Red Hat Claims They Started The Open Source Revolution 260
thrillbert writes: "According to this article, Red Hat is claiming to be the starter of the open-source movement." The article talks about several companies in the area (include the one that owns this site). I don't have the heart to comment on this. I can't say I'm surprised, but I'd tend to think a lot of others might deserve more credit. RMS (sure he'd hate the term Open Source, but he deserves credit). ESR will just take the credit.(Update:Its a joke! I was kidding! Stop flaming!) But Linus isn't even mentioned. I mean, Michael Tiemann and Red Hat deserve lots of credit for helping make Linux mainstream, but starting it?
and side story... (Score:1)
But uh Al Gore created the Internet
And if you step this way I have a bridge I want to sell you...
"If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten."
-- George Carlin
Neither Michael nor I would care about this (Score:4)
We've both contributed. That's good enough for us -- and I'm quite willing to believe that his quote was truncated or mangled worse than mine.
Re:i'm confused... (Score:2)
Also, for those who pick up a box at Best Buy, Red Hat is back to selling a $29.95 edition, which is more in line with what the other distros have been doing. I think the more expensive boxes are just a differential in the amount of support you get.
--
Re:Nobody made open source, we took it (Score:2)
--
at0m speaks wisely (Score:2)
Re:linuxonceleron is lying about my politics (Score:2)
Duh. I'm trying to lose all my karma, nothing against you personally. :)
Of Course they started the open source movement! (Score:1)
If there were ever two true things that could be said about the internet it's that Al Gore, "took the initiative to create the internet", and that Red Hat started the open source movement. Come on people this is common knowledge!
Re:Yeah, don't jump to conclusions... (Score:3)
In fact it would be pretty improbable for any one company to start an open source revolution, because it IS open, OS started with individuals, they got in touch, more people joined...
There probably was no 'start' as such, an idea reaches its time (as all TP readers should know).
I'd really hope that this is just media flaimbait, cos well that is how they make a living after all...
Otherwise it is way beyond the ridiculous...
And to take things a bit further I can't believe that all these schisms are doing anyone any good, the more time we spend fighting about who did what at uncle Jeremiah's wedding the less that get's done.
If we want to get involoved in the sort of dumb infighting that goes on in politics shouldn't we be running for parliment/congress/etc
If Redhat fuck up in such a major way as is suggested then they are just cutting thier own throats, because we are the people supporting them, and we know all the alternative sites.
They aren't big enough to play the MS game.
Maybe they've just hired some new PR bunnies and they escaped before the training finished.
Re:For those who disagree (Score:1)
Your argument is equivalent to saying that the world's first prostitute invented sex.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Re:Al Gore was *not* taken out of context. (Score:3)
NSFNet. Gore's bill, the Supercomputer Network Act of 1986, established the NSFNet in 1986.
The Internet was born four years earlier, without Mr. Gore's assistance. (See http://www.isoc.org/gu est
Steven E. Ehrbar
The Ungrateful SWINE! (Score:1)
- desi
Re:I thought so. (Score:2)
That's the Joy of Slashdot. We get a link to a half-baked story along with a half-baked commentary from one of the Slashstaff, we all jump in and shoot our mouths off, and a (hopefully) better picture slowly emerges.
I can hardly stand to read the traditional news sources any more, since there aren't any curmudgeons and subject matter experts posting comments to cut through the crap and bring out the essence of what's going on.
--
Re:They truncated my quotein an unhelpful way (Score:1)
the speech. If so, could you clarify whether
Michael Tiemann was speaking for himself,
for Cygnus or for entire RedHat? What was
the context?
no, not at all (Score:2)
That's beside the point. What we are upset about are the heinous claims that Red Hat started the Open Source movement. That is incredibly stupid, or this could just be some bad journalism on cnet's part. Tiemann could very well have been referencing the GNU project, and his quote could have been misconstrued.
Taking them out to the woodshed. (Score:2)
Then what about all the articles that are Pro-Linux and are written with a tone that, without Linux there would be no open source, or the only open source OS is linux, or calling companies to task when they call themselfs an Open Source Research Lab and the only thing the do is linux.
If you are unwilling to smack down the other wrong usage, don't be suprised when things like this happen.
