Where UnitedLinux Got It Wrong

An Anonymous Coward writes "A story on NewsForge [ed. note: part of the keiretsu] suggests that the lack of binaries for UnitedLinux shows disrespect to the community which created most of the software. The author suggests a better way for handling the business problems that a lack of binaries is supposed to solve. Some particularly clueless reader comments say that UnitedLinux has no responsibility to cooperate with the community. The thought that UnitedLinux won't even offer a development distribution to the community does not sit well with me."

Comments

Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

Even so, at least it's a competitor to redhat.

Re:Well,

[minion]

Even so, at least it's a competitor to redhat.

Ok, now tell me why you'd want this? One of the biggest things preventing Linux from taking off on the desktop is the lack of standardization and the multitude of distributions out there. Unless someone talks to a linux "expert" about what distro to use, the choice can be so overwhelming that they quit and keep using their Windows or OS/X.

Red Hat has 50% more market share than every other major linux vender, combined. 50%. Thats Suse, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, Slackware, Debian... The major ones. 50%. Thats a heck of a lot. Most software written for Linux says, "compatible with Red Hat Linux version..." on it. The reason: More market share. If we ever think we're gonna take the desktop, we need to have a limited number of distros, not more. There are hundreds, literally hundreds of distros available. Each one with an idea that what they are doing is The Right Way. I'm sorry, but that breeds incompatibility. That is not what we need if we're gonna survive.

Re:Well,

[Phroggy]

Ok, now tell me why you'd want this? One of the biggest things preventing Linux from taking off on the desktop is the lack of standardization and the multitude of distributions out there.

Ah, but you see, I really don't like RedHat. I respsect the company, but I've never liked their distribution, and if that's what everybody standardized on... well, the other 50% of us who know better would just have to make our own distros that don't suck.

Re:Well,

[Prothonotar]

I'd like someone to explain to me how these several companies each of who has failed to compete on their own are going to be able to combine their efforts in order to combat the dominant vendor (Red Hat) and be successful. How does this solve the problem of alternatives? Currently, each of these vendors offers an alternative distribution of Linux, and they have apparently not been as successful as they would like. Instead, they are joining efforts in an attempt to influence the market (by reducing the number of real alternatives) without any real improvement to their products.

Adopting a "at least they're not Red Hat" view is only going to be harmful in the long run. One of the greatest benefits of free software such as Linux (and the programs it generally comes with) is that it doesn't rely on purely market forces to flourish... if this were a proprietary system (such as CDE), then vendors could unite and control the market (e.g. if no Unix vendor is going to ship with anything except CDE, then in 90+% of the cases, that's what their users will use), regardless of the actual merit of the software. With Linux, market forces are much less important; anyone with the appropriate know-how can customize the system, and if those customizations are valued by others, they can build their own distribution around them.

UnitedLinux may, in the end, offer such a value to its customers, and if so, it may meet with some success. Merely supporting these vendors efforts for the sake of reducing Red Hat's share of the market, however, is counter-productive. No responsible business (the target market for UnitedLinux) would make a decision based on such emotional reactions, and individuals should not either.

Why worry?

[mfos.org]

This is the exact thing the GPL is designed to prevent. The Linux community *won't* put up with this and UL will engender much public scorn.

Re:Why worry?

[jmauro]

This is the oppisite of what the GPL was designed to prevent. UnitedLinux is giving the source with no binaries. Not the binaries with no source. Get some sense or read the article. There is no violation and nothing to "not put up with".

Re:Why worry?

[mfos.org]

I should clarify, I believe that if UnitedLinux is successful, it will be an incredible detriment to the Open/Free Software spirit. Many programers write what they write, not only to show their skills, but to contribute something useful, in a way that they believe brings benefit. If they see that their work is being exploited, they will no longer wish to contribute.

However I think UL will fail, and I think its important that the community experiences something like this, to test how well our protections against this event work.

Re:Why worry?

[notsoanonymouscoward]

you are such an idiot. read. learn. if the coders you are so worried about are real coders, they would download the source and compile it themselves, unlike idiotic whiners like you begging for someone to point to a binary cause you don't know how to use gcc. my that was an incredibly long sentence wasn't it? anyway. There is nothing wrong with what they're doing as far as the article goes. hell they've just created a job for some newbie to handle, hosting a site with their own version of UL sourced binaries. hell thats basically what this is all about. I bet you didn't even read it. sigh.

Re:Why worry?

[visualight]

you are such an idiot. read. learn

A collection of source-only tarballs is not a "distribution". There is directory structure, package management, etc. to consider. The poster you replied to is referring to a distribution, not a collection of sources.

Re:Why worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously what there needs to be is a bit for bit GPL version of UnitedLinux's base distro.

Re:Why worry?

[zangdesign]

One: They're following the mandates of the GPL, so there's no cause for beef there. The GPL doesn't say anything about a binary distribution being available.

Two: Where do you get off assuming United Linux owes you anything? And what precisely do they owe you?

If you release your software under GPL, then you have no further control other than what is explicitly stated in the license. I can take your code and mangle it, distribute it, rewrite it, tie it to a log and throw it in the river, as long as I leave the license intact. I owe you nothing.

Now, that may be a violation of the spirit of GPL, but that is, in and of itself, not an actionable cause. You can, of course, pull the source back to some proprietary license, but the source code up until that point is out there for the world to see.

As I see it, you have no one to blame but yourselves. You signed onto the GPL, with full knowledge and understanding that this sort of thing could happen.

As for the second part of my question - what does United Linux really owe you? Money - not likely. Binaries? They're giving you the source. Respect? By sticking to the rules of the license, they have maintained what they were supposed to do. Return something to the community? They have. The're helping to raise the visibility among corporations and providing a distro that corporations can understand, which helps to further the acceptance of Linux.

Eventually you are going to have to grow up and realize that even more of this is going to happen as Linux becomes more and more mainstream. Today, it's four minor corporations in very real danger of being wiped out; tomorrow it could be Microsoft, with $40 billion in pocket and lawyers that make Genghis Khan look like a Sunday school teacher.

Here's a cold brutal fact for you: not everyone has the same belief or faith in community that you do. For better or worse, you collectively built a product that has escaped from it's hacker haven and is being used by people who are less concerned with driving the state of the art than they are selling it.

This is your reality check. Mod me down as a troll or flamebait or even consign me to the Hell of Upside Down Microsoft Marketroids, but somebody needed to say this.

Re:Why worry?

[t1m0r4n]

Two: Where do you get off assuming United Linux owes you anything? And what precisely do they owe you?

The point of the article wasn't that UL owes the community a binary distro. The point was that they would be more successful with a binary distro.

UnitedLinux wants a standard that will run all linux apps. But how can a developer who may be using RedHat or Slackware or Debian, know if the app will run on UL? The good folks of UnitedLinux could limit themselves to distributing apps that run by accident. Or rewrite them so they do run for the initial ditribution. But then the customer may want to use program XYZ on a platform that they were told was designed to allow a binary to run on any linux distro--unfortunately it won't because the developers of the program don't want to fork over the money for a copy of UnitedLinux.

Basically all you have is another incompatible flavor of linux -- only this one will be delivered under a couple of different names ala Suse UL, or Caldera UL. Neato Neato. It's not about unity, it's merely clever name that sounds pleasant, but it's just another ugly division.

