Suck on Linux Evolution 359
Jonny Royale writes "Today's Suck has an interesting perspective on the Red Hat IPO, and the future of Linux in general. Warning in advance: It's not pretty. " Ouch-I think there's a lot of honesty in this article, particularly the attention to human nature. What do you folks think?
Competition (Score:2)
Really? If you consider HURD vs. Linux, or WM vs. Afterstep or TWIN vs. WINE competition, then perhaps there has always been serious competition in the Linux domain. But I am a coder, and I have followed Linux software development for a long time. What I saw in those projects was peaceful coexistence and even cooperation between differing products. Sure WM is a lot like AfterStep, but then again, it is a lot unlike AfterStep as well. One doesn't exist just to outdo the other. WINE and TWIN? Same thing. In fact, there has been a lot of cross-communication between those projects recently.
Contrast this to the GNOME/KDE wars. Do these developers communicate with each other as effectively? Why are there two disparate object models being developed? Why is there very little cooperation on the CORBA front? Why must every GNOME-positive article on
How about the drafting of the GNOME WM compliance specification? As I recall there was/is a lot of dissention regarding how closely the spec was tied to E. Several WM authors decided not even to implement the spec because of this. Is this cooperation?
Perhaps we should create a distinction: community competition vs. corporate competition. Community competition leads to better products and common ideals. Corporate competition leads to lawsuits and fragmentation. And the Linux community seems to be moving from the former to the latter, IMO.
If you need one more piece of anecdotal evidence, reconsider for a moment the scuffle between LinuxCare and RedHat over a certain advertisement. This type of thing can't help but spill over into the code at some point.
Required reading (Score:3)
I'm not going to try to recap these discussions, but I think it's worth pointing out some quite trivial facts:
RHAT is a public corporation. Its management has legal duty to maximize shareholder value by whatever legal means necessary. Historically, courts have given a lot of leeway to company management in deciding how to go about it, but on the other hand, management has been sued, sometimes successfully, for doing (or not doing) something useful for shareholders. Think about it: if they believe, e.g. that writing and selling proprietary extensions to Linux, will make the company more profitable, then the RedHat management has a duty to do this. I really would not be surprised to see an effective fork of Linux (on the same kernel base) into a "corporate" Linux, sold, say, by RedHat and Corel, and a "pure" Linux, distributed by e.g. Debian. It's not a good thing to happen, but welcome to the real world.
So, yes, the transition from the academic/hobbyist/sysadmin world into the rat-eats-dog-eats-rat corporate world is dangerous and will probably affect Linux in some way and the Suck article pointed it out with a very-well-sharpened finger.
Kaa
I want that Penguin Leaving Eden t-shirt! (Score:1)
Sheesh, and Wired is just so much better than us at avoiding profit.
Re:Yeah, but Suck Sucks (Score:1)
dude-
back away from the 3rd person references to yourself...
who are you? Dennis Rodman? Mike Tyson?
Re:Painful, but true. (Score:1)
Second, the KDE is in many ways a easier to use interface than Windows. The use of single click as a default (and currently only option, though KDE 2.0 will support double clicking as well) is one of the reasons. People who have been using Windows and MacOS for years hate it. Those of us, like myself, who think of mouse clicks logically in terms of speed and having enough states like it. New users will love it. I've watched quite a number of new users, primarily older people who never used a computer before, click on an icon and get very frustrated when nothing happens, so they click it over and over again until five copies of the app start up, which also frustrated them. Back when I was younger this led me to unconsciously tripple click, which made my friends laugh at me.
None the less, Linux with KDE is a viable alternative to Windows for the avarage joe on the desktop.
Re:Yeah, but Suck Sucks (Score:1)
Re:Painful, but true. (Score:1)
I disagree (Score:1)
By this, I don't mean you shouldn't assist the community, I mean people should stop whining and moaning whenever someone does something *other* than that. Caldera wants to release a closed-source GUI install doowhang? Fine, sounds like a good idea to me. I won't complain. But, all Red Hat or SuSE would need to do to beat them would be to release the same utility as an Open Source doowhang. And this applies to everything. Their greed will force them to do what we, the consumers, want.
Bah. Linux isn't gonna blow up or be 'pushed to ship' until Linus or Alan decide that they want to be owned by one of the major competitors. Lets not forget that Linux develops at the speed and in the direction that the community wishes it to, not the major companies. The best they can hope for is to contribute code and thus become liked by the core developers.
--Me
Money Corrupts (Score:1)
But, Linux is still free. It has been built on good foundations, and programmers at companies are being paid money to work on it. So maybe Linux will become more of a consortium of corporations and a few stellar individuals. At the very least it raises the standards of what an operating system can be. So what if it is Adaptec that starts writing device drivers instead of Pete in Vancouver? The point is that the good stuff gets absorbed and the bad stuff gets criticized and improved on. It's the product that is important, not the motivations.
Re:The article's fatal flaw (Score:1)
Meet the New Boss Same As the Old Boss (Score:1)
I noticed this transition over a year or two back when folks seemed to be driftin from teh fun of playing with the system of Linudx and began the push towards making it User Freindly. Not that user freindly is a bad idea, but Linux is, at its best, a fast driving hard truning race track to test the skills and hone the ability of it users.
