Reflections on FOSDEM
This is the last of the articles from this year's FOSDEM and, though the other articles were about particular talks, what follows are my personal impressions from this engaging conference. This was my first FOSDEM. I've known about it for years, but never been before; in retrospect I regret that, because it's not like any other conference I've ever been to.
The first huge difference is that it's free to attend, and fiercely proud of it ("FOSDEM is free. Not just free as in software, but free as in beer, though this being Belgium, the beer is not free."). You don't register to attend, you just show up. Yes, a contribution is asked for, and yes, the queue to donate €25 (and get a T-shirt) can stretch round the block, but there's no pressure put on you to contribute.
The second oddity is that although the FOSDEM staff arrange a substantial core conference — six main talk streams, on and off — most of what happens at FOSDEM isn't actually organized by FOSDEM. There are over forty developer rooms; FOSDEM makes sure the rooms are ready, the A/V equipment is working, and records the talks on video, but arranging the talk program is left to the teams whose room proposals have been accepted. Nearly sixty different organizations had stands at the venue. The Birds-of-a-feather (BoF) sessions are like the developer rooms, but even less formal. There are also the lightning talks; a room that is set aside so people who have something to show but don't want to do a full talk get fifteen minutes on stage to say what they can. An amazing amount of collaborative activity happens at FOSDEM simply because everyone is there, and FOSDEM makes it easy for it to happen.
That means a lot of people; some eight thousand attended FOSDEM over the course of the weekend. Some of those I spoke to weren't planning to go to a single talk. They were there purely to meet fellow collaborators and hack on their projects; they intended to watch the talks on video later. These are people who spend long working weeks coding professionally, and what they do on their time off and at their own expense is exactly the same thing, but on stuff they love, with people they respect. When a significant number of the attendees all show up in the same place at the same time, such as for the opening or closing keynotes, you really get a sense for how many people are there.
One of the reasons you don't get a feel for how many people are at FOSDEM until that point is that the conference is quite widely geographically distributed. Yes, it's all on the Solbosch campus of the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), but that's not small, and although FOSDEM doesn't use all of it, what it does use is fairly spread out. So quite a lot of time is spent walking from one building to another; you follow the ant trails like everyone else, but I still found myself looking at a map each time I moved, for most of day one. It can take ten minutes walking to get all the way across the conference, so when deciding which talks to listen to, where they are is nearly as important as when. As ever, the organizers try to hack to improve people's lives; this year saw the first incarnation of http://nav.fosdem.org (no link, as it's no longer up), a mobile-friendly app designed to get you from talk to talk as efficiently as possible. I tried it, and it was clearly a first incarnation; things like this only get better. The free scheduling and map app on F-Droid was magnificent, though, and kept up with all the room changes. I didn't bother with a paper schedule the whole weekend.
There is a downside to this popularity. FOSDEM can't magically resize the rooms that ULB provides. The conference is aware that the big hall, Janson, is really too big for anything except the opening and closing ceremonies, and that most of the other rooms are too small. They have a system of FULL/OPEN notices for the doors of the particularly-desirable rooms to indicate when a room is at legal capacity, after which time it's one-in-one-out; the queues for entry can get rather long. In the opening keynote they named the Python and Ruby development rooms as being well known for quickly filling up; if you're not there early for those, you're probably not getting in.
FOSDEM definitely has its own way of doing things. We were told in no uncertain terms that the WiFi provided was IPv6-only. A second network, with the subtle SSID "FOSDEM-ancient", was provided for devices that couldn't run IPv6, but we were encouraged to agitate for IPv6-compatible devices ("bang on the heads of those responsible, particularly if they're here").
I spoke to several young Germans who told me how professionally the Chaos Communications Congress video-records its conferences, but FOSDEM proudly displayed its unique render farm (seen at left in a photo from the closing keynote); I was told the organizers were able to video the whole of FOSDEM for less than CCC spent on a single room. They were even more proud of the core router and server setup ("this is a lot better than last year's, because it's not balancing on chairs").
