Slashdot Mirror
Commercialization of Linux
m3.142 writes "Author J.S. Kelly in his LinuxWorld article says [summarized]
'In 1999, Linux became the Next Big Thing. Linux grew in market share and mindshare, in users and in servers, in support from hardware companies, software companies, and software vendors, in media coverage and in stock valuation. J.S. Kelly isn't convinced that the people who so badly wanted Linux to become the Next Big Thing knew precisely what they were wishing for, and thinks they may be in for an unwelcome lesson ...'"
When the underdog becomes big.
If it would have been the other way, Linux being big and Windows small, you never know, maybe then we would all be laughing at Linux and cheering at Windows for being the small but way much 'cooler' OS.
Linux WILL be big, and lotsa people will be using it in the future. And when that happens, I think alot of people that are now running Linux because it's cool and special, will go out and find something 'new'. For instance Be or HURD.
Arno
I didn't realise that the goal of Linux was to "beat" anybody. I thought the goal of Linux, in its role as part of the Free Software Foundation's vision, was to provide a free (libre) UNIX-like operating environment that people who valued their freedom had an alternative to closed-sourced environments.
Or am I missing something?
Cheers,
Alastair
PS - and what's up with /.'s Extrans post mode? It's outputting HTML tags as plain text instead of interpreting them (at least in my browser)... I had to post this as "HTML Formatted".
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Yes, theoretically dishonest businessmen will move in with their pirate ships. We all heard on Slashdot about the company going for an IPO with some weird plan to sell Linux at a swap meet.
But really, how many of the scam IPO's have been successful? How much harm has been done to the Linux marketplace by new distributions or software?
If someone writes a new distribution with the intent of using it as a basis for a business instead of out of the love of it, where is the harm?
The article also assumes that if one works on some technology other than Linux then one stops using and developing for Linux. A lot of developers fool around with Linux at home and will use it regardless.
Red Hat employees who quit to go work elsewhere will take their Linux-using habits with them and possibly entrench Linux use in their new organizations. That is not a bad thing at all.
The rising tide which the article speaks of has lifted boats. Has it really sunk any yet?
Marjo Wycam, Master of the Programming Arts
Let me put it this way - I was using Linux before it was ever the Next Big Thing, I'm using Linux now that it is the Next Big Thing, and if it's ever the Previous Big Thing, I'll still be using Linux.
In other words, I couldn't care less whether it makes it big or not.
agreeded
One of the things I keep saying with the commercialisation of Linux is that it will lose it's appeal to a lot of up and coming non-commercial coders who will look to other products as the coporations take on linux. There will be a hard core of people who stick with it for love, those who milk the cash cow and others who see the romance dying looking to new and exciting underground projects where they can develope and hack code for fun rather than for others gain.
Working for the (other) man
Only slightly related:
RMS was speaking. He pointed that a lot of companies (if not most) with booths were selling proprietary software. Indeed, it sucked. For example, there was a booth for "Wooooshhh ...", a surf accelerator. I tried to explain the demonstrator that I would not install their Java client (nor their Win32 client since I don't do 'doze), and that should they decide to open-source their client, it could be integrated into other browsers for everybody's benefit. But the loser was just a salesperson and did'nt understand shit to what I was saying.
It's all about freedom. The night I found gnu.org, I changed forever. I sat for hours, reading the philosophy section. And the next day, I started installing Debian. It's not about a bandwagon. It's about choice, and freedom. That's why I use Linux, and that's why I think many others do.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Somehow I think he's missing the point of open source. /at/all/ becuase the people who made it wanted it. The corporate raiders can come in, strip the land scape bare, and when they leave open source will still be here just like it was before. :P
We're not here to get big, make money and go home with the girl. No the folk who are acutally making a difference.
This guy is talking as if open source was a scarse resource.
Its only exists
I guess sucks if you were looking to get rich out of linux. But if you just wanted an OS that got the job done - no ones taking that away.
Moneys nice - but it's not really the goal is it? If it's your goal you deserve what you get.
... with eskimo chains i tatto my brain all the way...
This is where the virical nature of GPL will help us!
The source of the basic infrastructure of the operating system will _allways_ be free for Linux.
That is a big improvement in freedom.
javier
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
One of the things that has held Linux back has been the fact that it wasn't a buzzword or considered acceptable for commercial applications by a large number of companies and IT departments around the world. Two years ago, suggesting using Linux for something considered mission critical wouldn't even be tolerated. Now marketing wants to issue a press release when it happens.
To me, this has been the greatest benefit for all the hype. We don't have to do things in closets in so much anymore! And once end users of these types of systems see the extra performance and stability they start asking about Linux on their workstation...Eventually they'll take it home as well if we don't drop the ball! Watching it trickle down is a great thing.
Case
I want software that doesn't suck. It's as simple as that.
Open source, while it has philsopical points that I think are important, main attraction is that it is the best long term means of accomplising that - for me at least.
Who cares is Linux is just the current "big thing", and in a years time all these companies that have jumped on the bandwagon have gone?
Provided they have open-sourced their stuff, the source will still be around to integrate (licence allowing) into things that we/I will find useful.
Not only that, but no longer do we need to put up with crappy software and feel powerless to do anything about it. Hate Windows? Contribute to Gnome/KDE. Think ASP sux? There's PHP for you.
Remember back in say '93 or '94 how bad Windows 3.11 was? Remember the first time you tried Linux and - after installing everything you could find, then deinstalling half of it - that it still didn't crash!
That's what it is about for me. I don't care if all these companies abandon Linux - provided the source is still around, no company can afford to put out crappy software anymore.
The business community works by making it interesting to make money. Regardless of how it is spun, in the end everyone needs money.
The reason why many open source projects work and continue to survive is because they offer
1) better quality
2) respect the business community
3) listen to their clients
Here are examples of this in action, Linux, Apache and Perl. Each of these three projects do not attempt to force the world to open source. They do their thing and let the business community be as it is.
To be quite honest I would think a VAT or Open Source society tax should be started. Companies that profit from Open Source should be required to donate some money to the Open Source community. The Open Source community would then spread that money to developers working on Open Source projects.
I know this sounds socialist, but I think the Open Source community as a whole would benefit. I would even ammend the GPL as follows.
"If you intend to not distribute the sources to this project, then you are required to donate a reasonable amount of the profts back into the Open Source community."
As much as the Open Source community hates this, but it makes a business of Open Source. Instead this will make interesting for the business community to use the vast number of sources available. And if the business community does use the sources then the Open Source community will benefit. The Open Source community can then continue and do their favourite thing, hack at code...
I think it is a very attractive business model. A small business could compete against the big players. To be quite frank this is a great way of breaking the hold of the big software companies on the software community.
If you think that this will only attract leeches and pirates, think again. Developing a product is one thing. Making it stable, creating effective documentation, creating a marketing campaign, providing extensive support is quite a bit of work and should not be underestimated. And as we all know, this part of the work sucks!!!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
The reason why I changed to using Linux is only because it's better than the current mainstream OS, not because I'd hate Windows. The fact that more and more companies are starting to commercialize it doesn't really matter, in fact I think it will only be a benefit as the development of Linux will get more and more resources. The development of the core will still be in the hands of Torvalds and others.
A couple of things strike me as funny with these statements. For starters, I don't see very many more "successful" linux IPO's coming down the pike. Redhat and VA have solid reputations and put out respected products, and they were "first movers" as far as most of the people on the stock market are concerned. Anyone that would decide not to work for RHAT because they've missed the IPO better find a start up that has more to it's buisness plan than the word linux scatterred around, because this whole blind bidding up of anything linux isn't going to last. The current tech IPO fever probably won't last either. You're better off working for a company that has a solid future and that you enjoy working for. And I don't think that the current open source companies are too woried about losing the types of employees that would try to cash in on this market hype.
I'm sure the director of HR at RedHat doesn't lose sleep worying about how he'll be able to compete with LinuxOne for new talent.
I agree with some of the OSS points in the replies here so will not embelish on them. But I do want to make another point.
I'm walking the floor of LinuxWorld and seeing all of the excitement, etc....It's fun, lots of cool stuff, etc... Reminds me of the old USENET and Uniforum conferences in the mid to late 1980s when UNIX was the next big thing.
Yes, some of those companies died or if luckier were bought at a nice price (Apollo comes to mind). Some though went on to become very successful (e.g. Sun, Oracle) *despite* the IBMs and the DECs of the world getting into the UNIX world.
