Re: [Linux-aus] Can Linux Australia survive?

[Horms <horms@verge.net.au>]

On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:54:46PM +1000, Lorn Potter wrote:
> Horms wrote:
> >No, that is not the point, which is likely why you will never be able
> >to
> >let this one go. The point is, does LA assising hosting LCA in NZ
> >contrivine its mantra to help the Australian Linux community. If you
> >can
> >argue that it does, then you have a point. But I think that it is
> >readily apparent that an LCA in NZ, an LCA whose organisation is well
> >underway and shows no signs of being other than a success, will
> >benifit
> >not only the New Zealand Linux community, but the Australian one too.
> >Directly
> >through Australians attending the conference, and indirectly through
> >fostering greater interest in Linux in the region.
>
> *sigh*.
> The thing is taking place in New Zealand, correct? New Zealand and
> Australia are not the same country, correct? Thus - LCA is incorrect.
>
> It utterly amazing that no one seems to be able to admit this simple
> truth.

I think this has been convered to death, multiple times.
Yes, its a bit odd that the A stands for Australia and
the conference is being held in NZ. But that doesn't 
affect the validity of having the conference in New Zealand.

If we want to get down and dirty about names,
I did her some talk that the A could be Australiasia in
this case. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that
the acronym of a conference name has been modified as the
conference ended up with a wider scope than was originally
intinded. ALS anyone? Nor would it be the first time
the name of this conference has been changed either,
many people regard CALU in Meblourne as the first LCA.
And LCA itself is, as I understand, an abreviation of
Linux.Conf.Au, the name and domain of the second LCA in Sydney.
In any case, its just a name.

--
Horms