Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses

Red Hat Sells RMS Linux 238

Posted by Roblimo from the doing-the-right-thing dept.
Chilli writes "I just stumbled over RMS Linux on RedHat's web site. It includes only free (as in freedom) software and at least $1 is donated to the FSF for every sold package. This is super cool, I think, and I probably have to buy one just because it is so cool. I think, this finally proves that - as far as this is possible for a company - RedHat cares about the community. (The URL is to RedHat's secure commerce server, I hope it manages the /. effect, but I didn't find another URL - so, this is maybe not really official yet, but what's on the Web, is on the Web.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Sells RMS Linux More

Red Hat Sells RMS Linux

Comments Filter:

  • What about support expenses (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For a small co. like redhat, it's possible that support and stuff may be more expensive than actual CD burning.

    In any case, I think it doesn't make sense to accuse a company of gouging its customers, when you can get a cheaper product elsewhere. Like, free from its own website, for instance.

    I just get tired of people ripping a company to shreds because it's trying to make money. God, what an awful concept.

  • Jerks in the Forums (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can't believe that I have to resort to posting Anonymously to protect my karma, but here goes.

    This place is getting out of control. It's bad enough when people open their yaps around here and start bitching about stuff that they don't understand. But that's okay. I understand the need and desire to jump in, even when you don't fully understand what's going on. Sometimes, this is even a good thing, because you can draw new participants into the forum and increase the breadth and depth of the discussion.

    But who the fuck is moderating this shit up!!! Some of the comments that have 3's or 4's in this story are just plain factually wrong, or are completely idiotic rants!! Enough with this bullshit!!

    And the number of level 3 or 4 redundant posts sucks too!! the first time it's informative, the second time, perhaps interesting, but the 3rd repeat comment is fucking redundant!! The fucking morons who are moderating this shit are just desparate to see their moderation points in effect.

    I fucking hate the newb's around here!!!!
  • /* I got into this whole "red hat is too big and will squash the other distros" */

    It will. Check out the support terms for other Linux distros in commercial software - often, none. Only supported on Redhat X.X

    /* Red Hat giving GNOME (100% GPL as a core principle, not an afterthought) the chance to grab a foothold */

    To the detriment of the Users desktop stability - just one in a long list of Redhats QA screwups.


    /* I'm in full support of Red Hat, and will boycott any KDE-only distribution (i.e. Caldera and potentially Corel). */

    Will you boycott any distro only supplying bash? Only supplying Xfree, only gcc, how far will you take your stance on choice? You pay the maker of the distro to select packages for you - and hopefully to get the best. No distro is inherently "anything only" to those with a net connection. I'm not going to use Debian if it doesn't come with KDE "officially". It would just make Linux to damn awkward.

    /* Freedom of choice without bloat (sorry SUSE, 5CDs full of crap isn't going to cut it for "selection") */

    Get current, its 6 Cd's. And you can exercise choice at install - it beats Redhats we won't include it, get it on the web at your own expense - without support.

    I guess you have problems choosing for yourself.
  • Ah, now that's a good point. Now we have two free distributions using the two main package managers. This is a Good Thing(tm). Now those that like apt have their free distro (always have, of course) and those that like RPM have theirs.

    I like this very much. I'm thinking my next Red Hat upgrade will be RMS Linux (killall -STONE bird :).

  • Interesting choice of names, I believe it's Maori for `little water' (from memory, been a long time). Now what I'm wandering is how a little water would apply to a `stream cipher encryption algorithm'. Hmmm, as I was typing this, I got it: little water -> stream. Clever (I take it this was deliberate).
  • Tripple cool. I remembered the meaning of waimea (it was the name of the schools I went to for 1st and 4th-6th forms (intermediate and college (twas a complicated system in New Zealand at the time, it's now grades)), I understood your intentions, and I like recursive acronyms (though I didn't notice it when I went to your web page).

    NOTE: I have one problem. Isn't creating your own encryption algorithm considered unsafe without heaps of peer review? Or is algorithm realy supposed to be protocol, which wouldn't fit?

  • Excellent, I hope your algorithm passes muster.
  • I haven't seen anyone post "KDE sucks" for almost a year now. Even Ivan doesn't say it anymore. (BTW, whatever happened to Ivan?)

    Those were glorious times, but some people don't know when to let go...

    TedC

  • well, with bootnet.img on a single floppy, i can put a decent distribution (redhat 6.1) on a machine with just 1 floppy.
  • Sure they have given much back to the community-at-large, but I was referring to the FSF in particular whom we have all benefitted from because of all the great GNU tools and such we have available. I know also, that the FSF is not there to make a profit necessarily, but they need income (which is different from profit) they must support the organization and I do believe they do have some people who work for pay (in addition to the many volunteers.) Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks for the response anyway.

    ----------------

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
  • ...they could donate more than "...at least one dollar to the FSF." of the $29.95 total price. Don't get me wrong. I think it is cool they are doing this, but it seems they could give a little more to an organization that has contributed so much to the Linux community, not to mention Red Hat's bottom line. (Just MHO of course.)

    ----------------

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
  • I'm sure QT would be useful, but so would a lot of other packages. Even if they now have godlike funding, RedHat still has finite human resources available for maintaining their distribution. They do try to verify that each package works properly and keep it working properly with each new release. Adding QT would add another package that would need to be checked and maintained. If there's enough benefit to be gained, they'll devote some time to it. If not, they won't. Lacking KDE 2.0, I imagine they don't see the time and money necessary to add QT to their distribution as being well spent, or rather it may be it would be well spent, but even better spent on something more useful to more people. You can't satisfy everyone, but you can try to satisfy as many as you can as well as you can, and that's what RedHat's trying to do.

    Maybe you disgaree with this decision -- if so, put some effort into it yourself and upload QT2 RPMs to the RedHat contrib. (Actually, I'd be surprised if there aren't already QT2 RPMs available...)

    --

  • The point is that Red Hat claims to be using the DSFG/OpenSource guidelines. On this basis, they are being hypocritical.

    How so? By not including Qt 2? Qt 2 is one of thousands of pieces of free software. By your standards, Debian is equally hypocritical. There's plenty of free software they don't include, either...

    --

  • Just because Debian makes a 100% free distrib, what is stopping RedHat from making their own 100% free distrib?

    USI (Ubiquitous Slashdot Idiots). See the post you're responding to for an example of one. The USI crowd are generally recognizable for their "One True Way" attitude. USIs argue with one another all the time, but they have the same take, just switch a few words. One USI says "Since KDE exists it's stupid to work on GNOME." Another says the exact same thing, but reverses the terms. They generally are of low enough intelligence that I don't know if there's an actually opinion their and it matters to them if you reverse the terms or not -- they may be a batch of pattern-matching psuedo-AI's running at Micros~1 HQ in an attempt to flood Slashdot with worthless dross. I hope that's the case, I'd hate to think these USIs are actually people who exist and really do suffer from that much stupidity...

    --

  • Understand that this is charity...

