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

[Nathan Bailey <Nathan.Bailey@its.monash.edu>]

Personally, I think the three groups each have value:
	* AUUG covers all unices; I can hardly see the *BSD people wanting
	  to be part of LA.
	* 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 (I'm not sure if there is a *BSD on the
	  desktop movement?)
	* 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.

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 ..."

And, of course, doing national events like linux.conf.au :-)

N

"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@lemis.com> wrote:
>* LA is strongly opposed to proprietary software.  AUUG covers both
>  free and proprietary software.
>>
>> Yes, but having two OSS groups working against each other is
>> bad. This is also the case for say LA and LUGs.