I'm not sure what the lesson OSS leaders are going to learn as implied by this article is, but it certainly appears that they are in a much more upbeat mood and excited and having more fun with cooler SW than say the Windows 2000 development team?!? Even if Win2000 is not a "train wreck" as ESR says, many in the development team must be so burnt out by now and depressed from all the negative press that *they* will feel like they were *in* a train wreck.
The OSS leaders do not have to fear this fate for reasons stated in other replies.
Army of Northern Virginia
Aide: Grant drinks too much to command an army. Lincoln: Find out what he drinks and give it to my other generals!
The GPL deters standardization by creating an unnecessary and harmful split between open and closed source. It is already hurting the trend toward standardization brought about by the BSD-licensed, freely reusable TCP/IP stack that brought us the Internet. We may soon live in a fissured world: the GPL on one side, commercial programmers on the other.
It didn't have to happen this way. But because Linux was unfortunately licensed under the GPL, the battle lines are already being drawn. And, as usual, it's the little guy -- the small programmer trying to make a decent living -- who will be caught in the crossfire. The GPL will prevent him from leveraging and improving upon publicly available code to make money, while large software houses such as Microsoft will shut him out of commercial markets.
And, as usual, innovation will lose.
Those who favor open source need to wake up and realize that the GPL hurts their cause. In fact, it does not even meet the requirements laid out in the Open Source Definition, because it discriminates against a field of endeavor: the creation of commercial software. The OSD explicitly states that this sort of discrimination disqualifies a license from being a legitimate license for open source.
--Brett Glass
- all the nice linux companies go completely bust.
- huge nasty companies attempt to take over and their marketing machine convinces the public that linux == some uglycorp software.
- the public interest falters and dies.
It would be nice for the interest to maintain and the existing "nice" companies to retain their ethos and go from strength to strength, that way we get ports of commercial software easier, some games say, and a much easier ride in convincing bosses to allow us to use linux at workBut even take the worst case scenarios and examine them for a while, its still a win win situation. You still have your free linux, that source is stil free to use, you loose nothing. Whatever you had before the "commercialization" doesn't get erased when the "gold rush" ends. Sure a period of die back while the companies run away as fast as they can, but those of us who only wanted an os that they could afford that didn't suck and allowed them to plink around with some code don't loose anything.
Just rein back that panic and general frothing at the mouth and get on with it. Write some code it's very soothing and actually achieves something constructive. I'd recommend it to anyone.
C.
I sometimes write stuff
Some fear the Linux will continue to grow in marketshare and proprietarism, but that is the future of all successful products. Eventually Linux will be just another "windows", but probably slightly more solid and speedier. I don't think that this is something to be feared at all just something to deal with.
/.ers are opposed to, the taking of an open source project and making it a closed source monopoly. Redhat is an excellent example of this business model in action, and they are very successful. If there is money to be made, then businesses will get involved whether the product or service is someones "sacred cow" or not.
Once a product shows potential, enterprising companies latch on to it and try to develop their own little "baby" as I call it. Of course this is what most
I say let the companies duke it out and then let a true winner appear. The added competition only makes the product better.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
The main thing about the Linux movement is that no matter how rich companies like Red Hat and VA Linux systems get, as long as they support the open source movement people will support it.
How many times have you found a bug in a closed source piece of software, and were told to upgrade to the next release at "minimal" cost?
Open source gives us the options of fixing the bugs ourselves or talking directly to the developers that wrote it.
As long as the IPO companies remember this, things will be good, but they have to remember this. If they don't remember that the community is first, then the community would walk away from them.
Imagine for a second that a linux vendor called Purple Cap decides that its shares are falling because someone has a better product. Purple Cap decides to try the corporation approach: It tries to buy out the product, and fails. Next it hacks together a lamer copy of the product (even forking the source) and uses its IPO revenue to advertise it as the greatest thing since Babbage. Their lamer product ends up on the cover of magazines and is given away at Starbucks with each coffee sold.
How would the Open Source community react to this? I think that people would lose faith in that company. There would be a ground swell of opinion against them, people would stop using thier products, sending them code patches, downloading thier version of packages.
As long as there is Open Source there is another alternative. As long as there is another alternative, no company can control everything.
There will always be rogue comanies, such as Linux One. There will always be people that try to fairly or unfairly dominate a market.
As long as there is an alternative the Open Source community will follow what it feels is right.
The internet population has surprised analysts by its resilience to "commercialisation" - i.e. paying for information. I think the reason is that the Internet is more of a "perfect market" than the high street - everyone has complete, instant access to the same information as everyone else. This allows competition to work more fluidly than in the high street: the hassle factor for distributing information has dropped to almost zero. If you know the right forum, you can say something to all the people on the internet who it would interest the most.
[GNU/]Linux distritributions are such a forum for free software. Historically, if you wrote some good code, you could post it on web sites, or newsgroups, but only people who were proactively interested would find out. You'd have to wait for the program to emerge in people's consciousness. Now if you can write something which gets included in a distribution, millions of people who would never have looked for source code on a newsgroup can instantly install the binary from CD or ftp. This improves people's information levels about the free software marketplace, and makes it very hard for a propriatory program to survive if there's a better free program.
Let me contrast the situation with Windows, which doesn't have this distribution thing. Suppose you wanted to get Windows software together with equivalent functionality as, say, Debian's "main" CD. How would you do it? Trawl through thousands of pages of shit on www.shareware.com? Search using altavista 1000 times? Look in a catalogue (this wouldn't work cos some of the stuff in Debian would never achieve wide distribution if sold alone)?
With linux, you can think one day, "hmmm I need a music typesetting program" and instantly find the best free offering, available on your CD / the ftp site. "I want a Pascal beautifier." "I want the cursor on X to disappear after a few seconds inactivity." Because any linux user can do this so easily, it adds an order of magnitude to the weight that will get behind any free software offering. Linux distributions have undoubtably helped free software.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Its a tragedy of the Open Source movement is GPL is no good according to their definitions.
KLM.
follow this link for more info
This is exactly what happened to me! I'd seen Linux being used, but I only decided I *really* needed to install it after reading the philosophy stuff at gnu.org.
I wonder how common this is? Maybe more amongst Debian users, since debian makes a big thing of "freedom" as opposed to "coolness" of software.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Here's what the "commercialisation of Linux" means to me: I can offer a solution based on Linux and not have to fight *political* and *non-technical* battles tooth and nail. Three months ago an AIX consulting crowd claimed we were "brave" to use Linux. Our management told them it fit our needs technically and to shove off.
*That's* what commercialisation means.
As for loyal employees, ethical companies, etc., well I doubt you'd see those whether or not Linux even existed. I hate to rain on anyone's parade but employees and companies are out to make cash. The rest is just frosting tomake everyone involved feel all warm and cuddly - and quite a few people don't care for warmth or cuddles.
The current state of Linux and free software is that it has a wider range of acceptance, it has a license that keeps it free (speech not beer), and beyond that I don't much care. If you *really* are concerned about free software do the world a favor and send your two cents to somewhere useful: http://www.fsf.org/
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Really, no one is going to force you to use my software. It's your choice. Take it or leave it. Honest.
--- fall in love with Linux Grrls ---
The many comparisons to gold rushes in the article missed one vital point, which was that the really successful people in the gold rush were mainly the people who got in early.
Whilst I think companies/ distributions such as Red Hat, Debian et al may lose some market share Linux is shaping up to be a big market with room for both 'niche' people/ companies and mainstream companies. I see Red Hat losing market share in terms of proportion, but still growing in terms of numbers.
The only thing I can see which would really shake the market would be if a certain 800lb gorilla tagged MSFT jumped into it with both feet. If Linux (and possibly Hurd) keep growing at the same rate as they have done then I suspect that this will happen sooner rather than later. People still forget that Microsoft had a large share of the Unix market at one time.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Hmmmmm... opinionated, offensive, ignorant ... you must be a lawyer (or a troll -- nah, lawyers are a level below trolls)
You have to keep the effect the same, i.e. preserving all the same freedoms; that is, right to privacy, right to redistribute, right to have and modify source code. You have to use copyright law only, since EULAs are unenforceable internationally. It needs to be in as plain english as possible, so that developers can understand what they're doing.
I'm not sure you can make it binding on developers in the way you describe, whilst preserving the right to modify. It could be counterproductive if you wip out someone's right to make unrelated propriatory software, because many people do not want to give up that right. How will you stop companies having IPOs?
