Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

Where UnitedLinux Got It Wrong 331

Posted by michael from the ransom-love-might-have-something-to-do-with-it dept.
An Anonymous Coward writes "A story on NewsForge [ed. note: part of the keiretsu] suggests that the lack of binaries for UnitedLinux shows disrespect to the community which created most of the software. The author suggests a better way for handling the business problems that a lack of binaries is supposed to solve. Some particularly clueless reader comments say that UnitedLinux has no responsibility to cooperate with the community. The thought that UnitedLinux won't even offer a development distribution to the community does not sit well with me."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Where UnitedLinux Got It Wrong More

Where UnitedLinux Got It Wrong

Comments Filter:

  • Not for retail stores (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rtaylor ( 70602 )
    Given what I've read about UnitedLinux -- especially in regards to per seat licensing I highly doubt they intend to do heavy marketing to the existing Linux community, in particular home users.

    They're after SMEs (Small to Medium Enterprises). You can see that based on the packaged applications. Given this, a hacker community isn't too likley to evolve around UnitedLinux, and the last thing they want is a hoard of home users calling for technical support due to free distribution under their name (Pink Tie vs. Red Hat argument).

    I'd say they've located a niche which isn't catered to very well. They've created a product and pricing for that niche. Would everyone please stop trying to too them how to sell their product outside of that niche!

    • Re:Not for retail stores (Score:3, Interesting)

      by beamz ( 75318 )
      Given what I've read about UnitedLinux -- especially in regards to per seat licensing I highly doubt they intend to do heavy marketing to the existing Linux community, in particular home users.

      I haven't read much of the specifics but I don't believe that Linux is segmented by a "business" and "home user" category. A lot of the existing linux community uses linux at home AND at work.

      The whole thing is that the community is what got Linux where it is today and by not building binary distros, well that is the decision of the companies but by not giving this back to the community, they are doing a disservice. We aren't talking about a "desktop environment" or a Red-Carpet type service a la Ximian, we're talking a distro.

      Why alienate those who helped make the bricks you're using to build your house?

  • Binaries and GPL (Score:2, Interesting)

    by slashclone ( 571895 )
    Since binaries are still released under GPL what would prevent the first person who bought the cd set from UL to burn extra copies and give/sell to everyone?

    • Re:Binaries and GPL (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Daemonik ( 171801 )
      Oh, you could compile and distribute the GPL'd code, but you couldn't redistribute whatever code the UnitedLinux contributers put into their distro that isn't GPL'd and that's covered by their licenses. Because then YOU'd be the one violating copyright and be very much in the wrong.

      Also, you couldn't call it UnitedLinux unless you were releasing the entire distro, which as I already mentioned, you can't, so you're doubly screwed.

      They are doing nothing illegal. I'm more than sure that the pack of lawyers any company needs to survive today has already gone over everything they're doing. So get over it.

  • keiretsu... for the english speakers (Score:5, Informative)

    by whydna ( 9312 ) <.whydna. .at. .hotmail.com.> on Sunday June 02, 2002 @09:05PM (#3628392)
    In case you didn't know what keiretsu meant either:

    A network of businesses that own stakes in one another as a means of mutual security, especially in Japan, and usually including large manufacturers and their suppliers of raw materials and components.

  • And this is bad because....? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Daemonik ( 171801 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @09:06PM (#3628397) Homepage
    If the source code is available, then why do the developers need binaries? Aren't these the people most likely to recompile the system from scratch?

    The only reason I can see at this stage for a binary distro would be for demo purposes.
    • If the source code is available, then why do the developers need binaries? Aren't these the people most likely to recompile the system from scratch?

      Yes, grasshopper, but how will a developer know if his software works on the binary distribution his customers use if his system was compiled from scratch?
    • Two reasons:

      1. To test that the binaries are replicatable
      The issue is if the binaries that are being
      shipped are from the source provided.

      Is UL doing something to them? What compile
      options are they using? Are they making changes
      to the code?

      The only way to know is to compare the final
      binaries with the provided source and libraries
      that is being used on the build system.

      2. For security (down the road)

      Closely related to the first issue is that
      source and binaries are a requirement for a
      security analysis. You want to know how the
      binaries were built and the best way to ensure
      that the binaries you have were built the way
      they have been claimed is to compare the source
      and build process with the binaries of the
      final product.

      It's important when doing these kinds of tests as either a developer or user to have both the source and binaries.

      - Serge Wroclawski
      • only relate to why you would need the source if you had a binary. The GPL requires and UnitedLinux provide this access so if you have obtained binaries from UnitedLinux you have all the access you would normally have to perform such analysis.
    • Can you say non-sequitur?

      Have you ever even tried to build a working distro completely from sources without even a pre-existing binary image for a minimal OS to work from?

      The assumption that a developer working on one tiny area of the OS, or more particularly working on a user space application will always want to install a full distribution piece by piece from sources is absurd.

      That's not to even begin to approach all the secondary issues. Seems that this is a fairly transparent attempt to use the amount of work involved in putting a distro together from sources as a weapon against the community that wrote most of the code.