One serious event, the discovery during the conference of a systematic attempt to harvest Google account details from participants via a malicious WiFi network, was efficiently dealt with, and Google was notified about the affected accounts.
It is a conference that people love. Those who organize it, those who volunteer at it, and those who attend, seem alike to feel really strongly about the conference. Many who are there attend at their own expense, using their own free time to do so. If I may be forgiven for gazing balefully at my fellow Britons for a minute, I've never felt so surrounded by young Europeans — people who came from all corners of the continent, got by in a whole variety of languages not least of which was English, and collaborated as if national borders were not particularly relevant to them. I still can't believe my country desires not to be a part of that.
FOSDEM is a conference where the opening address isn't given by some high-profile industry figure, but by an impassioned young Bulgarian hacker who spends five minutes of the time talking very movingly about her mother's experiences as a COBOL programmer in 1990s Bulgaria. It is the only time I've ever been in the same room as a thousand other people all of whom know how to put their phones on silent, and remember to do so. FOSDEM is different, and it is fun. You should consider going.
[Thanks to the Linux Foundation, LWN's travel sponsor, for making this
article possible.]
Index entries for this article | |
---|---|
GuestArticles | Yates, Tom |
Conference | FOSDEM/2017 |
Posted Mar 2, 2017 17:38 UTC (Thu)
by guus (subscriber, #41608)
[Link]
Posted Mar 2, 2017 21:23 UTC (Thu)
by detiste (subscriber, #96117)
[Link]
Including me :-) I came with my 13-years old daughter;
She since magically show more motivation in her English studies :-P
Posted Mar 4, 2017 14:32 UTC (Sat)
by mo (guest, #103033)
[Link]
I don't know where you got that information from? The video team at CCC are volunteers too, and the only costs are the hardware.
Posted Mar 6, 2017 11:51 UTC (Mon)
by gerv (guest, #3376)
[Link] (35 responses)
No-one is opposed to collaboration. It's unaccountable and distant rule which Brexiteers object to.
Post-Brexit, I'm sure Britons will still be participating just as fully in FOSDEM :-) I will certainly still be going.
Posted Mar 6, 2017 12:09 UTC (Mon)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Heh, interesting view for a country whose Crown ruled over lands around the world ;) .
Though I am curious about this statement, have sentiments changed or is it a one-way thing? Though this isn't really the place for such a thread; feel free to reply privately (my email is easy to find out there).
Posted Mar 7, 2017 11:29 UTC (Tue)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (33 responses)
Those who live at the heart of one Union should be careful about arguing a larger Union they are a part of is distant, unaccountable and out of touch with local needs. That's exactly the argument the SNP have used for years about London...
Posted Mar 7, 2017 11:42 UTC (Tue)
by gerv (guest, #3376)
[Link] (6 responses)
I am very much in favour of localism - the idea that decision should be taken as close as possible to the people they affect, by people they elect. So I'm in favour of devolution, although I don't want power being transferred from Westminster to get "stuck" at Holyrood, but instead be further devolved. (And I'm entirely opposed to the silly undemocratic games the SNP plays at Westminster, sticking its oar in on English-only matters.) Proper localism should go a long way towards alleviating the sometimes-justified issues that Scots have with Westminster.
Posted Mar 7, 2017 11:57 UTC (Tue)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (5 responses)
But now the english politicians have gone and done exactly that. All the terrible consequences the Scots were warned of should they vote for independence will now happen _anyway_ as a consequence of BrExit. Which means that the set of "No" voters who voted that way cause their heart said "Yes" to Scottish independence, but their head said "No" cause of the economic consequences, may well vote differently when IndyRef2 happens.
If that happens and Scotland gets independence, well done BrExiteers. ;) (I am not Scottish, but I live there).
