Re: [TUHS] How to Kill a Technical Conference (was: Zombified SCO comes back from the dead, brings trial back to life against IBM)

["A. P. Garcia" <a.phillip.garcia@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5812 bytes --]

>> Misremembered the year.  That conference was October 2000.  I just
>> found the bookbag I got as swag from it.

> I think you're remembering the Atlanta Linux Showcase.  I was at the
same event.  I also think I know exactly the person you're talking
about: Charles Hannum, with whom I had a similar experience on a
different topic.

ALS '99 was a fun conference. I didn't attend in 2000. I'm going to stick
my neck out just a little bit and say that my experience with him was quite
different. We talked a little about the differences between Linux and BSD,
both userland and kernel space, and the history of NetBSD, including an
unfortunate occurrence with Bill Jolitz at a different conference. Charles
was cordial with me.

That same day, I went to the cafeteria area when I got hungry, and I saw
what looked like two kids sitting around a laptop working intently on
something. I was curious, so I asked them what they were hacking on. It
turned out to be Miguel de Icaza, now a Distinguished Engineer at
Microsoft, and Nat Friedman, who I believe is now CTO of GitHub (also owned
by Microsoft). They sort of blew me off, but to be fair, they were working
on a presentation they were about to deliver.

On Sun, Apr 4, 2021, 1:31 AM G. Branden Robinson <
g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:

> At 2021-04-03T19:50:51-0700, Adam Thornton wrote:
> > > But back to the S/390 port--I went to a Linux conference in Atlanta
> > > in the late 90s ('99, I think) to speak about Linux on S390/Z, and I
> > > actually went by the NetBSD booth to say, "hey, I can maybe hook you
> > > guys up with a development virtual machine," and what I got was an
> > > earful about "your so-called portability" from someone who was
> > > clearly much more invested in hating Linux than in, you know,
> > > saying, "wow, OK, I realize you're not offering me cycles on a
> > > super-awesome machine, but, yeah, it's not nothing, cool, here's who
> > > you should talk to if you're interested in getting a port going."
> > >
> > > So I don't think you can lay all the blame on BSD inaction on Linux,
> > > is all I'm saying.  By '99, I think it was, maybe if NetBSD, which
> > > already had its reputation for spectacular portability, hadn't
> > > staffed its booth with a jackass still trying to fight the Unix
> > > Wars, that story might have turned out differently.
> >
> > Misremembered the year.  That conference was October 2000.  I just
> > found the bookbag I got as swag from it.
>
> I think you're remembering the Atlanta Linux Showcase.  I was at the
> same event.  I also think I know exactly the person you're talking
> about: Charles Hannum, with whom I had a similar experience on a
> different topic.
>
> Instead of insisting that I was stupid and wrong for using Linux instead
> of (NetBSD) in his view, I was stupid and wrong for using software
> licensed under the GNU GPL instead of the "BSD" license (which variant
> of the latter is not, all these years later, a matter I recall coming
> up).  I mention this so that Mr. Hannum's reputation on this list risks
> no blackening among those who share his hostility to copyleft.  ;-)
>
> ALS was a terrific experience and, for me, lived up to the praise I had
> heard about it as a venue for getting engineers talking to each other.
> Regrettably enough, the conference was acquired by a firm.  It was held
> one final time the next year in Atlanta, officially rebranded the
> "Annual Linux Showcase", and, as I recall, permanently mothballed
> thereafter, with the dot-com bubble-burst as either a direct reason or
> as an excuse.
>
> I have seen other technical conferences over the years steadily morph
> from a technical/engineering focus to an orientation around sales and
> "strategy", or more bluntly--propaganda.  The emphasis is no longer on
> technological improvement and evaluation (i.e., how to achieve and
> measure "solutions"), but on promotion, rationalization, and boosterism.
>
> I suppose that one of the reasons this happens is that good conferences
> grow, and companies sending delegations find themselves with growing
> expense bills for doing so.  Engineers are a cost center.  When they
> come back from the event, they will almost never have anything to "show
> for it".  At best they'll be excited about something they can
> "integrate" or some new idea they can realize after months of
> development time.  In other words, you _might_ have a competitive
> advantage after spending _even more_ money.
>
> By contrast, sales people can bring you orders you can book the day they
> get back, or even before the conference is over, thanks to the magic
> power of accrual accounting, a practice which persists even after the
> glorious examples of Enron and other gigantic bankruptcies of the 2000s.
>
> That's the demand side.  On the supply side, conferences have
> governance; it takes people to solicit papers, book speakers, and put
> talks on the schedule and into proceedings.  Conference sponsorship is a
> neat way of closing the gap between demand and supply on the back end;
> be a "gold" or "platinum" level sponsor and obtain influence, likely
> through direct seating of representatives on the committees that perform
> the foregoing organizational roles.  Note the entrenchment and
> persistence of precious metals as metaphors for status; we would not
> name the tiers after the decreasing scale of photolithographic
> processes, for example.  Historically, it's been a lot easier to
> motivate a guy with a checkbook in the C suite who drives a Lamborghini
> Gallardo with the word "platinum" than "5 nm".
>
> I'm too young to know--did USENIX follow the trajectory of reorienting
> its focus from engineering and research to sales?  Why does it no longer
> occupy the premier place it once did?
>
> Regards,
> Branden
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6919 bytes --]