      GNU/Linux mostly gets into the server space because it is championed in, usually by someone who is not a developer, but is a user. This will come back to bite UnitedLinux when they find that all those same advocates sneer at their distro because of the impossibility of familiarising yourself with it by using it at home.

      It's a shocking business mistake, but that is not the grounds on which to reject it, but rather the sheer contempt for the community from whose work they seek to profit

      • Have you ever even tried to build a working distro completely from sources without even a pre-existing binary image for a minimal OS to work from?

        So, if you can't "make all" with this thing, then it's just a useless bunch of code. What's the harm in distributing useless code, except to the guys who waste the time distributing it?

        It's a shocking business mistake, but that is not the grounds on which to reject it, but rather the sheer contempt for the community from whose work they seek to profit

        If it's really such a shocking business mistake, the market will "take care" of them. When I first read this article, I thought the poster had carelessly typed binary instead of source. After all, Free Software people are always griping about the source, not the binary. If there's any reason to reject this, it's because it won't build cleanly on your box, not because of some overzealous misguided interpretation of what "the community" expects.

        I don't think even RMS would have problems with a source-only distro. After all, if it comes with source and makefiles, it's... well... source! How do they say... "if it isn't source, it's not software"? So what's the problem? Granted, it's really foolish not to include even a minimal kernel and binary build tools to compile everything else, but there is nothing in the GPL that says you aren't allowed to be a fool.

        • Re:And this is bad because....? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Chris Johnson ( 580 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @04:15AM (#3629638) Homepage Journal
          RMS cannot be expected to understand every possible limitation of freedom. He's an uber-coder and to him, the source is the program. What we're seeing currently is a situation in which businesses are looking at Linux and free software, and going, "it's nice that you people want to share with each other and give to each other. Now we're going to come in and make money off it, and we deserve your respect because we're going to make your work profitable- and we're not going to violate the letter of your licenses, we're only going to make sure everyone understands that we will not give the slightest bit more than that."

          "Because how can you possibly succeed through giving and sharing?"

          This is why these developments are repugnant to a lot of free software people: speaking for myself, I think it's wonderful if these companies are prepared to abide by the letter of the licenses, but they're setting up a situation where they'll be saying, 'the reason you should give us money while we avoid doing more than the minimum we can get away with is, you can't go around being altruistic'.

          This is not an argument that I feel needs additional support. To me, the argument, 'great things can happen when people cooperate on something altruistically' is the one that deserves the support. It's true, it's produced the body of open source software, and it's challenged every single time some bozos at a company decide to do Their Special Thing on top of open source, and combine their proprietary software with the free stuff.

          Because they will ALWAYS say, 'we're value added', and they'll say, 'You have to expect to pay for the added value, of course', and they'll say 'you can't expect to be given things for free', which is exactly what was done for them. It's ingratitude, and it's distracting, and it's capable of confusing people as to what's really going on- even to the point where they think all the IMPORTANT work must be done by companies for money, and the more important it is, the less anyone will be willing to give it freely for the general betterment of all.

          And that is why these business guys are a problem, even if they are obeying the letter of the rules. It's wrong to discount generosity and cooperation. And having examples out there of 'no, you can't have that, shame on you for wanting to deprive us of profit' is bad. They should just write proprietary operating systems if they want to go there- oops, no, they can't! They should take a hint from this.

        • Granted, it's really foolish not to include even a minimal kernel and binary build tools to compile everything else, but there is nothing in the GPL that says you aren't allowed to be a fool.

          Actually, it is entirely possible to build a whole linux distro without the kernel and build tools of teh distro you are building, so long as you have the source, space on disk, and time. Mostly time. This is, in fact, the premise of Linux From Scratch. Yes, you do need a working system, but it can be any system with a compiler and working kernel/libraries. You build the basic binaries (kernel, build tools, etc) and then boot into your new system, then build the rest. As long as the source is intact, it should be possible to do this with UnitedLinux. If the makefiles are there, it should be reasonably trivial.

    • I tend to agree.
      One more point, though.

      To my experience, the developers who tend to certify their software for one release or the other tend to be commercial developers. These people won't sniff at popping for a boxed copy.
      • The company wont sniff at popping for a boxed copy. The techs will groan in pain for having to push a request for purchase through the company purchasing department tho, as well as motivate the expenditure. Or more likely they'll shrug and just test on RedHat because it will take a long time before marketshare for UL grows large enough for any management to care enough to ask the techs to do certification for UL.

        It isnt the money. It's the convenience and getting evangelical support inside the development companies. This will have neither convenience nor many pushers, and with a nonexistent marketshare it will have little or no management support.

  • What I dont understand... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gamorck ( 151734 ) <jaylittl e A T ... l i ttle DOT com> on Sunday June 02, 2002 @09:07PM (#3628399) Homepage
    Is why everybody seems surprised by this. Did the readers here actually think that GPLed code was immune to being hijacked by commercial interests? Specifically thats not whats going to happen here - but its pretty close.

    Version 1: United Linux creates a Distribution that uses mostly open sourced code available to anybody on the net. This doesnt sell well except for the few coporations who like their support options.