    So it's completely unthinkable to pay for something unless you are threatened with fines and imprisonment?
  • if you use the unstable one you end up in a destroyed packaging system

    Could you clarify that comment please? Plenty of people, myself included, have succesfully upgraded from 2.1 (aka "slink"), the current stable, to "potato", the current unstable, without any problems with the packaging system.

  • I'm not sure about where the APSL fits in

    The APSL 1.0 was non-free [slashdot.org]; the APSL 1.1 [apple.com] was improved, and discussed on spi-general [spi-inc.org] and license-discuss with postive responses, but I can't find a final judgement.

  • ``Open source software'' describes a category of software licenses, almost but not quite the same as ``free software.''

    The OSD [opensource.org] is essntially identical to the DFSG [debian.org]. The DFSG were created as a ruleset to decide whether a particular software's license should be considered free or not (disregarding dependency on non-free software).

    In my opinion, the DFSG is still the closest thing we have to a definition of free software.

    I agree with RMS that the way "Open Source" is used often downplays or ignores the freedom aspect, and that freedom aspect is very important.

    Some argue that the DFSG needs to be tightened, but so far I'm unconvinced by the arguments I've seen.

  • That's pretty darned nifty! While that may silence some RedHat haters, I'm sure they'll find something else to complain about. :)

    Important thing is that it provides and easy way for those who want to have a "purely free" Linux distro. Of course, most of those folks would probably prefer to roll their own!
  • GPL only? Does that mean you don't use X11?
  • I just thought that what their Acronym stood for was very interesting.

    This is a very cool thing. I wonder if this version will be available via ftp or cheapbytes type CDs

  • Here is a cut and paste from the newest copy of the QPL available from the Troll Tech homepage:
    3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following
    restrictions apply to modifications:

    a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software.

    b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the
    Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any
    other license(s) of the initial developer.
  • RMS has stated that the QPL can be considered to be free software at least in theory,
    although he does not applaud the QPL or the use of software released under it. The reason is that while technically fitting the description, it doesn't "fit" in the real world. The QPL aims at protecting the copyright of Troll Tech, while true
    free licenses aims at allowing you to use and share the code. The QPL demands for patches and the fact that they get rights with your code that you don't get with theirs makes it not truly free.

    Another non-Stallman point here is that since Qt is a library, the QPL should give rights comparable to the LGPL, not the GPL.
  • Do you really want to know? Ok, you asked.

    I set out to buy a RH6.1 from them and clicked on the package of the box on the front page and then on one of the buy buttons on the next page. Now, this selects a US/Canada version and on check out, the system complained that it can't send a US/Canada version to Japan, because of the $%#% export restrictions.

    So, I started searching for an international version, which made me click on the small "Red Hat Linux" hyperlink on the left of the menu bar on top of the https://store.redhat.com/commerce/ [redhat.com] page and (voila!) I had found my intl. version...and then, the "RMS Linux" link on the button of that page caught my attention :-)

    You wanted to know...

    Chilli

    PS: And what do we learn from this? Stupid export restrictions, can be useful ;-)

  • PPS: I actually learned one more thing: Red Hat's store is rather US/Canada centric, but maybe they sell enough stuff there, so that they don't care about the rest of the planet...
  • Given that /. is supposed to be read by technology savy smarts, the math in some comments is really stunning. If they sell a box for $29.95 and give $1 (or more) to the FSF, what does that tell us about the fraction of their profit that they are giving to the FSF? Exactly nothing, because we don't know the cost. And the costs are not only the costs for burning the CD, but also compiling the CD, paying somebody to design the box, and so on.

    Now, Red Hat could have done what most companies do when they donate part of their profit: They could have said, we donate 50% of our profit, but that doesn't tell you anything. Why? How about reading the Funding section in gcc's info documentation:

    To make this approach work, you must insist on numbers that you can compare, such as, "We will donate ten dollars to the Frobnitz project for each disk sold." Don't be satisfied with a vague promise, such as "A portion of the profits are donated," since it doesn't give a basis for comparison.

    Even a precise fraction "of the profits from this disk" is not very meaningful, since creative accounting and unrelated business decisions can greatly alter what fraction of the sales price counts as profit. If the price you pay is $50, ten percent of the profit is probably less than a dollar; it might be a few cents, or nothing at all.

    So, all Red Hat is doing is following a suggestion by the FSF. Next time, before you complain, RTFM.

    It is of course possible to argue whether the name of the distribution is good or not, but the point here is to increase public awareness concerning the importance of RMS's and the FSF's contribution - that's the main argument of RMS when insisting on the name GNU/Linux if I understand him correctly. It emphasis Red Hat's commitment to strive not only for open, but for free software.

    Of course they are a company, so they have to make compromises, but to date, they contributed every line of code back to the community under the GPL - that's what ultimately counts. How many lines did you contribute?

    Chilli

  • Subtle. Even had to take another look at the original just to be sure... =)



  • Is this another sign of the worsening of the YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution) Syndrome?

    RMS-Linux?

    Is it any different from RMS's "famous" GNU/Linux ?


  • ---
    Redhat donating to the FSF, isn't that sort
    of like saying that microsoft donates money
    to it's software developers?
    ---

    Bad analogy. Any software the developer asks for money back for, Red Hat would have to pay for. I don't blame the developers for doing it for free, but I don't feel Red Hat is taking undue advantage of them in the process. If you give stuff away, don't bitch when people take it.

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • ...until they need to use a decent web browser to get work done.

    Yay for open-source, yay for closed source. A big yay for good source of all kinds.

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • True, but that doesn't mean all GNU software requires them to be paid. I'm making the assumption that RedHat is only bundling software that doesn't request payment - or paying for that which does. If the specific software itself is 'free' in the traditional sense as well as freedom-wise, then what's the problem?

    Is there a piece of software that requires payment that Red Hat isn't paying? If so, then that's bad.

    I've noticed that a lot of open-source projects work almost like advertising for coders who want to be hired on. Sort of a "this is what I can do for your company" type of thing. Even if the software itself is free all around, they still end up financially rewarded in the end.


    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • Not at all. That's the thing, Red Hat IS paying - and not out of any requirement to do so. That's what I'd call a Very Good Thing, but there will still be people out there who rip on them for it. "You're not giving enough", etc.

    No, it's not unthinkable to pay for something when not threatened by fines or imprisonment. It's unthinkable for someone to point fingers at a company who is already giving a substantial amount of cash to a good cause and tell them they are in the wrong. Charity is charity because it's not required or expected, but encouraged at any amount.

    Do you get pissed at families who only give a small fraction of their yearly income to charity each year? For every dollar given, that's one dollar more than they had to give. I'm just saying give them a break, this is a good thing.

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • Translation: "What? WHAT?!? You mean you only donate $50,000 a year to the FSF? You greedy corporate bastards, how dare you? You should donate ALL OF YOUR MONEY to them!"

    Oy. Some people can't be pleased. Understand that this is charity, and $1 can be a significant chunk of profit. Care to explain this to RHAT's stock holders?

    (and yes, it's very nice of you to give RedHat permission for a price hike, I'm sure they appreciate it)

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • Isn't debian already 100% Free? ... I kind of wonder what the point is since there already is a distro that does this.

