Red Hat to ignore LSB? 55
warpeightbot
writes "CNN.com is carrying an
IDG article
expressing concern that Red Hat may not support the Linux
Standards Base for various reasons. Sounds like FUD to
me, but if it's on CNN, it has to be dealt with one way or
the other... " The article itself is like the 90th
Red Hat conspiracy piece I've seen in the mainstream now.
Its crossed the line into amusing now for me anyway.
*sigh* (Score:1)
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
Uh oh, here comes the real FUD (Score:2)
This is the new direction of FUD for Linux. Microsoft is not bad, RedHat is. Ugh. The bad thing is that with CNN running it, people will buy into it. Seems like the worst thing we can do about this is to inflate it and lend it creedence. What's needed, seems to me, is a killer response to this such as the Petreley response to Muth's piece.
What is not needed is a lot of flame or ESR silliness on this one. At least, that's what I think anyway.
Well, at least someone asked RedHat this time (Score:3)
RH: Yes. We support the LSB. We dig it. We're down with it. Go Linux!!
IDG: BUT...they might not! And if they don't, thisandthisandthis could happen, and then Linux would suck! Be scared!!!
Wow. That was stunning journalism, a-yup.
--
RedHat's position has always been clear (Score:2)
While I would be happier if they committed to complying, I understand their reluctance, and I don't see the big deal. Once the LSB is actually out, we can lambast them if they don't comply. Until then, I think it's safe to assume that they will do the sane thing, and follow standards.
Is Linus Worried? (Score:1)
Lets give Red Hat the benefit of the doubt (Score:2)
TedC
Redhat (Score:2)
Note for people in the Baltimore/Washington area -- Hamboree/Computerfest is this weekend at the Timonium Fairgrounds.. Lots of computer hobbyists there, so there's bound to be some Linux persons wandering around or selling stuff. Plus they have that cool food. LINK [gbhc.org]
This is first stages of "getting to know you" (Score:2)
They are still working their way into the field and inside scoops are still coming from press releases and strange interpretations of facts. Once the press figures out who's who, and what they are capable of, then the coverage will even out to resemble that of other industry players like Sun and IBM.
Of course, that's just my opinion...
who cares??? (Score:1)
BlueHat? (Score:1)
Yawn. The FUD is getting thick....
I don't think this is FUD... (Score:3)
They've figured out that Linux stories attract eyes, so they're going to write about Linux. Enter the other factor, which is what to write about once they've decided that they're going to write. Well, conflict sells. Heck, conflict has been the primary basis of Western (and I mean that in the classic sense) narrative for millenia. We've run through the cycle of "GNOME storms the MS desktop stronghold" and "Big Name Adopters Prove Microsoft is doomed," so the next best thing to do is troll (and I use that in the "gill net fishing" sense) for some other conflict.
I still maintain that as accurate.
That doesn't make this FUD. It just makes it sloppy, lazy, reporting from people who believe what they read from anyone who posts a suitably inflammatory comment on Slashdot.
Heck, just to get nasty about it, I'd submit that if reporters reading this site decided to set their filters up to "2," they'd probably report about this much less.
How can something be FUD when it's probably plucked in all of its repetitive, paranoid, strident glory straight from the pages of one of the standard bearers of the Linux revolution?
Don't by the way, try to claim agents of Bill are seeding this story. A quick look back at any story here that's ever reported on a new Red Hat, Debian, or other distro release will indicate that even Microsoft probably doesn't have the cash to pay that many agent provocateurs. Nope. it comes from in the fold, and now we get to wallow in the media-mediated tripe we created.
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
RedHat "takeover" (Score:1)
All the more power to them. At the moment, what's good for them seems to be good for us and that's what is of primary importance in my opinion.
Lets give Red Hat the benefit of the doubt (Score:1)
Additionally, RedHat has several viable competitors who have significant market-share themselves. If RedHat drops the ball (on standards, drivers, ease-of-use, etc) SUSE and Caldera (and maybe debian but not really) are right behind them to pick it up and run with it. A stretched analogy to be sure, but, for now, RedHat is still Linux and switching to a distro that meets ones needs better isn't that difficult.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Red Hat and the GPL (Score:4)
Silly rumour-mongering (Score:2)
Bruce
I don't see it... (Score:2)
Looking at the LSB web site [linuxbase.org] and I see no news of Red Hat falling off the supporters list. I don't see it there.
So, what is CNN's source? Off to the CNN artical [cnn.com] and I read Red Hat's PRO LSB statements and quotes. I don't see it there.... Oh wait "And other Red Hat officials in recent weeks have referred to standards groups as "overhead." " Ahhh... This is the bad news? Wait a minute.