Posted Mar 7, 2017 12:18 UTC (Tue)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (4 responses)
OTOH, public support for another Scottish independence referendum has been underwhelming so far even in spite of the Brexit. According to current opinion polls there is still a solid (as in, IndyRef1-style) majority on the “No” side. Support for independence is certainly nowhere near a level where the SNP would risk actually putting on another referendum. This may change once further details about the UK government's Brexit plans transpire, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Posted Mar 7, 2017 12:21 UTC (Tue)
by gerv (guest, #3376)
[Link] (3 responses)
"[T]he opinion polls continue to suggest a majority of the Scottish electorate still does not support independence."
Posted Mar 7, 2017 12:44 UTC (Tue)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (2 responses)
There are big propaganda machines at play on Scottish Independence. Given all the broken promises and claims made the last time, some of it might not be effective this time.
Note that the private polls form part of the politics and propaganda machines. E.g., the most recent one was commissioned by an anti-Indy campaigner. A poll by the same surveying company (BMG) a month earlier, commissioned by another party and with a more straight-forward question, found pro-Indy had a slight edge FWIW.
Posted Mar 7, 2017 13:37 UTC (Tue)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (1 responses)
This is actually rather more complicated than it seems. For example, it is by no means clear that everyone who is pro-Scottish-independence is also pro-EU-membership. In fact quite a number of IndyRef “Yes” voters apparently also voted “Yes” on the Brexit, and might not maintain their “Yes” vote on Scottish independence if keeping (or regaining) EU membership is made a primary goal for an independent Scotland. This is a potential problem if a second IndyRef is scheduled before the actual Brexit, because these people might prefer Scotland leaving the EU together with the rest of the UK before having a referendum on Scottish independence.
On the other hand, losing another referendum might force Nicola Sturgeon to step down as first minister (Alex Salmond and David Cameron did, after all), which is probably not something that she is personally keen to do anytime soon, so she may want to delay a second IndyRef until a clear pro-Independence majority emerges (possibly after the actual Brexit, possibly not even then, possibly never). That however clashes with the amount of noise the SNP has already made about holding another IndyRef soon(ish) no matter what the polls say, so Sturgeon is in a bit of a bind there.
Then of course there are people who think that having one independence referendum per generation is actually quite enough. There are more of those on the “No” side, but even on the “Yes” side there is a certain amount of support for letting the idea rest and concentrating on other things.
Posted Mar 7, 2017 13:55 UTC (Tue)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
And yes, there were Yes/Leave voters, and yeah, be interesting to see which way they'd split on a referendum that would basically be "Independence + Remain". ;) And yes, it'll be the biggest gamble Sturgeon ever makes. ;)
The Unionists will claim BrExit means Scottish Independence + EU membership becomes a lot more complicated, because Scotland in the EU would mean an EU border with England. However, the BrExiteers already have created this problem with Ireland, and they already have to find a solution for the north of Ireland and the rest of Ireland.
Posted Mar 9, 2017 16:33 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (23 responses)
Thing is, for most Europeans, border changes and staying in one place but changing nationality, and occupying armies, are all within living memory for some portion of the population. So yet another change into a "Greater European Union" is more of the same.
English propaganda, on the other hand, likes to paint British history as starting in 1066. Yes I do know Britain, as a political entity, didn't come in to existence until the 1700s - about 1750 I think. So we're a lot younger than we like to think.
The other massive problem, as I see it, is that Europe is led by a load of idealist politicians who say "this is a good idea, let's make it so", without bothering to check the realities on the ground. Britain is one of the SMALLER countries, landwise, in the EU. European policies put us on course to have a THIRTY percent population increase over the next ten years or so, to make us the LARGEST European country, population-wise. It's just not sustainable. And imho - with Europe saying "free movement is non-negotiable" (despite Germany being one of the first countries to ban it when they felt it necessary) - that was one of the major factors behind the BrExit vote.