    I think that the point is because Red Hat is different from Debian. For myself, I happen to have started using RedHat (the Mother's Day release) long before I new there was a Debian. I like it, I'm used to it. Debian neither is, nor ever will be RPM based. If I wanted to switch to a 100% (FSF) Free GNU/Linux distribution, Debian would not be an option in my mind because I really like the way RPM does things, it's got me spoiled. Mind you, I'm not saying that Debian doesn't have an excellent package manager, I just happen to like RPM and want to stick with it.

    Just my two cents.

  • "Redhat Means Source", which coincidentally is the same three letters as a certain free software stalwart. I wonder which came first, the slogan or the initials? :)
    --
  • At least the main share of the Debian profits goes to SPI (Software in the Public Interest), which is a charity set up to maintain Debian etc. I'm not sure if they donate to the FSF or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do.

    And yes, Debian is 100% free, at least the stuff in the `main' section. They even have special definitions of what `free' implies -- you can't have anything exclusive to Debian, for instance.

    /* Steinar */
  • I haven't looked at RMS Linux, but I wonder if the definitions of 'free' are as strict as those for Debian. Debian has a nice utility called "Virtual RMS" that tells you everything you have installed from Debian that is vaguely non-free, and I try to be very choosey and take the free alternatives where possible. Debian has made some very laudable decisions and have stuck to their guns even when such a choice is unpopular. I just wonder if this "RMS Linux" is every bit as free as RMS would like, as I think that Debian tries to be.
  • yeah, I was just thinking about how Debian was mentioned as donating their proceeds... Wondering if RH thought that it would be a good idea to make themselves look good.
  • Waimea: stream cipher encryption algorithm

    why invent yet another encryption algorithm if there are already lots of strong algorithms out there? Why should I trust your algorithm to be secure?
    --

  • I take it Redhat has never heard of Debian?

    Apparently /.'ers haven't either. Debian is completely free in the GNU sense. Of course, they don't give a buck to the FSF everytime you buy it, because they don't CHARGE anything for it.

    Use Debian and give the FSF a buck yourself.
  • They don't do anything in TeX either, but it's not what THEY can do with it... I guess they really should have included the free software version of Qt.
  • Prior to QT 2, neither the "Open Source" nor the "Free Software" people thought QT was free...
  • trebly overloaded :)

    RMS -> Root Mean Square (in electronics)

    root-> /
    mean-> mean to anyone not doing Free Software
    square-> either mean*mean or geek, depending on your POV
  • Sure, but that still leaves the question why they didn't include Qt2.
    Seriously, who's going to use it other than (core?) KDE developers? AIUI, Qt is only ever used for KDE apps (or at least generally).
    1. They can't include Qt 1.x because it's non-free.
    2. They can't include KDE stable because it won't run without Qt 1.x.
    3. There's no point in including Qt 2.x as few if any packages use it yet
    Basicly, Qt 2 would be a waste of space until stable versions of KDE start using it.
  • Ahh, but with the RMS version, every time you type "Linux", a daemon corrects it to "GNU/Linux". A similar patch modifies incoming email.

    :)
  • Your assumption that RHAT gets a big chunk of the change seems quite questionable.
    • If that box gets sold at a store, then (guesstimate) RHAT probably only gets about $10-$12 of the $30, and they have to pay manufacturing and shipping costs on that.

      I would expect that the potential profit on that represents $3, and sending $1 of that to the FSF actually is reasonably generous.

    • If RHAT is selling the box directly, they still are likely selling it through a fulfillment house, and certainly aren't getting the whole $30.

    The notion that they're changing anything that has been established for the last 30 years is pretty silly; there has been evolution of locations chosen to "put stuff" throughout the history of UNIX.

    The usual criticisms of this come from the perspective that RHAT tends to use SysV-isms as opposed to BSD-isms.

    And criticizing RHAT for not following HOWTOs that are not likely being maintained and which probably also don't match the other distributions seems to me to be a cheap shot. HOWTOs tended to be written for Slackware, and many are quite horribly out of date. Feel free to criticize the HOWTO Trainwreck; that would be an interesting Slashdot thread...

  • You'd think that if they were going to boost their credentials with the letters RMS they might have done the guy a favour and called it

    RMS GNU/Linux

    But then that would dilute the (de facto)Linux brand, and confuse the customers. After all, Linux is the cool late 90's phenomenon, while GNU is long-haired 1970's programmers.

    Linux brand = Nice young man who works for All-American pioneers Transmeta, and who is taking on big bad Bill. Cool new OS that is surfing the Internet wave to steal a march on NT. Neat word with an 'x' and the end.

    GNU brand = Old guy with long hair who doesn't work for anybody and hangs around at some university. Some wierd programs with two and three letter names. Named his movement after a smelly animal from Africa.

    I rather like the idea of these two things being combined. But image is everything......
  • I know there are differences in the open/free software community, but what exactly is the *technical* difference? And what is the *philosophical* difference?

    Good question. Warning: like everyone here, I'm biased, so I'm going to make a longer post which hopefully will be less offensive than a less thought-out post by me would be. Please pardon (and correct!) any offensive, incorrect statements or stereotypes. My bias is towards Open Source.

    The technical difference is partly that the Free Software definition is more specific, and partly that the Free Software community has grown around the GPL (so Free Software projects tend to use the GPL).

    The philoosophical difference is related -- the Free Software definition is much narrower partially because they're more idealistic (hence the more specific requirements for freedom) and partially because they're more pragmatic (hence the stronger restrictions in the most commonly used license, the GPL).

    The Free Software movement practices the theory that freedom must be assured with law (GPL) as well as action.

    The Open Source community, on the other hand, has at its core the theory that freedom cannot be assured by law in all cases, but must always be fought for in person.

    As I mentioned, though, the Open Source definition is a lot less specific, so outside of the core of the Open Source community people often hold wildly varying theories. The only one universally accepted is that free/open source software development is more efficient than proprietary software development.

    This particular belief is part of the friction between the Free Software and Open Source communities, with FS people posting violent diatribes against the pragmatism of OSS, and OSS people posting equally violent rebuttals claiming their love for freedom.

    It's important to recognise that the heart of the OSS movement has the same goals as the Free Software movement.

    And the good news -- as far as I can see, they're both winning.

    -Billy
  • You miss the fact that the person asking had requested info on the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software.

    _Both_ models have freedom at their heart. Neither one is right to attack the other by claiming otherwise.

    So although your post is entirely right, it misses the point by failing to name the differences between the two camps.

    -Billy
  • I guess this is the "good old red hat" version. Has only true GPL stuff in it. This is good cause I wouldn't buy a $80 version of RH.

  • FSF says "free as in freedom, not price" and clearly states that they wish to be paid. See:

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.ht ml [gnu.org]
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.ht ml [gnu.org]
    http://www.gnu.org/help/help.html#helpgnu [gnu.org]
  • I'm frankly getting a bit tired of these posts that don't make any sense, just filled with a bunch of anti-corporate buzzwords, (and yet someone out there keeps moderating them up? Those same people will probably moderate this one way down. Fire away boys, I got karma to burn...)