Try going back to the 70's and before, and before (Score:2)
In high school in 1980, we were writing and trading source code written on Apple ]['s, and happy to be sharing our knowledge and learning from each other. So maybe it was Steve Wozniak who started open-source/free-software/whatever, because he made the conscious decision that Applesoft would be interpreted to encourage sharing of source code. He had a history of open technology, like with wiring diagrams in the old Homebrew Computer Club (?). True enough, RMS was espousing it around the same time.
Then again, they were just following in the age-old intellectual tradition of sharing knowledge, like how academia is supposed to be. Like what a civilized society does. It comes quite naturally to any cooperation-minded person.
Re:OpenSource predates most of these folks! (Score:3)
But even before them I would call attention to guys like Martin Graetz, Stephen Russell, and Wayne Wiitanen, who embodied the ideals that open source aims at WAAAAYYYY back in the early 60's. (anyone care to guess who they were?). These were some of the orginal hackers. These guys were freely sharing code before virtually 99% of the people reading this were born. RMS, Cygnus, and RedHat are new kids on the block. All they did was take a philosphy and capitalize on it. The movement has been around for a long time, and it is only now that the rest of the world is noticing what a lot of us have been doing for decades.
-Vercingetorix
This is how you make people hate you. (Score:1)
Drunk Talk or Creative Quoting (Score:1)
This sounds like drunk talk to me. Just imagine Tieman with a yew 'Jaegies' in him talking to the ladies. He's overheard by the sneaky reporter hiding amongst the shadows.
That, or some creative quoting. Certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Matthew
orasoft.org
Yay For C|Net (Score:2)
-Waldo
Re:no no no you are wrong (Score:1)
Re:What IS the "open source movement"? (Score:2)
Insofar as the vacuum of space is owned by Software in Public Interest, that's an accurate statement.
You see, the USPTO denied the registration request by saying that "Open Source" is a "descriptive term" that cannot be registered. So in the U.S. at least, nobody owns it. (That is, nobody has any legally enforcable rights to the term.)
Steven E. Ehrbar
Whoa, RMS, ESR, Torvalds? (Score:1)
Benefit of the doubt (Score:4)
"We did start the open-source revolution"
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that it might have been taken out of context. Nowhere does it say that "we" == Red Hat, or that they didn't say "We did start the open-source revolution as far as big business is concerned," or anything else.
Seems a little presumptuous to base an entire article on seven words. How about some context?
(Of course, that said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Red Hat were getting a big head.)
Huh? (Score:1)
No No No No...... (Score:1)
We all know that Al Gore started the Open Source movement.
----
Dharma
I thought so. (Score:2)
This is the problem that we face. We see it day in and day out. We criticize those people who subscribe to the fact that mainstream media is "fact", but sometimes lose sight of the quest for the real truth. Our postings on this article(for the most part) are heir apparent of this. We are all guilty of it.
ESR: Perhaps you could shed some insight on Tiemann's unabridged quote?
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:2)
So, Lenin and co. started the Bolshevik revolution ... but it had its roots much earlier.
Re:what WAS the first opensource progam?????? (Score:2)
hello.c:
#include <stdio.h>
void main(void)
{
printf("Hello, world!");
}
words (Score:2)
I'm not 100 percent sure what was meant by the statement by Tiemann:
"We did start the open-source revolution"
but there is defanately confusion about what words are used. Many keep pointing out that RedHat did not start the open source movement:
movement (mvmnt)
n. A series of actions and events taking place over a period of time and working to foster a principle or policy: a movement toward world peace. An organized effort by supporters of a common goal
revolution (rv-lshn) n. Abbr. rev.
A sudden or momentous change in a situation
Why does this matter?
I agree that RedHat did not start the open source movement, but they may very well have been the driving force behind the open source revolution. This of course being a matter of opinion.
Re:Credit (Score:2)
Well, that all depends.
I firmly and unequivocally disagree with this statement.
--
OpenSource predates most of these folks! (Score:2)
Re:Even the synopsis had its influences (Score:2)
I never actually counted, but it seems to me that they now post more stories per day, and that this has a bad effect because (a) they are less choosey about what they pick, and (b) the discussion threads don't go as deep as they used to, because people tend to post "fire and forget" comments and then rushe off to the next story.
> Perhaps those of us who've been around a long time are just growing up...
Shoulda gone the Tin Drum route while you had a chance.
I did.