Oh - and while not saying which way I voted - my head said "get out" while my heart said "remain". On one side of my family I'm English, on the other I'm German / Carribean emigre Scot. I would have loved to have had a solution that saw us stay in.
Mind you, what's the likelihood, with the French elections, and the Euro crisis, and everything else that's going on, we might not need BrExit - there might not be an EU for us to leave before long :-(
Cheers,
Posted Mar 10, 2017 15:02 UTC (Fri)
by nhasan (guest, #1699)
[Link] (22 responses)
Have you no shame sirs? (This was rhetorical, I know you don't.)
Posted Mar 11, 2017 0:05 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (21 responses)
And while we may have messed up a bit with our Empire, I don't think we trampled wholesale over everybody else's traditions and stuff (yes, we probably messed things up a bit).
At the end of the day, I want to live in ENGLAND. That is, the country I was born and brought up in, and not a country where the only thing left is the name.
Cheers,
Posted Mar 11, 2017 0:08 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Cheers,
Posted Mar 11, 2017 2:13 UTC (Sat)
by excors (subscriber, #95769)
[Link] (8 responses)
But one person in three isn't a foreigner. About one in eight are foreign-born, and one in twelve have non-British nationality. (source) (Also the population isn't going to grow by 30% in 10 years, the projection is more like 15% over 25 years. And the UK is 8th out of 28 in land area, so not really one of the smaller countries either.)
Posted Mar 11, 2017 10:06 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (7 responses)
Plus your source is current, and will those people coming in consider themselves British, or emigre East Europeans, even if they're born here!
So we're 8th in land area? Behind Finland, Germany, France, Spain, who else? We're certainly not one of the big boys like them. How does the smallest of them compare with us? (Just checked, Germany is half as big again, smaller than I thought. France and Spain are a lot bigger.)
But have you not heard of "the long tail"? I guess those 7 countries bigger than us probably have over half the EU land area - that does make us one of the smaller countries. Just like a minority of people have most of the wealth - a minority of countries have most of the land (although I'll admit much of it is in Scandinavia, not a place that would support a dense population).
Anyway, I think we're throwing figures at each other without examining them deeply (or actually understanding what the other person is trying to say :-) Dealing with emotions is a tricky thing, and comparing figures that aren't like-for-like is asking for trouble - trouble is, finding like-for-like!
Cheers,
Posted Mar 11, 2017 10:50 UTC (Sat)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (6 responses)
Shall we talk about how the British empire violently suppressed any dissent from the locals at its rape of the local resources? From India to Ireland, there are memorials to massacres of unarmed civilians gunned down by British forces. From India to Ireland, England was responsible for genocides, by taking the food while the locals were literally starving to death (Churchill blamed the Indians for their mass famine, for breeding like rabbits - while raping the land of food for the WWI war effort).
You don't even need to go far. Just start with the history of Scotland and Ireland - which you are clearly unaware of.
Both Scotland and Ireland are relatively sparsely populated countries today. Those were more densely populated countries in the past. Ireland only just got back to *HALF* of the population it had over 150 years ago about ten years ago, with its boom. Scotland's near-empty Highlands have ruins of old stone cottages dotted all about the place - where people lived before the rich land-owners cleared the land for sheep, and country estates to go grouse shooting. The roads of Ireland were littered with starving and dead people during the famine, even as the rich Anglo-Irish landowners exported more than enough wheat to feed the country. Go to Croke Park in Dublin, where British Auxiliaries opened fire with machine guns on crowds of people who were there to watch a GAA match (in India they killed hundred+ in something similar). That was just one incident in a long campaign of terrorising the locals with murderous para-militaries.
You appear know nothing about what your country has done to others.
Posted Mar 11, 2017 16:04 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
And how many of those rich landowners were Scots? Most of them? My Scots ancestry is MacGregor. Just look at the history of that clan (Rob Roy etc). How much of what you're blaming on the English was actually just the English taking advantage of internecine Scottish infighting? My family was probably one of those driven off the land ...
