Slashdot Mirror
On the Subject of Ximian and Eazel
Isldeur writes: "Dennis Powell has a very interesting
article on GNOME, Eazel, and the control thereof.
However, while it is very thought provoking, it might inspire some heat. Still, I think these things are manifestly important to the ideal of Free Software to figure out!" A very well written article that says a lot of truth. I tend to think that some points are over beaten (lack of binaries for example. So what? Anyone can compile and distribute their own). Especially interesting is the point about Eazel and Paypal, and the comparison to OS/2. The difference, of course, is that this is Free Software in the speech sense, so it's a little more important than OS/2 IMHO. But there's some spicy words in here, and it's worth thought for those with objective minds.
Companies don't spend $13 million on a file browser. If you think that's all Eazel was doing, you're wrong. Now, they were definitely over-extravagant in their spending. However, let's take a look at what they might have spent it on:
$2000-$3000/month on Internet access - for one year that's $36,000
$200,000 for their infrastructure - backups, routers, gateways, plus licenses (this could actually have been more. You can really spend up to $2 million easily to make a scalable infrastructure - like if you use Oracle Apps to manage all your stuff).
Let's say they had 10 programmers (I don't know how many they had) on Nautilus - for good programmers, that's about a million per year.
Let's say they had another 10 programmers working on Eazel services, including their packaging and online disk storage, we've got another million there.
Then you have to pay the execs. I'm not going to guess at a figure. Then you've got another twenty to thirty people doing all sorts of marketing/reception/etc.
On top of this, you have office space. If they went for their own building, this could be a few million.
Then you have computers for everyone, and that can get expensive real fast.
So, as you see, $13 million can go pretty fast, especially if you're trying to start-up fast. Most of the dot-coms failed trying to start-up fast. Most companies do. Venture capital makes you think you can do anything because you have all that money, but then you end up wasting it buying the high-end of everything. The thing is that with $13 million, if the investors were willing to wait a little while, _could_ have been spread out over a decade, with the programmers all sitting in a basement, a 28.8 line to the 'net, and not bothered to even hire the marketing guys until the product was out the door and at revision #2. However, most VC places probably don't like that idea, so they try to get a full company in swing before a product is released, which, as you can see, really drains money.
So, of course a file manager doesn't cost that much money, but a company does. The problem is that they formed the company before it was ready, and thus the company drained them of their money. However, they probably wouldn't have gotten VC money doing that. The whole company infrastructure is a bigger drain than any or all projects put together.
Engineering and the Ultimate
CmdrTaco wrote:
, then we're doing pretty well.
I tend to think that some points are over beaten (lack of binaries for example. So what? Anyone can compile and distribute their own).
Remember that one of the points of Ximian Gnome is to make Linux less frightening to our mothers. I don't know about you, but telling my mother that she just needs to "uncompress the tarball, configure, make, and make install" won't really get us very far. OTOH, if I can e-mail her a single command (ie, rpm -Uvh ftp://ftp.ximian.com/directory/to/rpm/distro.rpm)
Why wait for the Red Hats of the world to provide binaries? Instead of stopping the simplification process after the UI design, they should follow through, IMHO.
-Waldo
This article was in the vein of CNN's crossfire: calculated to be polemical, provocative, and irrational, so as to incite discussion and readership.
For example, here is a quote about the FSF:
He [RMS] was aware of the phenomenon codified by Abraham Maslow: there are lots of people who will sign on to just about any movement in exchange for the sense of belongingness that being the proud member of a group imparts. Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that. As long as you live it.
This kind of unsupported pop psychoanalysis could be levelled against any group or organization. In this case, the evidence weighs heavily against it: whatever RMS' faults, he almost certainly believes in what he preaches. I doubt very much that RMS started the FSF to acquire needy followers, and I doubt very much that people join for a sense of belongingness. Writing code in your basement for a compiler with other people you've never met is not a sure a path to belongingness. Anyone looking for a sense of beloning could far more easily find it in a church.
The other claims are similarly weak:
Gnome is controlled -- c'mon, don't kid yourself -- by two companies
The parenthetical clause ("c'mon, don't kid yourself") is the only support offered for this statement. The statement implies that RMS is a corporate lackey, which I seriously doubt.
It's tragic that this kind of talk-show commentary has eclipsed real argumentation.
Heh. That sort of takes some of the wind out of the FSF financial conspiracy theory.
Yes, that was my blackjack winnings.
John Carmack
Gnome is controlled -- c'mon, don't kid yourself -- by two companies.