--
Re:They truncated my quotein an unhelpful way (Score:2)
They truncated my quotein an unhelpful way
Dontchya just hate it when they do that, makes it taste awfull...
Re:Don't you know? NOT TROLL (Score:2)
This is sorta like Tron (Score:2)
Dillinger: "Now, wait a minute, I wrote you!"
and this:
Sarc: "Users wrote us. A user even wrote you!"
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:2)
Original Hackers (Score:2)
-Vercingetorix
Re:Al Gore was *not* taken out of context. (Score:2)
Al Gore was in school when ARPANet was created.
Try being precise for once, and you'll understand that the bill that Al Gore sponsored in Congress created something very specific, with a particular name... now, what was that name?
Re:dgris has a point -- it's why I didn't flame Ti (Score:2)
Speaking of 'most important object lesson', I think Cygnus has a better shot at that -- without their work on gcc, we'd all be fucked, but I do not think they have significantly reshaped the development model.
To See A Naked Lady, Turn To Page 57. (Score:4)
To See A Naked Lady, Turn To Page 57. So began the first Open Source program I ever encountered. It was in a text book... probably in the 2nd grade. Granted, it was not well structured (usually it was just a series of GOTO statements) and practicly never executed properly.
However, it had many of the features of a modern Internet based Open Source project. First, it was collaboratively developed, as each new boy picked up on the idea and added additional features. Secondly, its primary purpose was to excite the curiousities of young boys, often in the direction of pr0n--much like the modern internet. Finally, it was frowned upon by the establishment and viewed as a threat to copyrighted material. There were even fines and punishments involved.
I saw this in the early 70s, but I suspect the practice predates me by many years. It probably predates RMS, ESR, and all the other 3-initial guys too.
The serious point here, if any, is that in order to find the first Open Source program, you must first define "program".
Re:no, not at all (Score:2)
It was not a very intelligent thing to do, but in our realm you must be pretty clear on such bold statements. It really doesn't matter who Tiemann was referencing as "we", it could be Red Hat, it could be Cygnus, or he could be indicating the GNU project in general. It's somewhat of an arrogant statement to make, considering all of the entities that have contributed to the open source model. I don't believe that one group has the right to state that they have "started" a particular paradigm. The same can be said for several other paradigms, such as B2B, e-Commerce, the internet, etc. Journalism can be quite ugly and subjective, but so can a quote as extreme as this.
Facts wrong again (Score:2)
Re:I thought so. (Score:2)
[OT]: Low Slashdot user ID's within! (Score:2)
Has anyone noticed that this article contains posts from users with low (under #5000) Slashdot user ID's? And that the posts from users #5000 and less are all +4 and up? This article managed to dig up the Linux veterans and get them to do some serious, intelligent commenting. Notice that most troll posts occur above UID 100000, where the latest generation of trolls seem to be located.
I'm not flaming or trolling, it's just my observation. When I see a post from a low User ID, I tend to treat it with much more respect than the newer users'.
True for Redhat even without Cygnus (Score:2)
Re:How the hell did this get moderated up to 3? (Score:3)
To counter the previous post and all such false dichotomies, I'll drone on... You can certainly consider social liberty important, while at the same time maintaining a "conservative" (i.e. non-interfering) stance on finances, this is a bias against government interference in the private finances and activities of citizens (Libertarian view), which is distinct from the idea that government should interfere constantly on "moral" issues, but somehow manage to fund itself without excess financial interference with citizens (Republican view), which is distinct from the idea that government should freely interfere with private finances and personal issues of morality on a regular basis (Democratic view), which is distinct from the idea that government should feel free to tax citizens, but use the money to empower citizens so that they'll be able to enjoy their social liberty (Green view). Seen this way, politics is difficult to measure from left to right, and at best can be seen as a two dimensional matrix. And I've way oversimplified it and again created a false dichotomy by trying to make the two subjects (finance and morality) distinct and polar in and of them themselves.
Re:Don't you know? NOT TROLL (Score:2)
Was that a misquote too? Or does he only "selectively" speak for redhat?
Re:"Race to attain profitability" over? (Score:2)
however, i don't think that they were the distributor who'd brought in the most revenue...that was red hat. but they were, ironically enough, still in the red, so to speak.
Don't you know? (Score:2)
I think.. (Score:5)
It may be that he meant 'we' as in himself (he -- Michael -- definately gets more credit from me than ESR does) and those individuals he has worked with throughout the years.