    Version 2: United Linux creates alot of inhouse closed-source configuration and system management apps that give it the leg up on the open source only competition. The appearance of increased system integration with none of problems associated with Windows Systems is appealing to alot of IT departments. Some more will jump on the UL bandwagon - most will wisely wait for it to mature a bit more.

    Version 3: The Windows 2000 of the UnitedLinux distribution. This time UL will get it right. By leveraging their point and click configuration utilities and by "borrowing" the efforts of the Linux community to update core system components (kernel 2.6, gcc 3.0+, KDE 4, Gnome 1.5) they will have a product unmatched in the corporate Linux arena.

    Eventually guys we knew somebody would figure out how to accomplish the above. Maybe UL won't succeed, maybe they will. Eventually somebody is going to pull it off though. Not to mention the fact that while free distributions such as debian will always exist, eventually their will only be one corporate distribution.

    Some Linux people will be able to live with this and they will stick with the operating system they helped build. Most however will probably move to some other fringe OS like AtheOS, OpenBEOS, QNX, or most likely a BSD variant.

    Some of UL's methods may be questionable - but Linux really needs this kind of kick in the ass from a standardization standpoint. I guess you've got to take the good with the bad though. Either way it will interesting to see how this all plays out.

    J
    • the readers here actually think that GPLed code was immune to being hijacked by commercial interests? ... Most however will probably move to some other fringe OS like AtheOS, OpenBEOS, QNX, or most likely a BSD variant.

      If these people are afraid of their code being "hijacked", I seriously doubt they will leave Linux for QNX or BSD.

      Anyways, I doubt UnitedLinux's "inhouse closed-source configuration and system management apps" really provide much value over the open-source standard admin options.
    • Version 2: United Linux creates alot of inhouse closed-source configuration and system management apps that give it the leg up on the open source only competition.

      Actually I'd find that interesting. Then you'd probably end up with open source alternatives to the closed source config utilities which configure... open source applications.

      I really don't have a problem with them capitalizing on OS stuff. Hell if they can make a lot better stuff then the OS stuff out there now and sell it, then bring it on. The question is, will it really be better than a distro like Red Hat, which pretty much gives you total access to everything.
    • Some Linux people will be able to live with this and they will stick with the operating system they helped build. Most however will probably move to some other fringe OS like AtheOS, OpenBEOS, QNX, or most likely a BSD variant.

      This doesn't make sense to me. You just said "free distributions such as debian will always exist", but you think most Linux users would rather switch to a whole different operating system than just switch distributions? Could you explain why you say that?
    • The GPL mandates that you keep source code open to any and all who want it, and it says absolutely nothing about mandating binary distribution.

      UnitedLinux says the source code for GPL'd apps will be available to all without restrictions as mandated by the GPL itself, but binaries that are certified as being UnitedLinux compliant that are not covered by the GPL will be held back.

      You're saying by giving away the GPL'd source code (which is compliant with the GPL) but not the binaries (which is also compliant with the GPL) equals an almost-corporate-hijacking of the GPL.

      Ummm... Huh?
    • I think their business plan works more like this:
      1. Release source, but hoard binaries, while Redhat and Debian continue to release both.
      2. ???
      3. Profit
    • Some Linux people will be able to live with this and they will stick with the operating system they helped build. Most however will probably move to some other fringe OS like AtheOS, OpenBEOS, QNX, or most likely a BSD variant.
      Some of UL's methods may be questionable - but Linux really needs this kind of kick in the ass from a standardization standpoint.

      Linux really needs this like a hole in the head. If the Linux project gets sufficiently hijacked by commercial interests, then yes, you're right, the people with the talent to write and maintain an operating system and the commitment and willingness to do it for love will drift off to other projects. Companies like the UnitedLinux conspirators cannot afford to pay for developing and maintaining an operating system. So if they succeed in shooting the geese that lay the golden eggs, they will die.

      The UnitedLinux licensing proposals are stupid, blinkered, narrow minded, and ultimately self-defeating. They need to be dropped and dropped now.

  • What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RevAaron ( 125240 ) <revaaron AT hotmail DOT com> on Sunday June 02, 2002 @09:10PM (#3628411) Homepage
    So they don't want to provide binaries. Big deal- someone will compile it- some member of the community, and pass the ISO along to someone at linuxiso.org. Problem solved. I would argue that they aren't obliged to compile it for you, why should they? Because they use software harvested from the community? Ooooooh. Those UnitedLinux guys owe me lunch! Everything you could need from there is in the source.

    Jeeze, get over it.

    (No, this is not a troll. I just can't comprehend what is so terribly hard to comprehend about this.)
    • Uh, if you haven't noticed, Linuxiso.org works very much with the various distro's and tries to help them out with their money making.

      For one, they don't post ISOs that haven't been distributed by the original distro. So for say... SuSE, they have the Sparc installation version and the x86 Live Eval ISOs, but not the current retail installation ISOs.

      Same with cheapbytes. They try to work with the vendors and not actually rape them financially.