I suspect it will be as successful as the Open Software Foundation attempt to battle Sun/ATT. They created a unified unix which OSF. Or I guess I could go on to name a gaggle of other failed attempts, if you want to pick nits with this one. But it's past my bed time :)

Re:Why worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Linux From Scratch and Gentoo aren't distributions?..

Re:Why worry?

[BrokenHalo]

I think Gentoo is, but (correct me if I'm wrong) surely LFS is not a distribution by definition?

Re:Why worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it isn't. Indeed is an "anti-distribution". LFS is a documentation project for you to make up your own distribution, however you want it.

Re:Why worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Now, that may be a violation of the spirit of GPL..."

No, it isn't even that. The "spirit" of the GPL is that once that I leave it, I leave it, with the only constrain being that I force you not to impose further restriction over source (or modified source)distribution.

GPL *explicitly* covers your migth-be aim to gain money for what you do with the sources.

If you want to somehow control what a third party does -or does not, with your work (your sources) beyond the fact you want them to distribute their work under the same conditions you gave yours, then the solution is for you not to use GPL!!!
So, you feel UL should go with binaries so to help other people? Well, you're free to take the UL code, make the binaries yourself and put them on the net (let's say, at sourceforge) for others to take advantage.

Most of the GPL "spirit" is don't complain, but do it yourself; if you can't do it yourself, you can always pay others for do it at your specifications (that's free as in free speech).

Re:Why worry?

[zangdesign]

So, you feel UL should ...

Nope. I think what they're doing is sufficient. I was responding the OP and to the others here who feel that UL has somehow taken advantage of them.

So vote with your wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

This likely won't affect the four people left using Caldera, but for the rest of you, just don't buy it if you don't like their strategy. This is a commercial strategy, so you can actually hurt it by ignoring it.

Re:So vote with your wallet

[SHEENmaster]

Alright,I'll stick with Mandrake, the commercial linux that I like.

Re:So vote with your wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt this project will even get passed the talking sh*t phase. They may have some releases, but I don't know who buys linux to begin with, and I work for a very large corporation.

This is kind of naive

[RTFA Man]

Corporations want to feel secure. They want a brand name. They want support. What happens if the boss hears the name "Hacker's Linux?" You can expect to hear an immediate dissertation on the order of "We don't want software for hackers -- we want software that gives us support and quality! Get that UnitedLinux product in here!"

The name "Hacker's Linux" will make the downloadable software totally unpalatable to the corporate world. And, because the corporate world is the only targeted customer base for UnitedLinux, this will virtually eliminate any loss of revenue otherwise expected from providing ISO images.

Re:This is kind of naive

[Lumpy]

Oh cripes.... please show me one common distro that is named hacker linux Leet-dude linux or I 0WN J00 linux.... get real. slackware and redhat are well set in the business world.. as well as Mandrake has made it along with for embedded white dwarf linux and Midori... Please oh Please... STOP this FUD campain... the entire decision of accepting linux into the workplace is based completely on the one person that bring it up for a decision.. if that person has any management and sales abilities it will get accepted... if they are the typical, refuses to wear anything but a t-shirt, pierced everything, over-tattooed, wannabe "hacker" they will ignore any suggestion or reccomendation they place on the table... and finally you have the typical Unix-lord.. hair and beard to the floor and wearing an ORIGIONAL Commodore Vic 20 T-shirt.. will get his suggestion to use linux accepted because he will let the board know "WE've been using it for 4 years.. It's saved the IT department tens of thousands of dollars already.. and it runs your pet project from last year.."

Corperations dont want to feel secure... they want to feel money... lots of money, profits, lower operating costs, greater profit margins...

If you go to your boss and say, "I can save you XXX dollars this year in Server software." he will do it if you have your presentation well thought out and shows all costs involved... he also will hold your butt to it and will gladly fire you if it fails... so if you dont have the guts to stand behind your reccomendations then don't do it...

Me? I have Linux infiltrating over 30 offices next month.... why? because I said it will work and they can have my ass on a platter if it doesn't.(exact words in the regional board meeting) Taking ownership of your decisions and reccomendations not only get's linux in the door really fast.... but it also get's you up the promotion ladder a whole lot quicker...

As for wanting support, where have you been? linux has more and better support than any microsoft product or OS. I can make a call and pay LESS than a microsoft tech support call and get faster,better,competent results.. When was the last time you had one of the IIS developers answer your question instead of a non-trained lackey responding from a canned support script? I have had answers from the apache developer responsible for the section I was having trouble with... WITHIN 24 hours... unlike MS support (I still have an SQL server issue open with MS... it's been 3 weeks now... I could have switched the entire system to linux+oracle in that timeframe.)

please, if you dont have the strength to stand behind your decisions and reccomendations... DO NOT reccomend linux or anything other than a nice safe MS product.. something you can point fingers at when it fails, something to transfer blame to... Installing an Open source solution takes strong leaders that are willing to say "It's MY fault the server crashed. It's my fault that we cant recover the data, It's MY FAULT that the new system failed and let hackers in/ a virus in/porn floods in....

and Yes, It's MY FAULT that we haven't switched everything to linux when the next virus wave rips throught the outlook hole and cripples the network.. and that is EXACTLY what I will say at that meeting... use everyopportunity to get linux in.. but only if you have the ability to.

sorry about my crusade-rant here.. but I am sick of people claiming they know what corperations want... they dont and until they get off their butts and learn what corperations want they will sit all safe in their cubicle making assumptions..

you want to be your bosses boss? you cant be comfortable.

Re:This is kind of naive

[ahde]

No way. Corporations want security. People work for corporations because they want security. The act of incorporation itself is a way to minimize risk. Risk takers start their own companies or work for companies that aren't necessarily stable or secure but might have potential at the cost of greater risk.

Re:This is kind of naive

[archen]

As for wanting support, where have you been? linux has more and better support than any microsoft product or OS

That sort of depends on what kind of support. I personally like Linux because I can get tons of resources on the web. Generally if I can ask the right question, Google can find an answer. My boss (the sort of tech guy before I was hired) likes to talk on the phone. It really doesn't matter if MS actually answers his question, or if he waits on the phone for 2 hours, or if he gets charged an arm and a leg - he likes the phone. I've generally found that he's not so unusual. I can ask questions via email until my fingers bleed with Linux, but generally there just aren't a lot of Linux people to actually call. It's sort of hard to pitch Linux with that kind of support (despite the fact that it actually works quite well).

Re:This is kind of naive

[Dunkelzahn]

Moderations on the parent post and grandparent post are way off of what they should be.

The grandparent post was not off-topic if you had read the linked article on newsforge.

And this individual with his large rant here, on the parent post, had taken the grandparent post entirely out of context, as it was an excerpt from the article, describing a possible solution to the United Linux problem, and the title showed that the poster had thought it was a naive solution. It was not in the slightest bit off-topic, if you had read the article linked to this article.

Moderators, please correct both of these mistakes.

Thank you for your time.