When they started putting padding on the curves, all that changed.
One can say Linux lost its virgin zeal the minute it stepped away from the practicalites of CLIdom and workability and spent large chunks of its time arguing over how an Icon should look on a screen.
"how does it feel to be a rolling stone no direction ~"
So now Linux is a Money Making venture with large chunks of cash at stake. You think the realses of tomorrow wont be thiniking about the demands of the Buying Public versus the Bleeding Edge Techers. Who do you think BUYS a linux install anyway, some one who knows how to do a net install over thier dsl??? Nope, its the same folks who BUY software and expect it to work out of the box( yes it has a box) with MINIMAL hassle. The words Kernerl and Complie are going to fade from the fore to be replaced by, CUSTOMER and Support. Chaching. Next customer please.
Linux is about the
To every cloud there is a silver linning, in this one the silver is redemable for houses, cars, food, and new hi fi systems to listen to your MMW bootlegs.
Dont deny the dark side..........Your soaking in it
Re:FLAMEBAIT (Score:1)
I think M$ makes a great OS for gaming, with all that DirectX stuff...
I think Linux is a great OS for development (in all areas) and networking
I think the Mac is a great OS for making graphics, laying out pages, and providing a simplified work environment.
Pick your tools according to how well they accomplish the job, not for any other reason (hatred of a company, etc...)
Re:Optimism? (Score:1)
The one thing about the GPL that even non-opensource-zealots really appreciate is that it it holds the vendors feet to the fire with respect to keeping Unix open and standard. As long as its open and standard the customers will line up for miles. All of the long run incentive pushes the commercial vendors this way. Those that don't have this perspective will be trod under the feet of vendors that "get it".
Hold on, calm down, and take a deep breath (Score:1)
The author seems to think that this is corrupting when it was meant to be supporting and a sign of goodfaith.
After all RedHat does 100% own it's very existence to the OSS community. And RedHat knows it, so they did the right thing. Even if it wasn't the original motive for the programming and RedHat wasn't under official obilgation to do so.
So will Linux be market/money driven? Well, no I don't think so... Look at the big players that are involved in Linux up to their neck like IBM. Who would have thunk it 2 years ago. Everyday, I see on LinuxToday 4 or 5 companies pledging support for Linux. And Linux in my opinion hasn't lost it's soul.
If anything it is changing the way others think about software. Not the other way around. Did you ever think that all the many hardware vendors today would even ever think about open sourcing their drivers?
Linux has been the underdog all along. And once again I think that people are under estimating it. Linux will survive commercializm. And come out stronger because of it. The Linux community will see to that by their every choice of what software they run.
Just my 2 cents.
Re:So...have you been corrupted yet? (Score:1)
Re:Painful, but true. (Score:1)
I agree with your point, but if you think people don't have to learn Windows, you're sorely mistaken. While it seems ridiculously simple to the Linux ubergeeks (myself included), to people who've never used a computer before, Windows is daunting. ("I have to click Start to finish?" etc.)
Re:HURD (Score:1)
Re:GPL & OSS == MONEY FOR OTHERS (Score:1)
--
yeah whatever (Score:1)
I don't think they quite understand where Linux is coming from though (or maybe they just left it out for the sake of humor.) I've watched the development of Linux for ~6 years now and one thing that stands out about it (and other similar open source projects) is that it's growth is organic. It's development has about as much to do with money as a tree's.
Redhat may come and go. Maybe Debian will fall too. Who knows? The development of Linux will continue despite what happens to the people and organizations involved now. Maybe it will evolve into something else if necessary.
It's more about mother nature than human nature, and you can't stop mother nature that easily.
numb
Why does everyone pay $70 (Score:1)
Possible fall in reverse? (Score:1)
Good point. Let's take the idea further... can we GAIN from this exposure to Coporate culture?
Is it possible that Joe Corporate Coder, firmly entreched in the Evils of Money, can be converted? Perhapse their company wants them to take a look at Linux. Perhapse they look at it themselves to see what the fuss is. What they find is an environment enamoured with tinkering. It reminds them of the fun they had when they first started coding... why they made it a profession. They begin to tinker and hack... not because of some marketing drive but because they once again can enjoy coding. They're converted. And Open Source is richer for their contributions.
I'm not saying that the corporate culture is in danger of falling completely for the promise of Open Source (yes, obviously many will not)... but as long as the code remains open, some of those coders will want to tinker. Linux will continue to evolve.
I'm impressed at Suck's knowledge (Score:1)
I'm optimistic that Open Source and the GPL will hold out against the worst aspects of greed, though.
SECOND?
George
Sorry, but... (Score:1)
The problem I've seen with the "Linux is dead movement" is that they seem to forget that sure the stockholders want something, some return, some new thing, but that's Red Hat's problem, not the Community's problem.
Now, I'm not suggesting fragmentation. I'm suggesting what simply seems to be how it's always worked pre- and post-RHAT era. When the Linux users need something, they post to the cola, wait for a response, get none, and do it themselves. None of this stockholder BS. It's how the projects get started.
