[SGVLUG] September Meeting

[David Lawyer]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:08:22AM -0700, serross at ix.netcom.com wrote:
> I've got to agree with Dustin. We are all involved in "computing"
> and we should want to know what the idustry is doing and what
> direction it's going. Networks and desktops are not all Linux, the
> lion share of servers and desktops are from Bill Gates and yes they
> have done some good things (not many). Unless you live in a black
> box, your going to be exposed to other things - keep an open mind. I
> think we should look to having a MS rep talk - they do have an
> excelent speaker at the Santa Monica office. Another area is
> security - like Network Associates and others. Hardware venders (we
> all do use them).  Maybe you don't use some things but that doesn't
> mean you should stick your head in the sand.

I agree that we need to hear the other side too.  But we need to do
that after understanding the situation.  There are a lot of newcomers
to Linux and also people who pay little or no attention to the
political problems of copyrights and patents.  So these people can be
easily misled.  And it's not fair to them to expose them to only one
point of view and neglect much of the background and facts of the
situation.

One thing that is needed is to point out the severe problems Linux has
with win-hardware on the desktop that doesn't work right (if at all)
under Linux.  I believe in being very honest about the market share of
Linux (although we don't really know what it is on the desktop).  So I
couldn't agree with the hype that the other member of the sgvlug
publicity committee wanted to pass out as publicity.

But back to the topic.  I was talking not about what other OSs do and
the hardware they support but about the political problems of
copyrights and patents.  I was also concerned about speakers being two
faced: Omitting statements critical of Linux that they've made
elsewhere.  I think this may be the case with the speaker on Solaris.
He may not mention the support of Solaris for patents that have the
potential to destroy Linux.

> 
> Stephen
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Dustin <laurence at alice.caltech.edu>
> Sent: Jul 23, 2005 12:00 PM To: "SGVLUG Discussion List."
> <sgvlug at sgvlug.net> Subject: Re: [SGVLUG] September Meeting
> 
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, David Lawyer wrote:
> 
> > Well, I think it wrong for sgvlug to have any presentations that
> > are not pro free software (pro GPL plus).
> 
> I don't know if it will surprise anyone, but I entirely disagree
> with this.  It's very worthwhile to know what people are doing and
> saying, whether we agree with them or not.  I'd be happy to have a
> Microsoft rep.  give us a talk--not because I expect to agree with
> him, but because I want to know what they're saying this month.  I'd
> even consider a SCO talk, of all things.  We're big boys, we can
> make up our own minds without needing to censor the talk schedule to
> avoid leading the sheep astray with incorrect thoughts.


> 
> > I guess that it's too late to change this for the Solaris
> > presentation but something to keep in mind for the future.
> 
> Why should it be changed at all?  It is bad manners and also bad
> strategy to make it a confrontational forum.  We should be quite
> happy to have Matt Ingenthron (sp?) tell us about Solaris--first,
> the technical side of things should be interesting regardless of
> politics, and I will be happy to hear about the code.  Second, it's
> always a terrible idea not to know what others did right so you can
> make sure you're up to snuff.  Second, we can always discuss the
> politics later.
> 
> It isn't necessary to turn a presentation into a debate--we can do
> that afterwards at BC. :-)  Or on the relevant mailing lists....
> 
> > The statement above re GPL is intended to be ironic.  But I think
> > that if J.S.  made a presentation to a Linux group he would avoid
> > saying some of the things he's said in the past, like his support
> > of software patents.  So if we have him speak here (fat chance) I
> > would ask that we give someone equal time to remind him of his
> > anti-Linux statements.
> 
> First--Hershel schedules for UUASC, not us, so the talk I suggested
> wouldn't be for a LUG.  Second--to be brutally frank, Schwartz is a
> lot more likely to give a talk to UUASC than to us anyway.
> Third--everything I said above.  If he did talk here and was willing
> to do a live debate, that would be great--I'd immediately want to
> invite a RedHat rep and make it a real red-meat event, and I like a
> good prizefight as much as the next guy.  But it is terrible manners
> to assume that he must do that to talk at all, and also bad strategy
> (to the extent that anyone cares about "strategy").  To paraphrase
> Sun Tsu: "If you know only yourself your chances are fifty-fifty.
> If you know yourself and your enemy you are not in danger in a
> hundred battles."  Let's by all means have talks that let us know
> "the enemy", not just ones about "ourselves".

I 
> 
> Plus, that way we also serve all those who just run Linux because it
> is more stable and secure, and don't care a fig for the politics.
> There might just be one or two of them around, and they're important
> too. :-)
> 
> Dustin
> 
> 
> 
			David Lawyer