But if you can manage all that you claim, and your instincts really are to help, then go ahead: write a better version! Post a URL here, that way many people will read it. Also you might want to explain in plain english the advantages of your new version. If it genuinely is significantly better, then there's no reason why people won't start using it, including the FSF.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
A number of posters have stated that the GPL could probably be breached by companies who aren't willing to play by the rules. However, the fact is that such companies aren't able to sell into the technically savvy Linux market without suffering lots of opprobrium, and public opinion appears to be as effective a method of ensuring companies conform to the rules as any court of law.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
My Take
So many people say everybody should move to Linux, BSD etc. Many people want to and some give it a go. They hear about the great support you can get in newsgroups and around the net. They give it a try. What happens next?....
Many of these people run into minor problem or are just not confident. They head out on to the net seaking help. They start posting in NGs and other forums. Then if anybody replies it is mostly derision for being a newbie. They want to give it a go but most don't want to help them. They get frustrated and give up. I have seen this happen on numerous occasions.
RESULT
RedHat etc produce things like rpm, graphical auto install routines etc. The user no longer has to know anything to get their system usable. Some would argue this is a good thing. However, for someone who wants experiment and play with their system this is no good. They have everything up and running but don't know a thing about it, thus can't use it to it's potential. I have seen this too often and it is a terrible shame. These are the next people we need to get involved as they will convert the rest.
Do we really want these people using Linux etc? I say yes but I think it turns off some of the real geek types who think they are superior because they use Linux. This is a very sad thing indeed. Personally I make the time whenever possible to help newbies. Im no expert but there is a serious lack of people willing to help.
In conclusion I think the poularity is annoying many people who once thought they were superior.
"Linux for all"
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
Damn, I missed 'arrogant', sorry.
Hmm, I don't think I'll be visiting Linuxworld again any time soon. The story linked to was littered with Doubleclick ads, which my proxy filtered out.
As a side effect, it became unreadable, but I don't care about that so much. I'm boycotting until such time as they remove the Doubleclick ads.
Yah, yah, offtopic, I know. Sorry.
This is really unlikely, but let's consider it.
Well, this could have happened before the big linux hype and is more unlikely today because there are many resources nowadays to fork linux.
This is analogous to the famous "what if gets hit by a bus." and therefore doesn't pose a huge threat.
This is perhaps the biggest threat, now that there's a lot of money in the business there's the danger of individuals/corporations trying to get a piece of the cake and of rivals in the os-market trying to stop linux' growth into their territory.
The big players in the market which depend more or less solely on linux should see their role here.
Redhat, SuSE, Caldera, Turbo Linux should look at such events like DeCSS and try to find ways to position themselves as defenders of open source/linux. The same goes for a possible future court case in conjunction with the gpl. I think they should fund a institution whose purpose is to give legal advice and pays lawyers for an open source programmer in legal trouble.
But once again it shows that the success of linux gives a real chance to fight against these threats.
I don't think someone should force all kernel programmers (and opens source advocates) to see a hair stylist and get a comb
And many journalist give a fsck whether their writings make sense or not, as shown above.
Another example is "Linux update is behind schedule", huh?
Ask yourself, what's better, proprietary applications on a proprietary os or proprietary applications on an open source os where everyone has (theoratically) the same chance of competing because the API's are open for all?
After linux has gone it's way in a commercial os world, there's the a bigger chance then ever for open source applications to do the same, because they have more chances to evolve on an open os.
If there are types of applications where open source doesn't find it's way in, then open source is not the better alternative there, let the market decide.
The important point is, now that linux "is there", there are less artificial hurdles for non-proprietary applications left, for the remaining ones, which are non-technical, see point 2.
So what? There are many suspicious companies in any emerging business, hell there are many pirates in any business. This has happend in software industry (remember this "memory doubler" thingy for win95?), bio-technology, financial businesses and so on.
Did the markets suffer? No.
This thing is dangerous when there's only one company riding on the hype (amiga anyone?), but doesn't matter w.r.t linux. Or does anyone think that ibm, sgi, redhat, suse will drop linux when linux one might bomb?
I personally expect the whole IT-industry stocks to implode, but that is no specific linux problem.
Could you point out the weaknesses, loopholes and unforceable requirements? I'm not a lawyer so I'd like to know about them.
Mandrake 7.0 will bring a lot of new users to Linux because it is very easy to install and it makes Linux look as modern as Windows in the eyes of newbies (who think Windows IS THE modern OS even though it isn't). If Linux itself and the other important projects like XFree86, BASH, GNOME, KDE, Apache and whatever WM you use stay free then have we not won the ideology side of it? That is the core of any linux distribution. That is basically a functional OS right there. As long as that stays free then does it really matter what corporations support Linux?
I'm sorry, my original meaning was not clear. I have a document detailing these weaknesses, however, the word "have" has a different meaning in our respective words.
:-)
In the software world, "I have X" means "I have X, and I'd love to share it with you".
In the legal world, "I have X" means "Let's make a deal".
In the legal world, "Let's make a deal" means "I have information that you might need".
In the legal world, "I have information that you might need" means "I do believe I am in a position to screw you".
In the legal world, "I do believe I am in a position to screw you" means "Give me a lot of fucken money, now, you putz".
Sadly, my analysis is what is known as "proprietary information". I ain't saying any more till someone buys me a fucken sandwich. You've seen the cop shows, right? If you want the lady's name, you gotta buy the sneak a sandwich. Same as it ever was.
John Saul Montoya -- if you don't know me, you probably can't afford me
How's this for commercialization: Hot off the business wire: VA/Linux is buying Andover.net for 0.425 shares of VA per share of Andover. This is good news for me, being that I like VA enough to own them and already bought into Andover at 37....
One error must be corrected:the tern "open source" was *not* invented for differentiation from the free software movement. The term "open source" has always been meant to have exactly the same meaning as "free software"; it's just a rebadging for marketing reasons, because when suits hear "free software", they think "free beer" rather than "free speech".
And for my part I think it's a laudable goal. I think we should continue to emphasise the importance of software freedom - and I'd recommend French speakers to stick to the term "software libre" - but in English, the term "free software" creates a misunderstanding in the mind of the listener that the term "open source" avoids.
--
Xenu loves you!
I just use it for the pretty graphics.
Seriously though, Rasterman's fvwm hack and then Enlightenment have probably got more Linux installs than you'd care to know.
Why?
Because freedom is model-neutral. As such, you can bung freedom into any model and it will still work in exactly the same way as if you'd bunged it into any other model.
All this talk about commercialisation of Linux being bad for it implies that the model is greater than the substance. Whilst this may be true for individuals ("power corrupts"), it can't be true of concepts. Concepts can't be corrupted, because concepts have no physical existance -to- corrupt. You might as well corrupt "pink".
You can throw orange paint at pink wallpaper, and "damage" the wallpaper. Sure. I could equally go in and delete the Makefiles from the Linux source on my hard-drive. What does that corrupt? Nothing! All it does is make a mess. In the paint example, "Pink" remains exactly the same, no matter WHAT you do to that poor, wretched wallpaper. Likewise, the GPL and Linux aren't affected by what I do to the contents of my hard-drive.
You CAN corrupt people, because people exist in the real world, with minds of their own. You cannot corrupt a concept or a vision, because these have no physical components to attack, or minds to destroy.
Any journalist who argues otherwise is having troube seperating physical reality from their imagination, and should take up a career as a senior Government official.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Readers Digest used to have them IIRC.
Anyway, there is no reason to belive The Next Big Thing is _better_.
Wow.. Now we'll even have *more* unbiased journalism. You bastards!
The beautiful and ugly thing about open source is that this sort of thing can happen.
Sure, a buncha "suits" can waltz in and do as they please, but if we don't like where they take us ("That's not where we want to go today"), we strike off in another direction.
The code is out there for everyone. If "they" wish to use it to manifest their corporate black-magick, so be it. We don't have to use their products... we can build our own. We can VOTE WITH CODE.
I have a "Zero Policy" tolerance.
*/
WHOOOOOO HOOOOOOO!
When it all boils down, we are all just looking for applications that do what we want, with varying degrees of lesser tramas associated with them. As geeks get asthetics, more laymen will be able to tromp in our grounds (of cours this breaks open a whole slew of crap into our industry due to a RAD vb-ized idea.. blah blah blah.. another thread another time).. ok.. I think I'm through.. yea..
Keep on keepin on and try not to be a greedy beotch.
-Malachi-
"Life is all about strategy, mathematics and psychological perceptiveness."
Linux is a scalable OS that runs on 20 different processors, you can install it on a floppy or a 100gb harddisk. You can have it 10 times as bloated as windows and you can have it as slim as dos. Linux is much more than windows. Personally I think embedded devices is the future of Linux.