Let's see, most Buisnesses call things they have to spend money on "overhead." Not a bad thing, it's simply something needed to function. So, in a sence, it's even like saying Red Hat sees that it NEEDS the LSB to keep it's product (LINUX) alive. Without it, Red Hat would die out because of the lack of community support, and it's users would flock to any of the other dozen Linux choices (and vendors would soon follow).
So, where is the leaked internal Red Hat memo, where is the source? Where is this comming from? I don't see it. Take ONE WORD, "overhead", out of context, and do a complete "why Red Hat Sucks" spin on one out of context word from a Red Hat statement?
Bad CNN, Bad Bad Bad..... No table scraps for you tonight, go back to the dog house...
You know something? (Score:2)
I say we leave them alone and see what happens. I don't see how they can reasonably do something wrong.
Lets give Red Hat the benefit of the doubt (Score:1)
I don't doubt for a second that Red Hat will do the Right Thing(tm).
Define FUD? (Score:1)
Let's see... To me, I see this whole story as a series of "What if Red Hat Did X?" questions asked to any big names in Linux they could get at in a time frame to write the story.
Then, they get it ran on CNN?
I loose respect for CNN in this case. Sorry. I see no REAL evidance at all that Red Hat is doing this, or going to do this. Therefore, it's FUD in my eyes. Something I thought CNN was above.
I agree that "conflict sells." But to do something that is an overview of the negitive "what if's" that they picked up from places like SlashDot which is (Dare I say this) and insider discussion about Linux, and very casual, is just plain lame.
All the negitives I have about Slashdot aside, I still respect the fact that it's an OPEN FORUM where a Senior Programer with 30 years of experiance under his belt can get into a flame war about a technical detail with a 14 year old who just bought Red Hat at Best Buy after saving up his lunch money! That is a good thing. It opens eyes, and keeps Linux alive. It's an open window to keep seeing things from a "fresh" point of view.
But to take this as "a crediable source" for something like a CNN artical, that's FUD, and something I use to thing CNN was above publishing.
slackware isn't really "on the ball" (Score:1)
i agree but... (Score:1)
this was probably disjointed and discursive, ignore it
What have RedHat themselves got to say about this? (Score:1)
I'm sure that there are at least several Red Hat employees who read /. What chance of an official word direct from them to us, the masses?
Red Hat and the GPL (Score:1)
Red Hat and the LSB (Score:1)
Define FUD? O.k. (Score:2)
You define FUD as FUD = Spreading Fear Uncertianty and Doubt, I tend to think of "FUD" as going a little further and having a motivational component. Since I'm still relatively new to Slashdot (one year) and Linux culture in general (two years), I did a quick Google search to see where I might have come up with that idea, since I know I didn't come up with it on my own, and came up with this page, [linux-hw.com] which was featured here on Slashdot some time ago. It garnered a lot of comment, some negative. As much as I don't like the rash of attempts to write "scholarly sounding" documents that broke out after The Cathedral & The Bazaar got so much notice, I felt like FUD was pretty clearly summed up, especially since the author went so far as to attribute a source for the term.
Given that paper, I still maintain that this article is not FUD. It's ignorant, and it spreads the components of FUD by its mere publication, but it lacks a motivational element. Call it manslaughter instead of premeditated murder, I guess.
I will also continue to maintain that because in some ways Linux represents as much a cultural as technical phenomenon, and to the extent that the democratic, anarchic nature of the phenomenon's base will never settle on having a "ministry of truth" to issue press releases, reporters will tend to catch as catch can when it comes to reporting on this phenomenon.
You may also choose to note the headline of that item: Linux fans fear Red Hat takeover.
That's true. And again, I stand by my assertion based on cursory observation of virtually every story about Red Hat that runs here on Slashdot.
I don't think the openness of Slashdot is bad, either, by the way. But I've been around long enough to know that things that are "good" (free speech) don't always confer goodness in their use (libel, slander, FUD). This story by CNN is most likely an example.
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
Let's look at this with fresh eyes. (Score:3)
I've been following the idea of a "standard Linux" with some interest. I don't have the hacking skills that many here have, and while the idea of hacking at the kernel or creating drivers, or apps for Linux is one I hold dear, the reality is that I won't be doing that for a bit yet. No, I'll be using Linux as a user first, and there's where the idea of a standard is appealing. I want apps to work with the distro I choose, without requiring me to restructure parts of the source code first. OK, yeah, that's the user in me talking, but it's also the IS Manager in me. Deploying desktops is tedious enough without contemplating the current state of Linux desktop deployment.