What I'm really trying to point out is that as some of you are now shareholders, your work helps you earn money (that's what the Letter was about, not selling your soul), for those shareholders who aren't coders, users or even "geeks" if Red Hat doesn't perform, well tough! We do it our way. There is no board of directors, no COO, no managers to look over our shoulders and provide projects. There is only a lack of a service we want that provides us with the latest project.
To the investors that aren't Community, you should have read the fine print of the deal. To the investors in the Community, you earn when you produce. To the rest of the Community, it's still about love of Linux.
The naysayers predict doom and gloom, but we know we're different. A person doesn't win a race by watching who's nipping at his heels. Likewise, world domination won't happen if we let ourselves be overcome with FUD from the money men.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:1)
Re:greed is human nature (Score:1)
Unlike the "communist" governments in recent history (and the present) Linux has no priveladged party. True you could consider the big Linux kernel hackers (Linus, Alan, etc.) to be a priveladged group, but the means of communication to them is in no way limited. Just join the kernel mailing list and contribute.
There is no need for anything outside of the community. Many communist governments failed, in part, due to the innability to rely on the community alone for success. Whether it was military ties, food, oil, communist nations still needed to rely on the outside world for parts. The Linux community, on the other hand, has always been able to provide for itself anything it desired. If a piece of hardware was need, or simply wanted, someone wrote a driver. There was no need to rely outside the community. There may be instances where outside source was used, but that was most likely out of convenience then necessity.
The major thing that seperates the Linux/GNU community as a true example for communism is that citizenship is voluntary. Sure people can emigrate the community and develop commercial applications, but that in no way means that the community is tied down to only that application. They can always develop from within the community. And true, you may be short one hacker but others will join.
Re:Painful, but true. (Score:1)
If VSP use the interface, then the average level of intelligence of the end-users decreases. This is part of the reason that VSP don't use Linux today: it doesn't have a very easy to use interface.
---
Re:Forays into the Realm of Twisted Logic (Score:1)
Oh no, anything but that!
Re:Painful, but true. (Score:1)
I'm not doing anything high-powered though, and I don't know how much went into setting up this box (I was given it when I began as an intern here).
---
You may have survived the penguin wrath... (Score:1)
...but you're still wrong.
You're wrong because you equate the expectation that a company will deliver on a promise with a sense of entitlement. The developers who recieved the letter didn't demand a piece of the action, but RedHat offered it anyway. That was a nice gesture, and it increases my respect for that company, but once they made the promise those developers were right to expect RedHat to deliver. I get the impression that after all was said and done RedHat did deliver, but that is another story.
You're wrong because you believe, as the author of the article does, that businesses have the power to control the development of free software. Companies and IPO's have existed before software did. They didn't control free software decades ago and they don't control it today. Some of them contribute to it, but that doesn't stop anyone from developing or using any free software in any way.
You're wrong becuase you assume that money and free software cannot coexist. There is nothing wrong with programmers being payed for their work. There is something wrong with reducing the utility of that work in order to pay them. Free software is not about giving software away, although there is nothing wrong with that either. Free software is about giving people the power to software in the way that works best for them, rather than accepting the canned decisions of some corporation.
Fill in the next sellout of choice (Score:1)
Re:The article's fatal flaw (Score:1)
He meant that StarOffice doesn't have all the useless features, bells, and whistles that Jim down in Accounting likes in an office package.
I wouldn't call this the 'fatal flaw' by any stretch.
Re:Ouch. (Score:1)
See what Linux looks like in a year, see who's right, RMS or suck.
They did get a little nasty, I'll agree, but it's probably sour grapes at their worthless WiReD options.
George
FLAMEBAIT (Score:2)
The only way that Linux is going to gain marketshare and respectability is if there's only good news put forth about it. Whomever published the article therefore must not like Linux and hence is on the Microsoft payroll in some way shape or form.
What we need these days is more objective news covering the linux phenomenon. If it degrades linux, obviously they don't see the full picture, and therefore is not objective and they're being paid-off by Bill Gates.
This is slashdot.
Now I'm gonna go read it!
Re:Forays into the Realm of Twisted Logic (Score:1)
If the commercial app is broken than that is again the fault of the client to choose to go with a closed source app.
And since when did Linux give a crap about a commercial product enough to not allow progess with libraries or anything?
Blame Capitalism (Score:1)
A different perspective (Score:1)
Linux != Redhat. (Score:1)
There is nothing to see here. Everyone move along.
Re:FLAMEBAIT (Score:1)
Anyways, that's how I feel about slashdot nowadays.... if it's about computers and somehow doesn't benefit Linux, it must be anti-Linux... anti-linus, for that matter... I'm all for free/open-source software when it does the job i want it to, but when it doesn't, I'd rather shell out the $$$ rather than try to make due with a 0.1 version that i can look at the source of...
My boss likes the paperclip (Score:1)
Oh well.
Re:FLAMEBAIT (Score:1)
Worth of RedHat (Score:1)
their operating system. Everyone can
distribute Linux.