Ximian and Eazel have exactly as much control over GNOME as IBM used to have over the PC market.
There was a day, years ago, where IBM was the undisputed leader in the PC market. PCs were called "IBM PC compatibles" or "IBM clones". Everyone waited for IBM to come out with a new PC, and then carefully copied it in their own PCs.
All that changed when IBM did two things: 0) they tried to get everyone to buy in on a platform completely controlled by IBM (the Microchannel Architecture or MCA; IBM had patents giving it full ownership of MCA) and 1) they delayed months without releasing a PC based on the Intel 386. Another company (Compaq) took the bold step of releasing a 386-based PC before IBM did, and the rest is history: IBM never got the leadership position back. These days IBM is just another vendor in the PC market.
The situation with GNOME is similar. Ximian and Eazel can lead, and everyone will follow. But if the day ever comes that these companies try to lock people in to a proprietary solution, or if they stop releasing new stuff, then they will lose their leadership position. Others will pick up the development and run with it.
In the case of PCs, it was free-market competition that prevented IBM from forcing the industry to follow its lead. In the case of GNOME, it is the GNU public license and the public release of the source code that prevents Ximian and Eazel from forcing the free software community to follow their lead. The free software license is important, even if Mr. Powell doesn't seem to understand it.
Ximian and Eazel have control of GNOME for exactly as long as they deserve it. We can and will take it away from them if we ever need to.
And that is why his article is ultimately pointless. Eazel and Ximian and the FSF and RMS could all be abducted by aliens tomorrow, and GNOME will still survive and prosper. Mr. Powell can sling his gossip and innuendo, but he's kidding himself if he thinks any of it really matters.
P.S. I am somewhat on the same page with him about the cash donations. The idea of trying to donate cash in a way that keeps the money from going to creditors seems odd, perhaps even immoral. And what good will it do to contribute money to the Eazel company if it will go bankrupt for not paying its creditors?
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Go to http://www.guidestar.org (which provides info on nonprofits), and search for "Free Software" to bring up the FSF info.
There some interesting stuff there, esp. in the Form 990's:
- No one seems to draw a salary
- In '97, id software donated about $19K to the FSF, which was over $3K more than Red Hat did. (Is that the year Carmack won big at gambling & donated the proceeds?)
All in all, seems like it's a pretty low budget organization.
The project intends to provide binaries for most platforms so that you don't have to compile them yourself. Its binaries will also be un-branded--there will be no Eazel or Ximian logos, features, etc.
Also, just because someone can compile GNOME himself, it doesn't mean that he wants to. In fact, on moderate hardware it will take about two days to compile this. Experienced power users don't necessarily have time to waste on this.
From the article: ..where information wants to be free so long as it's other people's information.
Do people who believe this agree with it when their personal information is free?
Got friends?
Second, yeah, this is raw flamebait. But the RMS apologists always justify him by saying, "Sure, he's a vindictive nut. But we need people like that!" This is kind of a counterweight.
Third, the "..the monkey chased the Eazel" stuff did make me laugh.
Fourth (I only planned first and second when I started this), it really is remarkable how Eazel managed to blow through $13 million on a file browser. All of KDE 1 and 2, even including Qt, didn't cost that much or require that many paid developers. By comparison, Konqueror has one paid developer, David Faure. (Who admittedly is really, really good.) Yes, there are some TrollTech people working on khtml, but since Nautilus uses Gecko, they don't count for this comparison.
Fifth,the reasoning by which the FSF gets dragged into this is pretty shaky. There's no real reason to think they're getting involved with Eazel. On the other hand, Powell is right that the Gnome leaders have committed to having companies drive their project and they'll have to live with the results.
I'll throw in a sixth and preemptively point out to the people who always invoke the Kompany here that the role of the Kompany in KDE is completely unlike what Eazel and Ximian do in Gnome. The Kompany is not involved at all in core KDE development or planning and does not attempt to rebrand the desktop.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
And the author's comment but it's no goofier than seven or eight years ago, when people who called themselves "Team OS/2" gave up evenings and weekends in unpaid volunteer support to be especially curious. Isn't this what open-source software is about ? Isn't this what we do when we post an answer to a question on Usenet, or on a bulletin board ? Isn't it what we do when we discuss things here ? The actions of Team OS/2 are no less "goofy" then open-sourcing software.
Eazel has burned through at least $13-million in venture capital
I guess ferraris must be standard programming equipment nowadays. Otherwise I can't figure out how they would spend 13 million on making a file manager.