      It's an interesting concept, I know, but some people believe people the distros have a right to try to make a profit.
      • And are Linuxiso and Cheapbytes the only ways to get CD images of distros? No. I provided Linuxiso as an example; s/Linuxiso/anyone's iso mirror FTP site/g.
        • You still don't get my point, but then I actually think you do and don't care.

          Distributing the ISO's without removing whatever code is not covered by an open distribution license such as the GPL is illegal without permission from the author of said code. Period.

    • Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rant-mode-on ( 512772 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @10:34PM (#3628679) Homepage
      • someone will compile it- some member of the community, and pass the ISO along
      Compiling source to binaries, yes that's easy. Turning it into an iso...? Well, who's going to provide the installer? That's a non-trivial piece of code if ever there was one.

    • Re:What's the big deal? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ErikZ ( 55491 )
      What if they modify the code so it only compiles on a special in-house compiler?

  • United Linux wants to stay in business (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GoatPigSheep ( 525460 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @09:11PM (#3628412) Homepage Journal
    Maybe some people have not noticed, but very few linux companies are successful. Perhaps by actually 'selling' software (as in not giving it away for free on the net), it's possible united linux may even be profitable.

    Look at windows, it is expensive, it cost ALOT of money to develope for, and it is used in 90% of all desktop pcs. Is there something wrong with this system? United linux can offer a solution to windows that is cheaper and more functional, and by not giving it away for free they can also stay in business.

    Besides, United linux is targeted at business users... They have money, they can afford licenses. Why is it that when a large company promotes linux in a way that is profitable people complain? They are helping create a larger linux user base! Don't mess it up!

    In the perfect world, everything would be free... But nowadays, especially in the tech world were many companies are dead or dying, you sometimes have to accept that giving away everything for free might not be the right format for success.

  • big friggin deal (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by tongue ( 30814 )
    So what? as everyone else has already noted, why are binaries a requirement? sure, they're convenient--that's why they're charging for them. its the basis for value-added resellers. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

    I don't particularly think this distribution is going to go anywhere--just what the world needs, another flavor of linux. geez folks, why don't you do something original and make a new BSD distribution? that would actually be worth something--make sure all the linux binaries can run on it, and all the necessary stuff is ready, like java, etc. that's one i might pay for.

    • Re:big friggin deal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pjrc ( 134994 ) <paul@pjrc.com> on Sunday June 02, 2002 @10:11PM (#3628602) Homepage Journal
      If you look around the world of free software (or open source, or whatever you want to call it), you'll see that there are a LOT of projects that aren't included in distributions.

      One good example, and a project that I've made some small contributions into, is SDCC - Small Device C Compiler [sourceforge.net]. Like many projects, there's a CVS server, nightly snapshots (source tarballs), and even nightly binary builds for linux and win32.

      Do the linux builts work on Redhat 7.2? Yes, I have Redhat 7.2 on my system, and so do other active developers.

      Do the win32 builds work on Windows 98SE and 2000? Yes. None of the developers uses windows, but many users regularily download the win32 builds on these 'doze systems. When bugs have turned up one these systems, the developer mail list and bug tracker have filled with bug reports.

      Do those win32 builds also work on windows XP and windows 95? Good Question. A number of non-developers have probably tried it on XP by now, but are any users really still running it on '95? Who knows.

      Long ago, the code could compile with Borland C. Developers using linux-based systems started cross compiling and building under Borland was broken for a very long time until someone reported it. Borland support has never been restored (no active developers care, and mingw as a cross compiler can be fully automated by the nightly builds)

      Does the code compile and run on PPC? Yes, one of the developers has a PPC box, so this definately works. Which distro works for PCC... better ask Michael.

      Does it work on Debian? Yep, several active developers use Debian... and there was recently an announcement that it's available with apt-get. Debian and RedHat 7.x are the only two distros that are really gaurenteed to work.

      Does it build on MacOS-X? Nope, but a couple of OS-X users have joined the developer mail list and it's probably a matter of time until the OS-X issues are worked out, but at least it is know that there is a problem on OS-X (I think someone submitted a patch but it hasn't found its way into CVS).

      Will it work on UnitedLinux?? Who knows? Nobody involved with this project has UnitedLinux, and it doesn't look like anyone will. RedHat 7.2 works great for me, and since these "business oriented" linux vendors aren't going to provide me with a cheap/free cdrom or network install, why would I bother. They're focused on serving the "business server market", so there won't be anything interesting about UnitedLinux to make it worthwhile for me to bother installing (not to mention paying for). I'm certainly not going to waste my time to compile an entire linux distribution. I'd much rather spend the time getting to understand the register allocator code better and make more significant contributions to SDCC. I'd be very suprised if any other developers lifted a finger to test UnitedLinux.

      So the subject, "big friggen deal" couldn't be more appropriate. As a developer (primarily firmware, using tools like SDCC), I'd say "big friggen deal" about UnitedLinux. Caldera, TurboLinux, et all probably say "big friggen deal" with respect to SDCC, since their customers aren't developers, and they certainly aren't developing firmware for low-end 8-bit microcontrollers.

