of the GNU philosophy. Please support it.
> 
> Yes, folks. Support GNU. As part of their licence, they have their mailing 
> address. Send them a cheque to show your appreciation. Buy a tape or CD of 
> all their source code.

That's one way. Or write code or documentation, for GNU projects that
need it.

-- 
`The classical music makes him feel tranquil and loved so he performs
 regularly. What a life for a guy. He gets to make love every day with
 an artificial cow.'

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug




More information about the GLLUG mailing list