> The roads of Ireland were littered with starving and dead people during the famine, even as the rich Anglo-Irish landowners exported more than enough wheat to feed the country. Go to Croke Park in Dublin, where British Auxiliaries opened fire with machine guns on crowds of people who were there to watch a GAA match (in India they killed hundred+ in something similar). That was just one incident in a long campaign of terrorising the locals with murderous para-militaries.
I know less about Ireland. What I do know is that reality, and popular belief, often bear little relationship to each other. The Irish famine was economic - subsistence farming failed (potato blight), and wheat was worth much more abroad than the locals could afford to pay. The Bengal famine was pretty much the same. And the rape you're describing is carrying on today - money talks, and if the poor can't afford to buy food they starve. The West is still doing that today. Do you expect farmers to sell their produce in the market, at market prices, or do you expect them to sell it AT A LOSS to the locals, so that everybody (including the farmers) starves?
Compare that to the famine in Ukraine. THAT was a political famine. Stalin taxed the country in food, and he demanded pretty much all they could produce, leaving nothing behind.
> You appear know nothing about what your country has done to others.
Which country? Germany? Scotland?
I think a lot of what Britain has done is idiotic. I also think a lot of other countries have been equally stupid. You know what - in 1776 the MAJORITY of Americans were very opposed to independence. You know what - 1916 the MAJORITY of Irish were opposed to independence. I've never actually heard of Croke Park, but yes, it was idiocies like that that cost us most of our Empire.
You know what - if France and America hadn't been pig-headed and stupid, demanding a scape-goat in Germany, we would never have had the Second World War. Britain wanted something similar to South Africa at the end of Apartheid.
And my fear at the moment is that the leadership of the EU is engaging in behaviour equally as idiotic ...
What's the saying? "Those who refuse to study history are condemned to repeat it"? And as I say, what ACTUALLY happened often bears little resemblance to what the victors wrote in the history books.
Cheers,
Posted Mar 12, 2017 8:58 UTC (Sun)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Same thing in Ireland. The Anglo-Irish land-owning class often had Irish roots. Some even were descended from the Chieftains who fought Elizabeth I dominisation of Ireland, and who later acquiesced. Again though, they had been fully integrated into the English establishment by the 1800s. This was part of how the English empire ruled its colonies. That was a lesson learned by Elizabeth in fighting said Irish chieftains; and later again in the mid 1700s, when the Irish protestant upper-middle classes were disquieted at English rule: to rule, you must rule _with_ the existing power structures, so you must integrate their nobles and their upper-middle classes into yours - so they become part of you. Look up, e.g., "The Ascendency" in Ireland.
Posted Mar 14, 2017 14:02 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
So, to put it bluntly, you don't believe in personal responsibility. At the end of the day, it was the SCOTS ruling class who "sold Scotland down the river" as you would no doubt like to put it. But you're determined to blame anyone else rather than the people who actually did it. (And the irony, of course, is that true Scots have been a minority in their own country from the day it was created! They were the ruling class in a country that consisted mostly of non-Scots! :-)
> Same thing in Ireland. The Anglo-Irish land-owning class often had Irish roots. Some even were descended from the Chieftains who fought Elizabeth I dominisation of Ireland, and who later acquiesced. Again though, they had been fully integrated into the English establishment by the 1800s. This was part of how the English empire ruled its colonies. That was a lesson learned by Elizabeth in fighting said Irish chieftains; and later again in the mid 1700s, when the Irish protestant upper-middle classes were disquieted at English rule: to rule, you must rule _with_ the existing power structures, so you must integrate their nobles and their upper-middle classes into yours - so they become part of you. Look up, e.g., "The Ascendency" in Ireland.