    You seem to be worried about Red Hat not "caring" about the Linux community. *smirk* Look, Bob Young, AFAIK, is still in charge of Red Hat, and he seems committed, no, he seems to "care" about the Linux community. His gang has put out a commercially successful Linux distro, while staying true to the ideals of the Free software and Open Source movements. He still calling the shots. So what makes you people worry that Red Hat doesn't care?

    I mean, even if Red Hat *didn't* care, it's still in their interest to promote Linux and Free Software. If no one trusts or uses Free Software, no one is going to buy their product, and their stock holders will be pretty upset.

    Look, Red Hat is one of the good guys! They have contributed to GNOME, KDE, XFree86, now the FSF and they release all their software as GPL. Can you say that about Suse? Caldera? (dare I say it...) Debian? (calm down, I'm only pointing out that they give out more money than Debian. Its a Good Thing, don't diss them for it!)

    Now, Red Hat isn't a perfect distro, but the folks who blindly critisize it must have some sort of agendas, as I see it. Probably affiliated with a competitor (Suse, Caldera, Debian, MS...) Please don't listen to them (and for cripes sakes stop moderating them up!) If certain members of the Linux community keep tearing down any organization that is successful in promoting Linux and Free Software to a wider audience, then the push to "world domination" will surely fail.
  • I sympathize with Red Hat on excluding the current KDE

    Sure, but that still leaves the question why they didn't include Qt2.

    Qt2 is under the QPL (see www.troll.no), which is a DFSG [debian.org]-free / Open Source [opensource.org] license. Qt is best known for being the library upon which KDE [kde.org] is built, but it is a useful library for GUI development in and of itself.

  • No you can charge what you like for GPLed software as long as you don't put any restrictions on what the people you sell it to do with it (it other words you could sell a Linux CD for £10000 but then someone can just copy it and give it away).

    This means that companies like cheapbytes realise that they can't charge very much for the software otherwise someone will just undercut them.
    --
  • hawk [mailto] wrote:

    Ahh, but with the RMS version, every time you type "GNU/Linux", a daemon corrects it to "GNU/Linux". A similar patch modifies incoming email.

    Huh? I don't get what you're saying... They look the same to me. Anyway, here's a
    URL [whatis.com] by which you can find out how to more directly help [gnu.org] the FSF [gnu.org].

  • How in the world did you manage to stumble over RMS Linux? Yes, the direct URL worked, but I couldn't find a way to get there from starting at the main page [redhat.com].

    Did I miss something?

  • Agreed, technically Open Source is the same as Free software when it comes to licenses (though I'm not sure about where the APSL fits in), and the DFSG is great for when you don't want to be so restrictive as GPL only.

    The freedom aspect is indeed very important, and Open Source downplays it. However, what bothers me most is what I see as (mainly) hypocracy in the Open Source movement. The two main arguments for the adoption of the term Open Source are:

    (a) executives, marketroids, etc are all scared off by the term free software, and

    (b) the term free software is ambigious (speech vs. beer).

    I only have a problem with people trying to attract business when it compromises on morals, such as (a) does.

    As for (b), well, as is pointed out in http://www.gnu.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html [gnu.org], the term Open Source is worse because the obvious connotation (and let's face it, this is the one that counts, that Joe Public is going to directly or indirectly use) is that you can see the term, which is completely different from the actual meaning, which is the OSD, and quite similar to free software.

    Hmmmm, I think I might hop off my soapbox now... :)
  • /* Rant on */
    Man oh man. The more I read comments posted here the more I realize that some people just assume that no matter what Redhat does, it must be evil and wrong. Okay so yeah, they may not be the One True Free Software Champions(t)--they are a business! They have a commitment to be profitable for their shareholders.

    We see a lot of so called reasons Redhat is evil, mostly summed up by:

    1. They are a business
    2. Their distro is more expensive
    3. They might be the Microsoft of Linux
    4. People think their distro is no good.

    Sorry, but none of these are valid reasons to trample on Redhat. They have a history of releasing their work to the community that a number of people think is outweight by the fact they are successful.

    But I'll tell you the real reason people like to slam Redhat:
    *It is in style and undergroud!*

    Suprised? Don't be. People like to slam Redhat becase it is a popular sentiment these days. It makes them feel good and a part of the One True Underground Linux Community(t). Blah.

    Use the right distro for the right job people. And stop trying to be a part of the *cool underground*.

    /* Rant off */
  • Red Hat's only concern and obligation is to maximize stock value. If it does not maximize stock value it opens itself up to shareholder suits.

    On the other hand, let's say that it pisses off and antagonizes the entire Free Software Community. What can they do about it? How can they prevent Red Hat from using their software without destroying the very Freedom they claim to espouse? It has no obligation to "do right" by the free software community because the free software community has no recourse if Red Hat screws them over. What is the FSF going to do, include a clause in the GPL saying, "Except for Red Hat, they are dirty cheating scum and they can't use our software no matter what"?

    The Free Software Community would bitch and moan. How effective has their bitching and moaning been against Microsoft's business? Maybe a few negative stories would get published but then investors would realize that other than possibly bad PR from disgruntled socialists the Red Hat business model is exactly the same as the day they first threw money at them.

    I fail to see how Red Hat has an obligation to the free software community. Perhaps you could elaborate?
  • It's apparent you're still confused. You said "the differences between Open Source and Free Software (as in GNU licensed according ot the Free Software movement)". I'm sorry, but "GPL" is not the definition of "Free". Software licensed under the BSD, MIT(X), Artistic, MPL, QPL, and many other licenses are also free. Sofware does not have to be under a GNU license in order to be free.

    The FSF definition of Free Software, and the OSI definition of Open Source Software, ARE THE SAME! The OSI definition goes into more detail, but every example of Open Source Software is also Free Software, and vice versa.

    Philosophically, RMS and the FSF see Free Software as a political freedom (aka free speech), whereas the Open Source Initiative concentrates on the practical and pragmatic. Saying that Open Source is wrong is stupid. It's like saying any newspaper that doesn't have "free" in its name is ignoring freedom of the press.

    Of course, many people see the "Free" (or "Libre") of "Free Software" as referring to something other than a political liberty. They see the "freedoms" issued by a license as synonymous with "permissions." The deeper issues that RMS refers to aren't emphasized because, when one goes searching for them with an unfettered mind, they simply don't exist.
  • Redhat has always hated KDE. Their actions speak for themselves. First they declared KDE "illegal" (Matt Welsh's word, not mine). Then they fund, promote and actively support KDE's competitor, but do not give one penny to Harmony. Then when the market expresses its dislike of the non-KDE policy by switching to Mandrake or SuSE, they finally include KDE. But this KDE is broken, and the distro still requires the use of Gnome. And they still have the whitepaper declaring KDE illegal up on their site! (they finally removed it after dozens of emails pointed out their hypocracy. Perhaps the Gnome FAQ should remove their link to it as well :-)) Finally, still wanting to cater to the rabid anti-KDE crowd, they issue a new release that specifically mentions the lack of KDE in its advertisements. But Redhat must still believe in choice, because we now have a choice between a KDE-free distro for $25 and a distro with KDE included for $80.

