Merging Linux Australia and AUUG: [Linux-aus] Nomination

Leon Brooks leon at
Mon Jan 5 10:02:01 UTC 2004

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:15, Nathan Bailey wrote:
> 	* AUUG covers all unices; I can hardly see the *BSD people wanting
> 	  to be part of LA.

PLUG has *BSD users in its membership; I'd be surprised if LA doesn't as 

> 	* LA is Linux-focused.  Linux is a market of its own.


> 	Within 
> 	  the Unix-space, yes, but (for example) much more focused on
> 	  competing with MS on the desktop or SMEs than Unix(tm) is,
> 	  and possibly *BSD is

No. Linux is a poster child. Linux is the rallying point. Linux is the 
name you wave under manufacturer's noses in order to get them to write 
drivers for ABM (Anybody But Microsoft). Linux is the name you drop 
before suppliers in order to make them really try. If the other Unices 
aren't competing against Microsoft, I must be hallucinating.

> 	  (I'm not sure if there is a *BSD on the desktop movement?)

Them's fartin' words, straynja! (-:

Very few of the burgeoning range of Linux packages won't run on *BSD 
modulo a recompile.

> 	* LUGs provide state/region-based support/services.  Some newbies
> 	  are already intimidated by the scale/knowledge of LUGs, so having
> 	  only one national organisation is unlikely to help them get their
> 	  feet wet.

Not sure about this one, won't agree or disagree.

> I see LA's role as being strategic at the national level, playing a
> facilitating role with state/region-based LUGs (to avoid duplication
> of resources and to share knowledge/experience) and to be a voice for
> Linux in the government/corporate sector (i.e. "Pia Smith (President
> of Linux Australia) said ..."

I would strongly argue that LA is one of the few large-scope FOSS 
organisations seriously interested in representing and dealing with 
groups *other* than gummint/corporate.

> "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog at> wrote:
>> * LA is strongly opposed to proprietary software.  AUUG covers both
>>  free and proprietary software.

In theory, LA is not anti-proprietary, we are neutral toward proprietary 
software. LA is pro-Free/Libre (with a fallback to pro-Open) but that 
doesn't necessarily imply tall-poppying proprietary software. It does 
involve working against groups actively working against Libre/Open 
software, which a numerically small but financially and legally vocal 
minority of proprietory software vendors do.

>>> Yes, but having two OSS groups working against each other is
>>> bad. This is also the case for say LA and LUGs.

Agree. But which established Linux consultant is short of work these 
days? There's plenty of flag-planting yet do do, and if there is any 
conflict remaining when the dust settles from that, LA and AUUG and 
whoever can sit down together (as we have in diverse ways and at 
various times already) and forge a happy middle ground, or merge, or 

Cheers; Leon

--     Modern tools; traditional dedication       Committee Member, Perth Linux User Group            Committee Member, Linux Professionals WA            Committee Member, Linux Australia

More information about the linux-aus mailing list