So the LSB sounds good. It's good in theory, and I feel it'll be good in practice. But for a moment, let's give the benefit of the doubt not to Red Hat nor the LSB, but to "conspiracy", as Taco put it. For the record, no I'm not a believer in the conspiracy, but I like to cover all the angles I can see. I play chess; it's no different.
Is Red Hat as supportive of the LSB as they seem? Well, it appears so. We've heard from any number of people that they are. But what do they stand to gain or lose with the LSB? There are quotes on record where Red Hat personnel have claimed that standards groups slow down innovation. And Red Hat likes to innovate, to be sure. Referring to standards groups as "overhead" is extremely revealing of the true sentiments of the speaker. After all, with Red Hat being only one member of the LSB, what are the odds that the standard will end up looking exactly like Red Hat? Minimal, at best, meaning that Red Hat will have to rework at least some of its distro to match the new standard. "Rework" always means non-profitable labor, hours spent that are not "billable". And Red Hat is a business. And all for-profit businesses exist to turn a profit, that's a given. Right now, Red Hat (argueably) has the majority market share. Adhering to an LSB created by a committee whose members include some of their competitors will likely result in those competitors making market gains. After all, if you no longer need to have Red Hat to ensure compatibility with certain applications, then why buy it? Support? Well, yes, but with the advent of LinuxCare, that may not be such a selling point. And there will be other "LinuxCare"'s on the horizon. So is it Red Hat's best interest to support the LSB? From a purely business perspective, while the tempo of the game belongs to them, perhaps not. Mind you, out-and-out rejection of the LSB will work against Red Hat as well. So perhaps outer support of the standard is a good idea, while the committee takes alot of time to arrive at that standard. Time for Red Hat to consolidate market position.
So now, let's flip to the other side. Who stands to gain the most from having the LSB? Well, us, really, since a standard Linux will be easier to write to, add to, etc. But in the short term, having that standard will benefit companies whose distribution is not Red Hat. And I'm going to squarely point a finger at Caldera. I have tested Caldera, back when I was going to run a NetWare class and showcase the OS to my students. I have to say, I chose not to do it, because of the problems I had during the installation and the fact that several very cool apps I wanted to show wouldn't work with the older version of libc OpenLinux 1.3 had. So would Caldera stand to gain from an LSB? Yes, and not just because of the same reasons we would. The LSB will almost certainly incorporate pieces from Caldera. Or at the very least, it will require some pieces to be written from scratch. Either way, those pieces will place Caldera on equal if not superior footing to Red Hat, at least in those areas. This will give them leverage to use in the marketplace, leverage that they would not have had without that standard.
So is Machiavelli the author of the LSB? No, I don't think so. I like the standard idea. I wish I knew more about Linux, because I'd love to help. but for those of us watching the coming LSB battles... and there will be some, there's no doubt of that... we need to make sure we watch the moves closely. But also watch the players. Sometimes a chance comment will reveal motives they'd prefer were kept hidden.
Uh oh, here comes the real FUD (Score:1)
Right (Score:1)
Without standards, the fear is you'd start to see commercial vendors releasing "tested and supported on RedHat 5.2 or greater only" statements, just because it's the only baseline they can aim for. It would be better if that read "supported on LSB 1.1 or greater", or whatever. Call it braindead, but that's how commercial sofware works.
(One idea that Linux should steal from the MacOS is something like the "desktop database", which allows you move programs around the directory structure and have them still run. It's the one huge reason the MacOS is more unbreakable (from a regular user perpsective) than either Windows or unix.)
--
Unofficial Statement on Red Hat Software and LSB (Score:4)
Red Hat Software is supporting the LSB project both practically, by participation, and philosophically, by agreeing that the LSB is a good idea and expressing our expectation that it will produce a useful and workable standard).
By now, most /. readers will have heard Red Hat Software's general policy, rarely broken, of not preannouncing software releases. We stick to this policy for many reasons, but two really good reasons are our absolute disgust for vaporware and murphy's law. Things will go wrong and change our delivery dates from time to time. That does not keep us from working on software, obviously -- it just keeps us from preannouncing.
The same is true for our support of the LSB. We will not preannounce that we will make Red Hat Linux LSB-compliant when the LSB does not exist. That does not keep us from expressing our expectation (it's stronger than simple hope) that the LSB will be a good standard that we will want to implement because it will make our users' lives (and our own work) simpler and easier. We contribute publically to the effort to build the LSB standard, reserving our judgment for the completed standard.