Re:This is kind of naive

[checkyoulater]

because I said it will work and they can have my ass on a platter if it doesn't.(exact words in the regional board meeting)

Geez, your ass must be worth some major moolah, then. Corporation out possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost sales if your so-called Linux solution fails, and all they get is your ass on a platter?

Re:This is kind of naive

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

Re:This is kind of naive

[antirename]

No, I don't work for a corporation because I need/want security. There is no such thing in this economy. I work for a corporation because I want health insurence... And, sadly, that's about it.

Re:This is kind of naive

[Anonymous Coward]

He works for the goatse.cx guy. =shrug= :)

Re:This is kind of naive

[Anonymous Coward]

not alot? wow... I'll have to tell that to redhat technical support guys... they have Tons of people answering the phones...

and they give answers better and faster than Ms tech's

Re:This is kind of naive

[Anonymous Coward]

wow another person who THINKS they know...

If corperations want to feel safe then why do they do risky moves? you think it was smart for Comcast to buy AT&T Cable? or it was smart for AT&T cable to GAMBLE and build out most of america with state of the art hardware. (A gamble that still hasn't paid off and flung the company into financial ruin... BTW, if it wasnt for them you wouldnt have your precious cablemodem) same as ENRON didnt do any risky moves...

Hell I can list about 30-50 RISKY CORPERATE DECISIONS that were made last year alone based soley on making money, more money , and GOBS of Money...

please, if you know something... say it, if you dont (like your post) then shut up.

Commercialism fucks us over again?

[fire-eyes]

Gee, big surprise?

Christ, I wish money never would have gotten tangled with linux. And no, I don't give a shit what paid people have contributed.

Hint: if you disagree with me and reply, your message will be deleted. Don't waste your time, son.

Re:Commercialism fucks us over again?

[nomadic]

Hint: if you disagree with me and reply, your message will be deleted. Don't waste your time, son.

Ooh, it will? Alright, I disagree with you. Delete this.

Re:Commercialism fucks us over again?

[jmulvey]

Hint: if you disagree with me and reply, your message will be deleted. Don't waste your time, son.

Spoken like a true anti-Microsoft, anti-Corporate, anti-establishment Slashdot bigot. So while you're out there making Slashdot readers an easy target, please tell us about how Microsoft is responsible for UnitedLinux, crying babies, flat tires and the Ebola virus.

You know you believe it.

Re:Commercialism fucks us over again?

[fire-eyes]

Thanks!

But i'm not extremeist enough (as you are) to think of those other conspiracies.

Darn.

Re:Commercialism fucks us over again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true anti-Microsoft, anti-Corporate, anti-establishment Slashdot bigot.

If you feel that way, why are you here? Do you attend skinhead rallies for the opportunity to express haughty contempt as well?

Not for retail stores

[rtaylor]

Given what I've read about UnitedLinux -- especially in regards to per seat licensing I highly doubt they intend to do heavy marketing to the existing Linux community, in particular home users.

They're after SMEs (Small to Medium Enterprises). You can see that based on the packaged applications. Given this, a hacker community isn't too likley to evolve around UnitedLinux, and the last thing they want is a hoard of home users calling for technical support due to free distribution under their name (Pink Tie vs. Red Hat argument).

I'd say they've located a niche which isn't catered to very well. They've created a product and pricing for that niche. Would everyone please stop trying to too them how to sell their product outside of that niche!

Re:Not for retail stores

[beamz]

Given what I've read about UnitedLinux -- especially in regards to per seat licensing I highly doubt they intend to do heavy marketing to the existing Linux community, in particular home users.

I haven't read much of the specifics but I don't believe that Linux is segmented by a "business" and "home user" category. A lot of the existing linux community uses linux at home AND at work.

The whole thing is that the community is what got Linux where it is today and by not building binary distros, well that is the decision of the companies but by not giving this back to the community, they are doing a disservice. We aren't talking about a "desktop environment" or a Red-Carpet type service a la Ximian, we're talking a distro.

Why alienate those who helped make the bricks you're using to build your house?

Re:Not for retail stores

[Ridgelift]

The small to medium enterpirses are build and maintained by hackers such as myself. By alienting not only the developer community, but the integrators as well, UnitedLinux cannot succeed.

I make a fine living selling Linux solutions, more than my Windows counterparts. The SME's I sell and service don't care if the servers are Linux, Windows or NetWare as long as their desktop is Windows and they can see the network from their vantage point.

I think "us" telling them how to sell their product is a good thing since the customer is _not_ the actualy SME's but guys like me who are putting their products in. For now, I'll keep having my clients buy a full distro of Mandrake.

Re:Not for retail stores

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent to your post wasn't talking about Linux.

He was talking about UnitedLinux. They don't want an at large linux distribution. They want a neat and tidy linux distribution that they can sell to medium-to-large enterprises. These enterprises don't want the same thing that the linux hacker community wants. They want shrink wrapped software that someone else can worry about.

A professional software company doesn't want to offer you support, and then find out you have modified all your source files, rebuilt everything, and not know a damn thing about programming, let alone C (or whatever the package was developed in). This would be a next to impossible situation to support.

Cry, Cry, Cry

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on! There's no prohibition against somebody downloading those sources, and putting together a binary distribution and distributing it, Cheap Bytes style. And other people are sure to use those sources for the basis of their own distributions.

I tell you, the open source community has to be composed of some or the world's greatest cryers.

Would you like some cheese to go with that whine?

Binaries and GPL

[slashclone]

Since binaries are still released under GPL what would prevent the first person who bought the cd set from UL to burn extra copies and give/sell to everyone?

Re:Binaries and GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the binaries are not licensed under the GPL, and are proprietary. You will not be able to distribute the ISO image without removing the non-free software first.

Re:Binaries and GPL

[Daemonik]

Oh, you could compile and distribute the GPL'd code, but you couldn't redistribute whatever code the UnitedLinux contributers put into their distro that isn't GPL'd and that's covered by their licenses. Because then YOU'd be the one violating copyright and be very much in the wrong.

Also, you couldn't call it UnitedLinux unless you were releasing the entire distro, which as I already mentioned, you can't, so you're doubly screwed.

They are doing nothing illegal. I'm more than sure that the pack of lawyers any company needs to survive today has already gone over everything they're doing. So get over it.

Re:Binaries and GPL

[Grax]

So lets release Untied Linux and use only the GPL'd content.

I demand a boycott!

[overturf]

Oh goodie! We can add the UnitedLinux distributors to our list of "outraged boycotts" just behind (1) the MPAA and (2) theatres that don't show Star Wars EP2 in a digital format!

Re:I demand a boycott!

[nomadic]

You're forgetting (3) theaters that DO show Star Wars EP2 in a digital format, because the distribution company is part of the MPAA.

Hmmm, I suddenly have the urge to go buy some RIAA- and MPAA-affiliated DVDs and CDs. I think I'll use Amazon's patented one-click technology to do it.

Re:I demand a boycott!

[Anonymous Coward]

me too.

A better solution...

[User 956]

The author suggests a better way for handling the business problems that a lack of binaries is supposed to solve.

Yeah, or an even better way to handle some of the problems is to sell your products, instead of GIVING THEM AWAY FOR FREE.

keiretsu... for the english speakers

[whydna]

In case you didn't know what keiretsu meant either:

A network of businesses that own stakes in one another as a means of mutual security, especially in Japan, and usually including large manufacturers and their suppliers of raw materials and components.