Feel free to ignore me if the exact quote (which I couldn't find in context) implies that RED HAT is truly the fountainhead of the Open Source movement.
Nobody made open source, we took it (Score:5)
moderators.... (Score:2)
Redhat sounding like Microsoft (Score:2)
Gee, does that sound a LOT like something Microsoft would say? (Or Al Gore (I invented the internet))
As companies have to make stock holders happy, it happens to all of them
Sigh
(Suse or Mandrake anyone?)
Re:What's your claim? (Score:2)
Rob was joking. He told me so himself.
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:2)
Just my $0.02
Yeah, don't jump to conclusions... (Score:2)
The credit really should go to the countless programmers who have donated source code to the public since the invention of digital computers.
I mean, before there was commercial software, there was open source, pretty much.
(yeah ok, that's probably simplifying things, but I just mean that software was more free before it was more closed, secret government projects to win WWII notwithstanding)
W
-------------------
Re:How the hell did this get moderated up to 3? (Score:2)
---
Re:dgris has a point -- it's why I didn't flame Ti (Score:3)
the many-developer approach (gee, seems to me I
remember writing something about this once upon
a time...).
Now I suggest you go think about "business model
or ideology" for a while. Consider the following
question: does a revolution start with a change
in action, or a chasnge in thought?
Look for a follow-up (Score:2)
Also, when slashdotters (I'm not saying all) bash redhat, the people that stand up for redhat say "come on, they're not bad, it's human nature to try to take out the leader." But when the leader gets arrogant and starts taking credit where credit is NOT due (a la microsoft), it might be time to take them out.
How usable is woody as a desktop? I might have to switch....
Give me a brerak (Score:3)
Give me a break, Taco.
First read the article, and who is saying what. Tiemann =/= RedHat.
Secondly, think about the article. They quoted all of about 2 sentences from him. Sounds like this CNET writer is trolling. How about printing the rest of the conversation so readers might have some context with it.
Peace out
Al Gore's "Information Super Highway" (Score:2)
Also: (Score:2)
Also: Is this "Red Hat" speaking, or just one employee shooting his mouth off?
The claim is ridiculous prima facie, but then there are always people/companies ready to stake out ridiculous claims.
So I'm curious who's being ridiculous here. Red Hat? Tiemann? Or just the reporter? (I don't suppose those answers are mutually exclusive!)
--
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:2)
I know I'll probably get roasted, but without Red Hat, the Open Source Revolution would not be where it is today.
(This of course does not mean that I think Tiemann's comment was a fair statement to make. A little more humility next time would be wise.)
Re:not surprised (Score:2)
Doug
Re:How the hell did this get moderated up to 3? (Score:3)
That's true.
ESR has (intelligently) kept his personal politics completely seperate from his business life/advocacy.
That's not true. Definitely not.
See this discussion for an example of ESR keeping his personal politics closely tied to his advocacy:
demands of effective publicity will allow." LWN, yet another next week [lwn.net]
(* What I find funny about ESR's signature: He claims that pro-gun people are convinced that they sexually more mature than anti-gun folks. Somehow I think this argument can shoot backwards...)
------------------
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:2)
Every time an American history class is taught in a public school. They do still teach history in school, don't they?
Come to think of it, your comparison is interesting. We remember Patrick Henry, not for killing English soldiers, but for his stirring words, "give me liberty, or give me death." His rhetoric is the most famous thing about him. That kind of makes him the ESR of the American Revolution, doesn't it? :)
Like Al Gore? (Score:2)
Remember, some people thought Redhat dropped support for the Sparc architecture. Then someone from Redhat told is a Sparc version of 7.0 was coming out, just a bit later. Some people jump to conclusions entirely too fast
Even the synopsis had its influences (Score:2)
I don't have the heart to comment on this.
More like the money that pays for your meals differs with what you know is right.
I remember way back in the day when slashdot.org was a good site. Now its boiled down into a big bbs of pimple faced 15 year old trolls who think the only purpose of the GPL is for their asses who don't have jobs. Even the stories are weak. Unless its anything Linux, Star Wars or some Gadget it goes neglected.
Re:Don't you know? NOT TROLL (Score:2)
-Al Gore
He said it. Truth hurts sometimes.
And the problem is? (Score:5)
Damn, people! At least get your history straight if you're going to comment.