RedHat opened a large market for Linux.
They made it popular.
And making things popular is what is
worth money-- not writing good software.
Re:Something to Ponder (Score:1)
But then, haven't we always been pushing for the day when companies would write there own drivers? Look at what is going on in the graphics card market. All rushing to show that not only are they fastest on Linux, but that they are open source friendly (of which Matrox seems to be winning.)
It is going from sexy to where it should be and always really was. The nerd who just wants to use a particular piece of hardware on his system, and the proud hardware developers that want to see it run well. Maybe even the college kid who wants real world programming experience on what he is learning.
Money is doing exactly what I hoped it would. Adding to the development effort, giving more reasons for more people to contribute. Nothing has happened to scar anyone off, except maybe the level of entry as the kernel and software in general becomes more complex. And that is a good thing.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
Comics rule (Score:1)
As for Suck... User Frindly is so painfully weak it's embarassing. After Y2K has funny stories, but the art quality is pretty lackluster. Suck, on the other hand has Terry Colon, the finest cartoonist on the web today, bar none! There have been many attemps to meld the sequential art traditions of the printed comics with a computer based delivery, and Suck has taken a damn good crack at it, so give them their due. The writers, while relentlessly snide, are overall a pretty bright group, even if they do run into the occasional blind alley.
My $.02
Unsexy Network Drivers (Score:1)
People don't fix obscure bugs in network drivers for those reasons. They fix them because they want their network driver to work.
Open Source Hardware (Score:1)
Re:NT booting from a floppy (Score:1)
Totally off-topic, of course, but yes, NT can boot from a boot disk. It does so when you install, and you'd have to boot from a disk to rescue it from a failed mirrored boot drive.
Of course, you'd have to boot from a boot disk to recover from a failed non-mirrored boot drive, but that'd be to reinstall... [snicker]
Exactly what kind of validity does this have? (Score:1)
Redhat & Be OS Should merge (Score:1)
most of all, return some of that money back to the public.. the amount of shares kept internal for something like this is outrageous.. give some back.
Re:FLAMEBAIT (Score:1)
Besides all that, since when is Slashdot the voice of linux? Last time I looked it simply says "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." NOT "Linux news for nerds. Linux stuff that matters."
Re:Ouch. (Score:1)
THE gpl keeps it free. If some corp decides to attach a bunch of binary crap to a copy of Linux that doesn't mean everyone has to buy it, unlike the present M$ model.
RH, along with several other Internet IPOs will slide back down to the penny stock range before a year passes. Besides T-shirts, distros and service they have no other commodity for which most folks would be willing to pay. SuSE beats them by miles in distro quality, I've heard their service is poor. That only leaves the T-shirts. Five Billion for T-shirts?
I doubt it.
Re:A job vs. a Job...correction (Score:1)
A career is something you do and you really are interested in it and you get paid for it.
A hobby is something you do and are really interested in it, but don't get paid for it.
...could go on...but I think the point is clear....use the proper word. Just because you capitalize a J in job does not make it any more important.
Misunderstood (Score:1)
You misunderstand. RMS does *not* claim money is evil, or bad. He claims that hoarding is evil and bad-- especially hoarding something that is, in essence, knowledge.
This is a common misconception, made worse by the ignorant press and neo-McCarthyists who mistake his ideas for Communism and are frightened by that. The GPL grants the specific right to make money off any software under the GPL, without any kind of compensation to the actual author. The only requirement is this: access to the source code must be guaranteed, and the person recieving the software also recieves the exact same rights-- including the right to redistribute the software.
This ensures that the code will always be "free." Why is this important? Not to keep people from making money, but to ensure that the code survives; and so other people can learn, and fix, and enhance.
Also, true communism is neither bad, nor good. It's an ideal, and quite impossible, just as a Free Market is an ideal, and quite impossible. Communism in Russia turned into Socialism, and Free Market in the US turned into Wall Street. Same difference.
Other than that, I agree with you 100%.
Keep your head up! (Score:1)
But yes, lets not be idealistic. Linux may end up being the Windows of the 00's. Who knows. Anyone who discounts any possibility admits being ill prepared for every possibility.
Suck really does! (Score:1)
Re:Required reading (Score:1)
---
Re:Why we complained about E-Trade. (Score:1)
As those inside know, it's not about money. It's about respect.
I read your first Salon piece, and frankly I don't buy this at all. You got the letter, so you must have contributed something valuable to Linux. In this gift society, didn't your gift already earn you respect?
Why in the world would an open-source developer need the respect of E*TRADE? Online brokerages and the stock market are not about respect, quality or any other admirable goal. They're about money -- a completely amoral barometer of right and wrong.
Your efforts to equate respect with money help to prove the point of Suck's commentary.
Re:Grubby little wankers (Score:1)
Phil Kerns (PKZip)
John McAfee (Viruscan)
--
Howard Roark, Architect
Re:Two Cents (Score:1)
factors like money or fame tend to sway development in a particular
direction. Why is USB still not standard in Linux, why is scanner support
virtually non-existant, why is sound support highly limited? All because
those are the fundamentals that don't bring fame or fortune. It's the dirty work
everyone hates. Let me also mention winmodems which are still not supported
even though many models have been around for months if not years.