And this is bad because....?

[Daemonik]

If the source code is available, then why do the developers need binaries? Aren't these the people most likely to recompile the system from scratch?

The only reason I can see at this stage for a binary distro would be for demo purposes.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[big.ears]

If the source code is available, then why do the developers need binaries? Aren't these the people most likely to recompile the system from scratch?

Yes, grasshopper, but how will a developer know if his software works on the binary distribution his customers use if his system was compiled from scratch?

Re:And this is bad because....?

[Daemonik]

He signs on to whatever development program UL comes up with to address the issues of testing and certification that they feel will best ensure their customer base of a stable platform.

The article only states (and indeed bitches) that their will be no FREE binaries, not that binaries will not be provided to those who wish to develop for the distro in some way or another.

Perhaps a registration process and and a license agreement process the developer will have to go through guaranteeing they won't redistribute the software.

Perhaps this process will weed out those who are not willing to seriously deal with the boring tasks of software development like product testing and documenting features. Business customers are funny about wanting things like that.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[SWroclawski]

Two reasons:

1. To test that the binaries are replicatable
The issue is if the binaries that are being
shipped are from the source provided.

Is UL doing something to them? What compile
options are they using? Are they making changes
to the code?

The only way to know is to compare the final
binaries with the provided source and libraries
that is being used on the build system.

2. For security (down the road)

Closely related to the first issue is that
source and binaries are a requirement for a
security analysis. You want to know how the
binaries were built and the best way to ensure
that the binaries you have were built the way
they have been claimed is to compare the source
and build process with the binaries of the
final product.

It's important when doing these kinds of tests as either a developer or user to have both the source and binaries.

- Serge Wroclawski

Re:And this is bad because....?

[denial]

Can you say non-sequitur?

Have you ever even tried to build a working distro completely from sources without even a pre-existing binary image for a minimal OS to work from?

The assumption that a developer working on one tiny area of the OS, or more particularly working on a user space application will always want to install a full distribution piece by piece from sources is absurd.

That's not to even begin to approach all the secondary issues. Seems that this is a fairly transparent attempt to use the amount of work involved in putting a distro together from sources as a weapon against the community that wrote most of the code.

GNU/Linux mostly gets into the server space because it is championed in, usually by someone who is not a developer, but is a user. This will come back to bite UnitedLinux when they find that all those same advocates sneer at their distro because of the impossibility of familiarising yourself with it by using it at home.

It's a shocking business mistake, but that is not the grounds on which to reject it, but rather the sheer contempt for the community from whose work they seek to profit

Re:And this is bad because....?

[morcego]

You can bet that sourceforge (and others) will make UnitedLinux machines avaliable on their compile farms( if not UnitedLinux companies themselves ).
That pretty much solves most of the problem.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[istartedi]

Have you ever even tried to build a working distro completely from sources without even a pre-existing binary image for a minimal OS to work from?

So, if you can't "make all" with this thing, then it's just a useless bunch of code. What's the harm in distributing useless code, except to the guys who waste the time distributing it?

It's a shocking business mistake, but that is not the grounds on which to reject it, but rather the sheer contempt for the community from whose work they seek to profit

If it's really such a shocking business mistake, the market will "take care" of them. When I first read this article, I thought the poster had carelessly typed binary instead of source. After all, Free Software people are always griping about the source, not the binary. If there's any reason to reject this, it's because it won't build cleanly on your box, not because of some overzealous misguided interpretation of what "the community" expects.

I don't think even RMS would have problems with a source-only distro. After all, if it comes with source and makefiles, it's... well... source! How do they say... "if it isn't source, it's not software"? So what's the problem? Granted, it's really foolish not to include even a minimal kernel and binary build tools to compile everything else, but there is nothing in the GPL that says you aren't allowed to be a fool.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[dinotrac]

I tend to agree.
One more point, though.

To my experience, the developers who tend to certify their software for one release or the other tend to be commercial developers. These people won't sniff at popping for a boxed copy.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, maybe include the $49.95 need to purchase a boxed version in the budget supplied to said customer?

Re:And this is bad because....?

[Trepalium]

You're assuming that developers will jump through hoops for the privledge of having their software work with UnitedLinux. You're probably wrong. If UL makes it too hard for develoeprs to test their programs on their platform, it won't happen. It's difficult enough to get developers to test on anything other than x86 RedHat or Mandrake, let alone any BSD or non-x86 UNIX-like OS.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[Chris Johnson]

RMS cannot be expected to understand every possible limitation of freedom. He's an uber-coder and to him, the source is the program. What we're seeing currently is a situation in which businesses are looking at Linux and free software, and going, "it's nice that you people want to share with each other and give to each other. Now we're going to come in and make money off it, and we deserve your respect because we're going to make your work profitable- and we're not going to violate the letter of your licenses, we're only going to make sure everyone understands that we will not give the slightest bit more than that."

"Because how can you possibly succeed through giving and sharing?"

This is why these developments are repugnant to a lot of free software people: speaking for myself, I think it's wonderful if these companies are prepared to abide by the letter of the licenses, but they're setting up a situation where they'll be saying, 'the reason you should give us money while we avoid doing more than the minimum we can get away with is, you can't go around being altruistic'.

This is not an argument that I feel needs additional support. To me, the argument, 'great things can happen when people cooperate on something altruistically' is the one that deserves the support. It's true, it's produced the body of open source software, and it's challenged every single time some bozos at a company decide to do Their Special Thing on top of open source, and combine their proprietary software with the free stuff.

Because they will ALWAYS say, 'we're value added', and they'll say, 'You have to expect to pay for the added value, of course', and they'll say 'you can't expect to be given things for free', which is exactly what was done for them. It's ingratitude, and it's distracting, and it's capable of confusing people as to what's really going on- even to the point where they think all the IMPORTANT work must be done by companies for money, and the more important it is, the less anyone will be willing to give it freely for the general betterment of all.

And that is why these business guys are a problem, even if they are obeying the letter of the rules. It's wrong to discount generosity and cooperation. And having examples out there of 'no, you can't have that, shame on you for wanting to deprive us of profit' is bad. They should just write proprietary operating systems if they want to go there- oops, no, they can't! They should take a hint from this.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[rifter]

Granted, it's really foolish not to include even a minimal kernel and binary build tools to compile everything else, but there is nothing in the GPL that says you aren't allowed to be a fool.

Actually, it is entirely possible to build a whole linux distro without the kernel and build tools of teh distro you are building, so long as you have the source, space on disk, and time. Mostly time. This is, in fact, the premise of Linux From Scratch. Yes, you do need a working system, but it can be any system with a compiler and working kernel/libraries. You build the basic binaries (kernel, build tools, etc) and then boot into your new system, then build the rest. As long as the source is intact, it should be possible to do this with UnitedLinux. If the makefiles are there, it should be reasonably trivial.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[Anonymous Coward]

Erg, the link for Linux From Scratch is here.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[Znork]

The company wont sniff at popping for a boxed copy. The techs will groan in pain for having to push a request for purchase through the company purchasing department tho, as well as motivate the expenditure. Or more likely they'll shrug and just test on RedHat because it will take a long time before marketshare for UL grows large enough for any management to care enough to ask the techs to do certification for UL.