Michael Tiemann was one of the founding members of Cygnus. In case you've forgotten, Cygnus is the company that took gcc from being a second-rate compiler for a small number of architectures and turned it into a world-class system that is the standard for embedded systems development.
If anyone deserves to claim to have started the open-source movement, it's Cygnus. They're the ones who demonstrated that you could pay the bills while giving the source code away.
daniel
No, that's not it (Score:2)
:)
hawk, returning you to your regularly scheduled flamefest
They truncated my quotein an unhelpful way (Score:5)
"Cygnus (Michael's company before Red Hat bought it) has a claim to have started the open-source revolution; so does Richard Stallman, and for that matter so do I. It all depends on what moment in the unfolding process you want to pick as "start", like designating the year zero on your calendar."
My point, of course, was that trying to pin down a single start of the movement would be foolish and false to history.
Re:How the hell did this get moderated up to 3? (Score:2)
Maybe it isn't far to say the Democratic view is to freely interfere with private finances but the interference on personal issues of morality is a very Republican viewpoint. Republicans want to take away a woman's right to control her own body (it's in the party platform) and Republicans don't want to let homosexuals enjoy the same privleges as heterosexuals (marriage, inheritance, etc.). Democrats, as a party, have the opposite views.
Nothing you said makes it difficults to view politics from left to right. It goes: (from left to right)
GREEN -> DEMOCRAT -> REPUBLICAN/REFORM
Libertarians sometimes act like democrats and sometimes like republicans. They can be independent thinkers. Independent thinkers I almost NEVER agree with... but that's another story.
I'm very amused (Re:What's your claim?) (Score:2)
You're living in the generative myth I created and you don't even know it. But that's OK with me. It means I succeeded at what I was trying to do. Go write some code, kid.
Re:How the hell did this get so dang Off Topic. (Score:2)
GNU and RMS (Score:5)
Of course, a lot of this is semantics, definitions, smoke and marketing anyhow.
Red Hat was probably one of the first "Open Source" companies that both used the words in their marketing material *and* fit the bill in real life.
Personally, I'd have to credit ESR as chief Open Source advocate, and Bruce Perens for the DFSG.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
I don't find it insulting. (Score:2)
It is as irrational to fear a gun as it is to fear a hammer. What is often rational is to fear people with guns. Personally, I fear two kinds of people with guns: people with guns who are intent on hurting me, and people with guns who themselves fear guns.
In college, I once had a debate with a gun-control advocate named Trina. I disagreed with her calmly and on Constitutional grounds; her arguments were emotional and passionate about how guns were inherently tools of killing and thus ought to be outlawed. Okay, fine, a reasonable difference of opinion. The Constitution protects our right to have differences, and we were both mature enough not to let our difference of opinion devolve into personal hostility.
A couple of weeks later I went to a stage play in which Trina had a lead role. A
After the play was over I took Trina aside and explained to her that with the hammer back, her finger on the trigger and a
In their defense, once the risks were explained to them they changed the scene for the next night's performance. I've got to commend them for that.
If you don't like guns, that's just fine with me; I understand why many people don't like guns. But please don't fear guns--not only is it irrational, but it leads to ignorance about guns and gun safety, and that can get you killed.
Re:Al Gore was *not* taken out of context. (Score:2)
Anyone who knew how important NSFNet was to the evolution of the Internet into the network that it is today couldn't disagree with it. The NSFNet was the major backbone of the Internet for six years, after all.
So if Gore said, "I was the primary Congressional backer of the Internet and played a major and irreplacable role in its development," that would have been absolutely true. But he said "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Gore was important to the evolution of the Internet, but he still didn't take "the initiative in creating the Internet."
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:I don't find it insulting. (Score:2)
While I agree that ESR does use his visibility to promote his own personal agenda (but then again, doesn't anyone who has high visibility?), my comment was merely to point out that those people who were grievously offended by ESR's definition of hoplophobia are probably missing the point altogether--the issue I was raising isn't about the myth that's called Freudian analysis, but about otherwise rational people holding irrational fears of inanimate objects, and the dangers that can arise from these irrational fears.
Let me just say that I think your American gun laws are plain and simply crazy and that these laws are the main reason why I do not want to live in the US.