I think that one of the biggest drawbacks to the commercialization of Linux and other Open Source projects is that commercialization tends to promote mediocrity. Men in suits and women in scarves who know how to poke around in a spreadsheet are not entirely interested in putting out the best product... they are only interested in putting out something that is "good enough". Take a look at the majority of commercial software- for ALL platforms. There are some good things, but there is an awful lot of junk. Take a look at what has happened to the internet and what is continuing to happen. Take a look at music- do you think that Britney Spears or the Spice Girls would have a music career if so many corporations did not push for mediocrity? ;-)
LinuxOne is a pretty good example of the dumbing-down of the Open Source world, they are leaching off the efforts of other companies and individuals without contriubting anything useful.
Things will level off eventually, and several main-stream "pundits" will pronounce Linux to be a failure because it did not manage to take over the computing world. Fortunately, there are enough true-believers around. The true-believers can sit back and laugh at the suits and scarves as they flock around The Next Big Thing.
Follow the leader,
-Malachi-
"Life is all about strategy, mathematics and psychological perceptiveness."
Hey, totally off-topic, but did anybody notice VA Linux purchased Andover.net yesterday? Slashdot is now a subsidiary of VA Linux. Interesting.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
I've always been aware of the sizable group of linux users who don't want anybody else to use "their" OS. I never knew it was such a large percentage overall.
Linux still needs to grow before it can fill my needs as a fully functioning operating system.
I want software availability, I want drivers and support for all my hardware, I want full commercial quality polished programs -- not beta quality programs which are never finished as the author loses interest. These are all part of a mainstream OS, and each is still lacking in Linux from my personal experiences.
I do not love linux because it's small. It's underdog status is the thing I most dislike about it. I love linux because it's free software based upon the idea that anyone can contribute their ideas or change the system to be whatever they want and need. That vision is extremely appealing, and it's the reason I have so much fondness for this little OS.
If I were to find out today that the linux ship is never traveling to bigger and better things, never even planning on leaving the dock, I'd need to rethink how long I want to stay on board.
put your arse where your mouth is. publish the name of a company who is violating the GPL. i can pretty much guarantee the FSF will sue your corporate arse all the way to the supreme court and WILL beat you in your home turf. RMS drafted the GPL with the help of an MIT law professor. you lawyers will get your arse kicked in court no matter how much they pay you.
This is what I got from the article as the key point:
Why work for Red Hat, now that its IPO is over, when you can work at the next IPO? Why work at any IPO, when you can hold your own IPO? Why bother with Linux, when you can catch hold of the next Next Big Thing? With all the pirates and big corporations in the race to take advantage of the opportunities of this Next Big Market, the open source companies are going to have a harder time than they ever imagined competing in the very arena they created.
====================
What? What is wrong with this?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
The author clearly has some facts just plain wrong.
He claims Andreesen used the Mosaic code to "float netscape". Wrong. The Mosaic code was, in fact, the most valuable piece of code around at the time. It was licensed - to Microsoft. They then gave it away making it totally worthless to the people who invented the graphical browser.
Netscape rewrote the browser de novo.
Kelly makes other errors as well, but he misses the important commercialization point made at Linus' recent keynote. Big companies have done a LOT to make linux end user friendly in a short period of time, They've done a lot of menial bug chasing - the kind of code writing that is easiest done by paying someone. Redhat and VA linux especially do a lot. SGI is bringing some nfs work to linux, as well as the best file system in existence. IBM brought its (closed source) Java implementation. And on and on.
Yeah, big business is really affecting linux. Just not as JS Kelly thinks it is. Maybe he should actually try using it sometime.
Browsing Slashdot is hardly the worst thing a journalist could be doing. I get the impression that if a journalist read the article upon which this forum is based but not the article itself, he or she would never realize that the open source community doesn't particularly care about the Big Thing of the Month. Look at that journalist from Jane's whose article was completely re-done because of the commentary on Slashdot.
First Linux starts off with one goal, to be a free UNIX like OS. Linux users all over the world attack Microsoft for competing, for trying to make money, for making products that are easy to use, for trying to do what they think their customers wanted the most.
Fast-forward a few years. Linux is trying desperately to become Windows, compare KDE to Windows 98. Scary huh? The UNIX part of Linux is quickly being hidden. Think about how many stories on slashdot in a week are about money. (The latest IPO or whatever)
Seems ironic to me... You guys all want more Windows like applications and UI's and you want to make money. Sorta reminds you of Microsoft huh?
i dont know you and im not sure anyone does. my company (IBM) CAN afford you. we'd love to knwo what flaws are present in the GPL since our legal dept cant find any. care to put a comment up detailing some of the flaws ? we will hire you if we think youre worth it.
Just tell us the name of the company you work for. Or just the IP address of the server :)
Think this way: All the media will publish:
"Mr. Anonymous Coward from the Unknown Law firm built a stronger GPL. All hail to him."
FREE publicity. BIG FREE publicity. Linux Law Inc IPO. Money. Just be the first one to do-it.
PS: you suck, money leech.
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
Thanks for your fscking comments, Einstein.
If your East Coast bloviations bring your life some measure of alleged happiness, you're welcome to them.
Some of your fellow 3rd Rock inmates prefer to "create" something which helps the world, rather than rudely leech from the existing imperfections in humanity. This gets them "remembered" and "liked".
Look up the quoted terms if you're unfamiliar with them. Try sticking your nose in your Funk & Wagnall's.
And so, instead of teaching the corporations about the benefits of open development, I think that open source leaders are in for a lesson themselves. They won't have beaten the corporations by having joined them. Rather, it will be the other way around.
Yes, this is true as far as it goes. The change in the Linux marketplace does change who open source companies can find as employees and the terms on which they can hire them. It raises the stakes. It means that open source businesses will be competing on a business playing field.
But that is a separate issue from what is so dear to many of us. The code, the future of Linux, and GNU, and FreeBSD, does not live or die with a single open source company. The GPL isn't magic. Just because we have it won't make the future of free software be what we want it to be. The one thing that it does guarantee is the option to fork any GPL'd project. If it isn't going the way you want it to, you can take the source and go work on it yourself.
That means that mindshare can't be won by claims to owning the code. Some big company can certainly put out a Linux release of its own, with proprietary software running on it. They may grab a dominant position in the market that way. And it is still a smart move for them to play nice with the rest of the open source developers on the kernel and other free tools. Their other choice is to do all the work themselves, on software that anyone else can tweak and release a cheap copy of.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
What really makes Linux, Linux? Open source? Sure, but the Linux community is unlike anything else. You can't really say that there is a windows community(well there is but it's not like you see home users creating user groups en masse), and the Mac and other *nix communities(And I'm lumping BSD in there) TEND to be more insular than the freeman compound quarantened because of the andromeda strain. So when you get right down to it, the community is a big part of what makes Linux, Linux. A community based on the prinicples of the open source movement has the ability to over come nearly anything(just don't take away our computers!) Well anyway, just think about the fact that the community's attitude helps to define Linux just as surely as any peice of code. And no matter wether Linux goes commercial or not there will still be people makeing Linux because they love it, and they will continue to release it in an open source manner.
An MBA student explained to me at length what Linux is. She had learned about it in marketing class. Yeeks.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I might code for fun, and i would love to have lots of people using the code...despite who it might be (short of the gov't maybe, however).
The guys on CNBC were laughing at it this morning.
Everyone seems to think Open Source is some invincible little badge Linux has that can protect it from all of the bad stuff out there? It has a better chance at making it than most models of development. When you go play with the big dogs you are going to get big dog type problems.. It WILL happen and just sit back and watch the world of linux quickly fall away. Then everyone will forget about it and whatever is left will still be here. Just dont think it will not cause some negative changes along with all of the positive.
In the first thirty years of the last century, there were dozens of car manufacturers, some great, some shady. After the shakeout in the late 40s and 50s, some are even still here.
Same thing with Linux. In a few years, there'll be thousands of RHs. In ten years, there'll be half a dozen. The global economy will emit a collective sigh, and say "Been there, shook it out before."
My bets? Suse and Corel.
Why does this get a -1? It's not the most relevant comment, but at least it's interesting! This sucks.
Yuppers. Suprised more people haven't noticed.
The VA Linux press release is over there. ANDN share prices have jumped through the roof on pre-trading, apparently.
...j
Please click HERE and flame these idiots for posting a dumb Linux Site.
Warning: Please reply carefully. Otherwise, you just feed the troll ;)
CNN Entertainment
Thank you.
In the legal world, "I have X" means "Let's make a deal".
In the legal world, "Let's make a deal" means "I have information that you might need".
In the legal world, "I have information that you might need" means "I do believe I am in a position to screw you".