      So if with want something "business oriented", supposedly with "world class support" from the likes of Caldera (or you just want to pay them a lot for something that's roughly equivilant to Redhat), then maybe UnitedLinux is for you.

      But, if instead, you're interested in using the linux distribution with the most "third party" software that's tested and known to work, your best best is going to be with RedHat or Debian. (FWIW, you might pause to wonder why Windows is so popular).

      By not building "mind share" among software developers, how can they ever expect third party software to be tested with their distrbution?

      • Honestly, I don't think they're too worried about winning mindshare--they don't want to compete with open source developers. i'm guessing they want to develop their own products and sell them. And anyway, it sounds like UL's problem, not ours; I don't see why we should get our panties in a wad simply because "OHMYGODICANTTESTONTHATPLATFORM". There's plenty enough to do in the opensource world without throwing another "standard driven" distribution into the mix.

        oh, and moderators: my first comment wasn't flamebait, it was a troll. learn the friggin difference.
    • geez folks, why don't you do something original and make a new BSD distribution?

      You may not have noticed, but Apple has done exactly this.

  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Burgundy Advocate ( 313960 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @09:16PM (#3628428) Homepage
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's legal.

    Whether it "sits well with you" or not doesn't matter. What matters is how they handle their company and corporate image (as in: how other businesses see them). If they're within the GPL/LGPL licence bounds then quite frankly I don't see what the problem is, and I doubt any corporate United Linux customer will care if the distro offends a few sensibilities.

    If they can come up with an innovative way to sell Linux, more power to them. They'll be doing something nobody else has been able to do.
    • This is such a flawed argument. This forum is designed to spread information and to express your opinion about things. We are simply registering disgust with the way these linux distro's are getting together and distorting and defiling linux and the linux spirit.

      Being innovative shouldn't be an excuse to be slimy. Like you said, it's legal, but the law isn't the only way of deciding what is right and wrong. If we simply ignored it by saying it's legal, we'd be giving up our way of settling outside the law: bad PR, bad word of mouth, and generally negative opinions all around.

      How do you come here and say "but it's legal" with a straight face? Who said anything about legality? Get with it.
    • In other words, they're only in it to make money, right? (Now in fourth place as the current most overused and flawed argument)

      Guess what? Business isn't and shouldn't be *only* about making money. Businesses only concerned with making money usually don't produce much of value.
      • In other words, they're only in it to make money, right? (Now in fourth place as the current most overused and flawed argument)

        Guess what? Business isn't and shouldn't be *only* about making money. Businesses only concerned with making money usually don't produce much of value.

        I hereby bestow on you naive post of the day. Congratulations!
    • Indeed, an author expresses his desires through the licence he chooses. Author's make up the most important (though not the noisiest) part of the Free Software/Open Source 'community'. As far as the community goes the one thing that actually binds things together is the software licence, it is a social contract as much as a legal one.

      But the licence and licence alone defines what is acceptable behavior. If an author isn't happy with how their software is being distributed then they should amend the licence it is under (hello Transgaming!).

      If you're just some loudmouth whose unhappy about how someone else's software is being distributed then you are entitled to your opinion but it's of little value, the author has set the rules and as long as a distributer follows them all is peachy, it's got nothing to do with you.

      The licence is core, ultimatly it's all we have, anything else is just your imaginiation.

  • Slightly Different Solution (Score:3, Informative)

    by peterdaly ( 123554 ) <{petedaly} {at} {ix.netcom.com}> on Sunday June 02, 2002 @09:20PM (#3628440)
    The obvious solution to be would be to have an open developement tree, complete with binaries that anyone can use. What they cannot do however would be to use the UnitedLinux name, which is a trademark.

    There should be an organization that Licenses the right to use the UnitedLinux name once they have certified a specific distribution as being UnitedLinux complient, much the same way that Sun Licenses the J2EE platforms after charging an arm and a leg, frankly both legs, for certification of an app server to be J2EE compliant. Once certified, the vendor, may among other things, use the J2EE tradmark on their marketing/product/etc and call their server a J2EE server. Sun licenses the Java runtime envirnment in much the same way, as is shown by the IBM JRE/JDK and JRocket.

    It all really comes down to their motives. If their goal is a common certifiable base then they should follow what I call the sun model...charge for the name, and test to make sure the package is legit. Then ANY vendor can create a UnitedLinux product...it just has to pass certain test to be complaint, pay for certification, etc.

    If the goal is to lower Caldera's development costs (did you catch the fact that SUSE does all the real work, TurboLinux and Caldera have a more "QA" role!), then the current model is fine. It may also help to sell the first copy of TurboLinux in the USA! (that's a joke...laugh) My problem is their marketing of the matter. I would like to see TurboLinux and SUSE comment at length about the issue, as Ransom Love has hated everything the slashdot community considers "good" about the GPL ever since RedHat started blowing them away in sales. I have come away with a bad taste in my mouth after every Love interview I have ever read. The guy doesn't understand the open source side of things.

    Enough rambling for now. Away, I think the "Sun model" is better for this type of thing.

