Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mandriva Businesses Linux Business

MandrakeSoft Publishes Support Policy 220

Posted by michael from the red-hat-takes-arrow-in-the-back dept.
joestar writes "MandrakeSoft has posted a statement about its product support policy on its website: 'At a time when some of the established Linux companies are turning away from their Open Source roots and progressively abandoning full-time commitment to Open Source Software, many people have asked MandrakeSoft to clarify its position regarding product-lifetimes and its Open Source development model.' As a result, this interesting reading provides 8 Golden Rules that lead Mandrake Linux development and product support lifetime. This certainly makes MandrakeSoft one of the most 'Open Source' Linux companies, and all Linux companies should maybe think about releasing such a statement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MandrakeSoft Publishes Support Policy More

MandrakeSoft Publishes Support Policy

Comments Filter:

  • Pretty good deal. (Score:1, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 )

    Those 8 Golden Rules are quite a good deal for only $699.

  • Free Beer! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Talrias ( 705583 ) <chris.starglade@org> on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:02PM (#7798498) Homepage

    4) Free as in 'Libre' and Free as in 'Beer'!

    These guys must have the best pub ever! Where did you say they were based again?
    • I only care about a product support lifetime if it's for a mission critical server. Since Mandrake is mostly a desktop distro, the support lifetime is of little concern to me as I change my desktop Linux distro about every 6 months anyway. All of out Mandrake installs are less than a year old. In contrast, we still have many Solaris 5.6 and Red Hat 6.x servers.

  • SCO? (Score:1, Troll)

    by drivelikejehu ( 601752 )
    SCO, are you listening?
  • this is my ideal of REAL OPEN SOURCE. they give away everything (except the proprietary stuff) and give away support. and they still make money. way to go
    • you do realize thats an oxymoron?
      "real open source" + "proprietary" = not real open source

  • Download version will continue! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Goyuix ( 698012 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:06PM (#7798539) Homepage
    4) Free as in 'Libre' and Free as in 'Beer'!

    A download version of Mandrake Linux, consisting entirely of Open Source software, will continue to be released, provided without cost, and supported.

    This is great news in my opinion. Any company that won't offer a "preview" of their product (like ISO's of a downloadable version in this case) will never earn my bucks. This is imperative if they hope to get me to join the club, buy the boxed set, etc. Besides, what I really want is a DVD so I don't have to swap CD's, so if I like the ISO's enough, there is a fair chance I will buy their power pack and get the DVD.

  • "8 Golden Rules?" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wobblie ( 191824 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:10PM (#7798572)
    That's nice, but it's still not a Social Contract [debian.org]

    • Re:"8 Golden Rules?" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposerNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:19PM (#7798644) Homepage

      Granted that it isn't quite the Debian social contract [English version] [debian.org], it's still pretty good. I think that it is especially interesting that Mandrake, which is known, and sometimes derided, for being easy to install and friendly to newbies, is doing this.

      • Mandrake, in many ways is the most like Debian of the commercial distros.

        First of all is the commitment to an entirely free software distribution (with non-free but gratis software relegated to PLF, and non-free not necessarily gratis software available in a separate (aka Club/Commercial) repository). This is the main social analogue.

        Technically, there is much that is similar. Mandrake uses the Debian menu system (since Mandrake is, along with Debian, a major distro that is largely wm/de agnostic). I

      • Re:"8 Golden Rules?" (Score:3, Interesting)

        by vsprintf ( 579676 )

        I think that it is especially interesting that Mandrake, which is known, and sometimes derided, for being easy to install and friendly to newbies, is doing this.

        And that's a good point that raises the question: Why is Mandrake considered a n00b distro, and why is it derided for installing easily? The first time I installed Mandrake was because Red Hat would not install on my machine, and a friend offered me his Mandrake download discs.