And that is just people being people. And it is the mark of a successful empire. The Romans did it, the British did it, you keep the little people quiet by not up-ending their lives. Empires that grow by military conquest are usually short-lived, or they have to wipe out the original inhabitants to replace them (which is what they did in North America, isn't it?).
At the end of the day, I haven't got a clue what nationality you are. And is that the one on your passport or the one you give yourself? The diffference is very important. And I get the impression you're very jealous that my forbears ran an Empire that subjects were PROUD to be a part of. Too jealous to see beyond the propaganda that blames the British for the fact that all those countries WANTED to be part of the Empire (and don't say that was because the rulers were British - a lot of them were, a lot of them WEREN'T).
And you seem to have completely lost sight of my original moan - which was that while I *want* European Union, you can't do it by trampling over "the little people" - once again the political leadership are selling the little guy down the river, which is why there is such a rise of nationalism in Europe - they're saying "trust me, we know what's good for you" and aren't listening to the pain on the ground. But when was that ever news?
You can't blame "everybody else" for the ills of today. You have to look at the realities of the moment. I think a superstate of Europe is inevitable, and to be welcomed. But DON'T drive it through trampling over anyone who gets in the way. Let people see the advantages and want to be part of it. Which is why, over the referendum, my head said "It's going to self-destruct. Get out before it takes us with it!".
Cheers,
Posted Mar 11, 2017 16:45 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
Who's armies was it who wreaked revenge in the late 1740s for Bonnie Prince Charlie? I think you will find it was pretty much all SCOTS.
Cheers,
Posted Mar 12, 2017 16:32 UTC (Sun)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 13, 2017 11:15 UTC (Mon)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
For much of the time since the Renaissance, Scotland played host to both incredibly remote backwaters and the heights of European intellectual culture. You get both the likes of David Hume and Adam Smith, and uncouth Gaelic-speaking highlanders who nobody in polite company would want to be seen dead with, and everything in between. The important thing was that, once the hereditary clan chiefs had figured out that they didn't need to sit around peat fires wearing rough-spun plaid blankets, and especially after the takeover of Scotland by the English in the early 18th century through the Union of Parliaments, they were out to prove that they were really just as good Englishmen as the English (if not better). The next step was to decide that sheep were more profitable to have on one's ancestral lands than small-time farmers and fishermen, so the people were “encouraged” to go elsewhere (e.g., America).
In particular, people need to remember that the Jacobite uprisings of the 1740s (and earlier) weren't “freedom-loving Scots vs. oppressive English” (even though this is the popular perception, fueled by books, movies, and TV). In fact they were more along the lines of “Catholics vs. Protestants” and who got to sit on the British (not Scottish) throne.
There were more Scots fighting against the Jacobites than for them, and there were many Jacobite (Catholic/Scottish king James and his progeny, vs. Protestant/German king George and his progeny) supporters in England who when the time came to fight for their cause decided they weren't going to have anything to do with the whole thing after all. The whole thing was a massive demonstration of how not to conduct armed insurgency.
Posted Mar 11, 2017 2:32 UTC (Sat)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (2 responses)
You have *got* to be kidding me.
Posted Mar 11, 2017 9:52 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Then there's America, where a lot of the little people emigrated to, and yes they also made quite a mess of the place, but that wasn't government policy. (Plus a lot of that was Independent America welcoming Europeans (yes I know it was a "European" government that did it).
The BIG difference, as I and many other people see it, is there is a limit to how much migration can be absorbed without triggering a massive backlash. That was BrExit. With the native British population about 60M (maybe less), and total population forcast to grow to 80M within a generation or so, that is too much. (I'll add, at 1.8 children per family, that "native population" is shrinking so the growth is all immigration and more!).
Cheers,
Posted Mar 11, 2017 18:39 UTC (Sat)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
> at 1.8 children per family, that "native population" is shrinking so the growth is all immigration and more!
The population will start shrinking once death rate is greater than birth rate. That is not currently the case.