Point accepted without complaint. Everyone has the right to come to their own decision on these matters. I disagree with you, but that's not earth-shattering. Reasonable men and women are allowed (I'd even say expected) to disagree in a genteel, friendly fashion.
Re:I don't find it insulting. (Score:2)
There's a difference between "Now that you're here, Mr. Raymond, let me ask you about some other things besides software" and "Now that you're here, Mr. Journalist, let me tell you about some other things besides software".
I watched Conan O'Brian the other day and George Foreman was his guest. In case you haven't seen it - no matter what Conan asked, George found a way to mention the product he endorses, a grill. ESR is a little bit like that. Not that crass, but it reminds me of this behaviour.
------------------
Remember Michael Tiemann helped start Cygnus (Score:5)
Out of the 7 words quoted (and who knows how many ... were dropped out.) it should be noted that we is not defined. Mr Tiemann helped start Cygnus which in the late 80's started selling Free/Open source software way way before anyone else was.
Cygnus showed that OpenSource (or as those offices say rightly Free Software) could be commercially viable and profitable when people said that Stallman was a Communist quack with delusions of being Marx.
That part of the company is quite proud of that fact and rightly so. Red Hat (OS development) came much later in the game... and i dont know of anyone around Red Hat who would say otherwise.
Must be a slow week and time for sensationalism sells (CNET that is).
Ask many other people (RMS, ERS, Bruce Perens,Linus, etc) of how many times they have been quoted out of context and then used in a news article to make up/enhance rivalry. Bleach
well... (Score:3)
Not that their claim is justified, but there is a difference there.
This is like claiming to invent the internet (Score:2)
Colin Winters
Seems fair to me. (Score:2)
And yeah, Linux was kicking around in a usable state for 3 years before RedHat debuted. And there were already commercial Linux distributions, too. But Red Hat was the first Linux--and Free Software--packager that was looking to do something other than make pizza money selling unsupported CD-ROMs (Slackware) or get consulting gigs (Yggdrasil). Redhat really did create the open-source business model out of thin air. Before them, your only choices for Linux support were Usenet and hiring a freelance consultant.
They didn't invent open source. Not by a long shot. But they did singlehandedly show everyone how to sell it into corporations and how to build a company around it.
How the hell did this get moderated up to 3? (Score:2)
Credit (Score:5)
Re:Rrrright... (Score:2)
Anyway, I'm checking my watch right now and I'm betting there will be a retraction/clarification/apology made by RHAT and posted here by 12:30pm tommorrow, if that long. And for that matter I predict at least 1 person will post and state that their submission was not only 10 minutes ahead of the one that got posted, but was rejected because
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
That's absurd (Score:2)
I do think that ESR is the first to submit detailed essays about Open Source, and I tout him as being one of the most influential people in regards to open source.
Bad move on Red Hat's part.
Al Gore was *not* taken out of context. (Score:2)
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
Al Gore - March 9, 1999 in an interview with CNN
How the hell can this be taken out of context? Al Gore was in high school when the Internet was created!
assumptions (Score:2)
I think the biggest thing is the difference between the open-source movement and the open-source revolution. I would have to say that RH has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the open-source movement as it was well under way a VERY long time before RH was around. Indeed, the open-source movement even predates RMS's insane babblings about...well..whatever. It could be argued that the open-source movement started when computers did. (I have to take that stance).
Secondly....i don't think there is an open-source revolution. If you ask 100 people on the street if they even know what open-source is, 99 of them will stare at you blankly (this is assuming the other one is CmdrTaco
Even when the concept of open-source becomes an everyday word in (most?) households....can we say X started the revolution?
Let me answer this with a question....who started the american revolution?
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
What IS the "open source movement"? (Score:2)
Much as we can despise/dislike ESR and his style, he did (together with Bruce Perens) coin the term "Open Source". The trademark is still actually owned by Software in Public Interest [spi-inc.org] - though ESR has challenged that.
This discussion is kindof like trying to decide who invented the computer. What is "the Open Source movement"? Published source code? AT&T Bell Labs did that with the original UNIX, in 1969. Freely available source code? Many will agree that the GNU project (1984) made software "Free" for the first time. And in the DOS days, of course there was "freeware" and "shareware", which sometimes came with source.
Back in the old days, we typically just made our programs available without any regard to licensing, rights of use, copyrights, etc. -- something that would make these programs unacceptable according to, for instance, the DFSG [debian.org]. Still, the source code was usually public, so they could still probably be called "open source" (although not Open Source(tm)).
