[plug] [OT] ish - LCA

[Simon Scott]

> As a person who uses and promotes Linux, and only boots up Windows to 
> run applications that are not available for Linux (eg, good genealogy 
> programs), or to use a GDI printer apparently not supported by CUPS, I 
> am one person who is not at this stage going to the conference.

I only boot windows to play TO - and thats only because the DRI drivers for my
card are only about 80% as fast as the windows drivers :)

> 
> Attending a conference is not something that we all have to do like 
> lemmings.

ssssshhh. Dont tell the masses.

> 
> People all have their limits and expectations, and, for me, in reading 
> the program, I found (from memory) one tutorial and three seminars that 
> I would like to attend. Is that worth the fee? To me, no.

Its a shame really - if it were worth it to me, I could enjoy the more
personal and social aspects of it - but I dont pay money to make friends :)


<snip! stuff about chaperones, I have no knowledge of this>

> 
> If the PostgreSQL mini-conference, and/or the (proposed) Red Hat 
> mini-conference, had occurred (and not clashed), then it may have been 
> different. It is a question of deciding for each individual (and, not 
> for a mob, as the above response implies), whether the fee is justified 
> by what an individual finds to be of interest, and, that the person is 
> able to absorb and understand, at the conference.

ooooh, Postgresql mini-conference, I like that idea. Oh well.

> 
> The Rusty Rusell components were "TBA", so a person could not be sure 
> whether they related to ipchains or iptables, or both, and if that was a 
> deciding factor, and the result was other than wanted, the fee would be 
> wasted, if the final topic(s) happened to be other than what an attendee 
> wanted or expected.

I thought even more was TBA, but apparently not.

> 
> In my case, the perceived benefits do not justify the fee. That is not 
> to say that there is anything significantly wrong with the conference; 
> rather that I believe that it would not be appropriate for me.

Same here.

> A person can still learn via other means, and, can keep up to date, via 
> other means.

Damn straight.

> 
> I think that it is unfortunate that the discussion lost its objectivity 
> and became subjective and personal, as some good could have come from 
> the discussion, for future conferences.

I think my original posting was poorly worded, and perhaps someone took
offence to it.

My original intent was merely to find out just exactly what value you could
derive from the conference which would make the $$$$ worthwhile. 

Most everyone took that to mean I didnt think the conference was worthwhile.

And while I can see the social value of it, and to a lesser extent the
'networking' factor, I havent seen anything to make me believe that any
sizeable technical value will be derived (a few technical snippets maybe?) or
that the social value (for me) would approach the asking price. Ill see you
all at a plug meeting sooner or later.

No bother. Ill go back to reading my books :)

Have fun people.

ps. Tell AC he owes me a fiver for that pint. He'll know who I am. :)