On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 07:38:50PM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > <quote who="Steven Hanley"> > > If you are not changing linux.conf.au and it is still basically the kick > > arse technical conference it always has been, why is there a need to > > change the name? > Because the name is, put possibly too bluntly, wrong. It doesn't represent > what the conference actually is. It was "wrong" when it was held in Dunedin, too -- but that's just an excuse to make some new jokes, then get on with hacking. Hacking's about taking your normal mindset and expanding it; people come because they like Linux, but they leave thinking about DIY self-replicating hardware, or amateur rocketry and sattelites, or better ways of interacting in groups, or whatever. And that's great and excellent, but there's no need to change the name to achieve that: we already do. > We're all very comfortable with "Linux" being roughly equivalent to "Open > Source". But for a pretty substantial proportion of the FLOSS world, it's an > unfortunate conflation. Not insurmountable (for most), but unfortunate. Greg Lehey wanted to give a talk at linux.conf.au 2002. We said "it's got to be something to do with Linux." He said "Fine, I'll call it `Why BSD is better than Linux'". We said "Ha! You're scheduled for Thursday". Why change the name when you can have fun with it instead? Cheers, aj -- What's in a name? A Linux conference by another name would still smell of geek.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature