typo: OSDI on alternate years because ACM was just not going to do it On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 2:22 PM Clem Cole wrote: > Note: These are my opinions/experiences not necessarily those of the > association or my employer. And, yes, I am a former BOD member as well as > ex-President of same, as are a number of folks on this list. > > On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 1:30 AM G. Branden Robinson < > g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I'm too young to know--did USENIX follow the trajectory of reorienting >> its focus from engineering and research to sales? > > Actually, quite the opposite, USENIX was getting more and more academic > and research-oriented and less 'trade show.' The key is that USENIX and > ALS should have been an excellent match, unfortunately, some of the > personalities involved were at odds with each other. IMO: it was more of a > crash of personalities/control issues - the details do not need to be > repeated or aired again. Note: I was on the BOD at that time and in fact on > the PC for that specific conference. Ted may have been on the BOD at the > same time. > > > > > >> Why does it no longer occupy the premier place it once did? >> > As they say on Quora, "*never ask a question based on a false premise*." > Sadly, this is a false statement. > > USENIX is extremely well respected in the systems research and security > community in particular. And even during these Covid times has continued > to have some of the premier conferences on the same; al biet virtual (more > in a minute). An issue during the time you are discussing, USENIX had > evolved into "two foci" between the practitioners (which included both FOSS > community and LISA types) and the more academic-oriented folks looking for > respected places to publish papers/develop their tenure files. > > USENIX had moved from its earlier (anything goes) - pure practitioner > origins - which were also researchers, so at a meeting in a classroom at > NYU, you told people you had something to say and came and did it, to a > more structured (research) approach with program committees, submitted > papers, and vetting and a hotel. Along the way, because it had both types > of people and these were the folks that influenced the buying > patterns, vendors started to show up to show off what they had. At the > time of the ALS conference you mentioned, the things happening in the FOSS > community - was much more like the origins of USENIX. What had for years > separated USENIX from IEEE/ACM was it was where the two foci were really a > single one, and thus had been together and actually considered what was > potential as well as practical. In fact, USENIX was noted as the place > where some of the most influential papers of the time had shown (numerous > storage papers including Rusty's NFS and my EFS paper in the same session, > just about any important security papers, numerous other system papers -- I > could go a few pages here). > > Part of the issue was ACM's SOSP was every 2 years and there was too much > good stuff going on in the system world (BTW - USENIX eventually created > OSDI on alternate years because ACM was just going to do it). But > USENIX also published less formal papers. In fact, one of my all-time > favorite practitioner papers is from another member of this list -- Tom > Lyon's "*All the Chips that Fit*" from the 1985 Summer USENIX [which if > you have never read, send me an email, offline and I'll send you a scanned > PDF -- note to Tom if you still have the original bits I bet USENIX would > like them]. I suspect that such a paper would never have been acceptable > in any of the IEEE or ACM conferences. Also unlike ACM/IEEE (and > frankly the thing that happen at USENIX when I was President that I am most > proud of) is that they do not have a paywall. Anything they published from > the time when all proceedings were electronic is available and slowly some > of the older papers are being scanned or reprinted from the source - as > needed/possible. As much as possible, all of USENIX's papers > are available to anyone > [which was a huge thing to do - as it cut down a lot of revenue for them -- > a paywall for papers is one of the things other associations use]. > > A number of good things happened at the time you mentioned, as well as > some bad. Knowing the parties involved both today and at that time, if > today's BOD and Executive Director was given the same choices that they had > at the time of the action, I suspect we might have had a different outcome. > IMO to the demise of FREENIX and ALS were two of the not-so-good choices > that were made, but I understand why those conferences did go away at that > point in history. If it makes you feel any better, as a former PC Chair > for a couple of FREENIX (which was caught with the same bullet), and as I > said a member of the PC of ALS, I was very sad to see that happen and I > personally fought against it. But, I was on the losing side of that > argument. Unfortunately, that ship sailed, and reviving them is unlikely to > be possible although I believe it has been discussed a number of times > since I left the BOD. > > Back to your point, USENIX may have stopped being as important to many > practitioners, particularly ones in the FOSS community. Which I do find > sad, but I understand the issues on both sides and why that might be so. > For instance, Keith Packard of X11 fame, Steinhart, and I were all > talking about "whence USENIX" at a Hackers conferences a few years back. > So, if you come from that side of the world, you may not value membership > or the results (BTW: my own now hacker daughter, who is a Googler, dropped > her membership last year as she felt it was of less value to her); but so > far USENIX has continued to be important to a large part of the research > community and a set of some practitioners. > > That said, I also believe in 2021, that the USENIX BOD and their ED is > struggling with a financial model that works for them when they do not have > the conference revenue as they had before CV-19. I hope for their sake, > the current treading water situation can find a way to bring them back to > what they were pre-CV-19 because the conferences they traditionally have > held, are excellent (premier in your words) and I would hate to see that > really go away because they have had a lot of value and so far have > continued to provide it. > > Respectfully -- my 2 cents. > > Clem > >