To the folks who think that Red Hat Software is trying to corner the market in black helicopters, I'll only say that a good enough LSB standard would be very good for all of Linux, abolutely and most definitely including Red Hat Software. But if you think that Red Hat has bought the black helicopters, you aren't going to believe a word I say anyway. ;-)
Yes! I'm more fearful of LSB than RedHat (Score:1)
LSB will stifle Linux advancement for the benefit of fat-ass companies who don't want to release their code. These companies want to write a program, then sit on their hands and rake in the dough from selling the binaries. Pay someone to compile on another platform or release the source?! Goodness no! Screw them I say.
(The man in the ) YellowHat? (Score:1)
But yeah, I love how they are talking about Redhat adopting an 'embrace and extend' strategy.. how the fvck can you embrace and extend GPL software?
"We added fourteen new features to 'ls' to make it incompatible with other linux distros"
"We recompiled the source that redhat released yesterday, and now have their fourteen new features"
Red Hat and the LSB (Score:1)
Maddog
Waiting for standards before adopting them (Score:3)
There are two separate issues here: the value of standards, and when to adopt a standard.
Standards are what the internet (as we know it) is built on. The Web would not have happened without a standardized http, nor compatability between so many e-mail systems without SMTP. Standards like HTTP, FTP, Telnet, TCP/IP, and DNS are what have made the internet possible. What happens if an application decides to handle DNS differently than everybody else? It won't work. What about a web browser that sends nonstandard HTTP queris? It won't work, at least not consistently. Having said that, standards can be overhead. I'm sure there are flaws in all of the accepted internet standards, but they work, and they work well.
On the other hand, there are bad standards. It seems that most of these are produced by groups that don't regularly handle standardization (you don't see too many bad ones from IEEE, IETF, etc). The LSB is a committee, and might or might not do a good job. Redhat's wait-and-see attitude towards the standard is quite reasonable.
My Reply to CNN (Score:1)
Hmm. CNN has an email address for feedback...
To: cnn.feedback@cnn.com
Subject: Re: Linux fans fear Red Hat takeover
Dear Sir or Madam,
Excuse me. Usually you appear to have well-written, seemingly accurate stories. But your recent story entitled 'Linux fans fear Red Hat takeover' has more holes than a colander. And that reflects very poorly on you.
You stated:
That just does not make any sense to me. Red Hat makes a point of giving away their software. To the point where competing companies have started taking Red Hat's version of linux, making minor tweaks, and selling it as their own competing flavor of linux.
Red Hat, and the whole linux community, are well aware of the dangers of linux fragmentation. Considerable effort is being expended to avoid such fragmentation. And by and large, everyone (Red Hat and their competition) is shipping the same software programs. The only major differences are package installation procedures and systems administration.
The LSB, for all its hype, has more potential to hurt linux compatibility than to help it. When software tools are improving from month to month, and sometimes from day to day, an LSB agreement that prohibited newer releases could stifle linux. And, in the gift-culture that makes up linux, this would in turn lead to everyone buying a competing flavor of linux that did not suffer from the LSB constraints. Quite possibly even one based off Red Hat...
You also stated:
This is misleading. It's so easy to misread the start of the final sentence as "Red Hat doesn't" instead of "does".
It also completely overlooks all the support Red Hat is giving to the free software community. Red Hat is actually PAYING people to write software on both the GNOME and KDE projects! This is free software. It is GPL'ed. Everyone, including Red Hat's competitors, will be able to distribute not only the binaries that are produced, but also the source code!
To actually know what is going on in the world of linux, and then to read a story like this... It just makes me sick. Don't you people ever check your facts?
Or did you just repeat that recent story on zdnet? (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,222 9091,00.html) If so, you should know that I tried to reply to that story in the 'talkback' section. Only, despite several attempts, I was unable to do so. It seems that Zdnet is censoring! They only seem to appreciate pro-linux discussion when it's poorly written, coming from children, or from cranks. I found far more accurate discussion over on slashdot.org. (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/03/22/13425 9)
By the way, your article is being discussed on slashdot.org too. (http://slashdot.org/articles/99/03/27/1518214.sht ml) If you do read the slashdot discussion, I suggest that you "be tolerant". For many of us, watching yet another instance of the microsoft propaganda machine at work has crossed the line from "outraging" to "amusing pathetic". But you might not be as entertained as I was by the comment: "Bad CNN, Bad Bad Bad..... No table scraps for you tonight, go back to the dog house..."
Sincerely...
Right (Score:1)
Forking Hurt unix.
Commerical Vendors will not release source code, and a LSB binary better work on all LSB Linux systems.