Mozilla development is lagging behind because it was not sexy enough to attract
a significant number of outside developers. I mean I just keep coming up with
more examples of what current OSS or FS developers are "not motivated" to code.
Suck stumbled upon a real problem even though it has little to do with Redhat IPO.
Re:Ouch.-----taking the sugestion to think (Score:1)
Parashmitizing! (Score:1)
Re:Painful, but true....correction (Score:1)
the MacOS allows for the use of single clicks. Just change it so everything is displayed as a button rather than icons. This is true for every version after 8.0(maybe earlier, but I couldn't say for sure). Granted, it's not the default that is set, but it can me made so that it is system wide and very quickly.
okay...back to what we were talking about....
What about the GPL? (Score:1)
Hmmm.. Suse (Score:1)
work for free (Score:1)
I think that in the future, the majority of Linux developers will have jobs in the industry as a consultant, sysadmin, etc and write programs to work more effieciently. Or perhaps some of them will be high school/college students writing programs as projects or whatever. I dunno.
Of course, then again, it's late and I'm tired.
yawn
Advocacy, Slashdot, and things that inhale... (Score:4)
Rant 1: Re: People who complain about
Rant 2: People who flame anything anti-Linux. I use Linux. I use Windows (although I do not want to). I use other Unices. I like Linux. I want Linux to win. I want people to like Linux just like I want people to like the TV shows I like and worship the God I worship. And that's what we need to beware of. I am often reminded of that scene from Life of Brian where the "Vow of Silence" man attacks Brian and the reaction of the crowd, esp. Cleese shouting, "Heretic! Unbeliever! Persecute! Kill!" For goodness sake, it's a computer program!
Rant 3: People who talk about Slashdot readers and posters as if they were all of like mind. There is astounding diversity of opinion on Slashdot. Read the thread a couple of days ago on the Kansas/Evolution thing. Now there happen to be certain overlapping domains (like Linux-love) in the nerd/geek community, but there is some part of each of us unique and outside all the overlaps. That's what brings me back again and again. I can get perpetual self-congratulation by watching any E! program.
Rant 4: People who think anything Microsoft does matters in the slightest. Linux is not and cannot be destroyed. It is not in even the slightest way threatened by anything Microsoft does. Linux businesses may be, but the network is here. The code is here. It cannot be taken away or destroyed. If every Linux business were forced to fold tomorrow the whole thing would just keep right on going. I do not care what Microsoft does.
Rant 5: People who just don't get it. It seems to be an American disease, but it is spreading everywhere. The only thing that matters is money. People talk about the quality of movies on the basis of how much was spent to make them, or how much they are making. An amazing number of people think I am "exploited" because I have given away code I have written. They do not understand that I wrote that code for my personal needs or pleasure. These same people think that I am not exploited when I code things I don't want to code for other people to make them richer forty hours a week, 52-weeks a year (that's ~87 days a year folks, for 45 years that's 3,900 days, or about 10 years 6 months of my life), for which I get paid just enough to keep me in debt for most of that time, after which I become a liability to the healthcare system until I die. Exploitation comes in many forms. Writing source code and giving it away is not one of those forms as far as I am concerned. (BTW, consider that between work, school, and sleep you use about 16 of every 24 hours of your life for 60 years not doing what you want. That's 40 years of your life spent not doing what you want. Let's assume you live to 75 years and that you sleep 8 hours a day for those years you are not working or going to school. That's another 5 years of sleep. So, out of 75 years of living, you get to do what you want to for yourself for 30 years out of 75. Now talk to me about exploitation.)
Rant 6: People who sneer at anything. Given the numbers above, why do so many of us feel that there is time to sneer at anything? Maybe we should try to form some genuine, sincere, honest, trusting, real relationships between actual caring living people in the time we have left?
Boy, I feel a lot better having gotten that off my chest.
Re:Painful, but true. (Score:1)
uh......ok? (Score:1)
The difference? (Score:1)
Actually is it usually much cheaper than that. (Score:1)
Re:So...have you been corrupted yet? (Score:1)
Exactly... this comunity loves to tinker. If not, then Mindscape(?) for Legos would not have been so popular. People did not crack the code in the hopes of getting paid by Lego, they did so to in order to be creative, and perhaps, to make a useful tool that was above and beyond the scope of what already existed.
I do not feel the open source community is in danger of falling completely to the evils of money (yes, obviously some will)... but as long as the code remains open, hackers are going to continue to tinker. Linux will continue to evolve.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
I beg to differ. I installed Windows for the first time without a hitch. It auto-detected my non-IDE CD-ROM (and installed drivers), set up my video card, set up my monitor, set up my network card and basically did everything else.
Then I installed Linux for the first time. I had to make a special boot disk (sbpcd.i) to enable me to use my non-IDE CD-ROM, manually configure the ethernet card, and mess around in XF86Setup for about 45 minutes (plus two reboots) before getting my video card and monitor set up.