(Not replying any further)
Posted Mar 11, 2017 15:51 UTC (Sat)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (7 responses)
The only question is how far back you go. (In my case, to WWII and the last Kindertransport, so I'm kinda sensitive to rising racist nationalism :( )
Posted Mar 11, 2017 16:08 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (5 responses)
Cheers,
Posted Mar 11, 2017 16:24 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (4 responses)
What I do NOT want is people coming here, keeping their own ethnicity, and destroying my country in front of my own eyes. You can't stop change, but if it happens too fast you will get a backlash, that's what nix fears, and that's what I fear.
I think it was Michael Portillo (his family were refugees from the Spanish Civil War) who coined "the cricket test". And he could, because they were refugees.
At the end of the day, I want people who are patriotic, who believe in their own country. What I don't want is people who are nationalists - "my country is better than yours". And current international politics - both European and American (and yes, the description of Britain as "America's poodle" has been much too accurate for my liking in recent years) are doing their best to create nationalists of all colours.
Cheers,
Posted Mar 12, 2017 16:08 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Also, you're cherry-picking, unless you also want to bring back terrible food, post-war rationing, and workhouses, which were part of English culture for far longer than, say, the NHS ever was. What about wife auctions (legendarily used as a workaround for divorce being illegal, oh, we should ban that again too, it was illegal in England for far longer than it was ever legal so it must be right). These things were all part of the culture you aspire to, but apparently you don't want those bits.
Posted Mar 13, 2017 9:43 UTC (Mon)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link]
You have to go back in history only 60 years. 200000+ Hungarians left for the West after the failed revolution in 1956, they assimilated without barely leaving a trace. For example my wife's uncle left at that time, none of his children speaks Hungarian. The welcoming country should make sure that the immigrants are not staying at the same place, in blocks, so they assimilate better, but that's all it takes. Remember, those people not only go to Britain, they also escape their own country (and sometimes traditions). Many of them leaving not only for financial reasons, but for "cultural" reasons.
Posted Mar 14, 2017 11:45 UTC (Tue)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 14, 2017 13:45 UTC (Tue)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Posted Mar 13, 2017 12:19 UTC (Mon)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
Even the royal family is mostly of German extraction these days (and has been for a while). Remember that they had to have themselves renamed to “Windsor” in 1917 because “Saxe-Coburg-Gotha” didn't have the proper patriotic ring to it if you were currently fighting a war against the actual Germans, whose emperor also happened to be a cousin of the reigning king.
Posted Mar 13, 2017 16:23 UTC (Mon)
by ajmacleod (guest, #1729)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 17, 2017 23:21 UTC (Fri)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
It's not even inconceivable that the SNP would start to split, once the broad tent provided by the big goal of Independence was achieved.
Anyway, I think politics would flourish across Scotland post Independence.
Both FOSDEM and the CCC are extremely nice and positive events.
They are also not only about software, but about a lot more that you can do in the free and open spirit.
There are also camps that are organized every few years, with a similar vibe as those conferences. This year there's SHA2017 in the Netherlands, and in 2019 there should be another Chaos Communication Camp in Germany.
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
> Some of those I spoke to weren't planning to go to a single talk.
she really enjoied seeing all those people from around the world
passionate about their stuff; gathering freebies, buying some other stuff
to support some organisations.
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Which means that the set of "No" voters who voted that way cause their heart said "Yes" to Scottish independence, but their head said "No" cause of the economic consequences, may well vote differently when IndyRef2 happens.
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Wol
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Wol
Reflections on FOSDEM
Wol
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Wol
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Wol
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Wol
Reflections on FOSDEM
Wol
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Wol
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Wol
Reflections on FOSDEM
Wol
Reflections on FOSDEM
all the others want to come to Britain, and assimilate
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
This discussion, too, has reached it expiration date, I think; these are not issues that can be worked out on LWN.
We're not talking about FOSDEM anymore
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM
Reflections on FOSDEM