The only thing that's for certain is that RedHat did not invent any of this, any more than Al Gore did. They company was busy creating CD-ROMs based on DOS shareware when they noticed this "Linux" phenomenon pop up, and the latched on to it. They made one of the first distributions (along with Slackware, Yggdrasil, and Debian), but very little of the actual development effort was theirs.
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:2)
Who started OSS, who started the Revolution??????? (Score:2)
Red Hat and their ilk brought Open Source to the forefront of the world's frontal lobe. Sad but true, the boss who kept asking me to move my Linux webserver to NT is now bragging to his boss about how long we've had Linux. (Since kernel 0.91)
I am now looking at an item that has lingered on my desk far too long... "Prime Time Freeware for UNIX"... it proudly boasts containing X11R6 and BSD 4.4 (altough X11 is still in beta). The 'gcc' version is 1.42, the 'perl' version is 4.036. Plan 9 weighs in at 1536 KB and is only the erly drafts. Amiga Mach and Condor OS'es are also included. Linux is not mentioned. (For a reason....)
The point is this, Open Source was around long before Linux... did you notice??
I think large scale corporate interest in Linux began the revolution, and this did not begin with Red Hat. Red Hat was a by product of other efforts like Ydgrassil Linux, Elf Linux, etc... Red Hat, the company, came into the game late in the first quarter, but did start.
~Hammy
"I don't know who started the revolution, but I'd sure recognize the bastard that cut off my head if I saw him again." -King Louis XVI
Re:i'm confused... (Score:2)
This is so typical... (Score:4)
Every time a software company (and let's not forget that is what Red Hat is) is successful, zealots (like some of you) start bitching and whining about it when they take a little credit for it. You sit there and say, "Ya know, the last two versions really did start to kind of suck. RH is turning into Microsoft. I'm gonna use Debian from now on. Blah, Blah, Blah."
Red Hat was the first distribution that was really marketed to the general public. It was the first exposure to Linux I and my friends had and that was because we saw it sitting on the shelf at an electronics store three or four years ago. It was this kind of marketing that put Red Hat (and Linux) out there. That is how you become successful; you put what you have out there for sale. If it weren't for this kind of marketing, Linux would not be as far as it is today.
Just a summer ago, everyone here was sporting their collective woodies over Red Hat's IPO and everyone jumped on board singing the RH song. RH in turn supplied its own resources and money into making Linux and the tools that came with the kernel better. Granted, the tools they made were in their own distribution, but it's not like you couldn't get those very tools for free from any ftp site. Now, because they've been so successful and are taking the credit for it, some of you are shunning them.
Face it, folks. Red Hat is in it for the good of the community, but they also know that there is money to be had. Who would've thought a company could get rich from selling free software? Red Hat brought to Linux something that it needed to really get off of the ground: a brand. Brands bring with it success. If success comes at the price of the masses turning against you, then why would any distribution want to be successful? Some of you should really be ashamed of yourselves.
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
Re:Also: (Score:2)
Yes, that's equally nonsensical. There's a big difference between "Red Hat is the market leader" and "The Linux distribution game is over". I suspect there will be more distros next year, not fewer.
But the same question still applies: is he speaking for Red Hat, or just shooting his mouth off? (I'm pretty much ready to let the reporter off the hook after going back and re-reading the article more carefully. The "seven words" are pretty context dependent, but the claim you mention would be hard to pin on reporter spin.)
It may be that RH needs to rope Tiemann in, or ditch him altogether, to avoid bad PR. They already have something of an image problem among traditional Linux users. In general, I think they have done much more good than harm, but that's subject to real-time re-evaluation. I use RH because that's what I was introduced to first, but I don't feel married to them. And contrary to what T seems to be claiming, there are still lots of other distros for me to turn to.
I've never been a RH basher, but there are limits. To paraphrase an old saw, Linux users view excessive bullshit as damage, and route around it.
--
Re:C'Mon (Score:2)
dgris has a point -- it's why I didn't flame Tiema (Score:5)
Linus has done many wonderful things, but he actually has less claim on this mantle than Tiemann. Linus invented a kernel, not a business model or an ideology -- he supplied the movement's most important object lesson, but didn't invent the movement.
Re:made linux mainstream? (Score:2)