Compared to win95/8, that just plain sucks.
$$$ Also (Score:1)
Suck sucks... (Score:1)
Re:There is truth to the article.. (Score:1)
This may be the most clueless comment I've seen in a long, long time. Go back to www.gnu.org, and this time, actually read it!
Hint: You're confused about what the word "Free" in FSF stands for. Your comments are about money. Nothing on the GNU.org website talks about software that doesn't cost money (except where they clarify that's not what they're talking about).
To ask a counterquestion to your last question: what's not free about that? (Remember, you answer should make no reference to money -- checking www.gnu.org if you're confused about what the word "free" means in this context.)
--
Re:Painful, but true. (Score:1)
I think the article was perhaps purposely foolish, anyway. Anyone who can code has always had liberal opportunities for "selling out" if that's what they're after.
Also, even though Red Hat isn't my distro of choice, I think it's apparent that they *do* pay people for coding without "selling out"
Hey, if Linux stays free and of good quality ... (Score:1)
I just want a quality OS/Kernel that I don't have to shell out my life savings to buy. Office apps are nice too, but I can do without.
If shareholders complain because Red Hat doesn't turn a profit, it won't affect me a bit. In fact, Red Hat, VA Research,
- Steve
--
Steven Webb
System Administrator II - Juneau and TECOM projects
NCAR - Research Applications Program
Re:Time will tell. (Score:1)
>money" when there starts to be serious money
>thrown towards linux?
Perhaps not, I'd like to think so, but like I said, only time can tell for sure.
>If various Linux distrubutions start weeding out
>the less-used, less-funded ones they become just
>like Micro$haft we've all grown to hate
Perhaps the other commerical ones, but I don't see how for instance Red Hat could ever "weed out" someone like Debian. What can Red Hat do to make Debian go away?
>Let's not forget FoxPro 2.0 which was well
>destroyed by the awful product Access.
Again, this is assuming two commerical products which need money to survive. Even if the only people using Debian are the people who build it, if they want to keep building it they can. There is no budget or sales to worry about.
I believe what scares MS the most about Linux is they don't know how to attack it. A lot of people like developing it, like using it. Even if it has very little market share, even if it has lots of bugs, etc. All of these things were true in the past, and people still continued to use it.
They can't make their product cheap or free in order to put the other product out of business (a favorite strategy) because the other product _does not depend on money to be developed_. Sure lots of people are being paid now to do Linux development, and I think that is great, but I bet many of these people would continue to do so even if they had to go back to other jobs.
Thanks to the various FS/OSS licenses you can't buy it out, sure you can buy off the primary developers and the latest code, but people can always just go right on developing for the last public branch.
This, I think, is the real power and threat of Linux. Sure you can scare most of the world away with FUD, but those who know better are just going to keep at it, and it will eventually poke its head back up again. Short of wiping out every Linux developer and eraseing every trace of its existance, I don't see how they can ever make it totally go away, nor do I see how any commericalization of it can ever truely destroy the community. Damage it sure, shrink it definetly, but make it go away, I doubt it. And so long as that community exists I'll be happy.
>You may not want to be a millionare, but
>understand some developers would like to be one
well actually I do, thats just not my primary motivation.
Wow that was a lot longer and rambling than I intended.
anyways,
Re:Meet the New Boss Same As the Old Boss (Score:1)
Zzzz. This is stupid and you know it. I never expect software to work out of the box . . .
Seriously:
I bought a distro because I don't have a dsl, or anything else like that, and the phone lines around my area limit me to ~28.8 on the good ol' modem. I bought a distro because I don't want to have to futz with waiting for the same bad phone lines at work . . .
Matter of fact, until recently, the only ISP in my little town was one called AOL. Hehe. "Times, they are a changin'."
Get off this "commercial distro's are crap" ethic, you're annoying me and others around you. What you say makes sense only until you look at it for more time than it takes to go "RedHat suckz, d00dz." or "GUI is for MORONS(or whatever)!"
I probably looked to much into what you wrote, so don't take it too seriously.
Thanks for your time.
Re:GPL & OSS == MONEY FOR OTHERS (Score:1)
Re:GPL & OSS == MONEY FOR OTHERS (Score:1)
Re:Rants 1-6 (Score:1)
Re Rant 2: Right on. I use windows, linux, and even mac and while I like linux best, each has its own strong point. Windows is (right now) the best 3d gaming platform and Netscape's more stable on MS, linux is the most stable (of the three at lest; I've no experience with any *BSD) server platform and mac (I just bought my first mac, a classic II for $25) has shufflepuck cafe and the best version of tetris I've played.
Re Rant 3: Right on. While many geeks/nerds/academia/whatever may be quite left-wing, agnostic/aethist, white males (don't flame me for saying it, and yes, I am) there are far to many who aren't to make that assumption. You can't even assume that
Re Rant 4: On, but not Right On. Microsoft doesn't matter to the future of linux but it does matter to the future of America and the rest of the world. They are getting powerful enough to influence foreign policy which is literally a life and death area.