    -Pete

  • Repeating Caldera's mistake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 02, 2002 @09:22PM (#3628444)
    Although Caldera was the first major commercial distribution, it never achieved popularity. Caldera distanced itself from the core Linux community, always remaining something of an outsider.

    Red Hat, despite occasional faux pas, has been an intregal part of the Linux community from its outset. Where Caldera was primarily a consumer of OSS technology, Red Hat was at the forefront as a producer, giving back millions of dollars in professionally developed software. Most of all, Red Hat has made their distribution easily and freely accessible to anyone with a net connection.

    SuSe, Caldera, et al, appear to be ready to board a doomed ship. Folks at work will recommend what they use at home. And most of the time that will be Red Hat. The others, by cutting off the community, also cut off a future pool of admins and consultants--who is going to administer their "United Linux" systems?

    Good news for Red Hat. Bad news for the rest.

    • AC Wrote:
      The others, by cutting off the community, also cut off a future pool of admins and consultants--who is going to administer their "United Linux" systems?
      ---

      Well, duh. The displaced SCO admins who have kept up with the times. Caldera aleady has mindshare with them...both of them. Why else you you think they bought SCO?

      -Pete
    • It's true that they are repeating (in part) the mistake of Caldera, the market now are mainly Linux developers, Linux enthusiasts, and Linux Administrators, that's the very first wave of Linux adoption in the market To this market, the move from UnitedLinux are wrong, and I'm pretty sure that they will not be popular among them.

      But, the market now is changing, IBM, HP and Sun are injecting new customers to the Linux wave, and those customers are not "emotionally" tied to the Linux development, it's not "his baby" (at least how I feel it), for them Linux it's just a damm good tool, and for some of them the escape way to Microsoft domination, to this new customers UnitedLinux will be just another distro with more common business options, so for them will be a perfectly viable option.
  • "They" are within their rights to package whatever they want - GPLed or BSD, or XFree... so there can be no complaints about that.

    But if they don't provide binary distribution to a "common man", for free, then that common man is not going to buy their distribution at work, and is not going to recommend it to anyone. If they are crazy enough to believe that they can sell UL directly to a PHB bypassing PHB's own engineers, they live in a fantasy world. I personally control and dictate use of all open-sourced software in the company; good luck with your UL distro here.

    • If they are crazy enough to believe that they can sell UL directly to a PHB bypassing PHB's own engineers, they live in a fantasy world.

      Oh come on, why do you think Windows is so popular in business? Microsoft does EXACTLY this!

      (Yes, Microsoft ALSO does as much brainwashing as possible so that if the PHB asks an MCSE what to buy, Microsoft still wins. But I've heard of a lot of places switching to Windows despite the objections of the engineers. Often the engineers are replaced by MCSEs that won't complain so much.)
      • Question: when you say "engineers", do you mean people who are part of a professional engineering association, or do you mean "a bunch of jackoff code monkies from community colleges"?

        It's always been mightily confusing to me when people use the term "engineer" and talk about OS advocacy in the same breath.

  • Speaking as a software developer (both free and corporate/IT), as long as they make their source available, I really don't care if they make the binaries available. The idea behind UntiedLinux seems to be that they're going to be based on the Linux Standard Base. Well, that's great, the LSB is an open standard, so I don't need their binaries to develop my code.

    With the source code available, I could build my own binary version, if I cared that much and were willing to dedicate that much time/that many cycles to it. But I don't care.

    If I were worried about other people making money off my code, I'd either make it proprietary, or use a semi-free [gnu.org] no-commercial-use license. But I'm not.

    If this were some whacky, customized system, with all kinds of special oddnesses everywhere, I might find it a little annoying to not have binaries (assuming they want me to support my software on their system). But if it's just a standard Linux system, it's really no big deal to me. I'll take source-with-no-binaries over binaries-with-no-source any day of the week, thank you very much. Especially when their system is already close enough to what I'm running right now.

  • Ransom Love's Brain Bites Again! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peterdaly ( 123554 ) <{petedaly} {at} {ix.netcom.com}> on Sunday June 02, 2002 @09:35PM (#3628477)
    This would be a non-issue if Ransom Love understood Linux PR. If he answered the question differently, with the same "content", we wouldn't be as pissed. Something along the lines of:
    "The United Linux organization will assemble the source code of the product, which will be available to the public. We have decided it is the responibilities of the vendors to compile the product for their specific distributions. Since the raw code is not indended for end user use, UnitedLinux will not expend the resources to compile and maintain a binary distribution of the raw codebase, that is the responsibility of each UnitedLinux vendor..."

    The "public outcry" may have been different. Same answer, same question, different spin.

    -Pete
  • We're all entitled to one stupid ponderance and I'm maxed on karma, so here goes.

    I know I'm not the first to ponder this, but I have to wonder when Microsoft will descend, slurp up open source code, and mint their own distro. The horror and wailing...

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Wouldn't a more likely scenario be Microsoft using a BSD, along with other packages with either a BSD or BSD-type license (since they wouldn't have to release any source)? Along with possibly a linux-compatibility layer to run Linux binaries, that would actually be an interesting idea for them (they already use some open-source code: for example their TCP/IP stack & zlib).
  • UnitedLinux is a base from which Linux distributions will be produced.