In the legal world, "I do believe I am in a position to screw you" means "Give me a lot of fucken money, now, you putz".
And that's why I'm in the Free Software world, not the legal world. I'd much rather live in a world of cooperation and mutual respect than in one where the fundamental driving force is hostility and greed. I like associating with people who don't let money rule their lives!
And, Mr. Montoya -- if you're looking for someone to offer you money to share that information, Slashdot is the wrong place to be posting about it. Try getting in touch with the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/); there you might be able to talk to people who could offer you a deal.
Of course, they're likely to turn you down, and I would do the same if I was in their shoes. See, this is our ballpark, and we play by our own rules. Those rules happen to include sharing and playing nice, not trying to hoard all the toys so the other children can't have them. If someone comes along who refuses to play nice, we just ignore them.
So good luck trying to make a deal, but I just don't think it's going to happen.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
I personally expect the whole IT-industry stocks to implode, but that is no specific linux problem.
thought this would be a good point to interject this, from US Early Radio History:
It took many years before radio's financial returns would match its great potential. In the United States, this resulted in a series of companies which sold stock at vastly inflated prices, backed mostly by vastly inflated visions of the companies' prospects. Frank Fayant was in the middle of a multi-part series about stock fraud -- Fools and Their Money -- when he stumbled across the shenanigans going on in radio stocks. The result was a two-part exposé, The Wireless Telegraph Bubble, which details the sorry state of much of the U.S. radio industry during its first decade--Fools and Their Money/The Wireless Telegraph Bubble, Success Magazine, January, 1907 through July, 1907. However, in spite of Fayant's articles, the fraudulent practices would actually accelerate.
And like I mentioned there's all these aging "baby boomers" socking away retirement money and it has to be invested somewhere. The emphasis should be on "it took many years" - look at how long it took msft to get where they are - those in for the long haul will make out, while the "get in/get out" superficial jump-on-the-latest fad & bandwagon crowd will, well, a few might make it and most won't.
Agent 32
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
can anyone explain the commercialization of the pouring of bowls of hot grits down my pants? thank you.
Strawmen, equivocation, and boo-words do not an argument make.
Hie thee back under thy Redmond Bridge, thou hunched and wretched creature.
>a href="http://www.dorsai.org/~delchi/cnn.htm">DK live
Thank you.
"(oh yeah boy, by the way, I was opionated and arrogant a long time before I became a lawyer. You drag yourself up from the streets to Harvard Law School and if you ain't a bit arrogant)"
You didn't appear to drag yourself too far up or too far away from the streets given your gutteral language skills. Your self-confidence seems to be built upon your ability to browbeat and bully your way through a given situation. Self-confidence, like confidence in others, is only as good as the object upon which it is bestowed.
Here's a parable if you will indulge me.
The lion strolls with quiet, easy grace, muscles rippling beneath his tawny skin. There is an attitude of quiet authority there because he knows he has the teeth, claws and strength to take control when the time is right.
Hyenas, Jackals and Chihuahuas are constantly yapping their 'superiority' because they equate bravado with bravery.
In other words, it's one thing to SAY you can write an airtight GPL and quite another to do it. The truth is, anyone who did write an airtight GPL that still allowed the freedoms of the current version would make quite a name for themselves and that would translate into mucho corporate dinero flowing their way. If it were possible to write something that could only be interpreted the intended way, there'd be much fewer attorneys (or they'd be paid a fraction of what they are able to make now). The Hyena wants to be paid for writing the ironclad GPL because he knows that while he's yapping at the Chihuahua to keep away from the meat he stole from another's kill, some Jackal's going to slip in from behind and snatch the thing away from him.
Aesop
In both the legal and software worlds, "Put up or shut up." means that if you can't back up your claims with something solid, you should stop making them. I'm thoroughly unconvinced that this document you speak of exists.
People! You need to wake up and smell the coffee! This article was entirely wrong because in the not so distant future, everyone and their brother will realize that the *BSDs and NTs run their server software better.
In test after test, Linux has been shown to suck at networking after a certain threshold. This threshold is what seperates the men from boys, IMHO.
And IT professionals know about this.. They are very leary to use Linux for anything less than a print manager because of the headaches, hassles and slow downs it will cause due to scalability.
What Linux really needs, and I mean _REALLY_ needs, is dedicated developers to the kernel that will make it more suitable for larger purposes. Granted, it's already reliable as all get-out, but it needs to be fast.
Then, and only then, will the rest of the server market wake up and smell the coffee. (this is the portion of the market that actually have $$$ to spend) When this happens, there will be a great windfall for all.
Another key problem that could make or break our favorite kernel is the desktop usability factor. Even with Gnome/KDE/Your favorite WM it all still reeks of a bad hack. (no offense to the developers, but you need to consult UI experts)
Please note- I am not BASHING linux in anyway.. I am just restating what has been said numerous times-- the programmers need to take heed and make their software useful, the Kernel developers need to take heed and make it faster (this will probably involve changing the scheduling process around etc), and the Linux user group needs to stop making asses of themselves. (i.e., Slashdot posts)
So, in the words of the worst computer movie ever, "Hackers of the World Unite!" (or give up and switch to BSD)
Thanks
i was discussing this with a friend of mine the day. My other option is that open source software is fundamentally poor.
here are some facts:
linux is a great OS, true. but is a direct rip of the research efforts of AT&T. it is not a great open source design.
there are only a handful of quality software, namely: sendmail, apache, BIND, and a list of others that have been under development since the dark ages.
if you look at freshmeat, you will find that most of the projects are in beta, or alpha. they do not claim to be high quality.
my personal belief is that people are jumping to open source as a way to show there disgust for Microsoft. why do people hate Microsoft? because there rich. for instance, Americans do not hate Canadians. but a lot of Canadians hate Americans.. as a matter of fact most of the world has a poor view of the states. basally its human nature not to like your "rich neighbor".
another reason open source software is poor is the lack of incentive to do the "un sexy work" i remember just the other day Linus (yes Linus) saying "the problem is, we need people to do the unsexy work". that's what makes real "quality software". does anyone honestly belive something like Windows 2000 could have come out of an open source project? no way! there would be lots of loose ends where the work would not have been that much fun.
however, in the next ten years or so i think something will kill Microsoft, and there will be another OS that takes up 90% of the home market. it might be linux, i really don't know. but if you look at the history of consumer computer technology you will see that monopolies rule. for instance, look at the evolution of the floppy drive, first it's 8 (and something), then 5 1/2, then 3 1/4. and every time, one floppy was "it".
look at LP, to tapes, to CD's. or VHS, to DVD. or the 3dfx to TNT.. one tech must rule.
the way i see it the "Next Big Thing" will be "a server in every home". linux and it's flavors are a good choice. that could be a catalyst that takes it to the future.
i also see the open source failing miserably after it peaks. which is going back to my first point, that open source software is of poor quality. eventually another company will rise and dominate, much like Microsoft.
-Jon
this is my sig.
Do you think that most of the work done on Linux is done by people who earn their living doing it? Consider an oh-so-TINY example of Linus Torvalds. Does he make his living from coding Linux? NO. And really, that's the way most of it works. People come home from their sysadmin/commercial software programming/tech support jobs, and this is something they do in their spare time BECAUSE THEY WANT TO. This is Debian, and this is the #2 reason that it's my favorite distro. The #1 reason, of course, is that apt-get is the best thing in the universe :)
You have this silly vision that a small programmer could release a commercial app and become wildly successful? Don't bet on it. The world has now become "spoiled" by the GPL--others would quickly write an open-source alternative, which would most likely surpass the original in a short amount of time.
There is also plenty of software (MySQL being a very notable example) which is open-source, yet commercial (check out their licensing fees).
Sorry, but the only tragedy brought on by the spread of the GPL will be to closed-source commercial software, which is destined to eventually suck. Yes, it will--if someone were to attempt to take Perl and make a commercial, closed-source product of it, how long do you think they'd be able to maintain it, and keep it in sync (or even as good) as the real Perl? One of 2 things will happen to closed-source software:
1. The product isn't that complex, and so someone will easily code an open-source replacement.
2. The product is VERY complex, and so eventually a finite number of programmers will be unable to maintain it adequately. When it starts to suck and people get tired of it, someone will start an open-source project to replace it. This project won't be as good as the original at first, but in a short time will be perfectly useable to many, and given enough time may even surpass the orignal.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Folks,
Despite the increasing popularity of Linux, I think that if you want it to be popular, it needs two things:
1. A single, common graphical user interface with a common Application Programming Interface (API). This drastically reduces the cost of programming, because you only need to write to one API spec, especially when it comes to writing things like drivers.