    Not only does Redhat want to be the market leader, apparently they also want to be the moral arbiters of the Linux community. Bob Young says he wants to be the "Heinz" of the Linux world. Sorry, Bob. I prefer "Hunts".
  • If this distro were pure GPL only, it would be unusable! Do you even know what the GPL is? Take out all non-GPL programs. You have no X!!! Which means no Gnome!!! No Mozilla, Apache, etc. Take out impure forms of the GPL and you have no Perl (double licensed), or even the Linux kernel (expceptions)!

    This is not a showcase of GPL-only stuff. It is merely the showcase of Redhat's panderings to the vocal GNU minority.
  • I'll ignore the fact that RMS (Richard, not Redhat) considers the QPL to be free, and concentrate one a misreading of the QPL. The license says in effect, "if you use our open source library, your application must also be open source." This clause prohibits closed "public" beta testing, ala Corel.

    Looking at the first paragraph of section 6, subsection c only applies to applications that are "distributed". This clause merely guarantees that all modifications can be returned to the initial developers.
  • These are your opinions only. You are free, of course, to consider people who disagree with your diatriabes to be ignorant buffoons with no concept of the truth. However, I am also free to think the same of you, particularly when you say that even RMS doesn't understand what Free Software is.

    You may find that the QPL doesn't meet your needs of utility, but it is every bit as free as the GPL. Of course the QPL has restrictions on the how you can modify the source code. So does the GPL! If you don't believe in intellectual property, then the software that you possess is yours and yours alone, and neither Richard Stallman nor Erik Eng have anything to say about what you do with it. If there is no IP, then violate the GPL to your hearts content!
  • If Open Source Software is almost, but not quite, the same as Free Software, then what exactly is the objective difference? Notice I said "objective" and not "subjective". I already understand that Free Software is morally superior to Open Source, but is there any difference for a FSF-agnostic?
  • The obvious connotation of "Open Source" is that the source code is open! This may not be a 100% accurate connotation, but accurate enough compared to the obvious connotation that "Free Software" is gratis!

    But I have serious problems with the following statement. Perhaps you merely worded it incorrectly.

    "I only have a problem with people trying to attract business when it compromises on morals, such as (a) does."

    Any code of moral behavior that one ascribes to is a religion (or at least religious like). You might not call it a religion, but that does not change the fact. To insist that one ascribe to certain FSF philosphies in order to be moral is to elevate the FSF to the status of a religion. I'm sorry, I cannot and will not do this.

    When I use the term "Open Source" I am compromising nothing. To suggest that I am immoral in doing so is extremely offensive.
  • But I can indeed mix QPL and "truely free" software! I can mix BSD and QPL, X and QPL, Artistic and QPL. It gets problematic when I try to mix it with an exclusive license like GPL, but that's only because the GPL is incompatible with anything other than itself. But this can still be done! Just take a look at KDE(GPL) and QT(QPL).
  • I'm going to do just that. When my next paycheck comes through the door next week, I'll ask the FSF to get $29,95 from my credit card.
  • Apologies in advance, as this HAS been done to death already, BUT:

    Could someone please explain in simple terms why QT is not seen as 'free'? (as in speech)

    Didn't it get the seal of approval a while back, with the new QT2.0 licence?

    Now, a cynical type might believe that RedHat not including KDE and QT is not *entirely* ideologically based... ;)

    Paul
  • Qt 2.x would NOT be a waste of space. It's an extremely simple-to-use toolkit, which has tons of widgets and *excellent* documentation.

    (This could easily spark off YAFW - yet another flame war - so i'll stop here ;)
  • debian is free of course, but the latest stable version is quite old ... if you use the unstable one you end up in a destroyed packaging system, should i reinstall now?

    i liked debian a lot, but has to keep pace with the commercial world, so a striped down redhat may sound interesting ...
  • I thought that the GPL prohibited people from charging more than press and distrobution costs for a product

    The GPL is primarly concerned with free as in freedom not price, but it does refer to the latter also, as they can have a knock on effect.

    The GPL [gnu.org] does allow you to charge for the distribution of the program ("You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.") That is, I can legally sell any GPL program for $100,000. (Getting someone to buy it is another matter, and in any case, they can redistrubute it for free themselves)

    What you may be thinking of is the charge for the distribution of the source. On distribution of the source, the GPL states you must offer "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code".

    The GPL is extremely well thought out, that it included this. Consider a situation of the GPL without this clause: Company takes GPL program. Company modified program. Company sells program. You ask for source. Company says, that costs $100,000,000. Without this explicit mention of cost, it would be possible to "close-source" GPL products in this way. You may be legally allowed to change/distribute the source, but if you can't access the source in the first place, you're toast.
    --
  • I agree. For all the complaining /.er here. If you havn't donate >=29.95 to FSF, SHUT UP and stop being a smartipants. Everyone can count and know how much RedHat is getting. We don't need you to remind us.

    If nothing else, this is still the coolest commercial linux distribution package. It's cooler than OpenLinux, cooler than SuSE, miles cooler then Corel and that "Deluxe Linux 6.0" from the QUE® and Sams, (whose distributor's name is very small and hidden behide a blue hat) Okay, tell me a cooler commercial package, with the exception of that VA linux/Debian package.

    It's time to give pressure to the vendors to label a hugh $1, $2 sign on the box that declear the donation amount.



    CY

  • I must say that this post is self-contradictory. It basically says, since Red Hat is now a publicly traded company, that it has necessarily become weasely and will milk the Linux community for everything it's worth. The post then suggests that RHAT's only concern -- no, it's obligation -- is maximizing stock value, and so if you trust RH to do good deeds, you're simply a sucker.

    I would say that quite the opposite is true. Because Red Hat has an obligation to its shareholders, it has an obligation to preserve and continually improve its relationship with the Linux and free-software communities. Red Hat has an obligation to genuinely contribute and genuinely do good works. Don't forget that most of RHAT's stock value derives from what the investment community considers a unique business model, one founded on free software and on a genuine partnership with the free software community.

    If Red Hat were to start hosing down the free software community with a stream of weasily tactics, it would poison the genuine partnership and in doing so irreparably damage one of the foundations of its business model. It wouldn't take too long for the investment community to figure out that Red Hat considered its own business model to be a lie, and investors would drop the stock like a white-hot anvil.

    Hence, Red Hat is obligated to do right by the Linux and free software communities.

    Some of Red Hat's new hires, being brought in from the outside world, might overlook this important fact. And so, some Dumb Things will happen. This RMS distro might be one of them, but I don't think so. I think that the RMS distro was intended to be a good thing, and that some members of the Linux community have been overly harsh in their criticism of Red Hat.

    In summary,

    1. Red Hat is obligated to do right by the Linux and free software communities
    2. The RMS distro isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.