It isnt the money. It's the convenience and getting evangelical support inside the development companies. This will have neither convenience nor many pushers, and with a nonexistent marketshare it will have little or no management support.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[dinotrac]

nonexistent marketshare?

Ummm....

SuSE is one of the largest distros out there, the biggest in Europe
Turbolinux is strong in Asia
Connectiva is growing in South America.

By Uniting together, they have become vastly more interesting to developers. Now, instead of being four more certifications to cover four market areas of varying interest, it's one more certification. That's a 75% drop in cost.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[Cro Magnon]

Trivial if you're a hardcore LFS geek perhaps. But how many hardcore types will give a flying fig about UL? Many people will just say "**** this! I'll just use RH/MDK"

Re:And this is bad because....?

[flatrock]

It depends on which developers you're talking about. Commercial device driver writers will write drivers if the platform is popular with people who buy their hardware. If they have to spend $50 on a distribution to test the final product, then that's a trivial ammount. If United Linux is smart, they'll provide the distribution for free, and maybe even set up testing labs to certify drivers, possibly for a small fee.

It would definately be in United Linux's best interest to make it easy for developers to get the binaries, but the biggest trouble will be getting enough corporate customers. If they have the customer base, there will be a lot of developers that will go through the slight hassle involved with getting the binaries. If they don't get a large customer base, developers won't be interested in supporting their distribution, and will release their products tested on Red Hat only.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[NDPTAL85]

But most open source development DOES depend on money. It isn't done by teenage geeks in their mother's basements. Alan Cox is paid by Red Hat. Linus is lucky to have become rich thru some stock or else he'd be working at a Linux company as well, I mean Transmeta will go out of business any day now. And the other distros employ many other core kernel hackers. Those other distros aren't making any money (any = enough to be profitable) and a company needs to be profitable to survive. Its ridiculous to think this can all be done for free. Not to mention IBM's efforts. They wouldn't be involved with Linux if they didn't think it could earn them money. So yes, each company does have something to "value add" to Linux because without it Linux is just a hobby for a few geeks instead of the usefull tool it is today.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[Chris Johnson]

...are you REALLY saying in all seriousness that without the commercial, proprietary companies, Linux would be nothing more than a hobby for geeks' musty basements?

These damn companies only latched on after it became obvious that Linux was a hot area, and now you're crediting them with doing all the work? I think not.

Next thing, you'll be arguing that free software coders detract from the ability for employed coders to make money, and arguing that Linux should be left to the companies to develop, because it's about making money and that's the most direct way to do that ;) hey, while we're at it, let's invent a new license that lets us close the source and charge for it! That'll REALLY provide financial incentives for Linux coding to become better and better ;)

Sorry- the universe is based on the interactions between protons and electrons and quarks and mesons etc- not based on the interactions between capitalism and money. Capitalism is extraordinarily unimportant in the grand scheme of things, and a very limited framework for understanding the world- and open source development is pretty obviously not what you think it is. No, it is not dependent on companies, employment, money and the capitalist ethic. If it was, Microsoft would've toasted it by now, like they toast everything else competing in their arena by their rules.

Wake up- people will code for nothing, just like they'll converse for nothing, or go jogging to nowhere, or lift weights a lot only to just put them down where they got 'em and go away happy. Open source happens to be a way where you can code for nothing without then also being exploited for it. You can treat coding as the expressing of ideas, like a form of communication. This has its own merits. *kaching* not necessary.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[NDPTAL85]

Yes yes yes people will code for nothing. But how many? And how will they afford new machines to keep their code up to date? And who's going to give them development models of equipment to work on drivers and such? Sure Linux can exist without corporate support. It would just be a much smaller project that would be even farther behind Windows in app/hardware support than it already is.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[rifter]

You have a point. In fact, I thought early on in my Linux adventures it would be easier to deal with Mandrake and Redhat as they use RPM's and are often very much up-to-date, which yields good hardware support. I still think that of GUI installers Mandrake's is the best in the business, and that includes MacOS, Solaris, and Windows.

However, I soon found rpm is not all it was cracked up to be. The main problem tended to be with projects which used multiple rpm's and had nests of screwey dependencies (two of my most horrible nightmares came from trying to upgrade Enlightenment and KDE). After messing around with this a lot, I realized I was probably spending more time getting rpm's to play nice than it would take to compile, and not rerceiving the benefit of my hardware.

It was then that I started doing mroe compiles, and movede to Slackware. The thing is, ever since make, things are much simpler. For many programs, you simply have to download your tarball, extract it in some directory, then

./configure && make && make install

It isn't that easy all the time, for you do have to make sure you have dependencies installed, but you have to do that with rpm, too. Besides, a good configure script and/or program documentation will tell you that and even how to get it. The better the configure script, the better the makefiles, and the better the makefiles, the more likely it is you will have a happy day.

One might say that better rpm's would have reduced my rpm headaches. But when you are taking an unmodified system from one release of a distro and upgrading it with the next release's rpm's, you'd think it would not be such a hassle and require lots of shoehorning.

Essentially, I have found Slackware is easier to deal with for me than Redhat or Mandrake, though I applaud their efforts. I ultimately plan to go into LFS or at least Sourceror on my next rig, though I admit it takes time to compile some of the larger stuff.

Re:And this is bad because....?

[hawk]

>The article only states (and indeed bitches) that their will be no FREE binaries,

Such a pity that the GPL stops anyone else from making and distributing those binaries frome the same source and scripts . . .

hawk

What I dont understand...

[gamorck]

Is why everybody seems surprised by this. Did the readers here actually think that GPLed code was immune to being hijacked by commercial interests? Specifically thats not whats going to happen here - but its pretty close.

Version 1: United Linux creates a Distribution that uses mostly open sourced code available to anybody on the net. This doesnt sell well except for the few coporations who like their support options.

Version 2: United Linux creates alot of inhouse closed-source configuration and system management apps that give it the leg up on the open source only competition. The appearance of increased system integration with none of problems associated with Windows Systems is appealing to alot of IT departments. Some more will jump on the UL bandwagon - most will wisely wait for it to mature a bit more.

Version 3: The Windows 2000 of the UnitedLinux distribution. This time UL will get it right. By leveraging their point and click configuration utilities and by "borrowing" the efforts of the Linux community to update core system components (kernel 2.6, gcc 3.0+, KDE 4, Gnome 1.5) they will have a product unmatched in the corporate Linux arena.

Eventually guys we knew somebody would figure out how to accomplish the above. Maybe UL won't succeed, maybe they will. Eventually somebody is going to pull it off though. Not to mention the fact that while free distributions such as debian will always exist, eventually their will only be one corporate distribution.

Some Linux people will be able to live with this and they will stick with the operating system they helped build. Most however will probably move to some other fringe OS like AtheOS, OpenBEOS, QNX, or most likely a BSD variant.

Some of UL's methods may be questionable - but Linux really needs this kind of kick in the ass from a standardization standpoint. I guess you've got to take the good with the bad though. Either way it will interesting to see how this all plays out.

J

Re:What I dont understand...

