Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linuxfest Northwest 2004

Posted by michael on from the you-weren't-doing-anything-anyway dept.

An Yong Zheng writes "Linuxfest Northwest is back, and it's better than ever! LFNW is a showcase for what Northwest Linux users are doing with Linux and open source software. It's a place for Linux enthusiasts to get together to share their passion for what good software can do. It also happens to be the biggest grass roots Linux event in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. It's sponsored by a consortium of regional linux users groups from Oregon, Idaho, Washington, British Columbia, Canada and hosted by the Bellingham Tech. college."

26 comments

  1. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Northwest? That's Microsoft country, you hippies! Get with the program or we'll sic SCO on your asses!

    1. Re:What? by abradsn · · Score: 1

      We're bi-operatingsystem-ual out here.

    2. Re:What? by boisepunk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      thanks to LILO, it's all possible

      --
      main(0)
    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      I have sex with your children

  2. I am slightly bitter by tomcio.s · · Score: 2, Informative

    So I wonder what makes this event deserve an announcement on Slashdot, versus OSW (Canadian event) for which my story has been rejected.

    I am glad that stuff like this gets posted, but seriously, why can't we have equality around here?

    1. Re:I am slightly bitter by TyrelHaveman · · Score: 1

      I was a bit suprised to see such a thing posted as well. But I won't complain, I'll probably be going.

  3. Where is it, again? by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2, Informative
    in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia
    British Columbia is part of the Pacific Northwest.

    This is like saying "Europe and England" or "Asia and Japan."

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    1. Re:Where is it, again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Erm, British Columbia is part of the United States. Canada is a state, you know.

    2. Re:Where is it, again? by nadda · · Score: 1

      British Columbia is part of the Pacific Northwest.
      Wouldn't AK be closer to the 'pacific northwest', in your line of thought? Wouldn't BC be the west if you ask Canadians?

      Pacific Northwest is more descriptive of WA,OR,ID when in the US context.

    3. Re:Where is it, again? by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't AK be closer to the 'pacific northwest', in your line of thought?
      Yes.
      Pacific Northwest is more descriptive of WA,OR,ID when in the US context.
      A. Who said this has to be a "US context"?
      B. What is "Pacific" about Idaho? I didn't list Idaho, you did.
      C. In a continental, North American context, you have to include British Columbia in the Pacific Northwest. The line between Canada and the USA is a European line, not a distinction drawn by the original inhabitants.
      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    4. Re:Where is it, again? by nadda · · Score: 1

      A. No one. I'm trying to figure how BC could be Pacific Northwest.
      B. I've seen references to those 3 states being the Pacific NW.
      C. The line between CA and US may be a European line, but it is our border now.

    5. Re:Where is it, again? by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 1
      I'm trying to figure how BC could be Pacific Northwest.
      Look at a map of North America.
      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    6. Re:Where is it, again? by His+name+cannot+be+s · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sure that from someone's perspective that it may be, but speaking as a Canadian, I *Know* that when someone says "Pacific Northwest" that they mean the northwestern states.

      From My perspective, BC is "West" not "Northwest"... If you asked what was "northwest" in Canada, you'd find the Yukon. :p

      --
      "...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
  4. Stupid question, but by prostoalex · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Do you have to register? I couldn't find any forms, and I am assuming that seating for the events is limited, since they have some seminars overlapping.

    Also, what's the fee?

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Check your map! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    British Columbia is part of the Pacific Northwest.

    WTF? British Columbia is not part of the Pacific Northwest. What is northwest about BC unless you live in the USA? If you look a map that puts the USA into perspective, you'll see that the only thing "northwest" about Washington, Oregon, etc. is that they're the northwestern most states. They're farther south than nearly anything in Canada, and since BC is in Canada, I have to say that there's nothing Northwest about it.

    For example, Vancouver is unarguably part of the "South Coast". If you live in BC, that phrase is used everywhere in news and media. Would you agree then that Bellingham is part of the "South Coast" because it's only a few miles away? See, probably not.

    Likewise, would you consider Spokane to be part of the Southern Interior? Because that's what their close neighbours in BC are part of.

    The true Pacific Northwest of Canada would be, hmmm, I suppose the northern parts of Vancouver Island.