2. Automatic system configuration, so when you change system hardware or add external peripherals, the system will automatically add the driver or prompt you to install the driver.
Yes, I know is sounds too much like Windows 95/98/2000, but let's face it: the current state of driver installation in Linux is too obtuse for most computer users. And we will need automatic system configuration sooner than you think, because Intel has already said they will kibosh serial ports, the parallel port and the PS/2 keyboard and mouse ports in future motherboard designs in favor of USB and possibly IEEE-1394 I/O connectors. Right now, only Windows 98 and Windows 2000 can support such a motherboard design fully, despite what SuSE thinks.
It should be noted that common API design and the automatic configuration will have to be written under the GNU General Public License.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Perhaps sir would care to fscken ("fscken"! I love it!) put up something a touch more fscken binding than a post on a website. Or is that how IBM does contract these days? I suppose it might be, now that John Haugh left :-)
--streetlaawyer
People flourish best using non-scarce resources in different ways than the Big Dino^H^H^H^HDogs. Read Agalmics. A swarm of mosquitoes can vex any size pack of varmints, event if their tags say "Gates" and "Case". A field of grass simply perks back up in the sun after a night of getting trampled under the tawdry dalliances of bulky critters merging and acquiring.
Those who will profit from Linux most have never cared about selling it like lemonade; I want a world of robots which solve the problems of drudgery, and free (speech AND beer) tools make that easier, especially when they don't suck.
Stop watching so many commercials, and your fears may subside a bit. Try getting laid instead.
I wish you would please find another forum to post to. You really are a jackass.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
OOOO! You hear that boys 'n girls? Mister Bigshot New York Lawyer has got hisself a DOCK-YOO-MENT!
I've got a document which proves that people who post about their big legal dicks on slashdot are not only trolls but tend to have quite miniscule physical dicks. I'll let you see it for a nickle or another blowjob from your mom.
Time to FOAD.
I can't believe that LinuxWorld published this lame article. Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with article that are critical of Linux or of Open Source in general. Good constructive criticism is essential to a healthy community.
But this article presents absolutely NO evidence supporting his conclusion that the open source community is headed for trouble. The author really never even gets specific about *what* kind of trouble he thinks we're headed for or why. The whole article is just a bunch of vague whining.
The author is obviously unhappy with the influx of money and Big Business into the Open Source community. That's fine, he certainly has a right to be unhappy. But if your going to write an article full of doom and gloom predictions, you really should have at least *some* evidence or reasoning backing you up!!!
The hacker community who liked being outsiders will get fed up with the commercialized Linux and they will start their own distributions. Actually, they even go beyond having alternative distributions and start writing alternative Kernels that eventually become incompatible with Linux. Because it is all GNU, it is all good.
Another five years down the line, this alternative Linux now has all sorts of strange and possibly useful features that Linux doesn't have (the need to be stable will slow its evolution). All of these hackers are suddenly out there looking for jobs that will pay the bills and guess what, they are experts on this alternative Linux. So, some of them go to work for RedHat, others start their own distributions, Linux evolves, they evolve, and the cycle begins again.
Oh, and as for those AOL folks, they'll all be using Playstation 3's. If you can get web and e-mail with it, why on god's earth would you want to put up with the complexity of a PC? They'll watch their DVD's on their HDTV's (without regional encoding because that's going away). Of course they'll be running linux on their Playstation's but they'll never realize it nor care and that's exactly the way it should be.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
This is precisely the "problem" with the GPL. Too many people do not recognize the difference between GPL and LGPL. As a result, they place a GPL license on material which would be more appropriate for the LGPL. The inability to re-use the items causes a the lack of standardization to which Brett refers. In the general BSD philosophy, it is in the interest of the developer to "contribute back" improvements to items which he uses for leverage. This reduces his burden in supporting those components and improves them for all users. However, he is still free to add proprietary elements on top of the public infrastructure. The GPL, but not the LGPL, "locks out" that leverage and creates the need for yet another implementation of the same functionality.
> BE no
Why do you say that?
Ver 5 will be free.
The gui is pretty slick, and the whole system is very fast - even booting.
Ok, it doesn't have multi-user, but for the home user, they don't need that.
Cheers
That's One Big If, and I'm one of those for whom "wants it to be popular" is not a particularly good description.
No, there should *not* be "one GUI". There has to be choice like there is today between QT & GTK+ and all that - your machine should run both happily at the same time, of course, like me currently running X, sawmill, kfm and gnome-panel all together even right now; however this is desirable flexibility, not a downer at all.
"Automatic system configuration"? That's for weenies, plain and simple. If you don't know what numbers to specify where for your new sound card, don't install it, as you certainly don't deserve to be using it. Whether you know *everything* about "what is an IRQ" is not quite the point, but some working knowlege or ability and willingness to experiment are essential.
It might be "too obtuse" but why is "for most computer users" something we should tailor it for?
Give me quality (cluefulness) instead of quantity (hordes of lusers) any day.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
VA Linux buys Andover, Andover makes close to a billion in stock and cash... 60 million in cash.
:]
So, the commercialization pays for some, eh?
If you don't know what numbers to specify where for your new sound card, don't install it, as you certainly don't deserve to be using it.
This kind of attitude is why Linux will probably never be popular for the average home user. This contempt for the non-technical user runs throughout the Linux community. And it will likely mean Linux will remain a techie hobby, rather than a serious business/home-use OS. But thank you, as you've helped me decide where I should spend my limited time/energy available to learn new things -- more Windows knowledge will obviously better help my career in the future than picking up Linux. Unix will have to remain a fond college memory (although I miss vi, I must admit).
or
tags to provide proper spacing.
It's yet another reason to STOP posting at Slashdot... *sigh*.
Well that was screwed up... now "Plain Old Text" does what "Extrans" used to do... Obviously a plot by Andover to force use of the Preview button, to further raise the number of hits. :-) Seriously guys, once something works, stop fixing it already!
i can pretty much guarantee the FSF will sue your corporate arse all the way to the supreme court and WILL beat you in your home turf.
"Pretty much guarantee" is almost as fscken worthless as "almost sure", dude
FREE publicity. BIG FREE publicity
oooh. FREE publicity. Well whoop my ass and call me Consuela! Tell ya what, pal. You wash my car this weekend, and I will shout from the rooftops how well ya washed it
Yes, I will shout from tha very fucken rooftops! HE WASHED IT GOOD! REAL GOOD!
This must be the "open sourcee business model" that they all keep talking about. Ha, ha, ha.
J.S. says things like "The open source leaders ... have attracted the money makers", and "corporate America needs no lessons where money is concerned" and "[the open source leaders] won't have beaten the corporations by having joined them. Rather, it will be the other way around".
But he neglegts to identify exactly what it is that the "pirates" (corporations) will do to "beat" us. Hmmm. They can't hijack the source because we use the GPL (bow to rms). They can't crush us by undercutting our price (as, say, MS would do to a small competitor) because there is no price. There seems to be some vague hint that they will beat us by finding new ways to make more money. Oh. Ok. So?
So what was the point of this piece again?
- Jürgen
Not that I'm a Katz advocate (or the devil's for that matter), but where are all the folks that would roast Katz and call his parentage into question for seeing the dark cloud instead of the silver lining?
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Yes, indeed. What you describe has already happened: when Apple had the dominant technology and the proprietary attitude and the lawyers, they were the bad guys, and Microsoft was, if not good guys, at least neutral.
Vim, an improved version of Vi, exists for Windows.
The lesson is that not each "Next Big Thing" from computer magazines is going to be real thing at all. Linux is going to have the same fate as Network Computers ("Previous Big Thing") had. From an average user point of view Windows 95/98 is much more usable desktop than Linux (reality check - RedHat in the next cubicle to me). From an admin point of view Solaris is far superior technically and FreeBSD is much more stable and manageable. What about Linux? - it is just hype and nothing more.
Kelly cites a single example of the "Pirates" who will ruin Free(libero) Software: LinuxOne.
LinuxOne??? Puhleeze!
Not only does LinuxOne NOT fit the profile of the huge corporations that Kelly claims are going to wreak havoc, it has quickly become mostly a joke.
That is not to say that I disagree with everything that Kelly says, I haven't given it a lot of thought.
Kelly needs to rewrite that article citing more examples than 6 gobshites in Redwood City running a Tele-Medicine scam if he is going to convince people of his argument.
Geoff
"oooh. FREE publicity....
Tell ya what, pal. You wash my car this weekend, and I will shout from the rooftops how well ya washed it "
So, you would give your legal skills about the same value as a good car wash?
