[AUUG-Talk]: Re: The future of AUUG

Andrew McRae amcrae at employees.org
Fri Oct 19 17:27:47 EST 2007

On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 16:28 +0930, David Lloyd wrote:
> Well,
> Andrew McRae wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 15:52 +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 15:43 +1000, Conrad Parker wrote:
> >>> On 19/10/2007, Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Would Marshall's talk on the
> >>>> history of FreeBSD have made it into an LA conference programme?
> >>> sure, that's well within the scope of LCA.
> >> That's refreshing - and encouraging.
> >>
> >> Steve spoke of "diehards" on both sides. What reasons would LA have for
> >> not wanting a merger with AUUG?
> > 
> > AUUG's constituency is wider and more inclusive than LA. AUUG by
> > tradition and by article aims at any Unix or Open System, e.g AIX or
> > Solaris (prior to any GPL3 licensing of Solaris), whereas LA
> > excludes non-GPL systems.
> The above statement is, at best, ill-informed.

Hmmm... which bit is ill-informed? Specifically, I
guess I should have said non-FOSS systems, but beyond that,
I would stand by what I said.

> > For instance, no presentation can be given at LCA about anything that
> > isn't available under an Open Source licence (maybe even under a GPL
> > licence, not sure about that). That effectively means anybody who
> > wants to talk about something in a non-GPL kernel (or perhaps
> > a non Open Source kernel), cannot do it at LCA.
> At least that statment is relatively true.

Thanks :-)

> > Of course, now that we're a few years down the track, the spotty
> > teenager next door has grown up and runs a much bigger shop than
> > we do, so why should he bother with the old farts? :-)
> > The inclusivity _was_ important, but is it any more?
> > Not to him, it seems...
> AUUG, on the other hand, has maintained, rightly or wrongly, a 
> perception that it is the elder, the correct, and that BSD and the other 
> open system are better than Linux. I won't argue about the correctness 
> of "BSD/Unix (with a big U)" vs "Linux" but I'm happy to argue that AUUG 
> accidentally appeared to be condescending in this debate.

I don't think AUUG has maintained that - perceptions are
the big issue here; some members of AUUG may have been
condescending, but on the whole I thought AUUG tried
hard to be inclusive. In some ways the perception was
reinforced by LA wanting to clearly differentiate itself.

> > I think that LCA _could_ (if they really wanted) become
> > more inclusive, and this could potentially mean that some
> > convergence did occur. I am not sure they really care, since their
> > own world is big enough.
> Actually, LCA is a conference...not an organisation. LA is the 
> organisation. Could you clarify what you're trying to compare here?

OK - in some ways LCA has become an entity in its own right,
so I guess I was expressing the fact that the major conference
representing Linux in Australia _could_ have become
more inclusive.

> > It reminds me of Americans, and the rest of the world. Most
> > yanks don't care what's out there, because their own country
> > is big enough, and to a large extent that is true. However,
> > for the longer term health of _everyone_ in the world, it would
> > help a lot for them to get educated about having a world view,
> > because everyone would then benefit (even themselves).
> To be frank, I find that the tone of your e-mail and the way you've 
> expressed yourself rather amusing. I wouldn't call it diplomatic; I 
> don't think it's diplomacy you're trying to express (if you are, then 
> I've missed it).

sigh... it's a metaphor, and I didn't think I would
have to explain it. If it doesn't communicate to you an idea
of what I am trying to say, in terms of a perception of
exclusivity and lack of interest outside of a narrow world,
then I can perhaps explain it a little further if you want.
This is an AUUG list, and I wasn't trying to be diplomatic (I mean,
who am I being diplomatic to??).

In some ways (again, this is a metaphor) I've always thought that this
so-called `debate' between AUUG/LA has always been a case of `People's
Front of Judea' vs `People's Judean Front'.

More information about the Talk mailing list