    Want a developer platform? Get SuSE 9.0, or OpenLinux 4.0, or Turbolinux WhateverItWillBe, etc.

    You don't develop directly on top of UnitedLinux, folks... You develop on a distribution that is built from UnitedLinux.

    Now for pete's sake QUIT BITCHING ABOUT BINARY DISTRIBUTION!! You'll have the sources, and you'll have Linux distributions that are built from UnitedLinux. If you want more, I can't imagine what it could possibly be!

    DAMN this is getting old quick!
  • RedHat AS will only provide SRPMs. It is not a distros job to make it easy for non paying users to exploit their efforts.

    Both RedHat and UnitedLinux provide source code so our freedoms are being respected. Why does the Linux community feel its a business/distros job to provide convient certified binaries to the general public? Remember it is freedom as in free speach not freedom as in beer. Binaries and ISO's have nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with free beer.

    I am sad to say this but, I am seeing more and more users in our community take the perspective that they are owed something... this something seems to have more and more to do with end users getting something for nothing.
  • UnitedLinux is designed to be a distributor's Linux. It's not really a user's linux. Once a UnitedLinux distribution is out, various distributors are intended to take the source tarball, compile it, and add their own bells & whistles.

    It is the UnitedLinux Distributors who are expected to put out the various United binaries (each with their own flavour). i.e.

    • Caldara (UnitedLinuz compatible) Linux,

    • SuSe (UnitedLinuz compatible) Linux,
      etc.
    all with their associated binaries released to the public. If you want a UL binary, get it from them... If you want a bare UL binary, then compile it using one of the distributed UL binaries.
  • I thought Linux and Open Source/Free Software was all about DIY. They're letting you have the source so what's the problem? I don't know the GPL by heart but does it say "And if you should take the time to use GPL code and compile it you have to give it up too for the lazy."
  • If developers object to their code being use in this fashion, perhaps another version of the GPL should be drafted that excludes the option of binaries of the source being sold in this fashion. As always, you could chose which license it was distributed under.

    If this were to happend, and Gnome and KDE signed up to it, I find it hard to see how United Linux would be viable.
  • They are both wildly successful in their own target markets. Perhaps not profitable, not yet, but SuSE has a strong brand in Europe and Connectiva likewise in Latin America. Caldera and Turbo Linux offer them nothing. SuSE, at least, has a much larger base than Caldera in the U.S.A. anyway.

    I predict the PR flack is enough to make United Linux crumble within the next couple weeks.

  • Why on earth does anyone care at all about this? Who the hell wants binaries anyway? Are we not Unix users? Then we should compile our own binaries!

    I'll have you know that my Linux system was created entirely from source I compiled myself. That's right, no freaking "distribution". Now, granted, I used a SuSE system from which to compile it, but still.

    I'm disgusted, quite frankly, about my MS-DOSish Linux presenty is. RPM is a prime example. Get with the picture. This is Unix! Software is distrubted as and installed from source! That's how it works.

    Sorry, I'll step off my soapbox now. I didn't mean to be that bitchy, and, of course, there is a need for distributions. I can't help mention, though, how much it pains me everytime I hear people talking about how "we need to make Linux more user-friendly" and "anything that makes the Linux userbase larger is great". I don't know about you, but I don't want Linux to become Windows! If you want Windows, use Windows! If you want a free Unix, Linux is nice. If companies want a Unix with support, they can afford Solaris. Why can't the Linux community be satisfied to stick to itself? Do we really want to conquer the world, too? Great, the Linus can be the next generation's Bill Gates. Accept Linux for what it is, and like it! Seriously.

  • I can't believe the "UL" people were so naive as to think this concept would fly with the mainstream Linux community. Knowing how poorly Caldera's initial "per seat" licensing concept was received, they had to have something radical in mind.

    Suppose Caldera, SuSe, and non-RH people all see the handwriting on the wall: What little money there is to be made on Linux distribution is going to be made by Red Hat. As Red Hat siezes market share, the non-RH people need a good way to exit the distro business. Why not create this "UL" concept and sell it to Microsoft? Let M$ "embrace & extend" it into their own proprietary monster while exploring the limits of minimum-GPL compatibility. If anyone could distribute source code with no possibility of making it compile, it would be you-know-who, right? No matter what M$ says, they must be wondering how to infiltrate the Linux rebellion and redirect the "lost" revenue back to Redmond.
  • compile the damn source code.

    Have you no pride?
  • 1) I think by binaries they mean downloadable ISOs... or something. It's not really clear.

    2) This is a business desktop distribution. How many packages do they really need?

    3) It sounds like one of the most standards-compliant distros - anyone can build an LSB-compliant system.
  • So, in all of the /. security stories, people crow and puff out their chests, because they only install from source. But without binaries, it takes more work than 'rpm -Uvh *.rpm' and that apparently is wrong. So which is it? Is Linux supposed to be secure and auditable, or easy and simple?