Re Rant 5: On, but not Right On. I enjoy my job, I enjoy sleep (I'm a cross-country runner: try taking a nap after a 12 mile run through the mountains; it's damn fun) and I enjoy school (I'm a college freshman). I feel sorry for those people who don't like what they do, but I feel that I'm doing what I want to be doing for more hours a day than not.
Re Rant 6: Right on. I couldn't add to the eloquence of Rant 6.
Re:GPL & OSS == MONEY FOR OTHERS (Score:1)
Will RedHat be destroyed by Wall Street (Score:1)
RedHat is a Linux distributor. Linux is likened to water. There are many distributors that will sell you water. Some have better quality, sell it in different bottles, add a little extra and spend more on advertising. All water does not taste the same, but close enough for some people not to notice. There are many people who will only drink bottled watter, there are some who drink anything, and some who prefer it straight from the tap - or lake.
They can always kill the bottled water manufacturer - they can't stop the water.
Re:GPL & OSS == MONEY FOR OTHERS (Score:1)
Re:Forays into the Realm of Twisted Logic (Score:2)
1. The GNU OS is a high quality operating system created by a group of talented people. Unfortunately, it is not yet complete.
2. Linux is a high quality kernel created by a group of talented people, thus completing the GNU OS.
3. Both the GNU OS and the Linux kernel are available for free.
4. Because of 1-3, most people consider GNU/Linux systems a Good Thing.
5. Red Hat sells a "value-added" product that includes the GNU/Linux OS.
6. Red Hat is successful.
7. Red Hat issues an IPO, offering shares to some of the people involved in 2 (above). Some of those people accept the offer. (Did they offer any to those involved in 1 (above)?)
Re:U R 2 31337 (Score:1)
From the FAQ:
--
Repton.
And the alternative (Score:1)
Hmm.....
Let turn our attention to an other alternative. The coder do some really great/cool/inovative
What about Netscape? some years ago they make this (for the time) incredible product, and what happens? some control freak at M$ goes scared and M$ release a free product to cut Netscape's "air supply". Result Netscape bearly survive with the help of AOL.
Hmm.....
Okay, Okay an other example: Citrix and their MetaFrame, a great idea or what (*nix has had better for years but anyway)! M$ take a look at the Citrix SW and announce that they are already working on, and are going to release a similar product. What happens is that the Citrix stock plunge and lo and behold M$ buy Citrix! And guess what! now they really do have the product. (Maybe the Citrix coders made some money on this anyway? a little.....)
Hmm.....
So I guess the choice is really up to you, take your chances were you know you will get screwed or where you at least have a chance not to. (As the OS is not controlled by a control-freak, or anyone else for that matter).
Take a bit of Generation-X negative mindset, sprinkle it with a bit of FUD and journalist ignorance and what do you have? A crapy www.suck.com linux article.
Re:Forays into the Realm of Twisted Logic (Score:2)
In addition, implying that the Linux kernel is the entire OS, and that those who created the kernel created the OS, is disrespectful to the many people who spent the previous 10+ years writing the operating system that the Linux kernel plugged into.
Re:Misunderstood (Score:1)
Secondly, I *totally* disagree that a true free market is an impossible ideal. I also *totally* disagree with the idea that communism is in any way -ideal-. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Communism and Socialism are evil, and Marx was a raving lunatic.
But, that goes outside the scope of this post. If you care to argue the finer points of political and economic theroy, drop me a line. Until then, visit Free-Market.net [free-market.net].
--Vegas@my.bomis.com
--wales001@my.bomis.com
--Sagev
Re:I think the word for it is vaporware . . . (Score:1)
But seriously, if such a thing appeared, it would simply get reverse engineered...
--
Myths abound (Score:1)
A few short years ago the notion of free software was decried as an absurd fad at most, because "human nature" would always mean greed would win out and therefor no one would code free software in the long run.
They were wrong then, as Linux, FreeBSD, GNU, and countless other freeware projects have demonstrated, and they are wrong now.
"Clueless users will never be willing to switch to Linux until they have xxx", where xxx is some absurd feature (e.g. the paperclip). Wrong. I have a number of "clueless" friends who know next to nothing about computers and have embraced Linux when I've offered it to them, even though it has meant giving up some applications which simply haven't been ported (Quicken for example), and learning how to do other things differently. Without exception they are all so delighted at having a system that lets them work and accomplish things without constant problems and unexpected crashes to contend with, that they have become even more zealous advocates of Linux than I or any of my "geek" friends have ever been. Are there more apps and capabilities I'd like on the desktop? You bet! Is their lack proving to be a major obstacle for technically challenged users to adopt Linux. Not at all in my experience.
Finally, the argument that money will force the splintering of Linux has already been refuted time and time again, both here and elsewhere. Splintering Linux wouldn't make Red Hat, Caldera, Suse, or anyone else more profitable, it would simply shrink the entire Linux pie in favor of Windows, making everyone poorer. Red Hat et. al. know this -- they've seen the long, splintered history of UNIX and they understand the Open Source paradigm far better than the folks who wrote this article appear to. In addition, they appear to ignore the built in safeguards inherent in the GPL which help to prevent just this sort of thing.