And everybody was saying how arrogant you were.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
I quote from a post of mine a few days ago:
While widely used by educational institutions (and small ISPs, I've heard), [FreeBSD] has not been blessed (or cursed, rather) with Linux's recent surge of publicity.
I say "cursed" because it appears that Linux has strayed from the UNIX path and is now being marketed as a "desktop OS" to Windows users. The FreeBSD team concentrates on making a better OS, not convincing Windows users to switch. I am pleased that every non-geek I've talked to that "has heard of Linux" has no idea what FreeBSD is. An elitist attitude? Damn straight.
Now let's see if I can get more flames from Linux users in this discussion than in that one! ;-) Get to work, trolls!
***
<i>unix has been my favourite OS for the last 30 years.</i>
Are you aware that in 1970, UNIX had about four or five users? Unless you're Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, or a couple of others who also aren't ever going to be posting on Slashdot (and/or who are way too opinionated not to have met a UNIX they didn't like), you're bullshitting us. Even if you're just "talking in round numbers" (which is valid), I'm still a mite bit suspicious. IIRC UNIX still had a real low profile before the late '70's/early '80's, which in "round numbers" is more like twenty years.
italic bold
A libertarian with heart would never do such a heartless thing as use the government threat of deadly force to extort taxes from the unwilling to give to their favorite charity.
In case you've forgotten, a libertarian does not believe in the initiation of force for political means. To put it in playground terms, you can't throw the first punch. If it's wrong for an individual to take my money without my consent, then it's still wrong for a group to do the same. Even though it's legal, taxation is still extortion.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
You didn't appear to drag yourself too far up or too far away from the streets given your gutteral [sic] language skills.
"Guttural" does not mean "of or pertaining to the gutter", you mindless moron, nor does it in any other way imply anything about education or social position. It's totally unrelated. And don't bother trying to lie your way out of it by claiming that your fucked-up, wrong usage is "acceptable" somewhere. It may be used your way by illiterate imbeciles other than you, but not even by many of them -- and the opinions of illiterate imbeciles like you are of no interest or significance anyway.
The first clause in that sentence is gibberish also. Try "You don't appear to have dragged. .
You can flame people for their "language skills" when and if you ever gain some "language skills" of your own, but not before. Just in case I'm not being clear enough, how's this: You are a stinking, brainless, invertebrate animal that thrives on a diet of its own shit.
"To be quite honest I would think a VAT or Open Source society tax should be started."
Aaaargh!! Stop that or I'm going to have to whap you upside the head! This is supposed to be FREE SOFTWARE. Don't you understand that?
Everywhere in the free software community, licensing fees are decried as "evil". Software that has available and modifiable source code, but still requires a licensing fee would never be considered Free or Open Source. Yet this is the exact thing you are advocating.
If you want to put such a clause in your own software, go ahead. At least it will still be voluntary. But don't expect anyone to use it. But should you ever get an actual tax levied on Open Source, you will have betrayed everything you say you are for in the foulest way.
Before you start calling for taxes to support Free Software, go pick up a dictionary and look up "free".
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
One thing that no one has mentioned, at least directly, is that we're dealing with a corrupt economic system that is set up to benefit the wealthy, big corporations, and capital-wielding banks. Those employees participating in IPOs make very little compared to the venture capitalists and other investors. Free software and Open Source software might use a more community based development model for the moment (or should we call it Marxist?) but we must remember that the western corporations (and their predecessors) have been raping every other social, economic and political entity they've run into for the past five hundred years. Let's not forget the blood-letting Spanish in Latin America, the divide and conquer British in India, and the "We're here to help" Americans everywhere today. This isn't news, it's just that the Linux community forgot where they live.
You're missing the point.
The Best OS in the World is useless if it doesn't have the applications you need.
The point is, if you want to do useful things with your computer, you need applications, or drivers for your hardware toys. Individuals can, and in many cases, have written large complicated applications to do complex things, all under Open Source.
But, where are the enterprise applications? The sophisticated CAD and design packages? Where are the customers that make it economically attractive for companies to put time and money into these projects? What about device drivers for that blazing fast new video card you just bought for your games? For that matter, where are the games?
The fact that Linux has "hit the big time" means that there are a lot of people, some backed by large companies, who are spending time and money to make Linux useful in many new and exciting contexts.
On the other hand, if all you want to do is email and run Netscape to read Slashdot, then you can climb back into your hole somewhere and ignore all the new and interesting things that are going on here....
Your Servant, B. Baggins
I understand what you say, but I believe that developers are clever enough to understand the difference between GPL and LGPL ... Are there many examples of such mistakes ? ... ...
Personally, all the libraries that I found useful for my own purpose where correctly licensed under LGPL, which means that I'll be able to use them commercially. This is fair because to complete my project I will write a lot of code. This is MY code that I will sell, not the other parts
And at the same time, I contribute to some of the LGPL libraries that I use in my project, so I give back to the community
To sum up, so far, I have been quite pleased with GPL and LGPL. I use some GPL softwares (such as GCC) to construct my project, and I use LGPL libraries for common things such as the UI (I do personally use FLTK, but this could be GTK, and not Qt !) Furthermore, if it happens that I improve some of the LGPL libraries that I use, then I'll send back these improvement to the community.
ziggy.
I wasn't speaking about his proposal, just the idea of socialism vs. libertarianism.
Taxation can be extorsion (and with our governement it often is) but we DO need it, otherwise we don't have schools, roads, libraries, etc. Turning these institutions over to corporate interests is far worse than having them run by the gov't. At least the gov't has a shred of interest in our rights, corporations have none. They just want money.
What do you mean, "...can't use it to it's potential"? Anybody who can't figure out that they can administer the system from the command line or with vi is no techie. If the simplification of the installation process mesmerizes some self-proclaimed geek into thinking all things Linux are graphical and somehow off-limits to tampering, all that does is put a techno twist on the old adage that says a person who won't read is no better off than the person who can't read (paraphrase).
Do we really want these people using Linux etc? I say yes but I think it turns off some of the real geek types who think they are superior because they use Linux. This is a very sad thing indeed. Personally I make the time whenever possible to help newbies. Im no expert but there is a serious lack of people willing to help.
I think this is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. The fact that their are a whole bunch of people unwilling to help and a vocal minority who are abusive to newbies doesn't mean that there is a dearth of helpful Linux users at any given level.
In conclusion I think the poularity is annoying many people who once thought they were superior.
Anyone who thought themselves 'superior' simply because they were able to run Linux at home should be able to either find another arena in which they may indulge their delusions, or do something that marks them as superior like creating top-of-the-line drivers for those things that are still broken, or doing a really fantastic kernel hack.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
raping and pillaging. do shut up. I thought people finally came around on socialism, how they saw what kind of misery it created, but I guess there are a few people who still need lessons... Anyways, this article really strikes me as underlining the obvious. OF COURSE companies are out there to make money. OF COURSE they support Linux because it makes them money. Why else? Because of "the principle of the matter"? Ha. Linux is popular because linux is powerful. It is useful. And lots of people use it. And companies, by offering linux products, appeal to those people. simple market economics. it has nothing to do with raping, pillaging, or keepin it real to tha old-sk00l linux hackerz there at the beginning. Damnit. This is why I got out of punk rock; because too many people were more interested in out-classing each other by how long they've been there. Get a grip. Linux is an operating system, a tool for human productivity. Its a good tool. The fact that companies are buying it, supporting it and pushing it is a sign that they see it as valuable. Why is it okay for little guys to make it big, but its some grand injustice if the big guys make it big too? Oh, and to my marxist friend, your "community based social model" actually destroyed communities. A whole lot of them. In Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. In the Ukraine. The Caucasus. And myriad other places around the globe. Your "social model" also destroyed half my family because they were "counterrevolutionaries". So if I seem bitter, that's cause I am. 24 million dead, courtesy of Josef Stalin. 17 million dead courtesy of V.I. Lenin. And you say capitalism is bad.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
the linux/internet buzz is no more a gold rush than the industrial revolution was. I'm sure that there are things in the future that will take priority, but at this point Linux and the Internet have barely just began to reach their potential. This gold-rush talk really makes no sense.
There are a great many people using Linux and chanting its mantras at a fast pace that are simply doing it because when they walk into a room, half the people haven't heard of it and the other half don't use it. They have no interest in Linux at all, they only have interest in whatever is the "outcast" OS at a given point in time. They see targetting Microsoft like targetting all of popular culture. They are the loser-lovers. The conformists of a different color. They base everything they think off of popular opinion - they simply turn it around first. They preach individualism and how diversity is the spice of life and crap when in all actuality, they don't have an individual bone in their entire body, they're just as much conformists as the people they lambast.