        Mandrake has the same kernel and the same GNU tools as all the other

        • Re:"8 Golden Rules?" (Score:5, Insightful)

          by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposerNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @09:34PM (#7799930) Homepage

          I agree, Mandrake is a nice distro. I've been using it for several years and just installed 9.2. I've been using UNIX since 1982, GNU/Linux since 1995 and remember installing a device driver in 4.2BSD by manually editing the device switching tables and recompiling the kernel. So I'm not exactly a newbie. But I like a distro that installs easily and recognizes my hardware. I have plenty of other things to do than hassle with my installation, including installing all of the non-standard software that I use. I may do a pure source installation on one of my machines soon, for optimization and to get better acquainted with the current system, but except for that situation, I see no reason to shift from Mandrake. People who deride a distribution just because it is easy should get a life; its a silly form of machismo.

        • As you imply, I don't think I should have to RTFM just to get a default install to a functional state. I don't have the time nor energy and I just don't CARE enough to spend effort working out installation difficulties. Of all the disties I've tried, Mandrake involved the least WORK to go from from naked HD to functional desktop, and to get said desktop configured how I want it. And that's one reason why it's the disty I'm most likely to use in the future.

          I'd say Win98 is slightly easier to install, but th
    • based in Paris, France it should be more accurate for them to say :

      free as a glass of wine
    • It seems that clearly Mandrake is discovering its audience and is trying to distance itself from seeming anything near the debacle that SCO has become. With several of these "Golden Rules" (coincidentally released just now) it seems that they are practically screaming, "Don't worry, we're not SCO!".

      I do like that these companies are doing this, though, establishing guidelines ensuring quality and the open source spirit of the product. However, doesn't saying "I will keep the software free" (thus respect

      • Re:"8 Golden Rules?" (Score:5, Informative)

        by critter_hunter ( 568942 ) <critter_hunter@hotm a i l .com> on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @07:15PM (#7799102)
        Their installer and any other software they provide does NOT have to be GPLd. Lindows' installer is not GPLd, among other things. Not sure about Red Hat's. Also, as copyright-holders of the installer's code, they can change the license on newer versions if they wish it. This is a written commitment that they won't exercise this right.
        • IIRC Red Hat's installer is named Anaconda. Someone just ported it to debian, so it is probably open source in some way. Since they are a Linux company GPL is more likely than BSD.

      • It seems that clearly Mandrake is discovering its audience and is trying to distance itself from seeming anything near the debacle that SCO has become. With several of these "Golden Rules" (coincidentally released just now) it seems that they are practically screaming, "Don't worry, we're not SCO!".

        I've read your comment several times, and I have no idea why you are trying to draw a parallel between SCO, a company trying to subvert Linux and OSS, and Mandrake, a company that has always fully supported L

    • Not *quite* flamebait, but misguided (Score:5, Insightful)

      by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:34PM (#7798790)
      (Moderators: ... Oh, fuck it. You're going to do whatever it is you do.)

      You're right, it isn't a statement that can be legitimately compared to Debian's statements. That would be because Debian is not a company.

      I _love_ Debian. This laptop I'm writing this on is running Debian (Thinkpad 570, -unstable, to be precise.) One of the big wins with Debian is precisely that it can make such a social contract. Companies cannot, and stay viable.

      That Mandrake is willing to go this far is a wonderful point for them, and we should applaud them.

      I'm vaguely reminded of a time in college when I was lambasted for only offering a couple of hours a week at a charity. When I pointed out that dedicating more time would likely result in me flunking out, thus losing my loans, thus moving somewhere else and not being able to give a couple of hours a week to the project, I was ridiculed for lack of dedication.

      • That Mandrake is willing to go this far is a wonderful point for them, and we should applaud them.You have a point, for Mandrake as a company this is certainly a rique statement to stand by, unsure if the future of the industry will allow Mandrake to uphold this model and stay competitive with other linux "brands". It would be unfortunate if in two years they are slammed for having to take on a more profit oriented business model to stay in the game, only to be rejected by its former or current Mandrake lo

    • No, it is better (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ChrisWong ( 17493 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @07:37PM (#7799260) Homepage
      In some ways, it's better. The Debian social contract makes no time commitments on updates. It could be that Debian's support is so long because it takes them so long to get a new stable release out. On the other hand, Mandrake explicitly commits to 18 months of base updates. That's a solid commitment for those of us who want to put off upgrade hell.

  • So, in other words... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by slayer99 ( 15543 )

    They are making vague indications that they might do what Debian [debian.org] have been doing for just a little while now?

  • Links please?! (Score:3, Informative)

    by IpSo_ ( 21711 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:12PM (#7798590) Homepage Journal
    "2) Product lifetimes are not hidden

    A product lifetime table for all major MandrakeSoft products is publicly available on the Mandrake Linux website. For example, the Mandrake Linux 9.2 Download, Discovery, PowerPack and ProSuite editions will be supported with core updates until March 30, 2005. "

    Why they didn't provide the link to the table I have no idea, but after several minutes (way to damn long) of searching here it is:

    Product lifetimes [mandrakelinux.com]

    They sure did a good job of hiding it in my opinion. If this is something they are actively marketing, why don't they have a huge link on the front page?

    • Read the statement entirely...! (Score:5, Informative)

      by joestar ( 225875 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:44PM (#7798860) Homepage
      > Why they didn't provide the link to the table I
      > have no idea, but after several minutes (way to
      > damn long) of searching here it is: (...)

      Did you read the statement?

      "Additional information is located at:

      # The home of the Mandrake Linux project.
      # The home of the "Cooker" community.
      # Mandrake Linux's Wiki for Cooker
      # MandrakeSoft products
      # Official MandrakeSoft product lifetime table
      http://www.mandrakesecure.net/en/productlifetime.p hp [mandrakesecure.net]"

    • The link to the product lifetime table is right there in the article! Additionally, the link you provided is for an older series of products.

      The current lifetable table can be found at http://www.mandrakesecure.net/en/productlifetime.p hp [mandrakesecure.net]. (Again, this was straight out of the article!)

    • 18 months doesn't seem too bad a lifespan for a linux release, especially considering how often a release is made. RedHat have the same release times (IIRC). MS support theirs for five years, if you can call it support. They are only really concerned with the core OS itself, not the apps that ship with it with the possible of exception of IE and Media Player.

      Personally I am looking to get off the whole release cycle idea in any case. I am sick of rebuilding my desktop systems every 2-3 years because a soft

      • My desktop has been incrementally upgraded from MDK 7.1 to MDK 9.2. The upgrade process works very well. Just make sure there is enough free space.
    • It took me exactly 3 seconds to find the link.

      I simply looked at the end of the press release.

      Perhaps you need to upgrade your reading skills.

  • It remains to be seen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cluge ( 114877 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:17PM (#7798631) Homepage
    It is still early in this companies lifetime - so it remains to be seen if they will keep to their own rules. The fact that they published the rules is indeed a heartening step in the right direction. I hope that other distros follow suit, especially in the category of product lifetime. If Mandrake can follow these rules, they become a more attractive alternative to the jaugernaut that is RedHat, and Suse. This is especially so for corporate rollouts where EOL is important and so is ease of installation. As the "linux market" becomes mor mature each vendor will have to carve out a niche. Mandrakes may be "Easy to install and our support lasts longer than your computer". Refreshing in these days of "rental OS" and forced upgrades.

    AngryPeopleRule [angrypeoplerule.com]

  • OEM support through Sun, HP etc???? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stonebeat.org ( 562495 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:19PM (#7798646) Homepage
    Can I get OEM Suport for Mandrake products through Support/Service providers like Sun, HP, Dell etc?
    Most large corporation like to have just one support contract from one major service provider (sun, dell, or HP etc). They don't want to manage several contract for the data center equipment.
    One thing I like about RedHat is: OEM support for RedHat products is available from Sun and HP.
    • You can get OEM support from HP IIRC. They sell desktops with MDK 9.1 "Lite", for rather good prices. Dogg
    • It's not that I don't believe you, but why on earth would anyone want that?
      I would think that they would want to talk *directly* to the person who will fix the problem, (RedHat, Mandrake, whatever) rather than try to explain what's wrong with their Linux distro with some phone-jockey from HP or Dell.
      I know in all the situations where I've had to have a problem resolved, the first two or three people I've had to talk to have been *utterly* useless to the point of wasting my time.

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by aderusha ( 32235 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @07:19PM (#7799128) Homepage
        primarily for support of device related software running on sun or hp platforms. if i have a problem with the driver for an hp array controller, there's not much that mandrake (nor red hat) is likely to do about it. similarly, when i'm having trouble installing hp insight manager agents on a server, there's little hp is going to be able to do about it when you're running a distribution that they aren't 100% familiar with. when you have a vendor that will stand behind a product top-to-bottom, it counts for a lot. i wouldn't ever touch an os in a corporate data center that didn't have complete support for the hardware, and this almost always comes from the hardware vendors themselves.

  • Mixed metaphors (Score:1, Insightful)

    by 3Suns ( 250606 )
    Talk about mixing your metaphors (well not actually metaphors, but you know what I mean...):
    4) Free as in 'Libre' and Free as in 'Beer'!

    Please, choose either the "Free beer vs. Free speech" option, or the "Gratis vs. Libre" option, not both.

    • Please, choose either the "Free beer vs. Free speech" option, or the "Gratis vs. Libre" option, not both.

      From the article: A download version of Mandrake Linux, consisting entirely of Open Source software, will continue to be released, provided without cost, and supported.

      It is software libre, and it is as free as a proffered beer (by download). So what's your problem, and why were you modded insightful?

  • vmware included? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bbdd ( 733681 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:38PM (#7798819)
    one of the sales pitches for the powerpack [mandrakesoft.com] version is:

    "9. Compatibility: run Windows and Mandrake Linux on the same computer."

    and a picture of vmware running [mandrakesoft.com] is shown. i would buy it in a minute if it came with a copy of vmware.

    but, *sigh*, it doesn't [mandrakeexpert.com].

    how can they plug this as a benefit if it can't do it, or in this case, for only a limited time?

  • Join the Club (Score:5, Informative)

    by CptnKirk ( 109622 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:46PM (#7798887)
    Although they didn't plug it in this press release. If you like what you see here, and like the product, you might be interested in the Mandrake Club [mandrakeclub.com]. The Mandrake Club offers the ability to "donate" money to the Mandrake development effort.

    The club has three pricing levels, each with slightly different benefits. What I get from the club is their community RPMs, and discussion boards. Silver members get DL access to their PowerPack ISOs for free as well. Club members get to help shape what goes into future releases, and have early access to Mandrake RPMs of new releases. Mozilla, NVIDIA Drivers, etc. Don't see an RPM you want, vote for it, and someone will probably generate it.

    Anyway, if you think that MandrakeSoft is doing right by the Linux community, this may be a nice way of sending them some cash, while getting a little more use from the distro you're probably already using.

  • Oddly, these could still apply to Red Hat... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @06:48PM (#7798900) Homepage Journal
    ... if you include Fedora Core as a Red Hat product, with the possible exception of #3 (no change in product lifetime).

    #1 - Software updates for all supported products. Note that anything older than Mandrake 9.0 is already not supported, and therefore they have no committment to provide updates.

    #2 - Product lifetimes not hidden. The same is true for Red Hat, or at least it has been for the past year. The EOL of the 7.x series was announced way back in March or April, and was very easy to find.

    #3 - Product lifetimes will not change. This one they may have on Red Hat. I don't remember the old lifetime for RH 7.3 or 8, but I did expect it to be longer.

    #4 - Free as in libre and as in beer. True if you include Fedora Core - and Red Hat reps have gone on record saying that RHEL would have no future without the free distro.

    #5 - GPL code. Same is true for Red Hat's installer, config and other tools. They're picky about trademarked names and logos, but all the code is open source.

    #6 - Open source development. Mandrake Cooker was there first, but Fedora has picked up the same model.

    #7 - Free Support. Note that they specifically mention "community-supported MandrakeExpert.com" - so Mandrake itself isn't pledging to provide anything more than the forum for other people to provide support.

    #8 - Mandrake listens to you. OK, this one they may have too. On the Fedora Core lists RH seems to be responding to people, but there's always the "faceless corporation" side of things. This point could easily start a flamewar, so I'll keep out of it.

    • Re:Oddly, these could still apply to Red Hat... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kunta Kinte ( 323399 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @07:18PM (#7799117) Journal
      ... if you include Fedora Core as a Red Hat product, with the possible exception of #3 (no change in product lifetime).

      Fedora Core is not a supported Red Hat product. You can not get support for Fedora Core.Redhat Support will point and laugh at you if you ask. You have to upgrade to their costly enterprise versions. You can and do get support for Mandrakes product.

      #1 - Software updates for all supported products. Note that anything older than Mandrake 9.0 is already not supported, and therefore they have no committment to provide updates.

      Much better than releasing a product in say, what was it March? And EOLing it by the end of the year, like RedHat did.

      I use to be the biggest Redhat cheerleader. Until Redhat made me, and a lot of people I am sure, eat crow. Here we are being the biggest Linux proponent in our colleges's IT department, totting all the savings we will have with RedHat Linux. How we won't have to do all the software license accounting we do with other commercial software etc. The department went ahead and ordered a large beowulf cluster and numerous labs all standardized with Redhat with the impression that we do support and licenses were free.

      Now we are scratching our heads looking for an upgrade plan, after Redhat announces that there will be no software updates for their free platforms as they exist in a matter of months.

      Oh, but you get to continue to QA for them for free

    • #2 - Product lifetimes not hidden

      This is a major difference. Red Hat did not announce EOL for their 7.x and 8 versions until well after they were released. In other words, those installing 7.x when new really did not know when support would end. Many of us ASSuMEd that they would follow historical patterns and continue to receive updates for at least 2 years. The EOL announcements came as a shock: Red Hat 8, 7.3, 7.2 and 7.1 support all end simultaneously. That should give you a clue that something change

      • This is a major difference. Red Hat did not announce EOL for their 7.x and 8 versions until well after they were released. In other words, those installing 7.x when new really did not know when support would end. Many of us ASSuMEd that they would follow historical patterns and continue to receive updates for at least 2 years.

        Errata policy updates and product end of life [redhat.com] Dec. 19, 2002, two months after the release of Red Hat 8 (well after? I think not).

        And, Red Hat 7.3 [redhat.com] is being supported for 19 months.

    • Red Hat's old RHL support policy was to support one major release back. So, 5.x support continued until 7.0 was released, although in many cases, only the last minor release of a major release got updates (i.e. the only 5.x version to get many updates was 5.2). In general, releases happened every 6 months, with 3 minor releases to a major, so you'd see support for a major release for 18 months after the last minor (which was usually a year after the first minor), but that was not really in writing anywher
    • yes, but both groups could have mentioned a bit about broad test coverage & QA...I have found fedora to be a bit lacking there.

      Specifically, If FC1 boots in graphical mode on a laptop with the lan on the PC card, the network doesnt work. You need to revert to a console mode boot for it to work. I found that by grunging through the mail lists, but would have been happier if there was a broader test base prior to shipment. Well, in the OSS world that is what I'm for, I guess.

      A more serious issue for me

  • Lame Marketing Ploy To Rally True Believers (Score:4, Interesting)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @07:10PM (#7799073)
    Obviously targetted at ideologues angry at Red Hat, this is a lame marketing ploy by Mandrake to rally True Believers in another attempt to sell product.

    Nothing new is announced here. Mandrake -- a good distribution -- is simply engaging in a bit of transparent posturing.

    Open source entails no obligation by any individual or any company to make their product available gratis. If it does, it will be the death of open source. Mandrake can continue to attempt to make a profit selling the same product it is also giving away, but lot's of people consider that to be an incredibly stupid business decision.

    Open source does not obligate a business to provide support for a product any longer than it wants to, regardless of how angry that might make some people. Nothing that Red Hat released as open source has been withdrawn.

    Open source is commonly touted as software that can be supported even if the company selling it goes away. So, then, why are different standards applied to the company known as Red Hat? Red Hat users have the source. Support it yourself, OK? Isn't that what open source is all about?

    Red Hat has no ethical obligation to support any of its products for any longer than it wishes to, and assertions to the contrary are hypocritical and contradictory.

    The primary ethical obligation of a business is to turn a profit. That's what Red Hat chose to do, and that is exactly what Mandrake is doing with this self-serving advertisement.

    • profit is *not* an ethical obligation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JimmytheGeek ( 180805 ) <jamesaffeld.yahoo@com> on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @07:49PM (#7799341) Journal
      Even for a publically owned company.

      It's the goal pursued within ethical constraints.

      The shareholders are the employers. No employer can ethically oblige you to be unethical, just as a soldier is not obligated to obey an unlawful order. Nor can a coach ethically require a team member to cheat in sports. Profit does not trump other ethical requirements.

      Sure, the officer of a public company has an obligation to do right by the shareholders, but only to the extent that other obligations aren't shredded.
      • You're creating a strawman. I made no assertion about unethical behavior. I just said that any business has an ethical obligation to pursue a profit. I did not say -- as your strawman attempts -- that the obligation to turn a profit always takes precedence over any other obligation.

        You might just as easily argue that a parent's ethical obligation to protect his or her children does not include behavior such as mass murder. True, but also an inane argument in extremis.
        • "The primary ethical obligation of a business is to turn a profit."

          If that's not what you meant, fine.
          • That's exactly what I meant.

            Nothing difficult about that. I said "primary", not "only". The rest is the word game you're playing.
            • Nothing difficult, you are just wrong. It's not a word game. Profit is not an ethical goal. It's value-neutral. If it were in the set of ethical considerations, your use of the term "primary" elevates it above other considerations. That's ethically bankrupt.
              • Profit is not "value-neutral". (Learned that euphemism in Sociology 101, eh?) Nothing is value neutral. (Among other things, that assumes a finite set of values on which everyone agrees.)

                Profit is the primary motivation and objective of creating a business. It is the primary measure of success of a business and of the people managing that business. (No profit, no business.) As such, profit is the primary ethical oligation of the business. Profit isn't the only obligation of the business, but, witout prof
                • Never took soc. Wasted my time in econ - the flip side of the pseudo-science coin. Astrology for the raised-in-a-wicker-basket set.

                  *Lots* of things are value-neutral, neither moral nor immoral.

                  When you are in a hole, you should stop digging. Unless you want the hole deeper, I guess. I recommend learning to say, "You're right. What I meant to say was..."

                  1) Profit isn't an ethical obligation. 2) even if it were, it's not the primary one. You say both. If it is primary, then it's more important than
                  • I'm not going to play this game, because it will revolve around competing deinitions of "ethics". I believe in one defintion; you, almost certainly, believe in another.

                    For what it's worth, much of the pain and angst that people suffer in the name of ethics is largely semantic. I.e., a reactin to the power of words. We use words to describe reality, but typically forget the difference between the words and the reality.

                    For a crude example, consider the death of 4 individuals: One is murdered on a city str
      • profit is *not* an ethical obligation...It's the goal pursued within ethical constraints.

        That is the most brilliant comment I've seen on slashdot all year. It sure as hell took you long enough!
    • Let me summerize my comment here: "you're wrong".

      Now let me explain:

      I have been a mandrake user since day #1. I have also used other distributions, but none of them have included RedHat since version 5.2. I own numerous books with Mandrake CD's and a number of official Mandrake Official boxed sets.

      Mandrake in my opinion is the only distribution that provides the packages the users want and a way to easily deliver them. Anyone who has had the "pleasure" of installing gentoo, slackware, or debian, kn

      • 1. Your happiness with Mandrake has no bearing on claims that RH should support people who have not purchased that support.

        2. How do I know that the developers who wrote the software I use are in the MandrakeClub? I use vi. Is Bill Joy giving away free support? What about Mozilla and Epiphany? Are those developers providing free support in the MandrakeClub? Or is it just the case that the people who collected software that is in Mandrake provide support for Mandrake-specific issues?

        3. A company may b
    • Open source entails no obligation by any individual or any company to make their product available gratis.

      You better talk to The OSI people about that...

      The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. [opensource.org]

      Frankly, I agree with you. Unfortunately the inmates have been running the asylum and the concept
      • I read phrases like "shall nor restrict" and "shall not require" as not mandating the provision of software gratis. In any case, the second sentence appears to contradict the first.

        But, as you say, the loons are running the looney bin. Clearly, many open source "fans" (meaning non-coding users) believe open source means "never having to pay for it".

        Since the vast majority of software users don't have a clue about source code, providing source ought not to eliminate opportunities to make money in support.

    • Obviously targetted at ideologues angry at Red Hat, this is a lame marketing ploy by Mandrake to rally True Believers in another attempt to sell product.

      Or perhaps it is simply a reaffirmation to users that Mandrake will not abandon the model it has committed to, despite Red Hat's actions.

      The primary ethical obligation of a business is to turn a profit. That's what Red Hat chose to do, and that is exactly what Mandrake is doing with this self-serving advertisement.

      It's beliefs like that that are tur

      • bY definition, a business exists to make a profit. If an organization isn't seeking a prfit, it isn't a business.

        If you think making a profit obligates people to break the law or engage in unethical nehavior, it doesn't, I didn't say it does, and the vast majority in businesses today do neither.

        • bY definition, a business exists to make a profit. If an organization isn't seeking a prfit, it isn't a business.

          Actually not all businesses exist to make a "prfit". Some are non-profit corporations. In reality, businesses (corporations, specifically) exist to comply with their articles of incorporation, which may contain pretty much anything, and the ones I've seen do not make claims about short-term profit.

          I didn't say it does, and the vast majority in businesses today do neither.

          I will do my be

          • Yes, non-profit organizations exist, but even they must maintain a revenue stream from somewhere. If someone wants to form a non-profit to distribute Linux, we should recognize that they're doing it out of ideological motives.

            You're being a bit pedantic to assert that corporations "exist to comply with the articles of incorporation." Businesses are created when someone sees a chance to make money, not when someone sees a chance to draft "incorporation".

  • Goal #1 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LazloToth ( 623604 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @07:26PM (#7799178)

    Ask any MBA student on day one of classes: what is it that any company must do to survive? Of course, the answer is "profit." If you're asking, 'What about charities and non-profits?," then realize that even they rely on someone's profits. So the question for Mandrake, which has struggled mightily with finances in recent times, is whether a 5-year product life means a great deal when the company's welfare over the next 24 months is itself an issue. I like Mandrake and hope they will do well; I wonder, however, whether they have the teeth and bones, like RedHat, to profit sufficiently to improve and maintain their product whilst paying their developers, managers, accountants, et.al., a decent day's wages.
    • the story as bandied about on the web is that their financial troubles stemmed from allowing vuture capital to bring in management which harebrained off onto a bunch of wild goose chase tangents. Bankruptcy was the only way to throw the vulture capitalists and their managers out and return to focus on the core products. The financial statements of late are certainly looking pretty decent, and I can certainly buy that storyline after having worked for some of the sorts of people that vulture capitalists will

  • Was anyone else like me and said "hey this is great!" and rush off to support MandrakeSoft, only to find their purchasing options confusing... and mostly expensive?
    I want something like Red Hat's advanced workstation product. Which one do I buy? Do I have to drop $200 USD? This free Linux thing is getting quite costly, strangely as that sounds. I probably won't ever want to spend more than $50-60 on a Linux distro, so what can I get with that? And what is the product name?

  • different from slackware how? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @07:36PM (#7799255) Homepage
    Every bit of this can be applied to slackware.

    This is simply the base ideals for any company/group that has a clue as to what linux is about, nothing more.

    Kudos to them for publically saying that, but all of those reasons are exactly why I trust slackware only for my servers... Although Mandrake is my choice for laptops and desktops cince redhat's change.

  • This sounds really...sound. Pretty reasonable, too. I can't see anybody supporting all releases forever, but I like the predictability of not revising the life downward. Everybody should do that, and I see some claims that others do. Good for the others.

    Other especially interesting bits: the free support forum. I willingly grant that nobody can support freeloaders extensively, but providing a website where the freeloaders can support each other is pretty cool. Bandwidth & server maintenance aren

  • Well, I Hope So. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vigilology ( 664683 )
    I wish to know that at least one of the main desktop Linux distros will stick around for many years, be it Mandrake, Suse, Redhat, whatever. Otherwise, how can "Linux be ready for the desktop" if all the distros close down or stop supporting after a short while? Imagine it, you've managed to persuade your friend|relative to use [insert distro] only to have it stop being supported next year. At least with a Microsoft OS, you know it's going to be a few years before they stop updating, patching etc, it.

  • Congratulations Mandrakesoft, your FUD backfired (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fo0bar ( 261207 ) * on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @08:17PM (#7799516)
    I just uninstalled mandrake 9.2 from one of my home machines thanks to your little press release. I am also regretting buying 9.0 retail not too long ago (which, supplemental to point #1, is your oldest supported version), and I'm no longer considering joining "the club".

    Please do not bash other companies to try to make a buck in the name of integrity. I read through your 8 points and could not find one thing that Red Hat violates (I assume this press release is targeted towards Red Hat users). At the very least, the Fedora project is a community project with deep pockets thanks to Red Hat. They are not abandoning their heritage, instead it's a similar project with a different name. The only difference is now, in addition to the hundreds of Red Hat engineers working on the Fedora project, anyone else can contribute openly.

    Conversely... I'm sorry, what is your oldest supported product again? Also while you say your are committed to providing a free product, your "download" link seems to have disappeared from your home page. Of course digging further reveals it, but then I'm provided with two choices in order to actually download a product:

    I agree to support Mandrake Linux, please send me to the Mandrake Linux Users Club Registration page

    or:

    I'm already a member of the Club or plan on registering soon, please send me to the download page

    Does that mean by downloading your free product, I agree to become a member sometime in the future?

    fo0bar

    (Please forgive my irrational tone. While I believe all I have stated here to be true, my annoyance has taken over my civility, and for that I appologize.)
    • That's the one about publishing all the upgrades and fixes. The most disturbing thing I've heard (but not confirmed) about Red Hat is that they require RHEL customers to keep the service bulletins confidential. That seems directly opposite of the free software spirit to me, and it makes me angry if it's true. Anyone know?

      • Re:What about point #1? (Score:4, Informative)

        by fo0bar ( 261207 ) * on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @09:00PM (#7799736)
        That's the one about publishing all the upgrades and fixes. The most disturbing thing I've heard (but not confirmed) about Red Hat is that they require RHEL customers to keep the service bulletins confidential. That seems directly opposite of the free software spirit to me, and it makes me angry if it's true. Anyone know?

        I doubt it. Not only have the openly sent notifications for RHEL errata, but they also provide the SRPMs [redhat.com] in accordance with the GPL.

  • Thinly veiled FUD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Burdell ( 228580 ) on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @08:50PM (#7799694)
    At a time when some of the established Linux companies are turning away from their Open Source roots and progressively abandoning full-time commitment to Open Source Software...
    Other than being FUD targeted at Red Hat (please list ONE of these "rules" that is not being followed by Red Hat), why is this news? The only established Linux company turning away from Open Source that I'm aware of is the former Caldera, and they were never a big Open Source company (most of the software they developed was closed source). With Fedora, Red Hat has the most open development model among commercial Linux vendors. It can't touch Debian, but I think it'll come close once they get all the infrastructure in place.

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

    by CaptainTux ( 658655 ) <papillion@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 23, 2003 @09:58PM (#7800119) Homepage Journal
    What's the deal with all this anti-money stuff? Everytime someone tries to make money in open source they are villified and demonized by the community. But what is so wrong about this? Is it really fair to expect a company to invest money (quite a bit of money) in research, development, marketing, etc and then NOT want to make money for their efforts?

    It just amazes me to keep seeing this anti-money attitude in the oss community. Open source isn't about giving away software. It's about freedom. This confusion is one of the main reasons I think that it should not be referred to as "free software" -- it fosters an uninformed and misdirected belief that if someone doesn't give their work away then it's wrong. It's not people. Get over it. MandrakeSoft is a strong supporter of open source and I, for one, hope they do survive and become profitable.

  • If they are such a good, reliable, stand up company, why can't I find the source code rpms or installation .iso for Mandrake 6.1 anywhere on the net ?

    It would be nice to install distributions maintained by people who would leave their downloads up, so that when you were confronted with ancient installations in the future that needed a few tweaks, you could handle it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close