[cpeterso]

the readers here actually think that GPLed code was immune to being hijacked by commercial interests? ... Most however will probably move to some other fringe OS like AtheOS, OpenBEOS, QNX, or most likely a BSD variant.

If these people are afraid of their code being "hijacked", I seriously doubt they will leave Linux for QNX or BSD.

Anyways, I doubt UnitedLinux's "inhouse closed-source configuration and system management apps" really provide much value over the open-source standard admin options.

Re:What I dont understand...

[archen]

Version 2: United Linux creates alot of inhouse closed-source configuration and system management apps that give it the leg up on the open source only competition.

Actually I'd find that interesting. Then you'd probably end up with open source alternatives to the closed source config utilities which configure... open source applications.

I really don't have a problem with them capitalizing on OS stuff. Hell if they can make a lot better stuff then the OS stuff out there now and sell it, then bring it on. The question is, will it really be better than a distro like Red Hat, which pretty much gives you total access to everything.

Re:What I dont understand...

[Phroggy]

Some Linux people will be able to live with this and they will stick with the operating system they helped build. Most however will probably move to some other fringe OS like AtheOS, OpenBEOS, QNX, or most likely a BSD variant.

This doesn't make sense to me. You just said "free distributions such as debian will always exist", but you think most Linux users would rather switch to a whole different operating system than just switch distributions? Could you explain why you say that?

Re:What I dont understand...

[erat]

The GPL mandates that you keep source code open to any and all who want it, and it says absolutely nothing about mandating binary distribution.

UnitedLinux says the source code for GPL'd apps will be available to all without restrictions as mandated by the GPL itself, but binaries that are certified as being UnitedLinux compliant that are not covered by the GPL will be held back.

You're saying by giving away the GPL'd source code (which is compliant with the GPL) but not the binaries (which is also compliant with the GPL) equals an almost-corporate-hijacking of the GPL.

Ummm... Huh?

Re:What I dont understand...

[OriginalUsername]

The GPL mandates that you keep source code open to any and all who want it

No it doesn't.

Re:What I dont understand...

[crawling_chaos]

I think their business plan works more like this:

1. Release source, but hoard binaries, while Redhat and Debian continue to release both.
2. ???
3. Profit

Re:What I dont understand...

[jav1231]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Basically, Caldera has gained more developers, more programmers, and more support personel; they've grown by default. This is a huge win for Caldera. They've managed to spread their business model to 3 other companies without spending one red cent on a merge. >

Re:What I dont understand...

[erat]

Okay then, let's get picky.

If you distribute an application that is built from GPL'd source code, you must make that source code available to anyone who wants it. You can charge for the media you use to distribute it, and you can charge for the service of assembling and sending out the source code (last time I checked, the FSF charges around $200 to copy its sources to a tape, and you must supply the tape), but you can not make any part of the GPL'd source code unavailable. If you only use the GPL'd application internally (i.e. you don't distribute it), you can do whatever you want with the sources. That's my understanding.

If you see parts of the GPL that say otherwise, do everyone a favor and post them here with your interpretation of how the exceptions work.

Re:What I dont understand...

[Fjord]

I believe he was referring to development. Because they see their work hijacked on linux, they'll go to QNX or BSD as a result. I disagree with this thesis in general, mostly because QNX and BSD offer no more protection, and I'd say less protection than staying under a GPL'ed linux, but I agree that when people are threatened like this they won't necessarily act 100% rationally.

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

If all the source is freely available:

So there aren't any binaries freely available from them. So what? This is all Free software. We can just download their source, compile it, and maintain a place at CheapBytes or something where people can download current versions of the UnitedLinux binaries. What's wrong with this? I can certainly understand the community demanding UnitedLinux be freely available-- since reproducing it costs nothing-- but i don't see any reason why they ought to freely provide download space for people to leech off them. Bandwidth is expensive. Bring your own.

If parts of the UnitedLinux distribution are closed-source or in a non-reproducable format:

Well, that's fricking obnoxious. Well, either way: same as before, put up ISOs at cheapbytes, except leave holes where the closed/propeitary bullshit are. The holes are a problem, but look at it this way: Any propeitary solutions UnitedLinux is going to include are bound to be things the general business user wants. Therefore, if drop-in replacements for this propeitary stuff don't exist already in the GNU side of things, well then, we need to develop some! Once we have drop-in GPLed replacements, then we can just fill the holes and put our complete unitedlinux binary ISO back up on cheapbytes and all be happy as clams. Oh, this isn't trying to destroy UnitedLinux; it's just using UnitedLinux as a roadmap for where linux development needs to go. ^_^

Either way, no biggie. I'd expect better of SUSE, at least, but why the hystrionics?

What's the big deal?

[RevAaron]

So they don't want to provide binaries. Big deal- someone will compile it- some member of the community, and pass the ISO along to someone at linuxiso.org. Problem solved. I would argue that they aren't obliged to compile it for you, why should they? Because they use software harvested from the community? Ooooooh. Those UnitedLinux guys owe me lunch! Everything you could need from there is in the source.

Jeeze, get over it.

(No, this is not a troll. I just can't comprehend what is so terribly hard to comprehend about this.)

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget, you're talking to the "stuff wants to be free" crowd. They all want their movies, music, and satellite TV for free, why not pre-compiled binaries?

Re:What's the big deal?

[Daemonik]

Uh, if you haven't noticed, Linuxiso.org works very much with the various distro's and tries to help them out with their money making.

For one, they don't post ISOs that haven't been distributed by the original distro. So for say... SuSE, they have the Sparc installation version and the x86 Live Eval ISOs, but not the current retail installation ISOs.

Same with cheapbytes. They try to work with the vendors and not actually rape them financially.

It's an interesting concept, I know, but some people believe people the distros have a right to try to make a profit.

Re:What's the big deal?

[RevAaron]

And are Linuxiso and Cheapbytes the only ways to get CD images of distros? No. I provided Linuxiso as an example; s/Linuxiso/anyone's iso mirror FTP site/g.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Daemonik]

You still don't get my point, but then I actually think you do and don't care.

Distributing the ISO's without removing whatever code is not covered by an open distribution license such as the GPL is illegal without permission from the author of said code. Period.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you get it? He's talking about warezing it like Photoshop because 'information wants to be free' and 'no on deserves to make a profit writing software' - you know, the cornerstone of the philosophy increasing numbers of Linux advocates seem to be following.

Re:What's the big deal?

[rant-mode-on]

• someone will compile it- some member of the community, and pass the ISO along

Compiling source to binaries, yes that's easy. Turning it into an iso...? Well, who's going to provide the installer? That's a non-trivial piece of code if ever there was one.

Re:What's the big deal?

[ErikZ]

What if they modify the code so it only compiles on a special in-house compiler?

Re:What's the big deal?

[TheSHAD0W]

It's trivial enough if you don't have fifty billion options. Just have a nice, default install, assume that everything on the CD is going to be installed on the HD (even compressed, modern HDs can eat a Linux distro without indigestion), and go.

Re:What's the big deal?

[rifter]

Riiight.. and I am sure you will have it ready for us tomorrow... with source posted. :P

Re:What's the big deal?

[thales]

"Well, who's going to provide the installer?"

Redhat. The Anaconda installer is GPL software.

Re:What's the big deal?