SuSE contributes to XFree86 (Score:1)
Look hard enough you will see something (Score:1)
RedHat usurped Slackware because users (albeit newcomers) chose RedHat over Slackware despite the fact that most documentation focuses on Slackware. This was because RH is easier to use than Slackware, a similar shift can happen away from RedHat especially over this type a shit.
Also it makes little sense to try an corner the Linux market, most of whom compile their own programs from source. How long will they wait after any Machiavellian moves by Mr. Young, or anyone else, before they burn RH in effigy.
LSB is supposed to make developing easier, if it does so they will be more software for Linux. This would remove M$' last leg. LSB can lead to a increase in the size of the Linux market and 10% of what M$ now has is more than 100% of the current Linux market. Desktop wise atleast, and when I say desktop I mean desktop only.
In which case it is in RH (and all other distros) to grow the pie, thus given everyone more. That way the only people hurting are...
LSB's a bit off-mission (Score:1)
Where the good intentions go a little awry is in trying to make the certification side an all-or-nothing prospect. Such a thing sounds good at first glance, but it works against some of Linux's strengths.
Rearranging things to allow use of an innovative configuation management toolset. Moving, removing or replacing components for security. This should be encouraged. Doing these things doesn't change Linux's openness, though it can create islands of incompatibility. The point is that this kind of differentiation is one of the sources of the good ideas that find their way into all the distribs sooner or later.
Stop this and things stagnate. And then the LSB will implode and you'll have the kind of fragmentation you see in Unix.
There's undeniable value to a label that indicates broad inter-distribution interoperability and common configuration consistency. But under the current model, it's too constricting. What the LSB needs to do is find a mission that balances consensus and standardization without ever being stifling.
Yes! I'm more fearful of LSB than RedHat (Score:1)
LSB DOA? (Score:1)
I love Linux with passion, it's my only OS at home and I try to get people to use it at work, but I'm so angry right now with it!
I had the most frustrating time lately trying to compile even the simplest program on my S.u.S.E. 5.3. And forget about using pre-compiled packages: I just can't believe how many different kind of RPM are sprouting up! Just check out http://rufus.w3.org/linux/RPM/ for proof...
I'm sure general software quality and ease of install would increase if software could be build on a standard base.
LSB NOW!
LSB DOA? (Score:1)
which way are we headed does it seem?
Red Hat and the LSB (Score:1)
--
Let's look at this with fresh eyes. (Score:1)
The principal benefit of LSB is that third party software vendors can just target "LSB 1.0" and hence support all distributions. This is a good idea, wouldn't you say?
In no way does this imply that any distribution needs to be hobbled by the LSB. I'm sure that if glibc 2.1 or 2.2 ends up as the library component of the LSB, and glibc 3 comes out, then distributions will move to it rapidly, while retaining support for LSB in exactly the way that a.out support is provided now.If LSB also emerges as a useful development target for ISVs, then I assume that some distributions will provide GCC configurations that link against the "old" libraries as well as a GCC configuration which links against the latest stable glibc etc.
RedHat.. ... M$ (Score:2)
Well first RedHat is the one that seems to be setting the standards.. glibc2, rpm, etc.. they are helping the community progress, which is good.. most other distros can run RedHat rpm's or at least the source code can be compiled fairly easily on another platform (supposedly)
I'd worry about RedHat being a real threat when they start threatening other companies like IBM, Oracle, and such in things like you can only port your stuff to us and everyone else has to suffer...
M$ threatens other companies that is what makes them such a big threat in the market..
I am waiting for M$ to threaten RH....
Complain to computerworld (Score:1)
The problem is that while CNN usually has good reporting quality, they don't seem to display a great sense of judgement with regards to republishing technical articles...
Huh? (Score:1)
Yes, thats a perception problem that indeed exists. Many people new to Open Source, or even commercial variants of basic core products, see what we call distributions as different OSes entirely. I had an admitted newcomer who was contemplating trying Linux ask me if he could run Red Hat and Debian in multi-boot on the same machine as both had been recommended to him and he wanted to compare and see which Operating System was best for him.
Besides touting just the benefits of the Linux (and other Open Source OSes) we also need to educate as to just what an OS is and what different distributions have to offer.
I know some people that are otherwise comfortable with computers and use them daily would be horrified if faced with having to compile their software before they could use it to say nothing of patch it as needed. It's going to be a long time before that sort of thing is easily accepted by the greater number of users out there.
Define FUD? (Score:1)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Hooooboy, that's a good one.
But seriously, I think there's a difference between FUD that is intentionally flung around, and stuff that looks like FUD but is accidentally stepped in as the result of one's incompetence or ignorance.
Red Hat and the LSB (Score:1)