;)
Watch, the bigger Linux gets, the smaller its faction of die-hard anti-Microsoft fans will get. What will be left is the new businesses infusing Linux with actual innovation, and the Open Source teams around the net.... who will mostly be disgruntled because they remember the good ole days when you could write a utility, generate a readme, and you were good to go. Now the users demand a GUI, a graphical install, and hiding of the OS. Users always ruin everything
Esperandi
Why do people keep equating corporatons with the opposite of government? Corporations can only be created through an act of government!
But we do have schools without government and taxation. In fact, government schools only came into being this century in the US. And the US citizens of the 18th and 19th centuries were by no means illiterate. When the typical private school charges much less per year for tuition than the government spends for educating the very same child, I'm not thinking of the government as very enlightened.
Couldn't we turn these institutions over to private interests instead of governments or corporations?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Esperendi's point is good -- there seems to be a permanent class of "antis" -- whatever's Out is In, and whatever's In is necessarily bad. That's one reason that Microsoft-bashing is easily parodied, because its often a question not of the particular badness of a given company or idea, but the relish taken in being on the other, more righteous side.
;)
(And that's a very comforting feeling -- heck, being on the side of the penguins, intellectual freedom, etc is a big reason I like it!) But please consider whether the "commercial folks" are really ruining Linux, or just changing its nature in ways that are not necessarily bad. GPL is GPL, after all, and I'm confident that the GPL will hold its own when the inevitable test arises.
While it's neat to think about the PDP-10 with only Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie playing spacewar, the growth of UNIX and similar (not to mention *other*) OSes is what allows us here to play with them at all. I for one am glad that Messers Thompson and Ritchie didn't say "Ah geez - when we let other people play with this OS, they might change and RUIN it!"
And as one of my all-time-favorite angry childhood retorts has it, "Everybody wants to be a martyr."
Just a thought,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
WAKE UP.The government has NO interest in your rights. None. They circumvented the Constitution to institute an income tax. They attempted to censor the net via the CDAs. Police regularly stop individuals who are guilty of nothing more than "looking suspicious", and gov't spooks are trying to get backdoors to every encryption algorithm created to spy on YOUR communication.
And you think the government cares about your rights? What separates the government from corporations is that both take your money, but corporations must fight for it while the government can just take it. And if you don't like it, they can throw you in jail, freeze your assets, and basically make your life a living hell. Ever see "Enemy of the State"? You think that movie is REALLY that far from reality?
We DON'T need taxes, because we DON'T need public schools, roads, libraries. I went to a private high school, and while they were certainly interested in my money, they were also extaordinarily interested in students. We had teachers with doctorates in their fields, but who could not teach in a MA public school because they didn't go to a teacher's college. Our school was kept in great shape, there were NO discipline problems (the vice principal once threatened to expel two students who harassed me), and I actually LEARNED something. The financial aid was one of the best packages in the state, and more than half our student body came from low-income homes.
According to my school's annual report, the average amount of money spent per student was $2,300 (approx.). This paid for a great education. According to the MA dept. of Education, the state spent about $8,000 per student on Boston public schools, which are well known for spawning racist, sexist homophobic brats of ALL skin colors.
And you don't trust PRIVATE COMPANIES with this?
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
WAKE UP.The government has NO interest in your rights. None. They circumvented the Constitution to institute an income tax. They attempted to censor the net via the CDAs. Police regularly stop individuals who are guilty of nothing more than "looking suspicious", and gov't spooks are trying to get backdoors to every encryption algorithm created to spy on YOUR communication.
And you think the government cares about your rights? What separates the government from corporations is that both take your money, but corporations must fight for it while the government can just take it. And if you don't like it, they can throw you in jail, freeze your assets, and basically make your life a living hell. Ever see "Enemy of the State"? You think that movie is REALLY that far from reality?
We DON'T need taxes, because we DON'T need public schools, roads, libraries. I went to a private high school, and while they were certainly interested in my money, they were also extaordinarily interested in students. We had teachers with doctorates in their fields, but who could not teach in a MA public school because they didn't go to a teacher's college. Our school was kept in great shape, there were NO discipline problems (the vice principal once threatened to expel two students who harassed me), and I actually LEARNED something. The financial aid was one of the best packages in the state, and more than half our student body came from low-income homes.
According to my school's annual report, the average amount of money spent per student was $2,300 (approx.). This paid for a great education. According to the MA dept. of Education, the state spent about $8,000 per student on Boston public schools, which are well known for spawning racist, sexist homophobic brats of ALL skin colors.
And you don't trust PRIVATE COMPANIES with this?
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
When I say we need government, I say we need A government, not necessarily OUR government. I am aware of all the abuses our government commits (some of the worst in the world), don't misunderstand me. I'm against privitisation in the form of corporatization.
Your private school sounds good, because it wasn't run by a corporation. There are a number of companies out there now that are running schools as a for profit operation. I worry that they will cut corners in order to keep profits up. Most private schools are run by individuals or organizations like the catholic church which might make money but there isn't shareholder level pressure on them to do it.
Another fact is at this time there simply aren't enough private schools to go around, and if there was enough, will there guarantees that EVERY student will be able to go to one NO MATTER what?
Look, in my ideal world all schools would be run by the community, and it wouldn't be on a mind numbing schedle and the course work wouldn't be either, everyday citizens could come in and teach real life lessons, etc. Right now, this isn't possible. Therefore I take the best solution, public schools, which are bad, over corporate run school that have even less interest in students learning, your type of school not included in that category. In the long run I'd fight for my type of solution.
So say we take away the government. People always assert that corporations don't exist without government intervention. Whats to stop them from becoming totalitarian instituions when government controls stop? The government can give them enormous benefits (as they do) but they can stop them from commiting other acts as well like environmental damages, labor rights, etc.
Face it, gui "toolkits" are right now at the development level of how computers talked to file systems in 1965. VMS (designed by the people bringing you NT) had literally thousands of calls to read/write different files types and storage devices. The largest program on VMS was the "copy" program, since it had to understand every one of these protocols. It took the brillance of K&R (and people working on Multics) to make the base set of calls of read/write/seek that we are all familiar with. With only a very light-weight wrapper (the FILE* buffering) this provides the API to files that we use today. Yes it seems obvious now, but this breakthrough evaded thousands of very smart programmers for decades.
I do not want to see and standard GUI API until this breakthrough happens (and I believe it will, although it will probably require very powerful graphics hardware). For now we should standardize at the level of X (although X is crap and should be replaced, but the API should be on the "draw a rectangle" level rather than the "draw a menu" level).
Your other comment about USB is quite correct. Hardware that only supports USB would be a good thing, at it appears to me that things are rather well documented, also I would think it is a lot easier to snoop on a USB line for reverse engineering than to do that to a bus card. Linux needs to dump Unix compatability and get user-friendly device support. In particular I want to see devfs working, and USB devices appearing/disappearing from /dev as they are unplugged. And we need to get rid of "mount", if a disk is /dev/s1d3a4b6 then the user should be able to look right there and see the files. The purpose of "mount" would be done by symbolically linking to where the users wants to see the files.
> But I can't, can I? Your so-called fucken "community" doesn't
> provide anyone to deal with. A social club for long-haired bearded
> dropouts (the FSF) and a social club for short-haired
> gun nuts quoting Ayn Rand at each other (the OSI). Nothing in the way
> of a unified body with the ability to make deals. Fuck-nothing.
Yep, it's too bad, so sad, that there is no fixed organization with binding powers, capable of signing checks, representing the free/open-source software community (hereinafter referred to as "suckas") that can make a big-$$$ deal with your professional and highly leet lawyerly ass (hereinafter referred to as "shyster"). My heart breaks to think of the opportunity we "suckas" are missing to get scammed by you, "shyster."
Anyway, why do you want to deal with the Linux community as a whole? Because obviously it isn't "the Linux community" which decides what license to apply to any particular program; it's that individual program's individual developer. Perhaps even at this moment, on the basis of this post, your email inbox is jam filled with requests for your services sent by anxious Linux developers. Maybe not, though; but at least there's one firm way out west Redmond way, heavy with the benjamins, that probably, no certainly, needs your leet services. Go rewrite their fucken EULA for 'em, hot-shot. There's gotta be a billion big bucks in it for ya.
Oh, by the way, those bearded dropouts in combination with the short-haired gun nuts have, in their spare time no less, created out of their own imaginations what may be the finest, definitely the coolest and most fun, computer operating system available in the world today. And what have you done lately? Nice tie.
Thanks for the laughs, WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net