  • Uhm... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @12:54AM (#3629186) Homepage
    Let's wait for UnitedLinux to do something bad before complaining they're doing something bad, shall wel?

    I personally think trying to bring all the distributions more-or-less into conformance is a good thing. While this might reduce the variety of flavors available, it should result in an increase of reliability and dependability. When one of your favorite features of one of your favorite distributions is yanked to maintain that conformance, then I'd like to hear you yell. Until then, let's see what happens.
  • Oh this is horrible! UnitedLinux is going to release sources to a distro without binaries! They can't do that! Let's all go set fire to Caldera's headquarters. After that we can turn our wrath on SuSE, TurboLinux and...

    ...Gentoo, Linux From Scratch, Rock Linux, etc...

  • test case reveals predictable slashdot behaviour (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rifter ( 147452 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @04:00AM (#3629616) Homepage

    Okay, so for ages now, free software advocates have pointed out Micorosft's claim that GPL software must be distributed free as in beer is false. In fact, if someone (like HP recently, and now UnitedLinux) wants to release GPL software and charge loads of cash ($3000 in HP's case) it is just fine and dandy, and legal according to the GPL, so long as source is distributed with binaries.

    Yet, lo and behold, here a company releases a linux distribution which will tie together several others, and releases source for free, but charges for the binaries, including support with the package, and is immediately lambasted by this site and several who claim to represent the "open source community." Of course, this plays right into the hands of those who claim all the open source people want is software for free, ergo linux is NOT a viable market. Sadly, there seems to be more and more ammo for this insidious view.

    First off, I think we should remember the story specifically states the original distributions (Caldera, Conectiva, Turbolinux, SUSE, et al.) will not necessarily cease to be, in fact they will probably go on, probably in their current form, e.g. downloadable, available on Cheapbytes, etc. These distributions would contain UnitedLinux at their core, with unspecified value added changes. It is reasonable to assume applications written for these would work on UnitedLinux, unless some relevant library were changed, given the kernel, libs, and filesystem would be close if not identical.

    It has been pointed out that a real developer will have no trouble compiling binaries, but heck, honestly, real developers are used to paying for tools and even os software. Usually OS vendors make it easier for developers to get hold of betas and even finished copies. For instance, Apple tends to give OS copies away at dev conferences and sell the OS cheaper to developers. MSDN cost about $1200 a year last I checked and included with such subscription a copy of every OS they sell, mailed to you in nice little CD packages. If developers will pay that for Windows, how much are they willing to pay for a real OS?

    Most importantly, there has been no mention of how much this new linux distro will cost. If you buy Mandrake or Redhat outright, they cost anywhere from $25 to $2000+ depending on support, bundled commercial apps, etc. Obviously they are also available for free, without support, by download. It is possible we are getting up in arms about a distro with a similar pricing scheme, though without the "free download." Besides, even if they did have free downloads, who would pay for the hosting? In the real world, providing such things cost money, you know. In any event, it is possible, even likely, that whatever the cost there will be a low-priced version for developers, and unless they copyright the layout of the CD as OpenBSD rightly does (I am certainly agreeing with Theo here...), there will be versions on cheapbytes in approximately 5 minutes.

    I will admit I myself am a cheap bastard and a major reason I like linux us its freedom (as in Beer) and because of the freedom in licensing which means I don't have to worry about software police. I also have not contributed a line of code to linux, and though I would like to, it is unlikely as I am not the best programmer in the world. But I certainly think this wonderful system will not enjoy the success it has had of late if there is this kind of backlash to all commercial efforts in this field.

    Folks, a lot of companies are pouring money into this, and they are in business to make money. A lot of development hours, both on and off record (off record meaning people working on linux while they are being paid to do something else...) are being shouldered by companies who have been, if you haven't been following the stock market for three years, struggling. Now here we have an effort to help linux on several fronts, by making a new commercially viable product, by unifying disparate distributions, and it is even in keeping with the spirit and letter of the GPL, and you tear it down because you can't download free copies. For shame!

  • It would be good for Microsoft to include source (any source) in their overwhelmingly binary offerings. But it's bad for OpenLinux to offer only source?

    Can anyone reconcile this? Personally, if I'm given the option of source and/or binaries, I'll choose to take the source every time. I'm just not seeing what's so evil about this.

  • The UnitedLinux group plans to release a source-only /wo binaries. The OS movement opposes binary-only software /wo source. I usually dl source versions and compile - and I am just a user. Compiling seems to suit my system resulting in fewer problems and a better idea of how things are working. Even the dimmest of us users can generally dope out how to compile a program or an entire package of them given an adequate documentation of the necessary steps - check out GRASS as an example. What was the problem here?

  • So what...? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @09:27AM (#3630325)
    Why is this a big deal? From what I can tell UnitedLinux is not a distribution. Therefore you will not be installing "UnitedLinux". You will be installing some distro that some vendor has adapted from UnitedLinux, and that vendor will choose whether to publish binaries along with source. If you *want* you can take a peek at the source for the framework called "UnitedLinux" that several vendors will be using to create distros, but really, I don't see that it is their responsibility to fully distro-ize something that is not a distro.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close