[sylvester]

What if they modify the code so it only compiles on a special in-house compiler?

That's a pretty interesting question. I think that the following section address that:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

however, it continues to exclude the distribution of the compiler and such:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

My guess is that if you made trivial, obfuscating changes to the code (and then a compiler that compiled those changes), a judge would find you in violation of the first part quoted above. Whereas if you made a useful change to the language, the compiler would become part of what you were required to distribute. That's definitely not clear to me, though.

IANAL, but I might be someday...

Re:What's the big deal?

[Linux_ho]

Caldera also has a GPL'd installer called Lizard, tho I would probably use Redat's Anaconda.

Re:What's the big deal?

[RevAaron]

Man, it's sure sad when the AC trolls are the ones who are more and more telling the truth...

Re:What's the big deal?

[RevAaron]

But ... but ... who will find the time to put it together with mkisofs?! OH THE HUMANITY!

;)

Re:What's the big deal?

[RevAaron]

No, I get it. And sure I care. Since when does 'caring' mean that I have to whine like everyone else about not getting everything on a silver platter?

If they're providing source for free, it's most likely under some sort of open source license. That's where they get the moniker "open source;" because it's open and available. The issue here isn't making the source available- it's simple about people being pissy because they're not having it compiled in advance for them. Period.

But any Joe Sixpack- like you or me- could create this ISO for the packages with source provided. We don't know specifically those that will not have source, but AFAWK, it's all of them. So get over it, man. Arguing for it's own sake isn't worth the time.

Or maybe you just don't get it. I'd love to explain it again- just let me know what doesn't make sense to you.

United Linux wants to stay in business

[GoatPigSheep]

Maybe some people have not noticed, but very few linux companies are successful. Perhaps by actually 'selling' software (as in not giving it away for free on the net), it's possible united linux may even be profitable.

Look at windows, it is expensive, it cost ALOT of money to develope for, and it is used in 90% of all desktop pcs. Is there something wrong with this system? United linux can offer a solution to windows that is cheaper and more functional, and by not giving it away for free they can also stay in business.

Besides, United linux is targeted at business users... They have money, they can afford licenses. Why is it that when a large company promotes linux in a way that is profitable people complain? They are helping create a larger linux user base! Don't mess it up!

In the perfect world, everything would be free... But nowadays, especially in the tech world were many companies are dead or dying, you sometimes have to accept that giving away everything for free might not be the right format for success.

Re:United Linux wants to stay in business

[Anonymous Coward]

It got 90% market share because it's forced on everyone... you cant buy a computer without it, and a company isnt about to throw it away..

If companies knew the real costs of being microsoft based they'd switch in an instant... and gladly, the BSA and Microsoft are making businesses aware of the costs... so the switch will come.

Re:United Linux wants to stay in business

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason I want to see a larger user base for Linux is because of its sharing philosophy.

The difference with Windows is that MS wrote (most) of the code, whereas UnitedLinux are just (mostly) repackaging what other people have wrote and already given away for free. So good luck if can make a profit, but not at the cost of pissing the community off.

And there's no such word as 'ALOT'. Two words: A LOT. A LOT. A LOT. A, space, LOT. Aaaaargh!!!

Re:United Linux wants to stay in business

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot will soon be one word, welcome to the evolution of the english language

Re:United Linux wants to stay in business

[GigsVT]

OK, why didn't anyone tell me this was "Mod Trolls Up Day"?

Re:United Linux wants to stay in business

[GoatPigSheep]

it's not forced on anyone it's just become standard, if something better comes out and people know about it they will switch (better also means easy to use)

Re:United Linux wants to stay in business

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year Redhat made ~$90 million!!! not a bad profit at all... it defeats the argument that a company with free distribution can't make money - moreover they actually make a loss on each downloaded ISO (bandwidth costs)!

It will take a high quality distribution, and very effective marketing to try to topple or even compete with Redhat in the corporate market, I'd need to see something pretty amazing to be swayed.

Re:United Linux wants to stay in business

[Chris Johnson]

Linux itself is a rejection of the statement, "you sometimes have to accept that giving away everything for free might not be the right format for success."

HTH, HAND, etc, foad ;) Nice, subtle troll tho...

Re:United Linux wants to stay in business

[NineNine]

Last year Redhat made ~$90 million!!

Wow. And people say that MS spreads "FUD". Next time, try spending a few seconds of research as opposed to believing everything you read, kid.

Redhat lost over $100 million in 2001

Re:United Linux wants to stay in business

[NDPTAL85]

Actually if you count the BitKeeper being involved in the Linux kernel development then Linux is NOT a rejection of that statement.

big friggin deal

[tongue]

So what? as everyone else has already noted, why are binaries a requirement? sure, they're convenient--that's why they're charging for them. its the basis for value-added resellers. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

I don't particularly think this distribution is going to go anywhere--just what the world needs, another flavor of linux. geez folks, why don't you do something original and make a new BSD distribution? that would actually be worth something--make sure all the linux binaries can run on it, and all the necessary stuff is ready, like java, etc. that's one i might pay for.

Re:big friggin deal

[pjrc]

If you look around the world of free software (or open source, or whatever you want to call it), you'll see that there are a LOT of projects that aren't included in distributions.

One good example, and a project that I've made some small contributions into, is SDCC - Small Device C Compiler. Like many projects, there's a CVS server, nightly snapshots (source tarballs), and even nightly binary builds for linux and win32.

Do the linux builts work on Redhat 7.2? Yes, I have Redhat 7.2 on my system, and so do other active developers.

Do the win32 builds work on Windows 98SE and 2000? Yes. None of the developers uses windows, but many users regularily download the win32 builds on these 'doze systems. When bugs have turned up one these systems, the developer mail list and bug tracker have filled with bug reports.

Do those win32 builds also work on windows XP and windows 95? Good Question. A number of non-developers have probably tried it on XP by now, but are any users really still running it on '95? Who knows.

Long ago, the code could compile with Borland C. Developers using linux-based systems started cross compiling and building under Borland was broken for a very long time until someone reported it. Borland support has never been restored (no active developers care, and mingw as a cross compiler can be fully automated by the nightly builds)

Does the code compile and run on PPC? Yes, one of the developers has a PPC box, so this definately works. Which distro works for PCC... better ask Michael.

Does it work on Debian? Yep, several active developers use Debian... and there was recently an announcement that it's available with apt-get. Debian and RedHat 7.x are the only two distros that are really gaurenteed to work.

Does it build on MacOS-X? Nope, but a couple of OS-X users have joined the developer mail list and it's probably a matter of time until the OS-X issues are worked out, but at least it is know that there is a problem on OS-X (I think someone submitted a patch but it hasn't found its way into CVS).

Will it work on UnitedLinux?? Who knows? Nobody involved with this project has UnitedLinux, and it doesn't look like anyone will. RedHat 7.2 works great for me, and since these "business oriented" linux vendors aren't going to provide me with a cheap/free cdrom or network install, why would I bother. They're focused on serving the "business server market", so there won't be anything interesting about UnitedLinux to make it worthwhile for me to bother installing (not to mention paying for). I'm certainly not going to waste my time to compile an entire linux distribution. I'd much rather spend the time getting to understand the register allocator code better and make more significant contributions to SDCC. I'd be very suprised if any other developers lifted a finger to test UnitedLinux.