    Taking the Lower-50-centricity out of it, the -real- absolute Pacific Northwest would refer to parts of Alaska.

    1. Re:Check your map! by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 1
      If you look a map that puts the USA into perspective, you'll see that the only thing "northwest" about Washington, Oregon, etc. is that they're the northwestern most states.
      You mean a map like this? Can you honestly look at that map and tell me that British Columbia is not in the Pacific Northwest?
      the -real- absolute Pacific Northwest would refer to parts of Alaska
      I never said Alaska was not in the Pacific Northwest. By disagreeing with what I did say, you're claiming that British Columbia is not. OK, then where is BC? The Artic Southwest? I stand by my statement.
      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:Check your map! by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 1
      Upon further reflection, the true Pacific Northwest would be Kamchatka.

      Oh, wait, that's Northwest Pacific. Nevermind.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    3. Re:Check your map! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You mean a map like this? Can you honestly look at that map and tell me that British Columbia is not in the Pacific Northwest?

      I looked at the map. I agree with the previous poster: BC is not part of the Pac NW.

      First of all, with the possible exception of part of Alaska, the entire "left" coast of that continent is both Pacific and West. So one of those two are redundant, clearly. Why say both Pacific and West?! Anyways, if I was from the USA, I'd be happy with either North Pacific US or Northwest US. Either would be logical, descriptive, and you wouldn't have to explain it to outsiders.

      Now you must agree that labels are generally useful only if they convey some information without confusion or additional explanation required. And people, from Wikipedians to Geographers to schoolchildren to businesspeople, are NOT going to agree that Alaska is part of the Pacific Northwest, so clearly your "look at the map" idea is foolish. The Pacific Northwest refers to the northwestern United States of America. It's a strong economic and cultural force, which is why Vancouverites especially tend to join their bandwagon of activities, media, etc.

      If you want to include Canada, which I think is questionable but possible, you MUST include that which is farther north and west including parts of Alaska, and you're just never going to get people to go along with that. Labels need popular consensus to be useful, and including Alaska in the Pacific Northwest label doesn't have it. Neither does Canada.

      Show us popular Alaskan acceptance of Pac NW first (the most logical candidate to be included in the label), and we can talk about southwestern Canada next.

  7. Schedule of events looks good... by tcopeland · · Score: 3, Informative

    ....right here.

    Some cool speakers will be there - Dennis Sosnoski (various Java stuff), Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP).

    --
    The Army reading list
  8. Bellingham? by Neil+Blender · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It should be in Seattle or Vancouver. Might as well be at a campground or just off to the side of the road at mile post 57 next to Cooter's Garage.

    1. Re:Bellingham? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine this has to do with the fact that it is run by the Bellingham Linux User's Group. It's also a central location which allows us to get people from both Seattle and Vancouver, instead of one or the other.

    2. Re:Bellingham? by Neil+Blender · · Score: 1

      The three biggest cities in the PNW are Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, BC. Seattle is halfway between Portland and Vancouver. Plus there are far bigger cities to the south of Seattle like Tacoma, Olympia and Vancouver, Wa. Also, Linux needs to ditch its 'dirty hippy' culture and Bellingham is dirty hippy central. It might as well be the Linux/Hemp/Howard Dean convention and it might as well be held at a campground.

    3. Re:Bellingham? by Maxwell309 · · Score: 1

      I propose the next lfnw be in Redmond. Maybe Microsoft Research will loan us the space.

      --
      "DRM is like violence: if it doesn't work, use more."
  9. But what about file-transfer speeds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Linux fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Linux box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Linux box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

    In addition, during this file transfer, Mozilla will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Emacs Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

    I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Linux machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Linux box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Linux machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Linux is a "superior" machine.

    Linux addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Linux over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

    1. Re:But what about file-transfer speeds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it should be obvious to you that most people don't have such problems with Linux as you are having (ie with your file transfer speed). If they had problems like yours, they wouldn't be liking Linux either. But the fact is, they don't have such problems. Perhaps you have a serious configuration issue with your Linux installation which is causing the problems. If you'd like to see a Linux box that works correctly, perhaps you should try looking around. There are thousands of them (like the ones Slashdot runs on, for example?).