    Cheers,
    Tom

  • More bluntly:

    1. Red Hat must maximize its stock value.
    2. Investors see that stock value as inseparably tied to Red Hat's relationship with the Linux and free-software communities. (After all, that's why investors bought RHAT stock even though the company's earnings were nil; they believed in the business model, which is based on Red Hat being a good, respected member of the aforementioned communities.)
    3. Therefore, if Red Hat damages the relationships, its stock value drops.
    4. Consequently, Red Hat must preserve its good standing in the aforementioned communities.

    Get it? If investors wanted to buy into a company whose business model was based on bullying and weaselry, they would have bought MSFT. RHAT investors, on the other hand, expect Red Hat to be a good member of the communities because without those communities (and their respect), RHAT's business model won't fly. (Read Red Hat's pre-IPO SEC filing to see how dependent they are on the free-software commnunities.)

    Cheers,
    Tom

  • One good step to avoid corporate anthropomorphism would be to remove their status as individuals with rights under the law. I think this encourages the anthropomorphic tendency.

    What you say about RedHat's obligation to shareholders is true, but it needs to be tempered a little. If you read their SEC filing you'll see that they know they depend on the goodwill of the free development community for their very existence. Thus a move that makes economic sense in the short term, but pisses off developers, is not really in the shareholder's interest. Likewise acts of goodwill could actually improve their position in the longer term, even if it makes for a short term loss. How else could Microsoft have justified giving away IE to it's shareholders? Anyone with a share of stock want to try suing Microsoft over this? In the long term it wasn't so stupid, was it?

    BTW, I think this legal pressure for short term gain is very harmful. Corporations make products that frequently have hidden costs. For example cars entail a high rate of accidents, expensive road maintenance, and environmental degradation. These must be paid by society, but they don't show up on the balance sheet of the corporation. Naturally, there is a tendency by corporations to do their accounting in such a way that maximizes how good the balance sheet looks, and as a result products actually become *more expensive* to society as a whole in the interests of making the corporation look more profitable to it's shareholders.

    We don't need to force corporations to act in the public interest, but it would be very nice if we could give them an exception under the shareholder laws that made moves in the general public interest defensible.
  • I know there are differences in the open/free software community, but what exactly is the *technical* difference? And what is the *philosophical* difference?

    For instance, id software is technically not open, but philosophically, they are extremely friendly to programmers and developers. OTOH, the open source ppl have supported Apple and other biz leaders, who don't give a shit philosophically about the programming community. (read John Carmack's .plan file vs. Steve Job's speeches for an example).

    Since there seems to be a splintering of opinions on this - what exactly are the technical & philosophical differences among the various factions of the free/open source software community?

    Another question - if there were a company (like id) which is extremely friendly to programmers and tries its best to release source code, yet keeps its latest product proprietary for business reasons, would that win your support? What about the opposite - an open source co. which is unfriendly to developers?

    (By way of background - id released the DOOM source code, and Carmack has said he was developing quake II for multiple platforms for the sheer joy of programming. He said something like - There may be only 10 people playing it using linux on SPARC, but we still want to do it because it's good programming. I was REALLY impressed by that statement. id's software is never open/free for the latest release, and they try to open it after some years, when it's obsolete in terms of market value. However, nobody doubts that they are the programmer's programming company.)
  • The donation to FSF is an extra bonus from most people's point of view I imagine. They're also getting the software (and support).

    Its probably also seen as a form of proof that Red Hat are serious about open source. Although I must say that seemed fairly obvious anyway.
  • Redhat donating to the FSF, isn't that sort of like saying that microsoft donates money to it's software developers?

    MS press release:

    "Bill Gates anounced today that from now on we'll not only be paying our consumer support staff, salespeople and marketing department. We'll also be donating $1,- to our programmers' pension fund for each copy of windows sold."


  • Afaik you and a lot of people are missing a major point; has any of you actually seen the product you are buying? Is it boxed, does is have manuals or do you simply get 4 cd's in an enveloppe?

    As long as no one can answer those questions I think its totally unfair to make comparisons the way you do. You are comparing a product which you know (cd at cheapbytes) with something you don't.

    Oh; 2nd detail; $1 to FSF should be at least one dollar. $6 for making the cd's. How much for shipping? I live in Europe and would also like a copy...

    IMHO a lot of people seem to keep forgetting that RedHat is a company and as such they have 1 major goal which is to make money. And if you can make that money but are still making sure others can also profit, which makes them different from Microsoft I might add, I think it is a very positive move indeed.

    I get this eery feeling that a lot of people think this idea is bad simply because its RedHat who's doing it. IMVHO offcourse.

  • I just wrote to RedHat with a suggestion on how they might be able to donate more than $1-per-sale to the FSF. It's based on what my power company (FPL) does in their billings. There is a fill-in box where the customer (me) can write in a small amount, say $2, that is to go into a fund to help pay the power bills of low income folk. Whatever is written in is tacked onto the required payment for that month.

    Now I, and I presume others, wouldn't mind having a similar check-off box on my RedHat online purchase order form. It would be an easy way for me to slip a few extra dollars to the Cause, without antagonizing my wife too much:)

    Of course, I could be wrong .. I might be the only one interested in this. Am I?

  • If it's good for the community if one company does it, isn't it better for the community if all the companies do it?

    I propose that if you're making money selling FSF software, if it makes you do a little dance when you look at your bank statement, then you should be giving some back.

    I also think that if you're making a lot of $$$ because you have highly trained, skilled employees, you should make a donation to a local school.

    Helping those that are helping you is likely to provide tangible rewards in the future. Might make you feel good, too.

  • fsf (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 1999 @01:19AM (#1605972)
    if you wanna help fsf buy their books, those are at least as good as oreilly ones i just ordered my second book from fsf.... http://www.fsf.org/order/order-europe.html

  • Sounds great, but... (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 18, 1999 @01:21AM (#1605973)

    Let me get this straight: $1 to FSF, maybe $6 for making the CD's... That's leave 22.95 for Red Hat. I think that's a bit of a price gouge. but I don't think a software that is largely based on GPL or Free Distribution (Netscape for example) should be sold for as much as $70 when all they do is press some CD's and copy the Linux Doc website and call it a book.

    I think what Red Hat has done for Linux is a good thing, but I am very aware and concerned about the tendency for Red Hat distributions to no longer comply with the File Hierarchy that has been established for the last ~30 years. If you don't believe me - take the Linux HOWTO's and start comparing them to the Red Hat 6.0 installation - things are moving around on us.

    This will eventually mean that unless you are very good at Linux you cannot install anything that does not come packaged from RedHat. I don't like that implication, free software or not, it's no longer free.

    They can come up with all the cool marketing schemes they want to, but I am not going to get any software that claims to support the FSF (and back it with money) and then put a spin on their software installations such that I cannot install anything someone elses binary packages and have it come close to working - and only because they libraries and files are not where they traditionally are supposed to be.

    At this rate RedHat will start looking like RedMond

  • Legal and moral obligation (Score:3)

    by Chris Johnson ( 580 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @09:34AM (#1605974) Homepage Journal
    Legal? Yes, absolutely. I wouldn't argue with that a bit, and I'm sure there's some legal bits requiring that officers maximize stock value at all costs.