Oh, by the way, has anyone actually ever seen a coherent definition of "human nature" that wasn't a tautology? Just curious.
Painful, but true. (Score:2)
Its near its peek since all us geeks already have linux and all the companies that want to switch are about to do it. But thats it. Linux is not an end user product. Like it or not, MS is easy to use, and the users don't really mind rebooting every five minutes. They want to be able to turn on their computer, fire up MS Office, type up some fancy documents and reboot a couple of times. No more, no less. And thats what theyre getting, so they're happy. They don't want linux or the flexibility and stability it has to offer. And damn it, that's how its gonna stay wether we like it or not.
---------------------------
re: Suck on Linux evolution (Score:2)
George
Moderate this post down... (Score:3)
That article was not only honest, but it was accurate, given the amount of complaints that the RH IPO fiasco generated from the *altruistic* linux developers on this site.
In the last month
Forays into the Realm of Twisted Logic (Score:2)
1. Linux is a high quality operating system created by a group of talented people.
2. Linux is available for free.
3. Because of 1 and 2, most people consider Linux a Good Thing.
4. Red Hat sells a "value-added" product that includes Linux.
5. Red Hat is successful.
6. Red Hat issues an IPO, offering shares to some of the people involved in 1 (above). Some of those people accept the offer.
7. The aptly-named suck.com considers this a Bad Thing.
From this I deduce that you can only remain Good so long as you are NOT an economic success.
Let's all work hard to ensure that suck.com remains a Good site. I'd hate for them to suffer the ignominious fate of Linux.
BSD == good in Kansas (Score:2)
So...have you been corrupted yet? (Score:2)
The people that are coding now have been doing it for months without any monetary reward, several have been doing it for years now. They do it because they like it. Suddenly they are paid for it. Perhaps some of the coders will fall victim to the evils of money, perhaps some new people will join up hoping to get rich. The folks who have been doing this out of love aren't going to care, they still love to fiddle with the code, in fact this may help them, maybe they will be able to quit there day job and fiddle full time now.
Personally I wonder how market forces are going to be able to influence Linux development. Most coders out there don't have a marketing team telling them "what the people want". Sure perhaps Redhat or Caldera or "insert favoprite Linux company here" sponsored development efforts will be market driven, but there is nothing barring any Joe Blow from going the opposite direction.
We shall see, I personally have more faith in my fellow man than Suck apparently does.
They're right, but they're wrong (Score:2)
It also doesn't mean that's the whole story. The one thing I've heard over and over since I started using Linux (about three years now) is that it's a fundamentally different beast. This was true then, it's true now. What that means in the current context is that while all that Suck said is true (and it is; don't delude yourself), Linux is in the unique situation of being able to maintain infinite alternate realities.
As an example - I go to LinuxWorld. I talk to many people. We discuss who uses what. Most people seem to run RedHat or Debian (I was in the Debian booth, so that may be skewed). On this, most run WindowMaker or E with KDE or GNOME (in order of popularity). These are the hot new things, many being driven by some of these new forces at play. Myself? I run a version of AfterStep 1.0 that I've done some hacking on (and I'm not even a programmer; I'm a hardware guy). Do these guys have functionality I don't? Not really. Themeing, but I don't consider that important, and I can get most of that functionality other ways. Some stuff like drag n' drop in KDE or GNOME, but I don't use that.
And there my friends, is the big difference. All these new things are available, becoming part of the system, and I don't have to use them. It's all optional. As long as the source remains available, there will be versions of Linux out there driven purely by the motives it has always been driven by. It's every bit as sure as the fact that versions and products will appear that are driven purely by greed. They're both human nature.
Re:Painful, but true. (Score:2)
I get the feeling that the
Oh yeah, I say quit you whining about RedHat's sucess, most of it seems to be out of frustration over them getting thier first. They are buisnessmen and that's what buisness majors do. They creat companies to create IPO's. The rest of us are computer science, philosophy (me), humanities, etc... and 10, 15, 20 years ago when you sat down to the computer and wrote your first PONG clone, was it images of an IPO that ran through your head? No, it was call the guys, call mom and dad, it was the bragging rights to the people who matter most. And that's what sepparates us from the buisnessmen.
RedHat's here, Microsoft is here, Apple's here and none of them are going any where soon. Get used to it. But instead of whining and complaining about somebody else's sucess work on your own. Keep it free, make sure that even with their sucess RedHat doesn't call the shots, we do.
Nuf said.
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
Re:GPL & OSS == MONEY FOR OTHERS (Score:2)
Your little gripe reads like something Bill Gates wrote many years ago to a bunch of cretins who actually had the nerve to give away software.
Red Hat give away the code, they don't sell it because they don't own it, or have you forgotten that? If you don't want others to profit from your work, then don't release it under an Open Source license--be like Bill.
OSS just got raped? Care the explain how? Is it rape when I use OSS at work? After all, I'm being paid for the work I produce with OSS. Is it rape when a consultancy make money installing and maintaining OSS-based networks for their customers? Is it rape when Red Hat invest millions of dollars into Linux, GNU, and other OSS?