[UCLA-LUG] The squeaky LUG nuts get the grease

[FASHEH,MARK JAMES]

Of course, we will do all that we can to make sure that linux
users are treated fairly at UCLA,.  The distinction that I make here
is this: The STC policy does not pick out linux as its target.  The policy
picks out people who want static IP's (and the ability to run network
services), and tells them that the STC doesn't want this.  Linux users can
use DHCP, and they are not being told not to run samba either.  Therefore
I don't believe that the STC's actions are a sort of 'linux
discrimination'.  As for the people in the LUG who feel strongly about
computers, and computing freedom (this includes myself), this is great,
but we need to understand that this sort of political action needs to be
organized by a seperate club devoted to that sort of thing (perhaps the
libertarian club?). The LUG's purpose is to promote the use of linux at
UCLA.  We can do this most effectively when working *with* the school, and
improving our image on campus.  The STC's policy on static IP's does
nothing to slow us down in terms of linux promotion.  As Josh pointed
out, DHCP is easy to setup on a linux box, and if people want/need certain
services, then they can get an account on Kuato.  At the moment, I think
the LUG leaves a rather bad taste in some peoples mouths, and I'd like to
see that change -- our future as a campus group might depend on it.
	--Mark


------------
Mark James Fasheh
mfasheh@ucla.edu

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, tchow wrote:

> mark has some good points here.  regardless of my own opinions towards STC and
> UCLA, lug should not be affiliated w/ any anti-STC or anti-ucla sentiments.
> but i do believe if linux users are being discriminated against we should
> diplomatically gather together and push fairness among all computer users.
> ucla lug has many individuals who are passionate about computers and general
> fairness among students and computer users.  i feel that these individuals are
> valuable for assisting ucla in establishing/enforcing fair rules.
> 
> getting these individuals to communicate without intervention from LUG is a
> different story...
> tchow
> "FASHEH,MARK JAMES" wrote:
> 
> > Absolutely.  A protagonistic attidute towards the STC will get us nowhere.
> > Also, I'm not sure if the LUG is the proper organization to deal with
> > this.  If people from the LUG want to meet with the Admins, great.  I
> > don't feel though that they should be representing the LUG at those
> > meetings.  There are several reasons why I say that.  1) Not everyone in
> > the LUG feels the same way about their policies, or is even affected by
> > them.  A significantly large number of people in fact, that I don't
> > believe a LUG presence at one of these meetings would be representative of
> > the groups attitude towards this.  2)  We are a linux users group, not a
> > policy lobbying group (whatever that means).  I don't think that this sort
> > of action lies within our defined purpose.  3)  This is not a linux only
> > rule.  Yes, lots of linux users would like static IP's, but I'm sure alot
> > of NT, Solaris, etc. people want one too.  People who want to take action
> > towards the STC should do it on behalf of all these people, and not the
> > LUG.  Anyways, all this is of course, IMHO, but I really feel that our
> > group has been taking a protagonistic attitude towards much of UCLA,
> > without realizing that we are (like it or not) first, and foremost, a part
> > of the UCLA community.  (Who do you think gives us our resources?).
> >         --Mark
> >
> > ------------
> > Mark James Fasheh
> > mfasheh@ucla.edu
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> UCLALUG Linux mailing list - Linux@linux.ucla.edu
> http://linux.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux
> 
>