    Moral? *rofl* Nonsense! This silly notion has justified so many repugnant outrages, from the Nestle baby formula, to the same jerky behavior that routinely gets Apple raked over the coals on Slashdot, to most things Microsoft has ever done worth being outraged about. There are no moral rules written into corporate law. If you think that working for a corporation automatically gives you the obligation to ignore your own morality and that of the world at large, and extort, abuse, lie, and harm in the name of being good to the corporation, then please don't ever work for a corporation, OK?
  • It's fair enough to say that RHAT is caring $1 worth on this particular "product." Two cynical views leap out:
    • That's not very much caring

      Although if there turn out to be $30 RMS Linux boxes on store shelves, this probably means that RHAT is contributing about 10% of their revenues, which suggests that the small percentage is more meaningful than the 3.3% figure would imply.

      In other words, $1 may be all that it's safe to contribute on a $30 "product."

    • If RHAT expects to get some goodwill from the community for that $1, then a $1 contribution does not forcibly represent that they care about the FSF; it merely represents that they care to get some goodwill.
    There's also some "flip side" considerations:
    • If you look at old copies of the GNU's Bulletin, you'll see that Red Hat used to have a similar policy on sales of the $29.95 "Red Hat Power Tools" package.

      It strikes me as a good thing that after the "product line redesign" of the last six months, they have chosen to redeploy the "FSF contribution" in a way that makes it more obvious that it is such.

    • I don't have a big problem with them not giving the FSF a lot of money.

      Money isn't the most valuable thing that one can contribute to free software; the most valuable thing is in fact free software.

      And the RHAT sponsorship of GNOME development as well as XFree86 (via Precision Insight) thus represents substantial contributions of software.

    • It's not obvious that the FSF has a greater ability to effectively transform dollars into useful software.

      I'm quite certain that RHAT spent considerably more money last year on developers producing free software than the (publicly available, if you ask them) amount the FSF spent on "program expenses" (that is the category where "transforming money into software" lies).

    The long and short of this all is that:

    1. If your goal is to contribute to the FSF, it is manifestly obvious that it will be vastly more efficient to send the FSF money directly.
    2. There is ample room for some cynicism, although to view things solely through a cynical eye seems to be at least a bit unfair.

  • RMS Linux: Some interesting subtexts (Score:3)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @12:53AM (#1605976) Homepage
    Software product as defined by the FSF, this four CD set does not contain Netscape, Qt, KDE, and several additional non-open-source packages which are available in other Linux products.

    Interesting implication there, eh? Qt and KDE aren't Open Source, says the article.

    Based on the amount I've been coding with the excellent open source Libnet library as of late, having a library I can work with and perhaps release updated features for is critical to my personal experience of open source code. Since, as far as I can tell, there's a very strong "look, maybe even touch, but don't share in a convenient manner" aspect to the QPL, for the way I've been using Open Source Products, I probably have to agree with Redhat on this one.

    Your Mileage May Vary, of course.

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

  • Free vs Open Source software (Score:3)

    by /dev/kev ( 9760 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @01:28AM (#1605977) Homepage
    Qt and KDE aren't Open Source, says the article.

    No. Read it properly - it says they're not free. There's a difference between free and open-source (at least in connotation, despite what ESR says), and you appear to have missed that distinction. As http://www.gnu.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html [gnu.org] says,


    • ``Open source software'' describes a category of software licenses, almost but not quite the same as ``free software.''

    Qt 1.x is not free (Qt 2.x is, AFAIK). It may be open source, but it is not truly free. AFAIK, KDE is, but as has already pointed out, it's useless without Qt and Qt 2.x won't do.

    The goal of RMS Linux is like Debian, to be a 100% free distro, not open source. If you want open source, just go for the regular Redhat.

  • What am I missing? (Score:3)

    by eddy ( 18759 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @12:49AM (#1605978) Homepage Journal
    What am I missing? Why not just donate to the FSF directly? Using RH as a middle-man seems a pretty round-about way of giving support..

  • debian? (Score:3)

    by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @12:58AM (#1605979) Homepage
    Isn't debian already 100% Free? I know for a fact that if you buy debian money goes to the FSF. It's cool that RedHat is doing this, but I kind of wonder what the point is since there already is a distro that does this.

  • Red Hat plays politics as usual (Score:3)

    by Samawi ( 31623 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @03:38AM (#1605980)
    From Red Hat:

    >To qualify as an exclusively Free Software
    >product as defined by the FSF, this four CD set >does not contain Netscape, Qt, KDE, and several
    >additional non-open-source packages which are >available in other Linux products.

    Note that Red Hat here does NOT distinguish Qt 1.x (old license) from Qt 2.x. Qt 2.x IS "free" according to FSF guidelines (and RMS himself) and should have been included. By being unclear and fuzzy on this issue, Red Hat is playing the usual politics of division, something I thought they had grown out of. Qt 2.x as a toolkit is independent of KDE and can be used outside of that context (just as Gtk is independent of GNOME and even of the GIMP). Red Hat knows this quite well; leaving it out is clearly an attempt to discourage the use of this particular "free software" in any context.

    Some have said that this is a "hackers" distribution. Well in that case, then those interested in hacking KDE 2.0 (which uses the FSF-free Qt) could have benefitted from the inclusion of both the latest KDE sources as well as Qt! Or Red Hat could have included the sources of the present KDE official version (also DSFG-free) so that hackers could work on compiling it with Qt 2.0. Doing so would have gone some way in showing that this is not merely an anti-Qt/KDE distribution.

    Note that Red Hat did not call this a "GPL-only" distribution. So one cannot claim that since Qt 2.x is non-GPL that this is the reason it was not included. This is clearly a pathetic attempt to throw a bone to all the KDE haters out there. Those who do not like KDE should also see this and not let their sentiments be played with so casually. Red Hat would have been more honest to simply call this thing a "non-KDE, non-Qt distribution" instead of falsely and shamelessly hiding behind the DFSG and RMS (who himself agrees that Qt 2.x is free!).

    I used to be a big Red Hat fan. With each childish stunt like this, my opinion of them is being continuously revised downward. I hope that KDE lovers, haters, as well as neutral parties will all see through this divisive political stunt.

  • Red hat Means Source? (Score:3)

    by ainvy ( 36615 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @01:32AM (#1605981)
    RMS Linux costs $29.95 and FSF will be paid at least $1. (Of course, this prevents us from interpreting it as exactly $1.)

    We are supposed to buy this as it is "cool" and gets FSF a dollar! Works to 3.3% of the proceeds... tell you what, buy linux at $2/$3 from cheapbytes and donate $27 to FSF. This will show that *we* care for FSF.

    RMS -- it used to mean Richard M. Stallman... over time, marketing and morphing will ensure that RMS stands for Red hat Means Source! To deprieve a man of his name is not cool, it is cruel.
  • It is truly a mistake in perception to attribute human behavioural characteristics such as "caring" to a corporate machine. . . But rest assured that every action taken by the CORPORATION is carefully weighed and executed based on its short and long run potential impact on that all-powerful share price, and you should keep this in mind as you evaluate a company's behaviour.

