[AUUG-Talk]: Re: AUUG: Time to pull the plug?

David Newall david.newall at auug.org.au
Fri Sep 15 16:25:00 EST 2006

Greg Black wrote:
> On 2006-09-15, David Newall wrote:
>> Greg Black wrote:
>>> I've been to many more AUUG conferences than Linux ones, but I
>>> have not seen anything to make me favour a Linux event over an
>>> AUUG one.
>> I guess you've never been to an LCA.  Think of the great AUUG 
>> conferences of the 80's and you'll be pretty close to the mark.
> It really gets up my nose when people say things like "I guess
> you've never ..." without the slightest evidence for their
> assumptions.  I *have* been to an LCA and I was specifically
> comparing that experience (unfavourably) with my AUUG conference
> experiences.

Yes, after I sent the message I realised that my experience (at LCA2004) 
might have been completely different to that experienced at any other 
LCA.  Of course it was then too late to recall my message.  It's not 
fair to say that what I said was without the slightest evidence; by your 
own admission you've been to Linux events, and I know you've been to 
AUUG conferences.  From my experience they share the same flavour, has 
more speakers, more streams, equally high quality, and more attendees.  
It's also cheaper.

>>> Early today, I was wondering if it was perhaps time to wind up
>>> AUUG as was suggested in the message that started this thread.
>>> Reading the above makes me sure that I want AUUG to continue and
>>> that I want to be a part of that.
>> I don't know what your particular objections are to Linux, you quite 
>> properly didn't say, but I have a very strong idea that, were you to 
>> utter them, they would sound very much like the objections that BSDers 
>> have to System V, or vice versa.
> Here we go again, making assumptions about what I would say
> based on nothing.  You don't know what my objections are to
> Linux, just as you don't know how much experience I have with
> using and studying Linux.
Correct, but...
>   (And, for the same reasons as before,
> I'm not going to outline those objections here, as this is not a
> suitable forum for Linux-bashing, whether it's well-informed or
> simple bigotry.)
This does sound exactly like a forefunner to old SysV versus BSD 
argument, which was exactly my point.

> I don't want to waste people's time with arguments here, but I
> felt the need to correct the two glaring errors in David's
> assumptions.
Not so glaring.

More information about the Talk mailing list