OT PUGLUG Debate (Was: Re: [PLUG] GNU Hurd)

Tyler F. Creelan creelan at engr.orst.edu
Sun Jul 21 01:20:47 UTC 2002


I have to agree with Jeme in many ways on this -- it wouldn't hurt to
expand PLUG's charter to more accurately reflect what it's all about.

No doubt a lot of PLUGGers express some disdain for the ideological side
of free software, and resent efforts to expand names to include "GNU". But
if you think about it, describing your operating system just as "Linux"
isn't very accurate: someone could swap a FreeBSD kernel into my operating
system and I probably wouldn't notice the difference. The tools with which
I interact; gcc, bash, vim, emacs, tar, gzip, have little to do with Linux.

Sure, not all, not most, and perhaps even not the most important aspects
of a free software system are GNU tools, but such a system generally
meets the goals of the GNU project. Just like back in the day
computers used to be called IBM-clones without actually being IBM, I call
my system Debian GNU/Linux because it was essentially inspired by the GNU
project.

Anyway, here's one vote for PUGLUG aka PLUG, or at least expanding the
group description. :)

Tyler

On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Matt Alexander wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Russell Evans wrote:
> >
> > > Don't bow to the common interest, go with the vision, build it and they will
> > > come! I can see it now; the PUGLUG: Portland Unix-GNU-Linux User's Group. The
> > > truely involved will flock to it, the stoggie old school will stay with PLUG.
> > > You will have a group that will be so much better.
> > >
> > > I think you definitily need to start it. You should only post to the PUGLUG to
> > > encougage people to move over. Is there a way to keep people from forwarding
> > > your posts to PUGLUG, to the plug list? We don't want anyone undermining the
> > > vision.
> >
> > Now, what you are suggesting is more of a fork which should be avoided if
> > at all possible. This group is, by and large, philosophically allied and
> > allied in terms of interests. Forking would create uneccesary
> > fragmentation and I don't think that is what Jeme was suggesting. He was
> > suggesting that PLUG's mandate could be explicitely expanded.
>
> I interpreted Russell's post as a clever way to no longer have to deal
> with Jeme.  ;-)
> ~M
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>






More information about the PLUG mailing list