    Yes, very cynical indeed... but very true, unfortunately. While I also believe that there are people at RedHat who believe in what they're doing, they are in many selling linux down the river. It is extremely difficult to maintain your integrity while selling it (your integrity, that is).

    For too many newcomers to linux, RedHat == Linux. Is this a good thing? Well, no. But, perhaps more importantly, is this a bad thing? Well, not necessarily. But maybe.

    A year ago, we were saying that everything and anything that puts the name Linux out there into the popular media and "technical" press is a Good Thing -- there's no such thing as bad publicity. But, as one poster mentioned, RedHat is rapidly becoming the Microsoft of Linux -- in the sense of being the most well-known and arguably the most popular (meaning RedHat is the version that non-technical people know and are most familiar with). An example: I was talking with a tech support guy who worked at one of the major universities here in Boston (ahem, Harvard, ahem), and he mentioned that they were starting to use Linux on some of their servers. Great, I said; which distribution? He looked at me as if I had asked him the stupidest question in the world, and said "6.0, of course."

    To sum up -- while RedHat has done a great job of positioning Linux as a "corporate" solution, they have done it by becoming a Corporation themselves. And, as the previous poster wrote, as a corporation, they have more to worry about now -- shareholders, stock prices, turning a profit, and positioning themselves as a viable company. To assume that these guys can still maintain the kind of commitment to the Linux community, the FSF, and individual programmers/Linux users like me is perhaps a little naive. This is not your father's RedHat.

    darren

  • Distribution competition (Score:3)

    by JordanH ( 75307 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @01:45AM (#1605983) Homepage Journal
    I would guess that this is in reaction to the support that Debian is picking up, which was just reported here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org] last week.

    Just goes to show what a treacherous business selling distributions can be.

    Heh, RMS probably will not like his namesake distribution because it's not being presented as GNU/Linux [fsf.org].

  • Re:What am I missing? (Score:3)

    by Bob Ince ( 79199 ) <and@@@doxdesk...com> on Monday October 18, 1999 @01:11AM (#1605984) Homepage

    Erm. It seems its the same price as RedHat Standard, except that a chunk of the price goes to the FSF. So if you happened to want a set of RedHat Standard and you like GNU (WHO DOESNT!!!! -Mr. Nutty [er, I mean, RMS]) it comes out as a better deal.

    As long as you dont want StarOffice, or Qt, or Netscape, anyways. Funny marketing, that, advertising it as "better because it contains less!". But theres theology for you. HOORAY FOR FSF!!


    --
    This comment was brought to you by And Clover.

  • Ok, now put your money where your mouth is. (Score:3)

    by Lion-O ( 81320 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @02:20AM (#1605985)
    I've seen a lot of comments in this group allready and most of them are 'complaining' about the amount of money or the fact you could easily donate $30 yourself & buy a cd cheap.

    This is your change I'd say; proof RedHat wrong and put your money where your mouth is.

    If you won't; fine. But then I would suggest you'd better shut up about the amount of money at all since you are then very busy proving that the idea of buying cheap & donating heavily does not work and that you're simply bashing.

    I'd expect major donations to FSF after reading all the comments but I would not wager my money for it. Unfortunatly I might add.

  • Re:debian? (Score:4)

    by Ray Dassen ( 3291 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @01:32AM (#1605986) Homepage
    I know for a fact that if you buy debian money goes to the FSF.

    Check your facts :-). First of all, the Debian project doesn't sell CDs itself; we make CD images [debian.org] that are burned by CD vendors [debian.org]. Some of these vendors make it possible for buyers to donate to Debian's development.

    The donations are handled by SPI [spi-inc.org] (Software in the Public Interest), a non-profit Inc. created as the legal entity for all kinds of Debian stuff. Since its creation, SPI has expanded to support other projects [spi-inc.org] besides Debian (Berlin, GNOME, LSB, Open Source, Open Hardware). While these include FSF projects (GNOME), SPI isn't currently donating directly to the FSF AFAIK.

  • Open Source != Free Software (Score:4)

    by Ratface ( 21117 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @01:14AM (#1605987) Homepage Journal
    I have seen in several postings here some confusion about the differences between Open Source and Free Software (as in GNU licensed according ot the Free Software movement).

    I too mixed these two definitions up in an article I wrote a while back about GIFs. However I got a mail from RMS who put me straight about which is which. I'll leave the general population to argue about which is best etc, but here's a snippet from the mail I received from RMS:

    ------------------------
    The Open Source movement is a different group, started in 1998. We and they do similar activites, but we do them for completely different philosophical reasons. The Open Source movement aims to get support from business, by mentioning only practical advantages, and never talking about deeper issues. The Free Software movement says that freedom and community are important in themselves.

    See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html for
    more explanation.
    -----------------------------


    Seems like a bit of a "Bite Me!" comment to me, but it explains why QT, Netscape et al are not included in this Free Software version of Red Hat.

    Hope it helps clear up some confusion.

    (and RMS - if you are reading this, does this atone for my earlier confusion? :-)

  • Corporate Anthropomorphism (Score:5)

    by Clairvaux ( 98631 ) on Monday October 18, 1999 @01:46AM (#1605988) Homepage
    Warning: extremely cynical opinion ahead

    at least $1 is donated to the FSF for every sold package.

    When you're examining the apportioning of the pie, look at how much the other parties are getting as well as how much the FSF is getting. I think you'll find that $1 is not that big of a share.

    This is super cool, I think, and I probably have to buy one just because it is so cool.

    Sorry to sound cynical, but this just means you've been suckered by their publicity ploy.

    I think, this finally proves that - as far as this is possible for a company - RedHat cares about the community.

    People need to realize that Red Hat is now a PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY. This means all of the normal PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY APPURTENANCES, such as a Board of Directors, SEC filings, PR departments, marketing consultants, branding consultants, market research managers and liasons, and many, many other gears of the corporate machine. It is now a very naive belief to feel that Red Hat, as a corporation, "cares" about anything or anyone other than the value of their stock. In fact, it is now the legal and moral obligation of all officers of Red Hat to do everything in their power to maximize that value.

    It is truly a mistake in perception to attribute human behavioural characteristics such as "caring" to a corporate machine. A group of people in an organization with a purpose will behave differently than any individual. My favorite example of this is two forces of civil war soldiers charging each other. No sane individual would contemplate running at a group of armed enemy soldiers who are hell bent on shooting you. But as a group, you are under an extremely complex set of psychological motives, manipulations, and pressures, and it is historical fact many soldiers died in exactly such circumstances.

    Now, there may very well be INDIVIDUALS at Red Hat who "care about the community." I believe this is true. But rest assured that every action taken by the CORPORATION is carefully weighed and executed based on its short and long run potential impact on that all-powerful share price, and you should keep this in mind as you evaluate a company's behaviour. Remember that shareholders are more than ready to BRING SUIT against officers of a public company who engage in actions motivated by objectives other than that share price that seem to hurt the company.

    Judging by the reactions here, it was a good move for Red Hat though.

    You were warned. ^_^

Slashdot Top Deals

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_

Close