So the subject, "big friggen deal" couldn't be more appropriate. As a developer (primarily firmware, using tools like SDCC), I'd say "big friggen deal" about UnitedLinux. Caldera, TurboLinux, et all probably say "big friggen deal" with respect to SDCC, since their customers aren't developers, and they certainly aren't developing firmware for low-end 8-bit microcontrollers.

So if with want something "business oriented", supposedly with "world class support" from the likes of Caldera (or you just want to pay them a lot for something that's roughly equivilant to Redhat), then maybe UnitedLinux is for you.

But, if instead, you're interested in using the linux distribution with the most "third party" software that's tested and known to work, your best best is going to be with RedHat or Debian. (FWIW, you might pause to wonder why Windows is so popular).

By not building "mind share" among software developers, how can they ever expect third party software to be tested with their distrbution?

Re:big friggin deal

[SN74S181]

A number of non-developers have probably tried it on XP by now, but are any users really still running it on '95?

You're talking about a programming tool for embedded controller developers. There are probably plenty of people with Windows 95 machines on their workbench running the compiler you mentioned. Hell, all that means is they've probably got expensive hardware, i.e. emulators, etc. that run on Windows 95 better than they do on anything 'newer' that doesn't have the 16 bit subsystem. Legacy OSes are important to people who aren't on an upgrade treadmill. My EPROM Programmer runs under DOS, is pretty good under Windows 95, and becomes problematic as the DOS compatability withers away in subsequent Windows versions.

Where I've been doing contract work, there are machines running DOS with dual floppy drives driving some of the test equipment. Test equipment worth thousands of dollars.

'Obsolete' is a marketing concept.

Re:big friggin deal

[tongue]

Honestly, I don't think they're too worried about winning mindshare--they don't want to compete with open source developers. i'm guessing they want to develop their own products and sell them. And anyway, it sounds like UL's problem, not ours; I don't see why we should get our panties in a wad simply because "OHMYGODICANTTESTONTHATPLATFORM". There's plenty enough to do in the opensource world without throwing another "standard driven" distribution into the mix.

oh, and moderators: my first comment wasn't flamebait, it was a troll. learn the friggin difference.

Re:big friggin deal

[joto]

geez folks, why don't you do something original and make a new BSD distribution?

You may not have noticed, but Apple has done exactly this.

Re:big friggin deal

[Tony-A]

It is a big deal. This is from a different angle.
Red Hat Professional Server. 6.2, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3. Never really got past the first 2 (now 3) CD's. I've never used Red Hat's installation support. Other than downloading updates, often from mirrors, I've pretty much ignored RedHat.com. For what I'm doing it doesn't even make much difference which version I'm using. I am NOT being taken advantage of. If anything, I'm taking advantage of Red Hat and the various people that download it for free. It addition to third party software, bugs in edge and corner cases tend to show up in the fringes rather than the mainline. Bluntly, if you download Red Hat for free, it makes the Red Hat I pay for more valuable because you will run into and fix problems before I encounter them.

Re:big friggin deal

[tongue]

Touche`; true enough. except afaik, darwin doesn't run linux binaries any better than anyone else--not that it really matters.

So?

[Burgundy Advocate]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's legal.

Whether it "sits well with you" or not doesn't matter. What matters is how they handle their company and corporate image (as in: how other businesses see them). If they're within the GPL/LGPL licence bounds then quite frankly I don't see what the problem is, and I doubt any corporate United Linux customer will care if the distro offends a few sensibilities.

If they can come up with an innovative way to sell Linux, more power to them. They'll be doing something nobody else has been able to do.

Re:So?

[martyn s]

This is such a flawed argument. This forum is designed to spread information and to express your opinion about things. We are simply registering disgust with the way these linux distro's are getting together and distorting and defiling linux and the linux spirit.

Being innovative shouldn't be an excuse to be slimy. Like you said, it's legal, but the law isn't the only way of deciding what is right and wrong. If we simply ignored it by saying it's legal, we'd be giving up our way of settling outside the law: bad PR, bad word of mouth, and generally negative opinions all around.

How do you come here and say "but it's legal" with a straight face? Who said anything about legality? Get with it.

Re:So?

[The Cat]

In other words, they're only in it to make money, right? (Now in fourth place as the current most overused and flawed argument)

Guess what? Business isn't and shouldn't be *only* about making money. Businesses only concerned with making money usually don't produce much of value.

Re:So?

[Malcontent]

I have said this before on slashdot (and got moderated down for it) but this post says it much better then I have in the past.

Capitalism and ethics (or morality) are mutually exclusive concepts. Capitalism is about making money morality is about making better human beings.

Re:So?

[pete-classic]

You were probably modded down for being both off-topic and wrong.

First off, your definition of morality is out of line with commonly accepted definitions and is self-serving. Morality is about behaving in a way that is "right," not about "making better human beings." My following argument, however, will stand using either definition.

Adhering to a code of ethics might be a competitive disadvantage, but it is certainly not contrary to capitalism.

OTOH, a system of public ownership of capital is a disincentive to productive labor. History shows that this creates uniform poverty, and is therefore an immoral system.

An ideal system would create incentives to productive labor that would create a uniformly wealthy society. Sadly, there is no known system that matches this description.

So, capitalism is the optimal system, given the conditions of the planet and the nature of man, that is known at this time.

Hopefully one of these factors will change, or a new system will be devised that is closer to ideal than capitalism.

Until such a time the only "moral" course of action is to operate under the best system available to us. Objectively, given what we know about conditions around the world historically and currently, that system is capitalism.

-Peter

Re:So?

[Arandir]

You were modded down in the past because you can't even bother to get a dictionary and look up the word "exclusive".

Making money and bettering humanity are not mutually exclusive concepts. Some people who want to make money don't want to better humanity, and some people who want to better humanity don't want to make money. But I suspect that 99% of people want to BOTH make money and better humanity.

Oh, when you get that dictionary, also look up "capitalism" and "ethics"...

Re:So?

[snol]

The parent of your post oversimplified it, but there is some point to what he's saying. In the current system in the US, if the board of a publicly-held corporation makes decisions that don't maximize profit, shareholders can sue. (Correct me if I too am oversimplifying.) This basically forces corporations to maximize profit regardless of ethics. Saying the two are mutually exclusive isn't quite right, but profit is almost always unrelated to and often at odds with ethics.

Re:So?

[Malcontent]

It's apparent to me that you have given this matter no thought whatsoever.

First of all making a better human being is not the same thing as bettering humanity. So your whole argument is moot because you could not even read my post correctly and form a response to it.

And before you go on about how accumulating wealth makes one a more moral or ethical person you should pick up the religious text of your choice and try and find where your god tells you to go forth and be rich.

Re:So?

[pete-classic]

First, you have shifted the subject from "capitalism" to "the current system in the US." The two really aren't interchangeable. I certainly don't intend to give unqualified support to "the current system in the US" which is clearly less than perfect. OTOH, it is a good system on the whole and I do defend it as an example of capitalism. My point is that we can't have a rational discussion if we pull the topical rug out from under each other like that.

Now, many people choose to act in an immoral or unethical way for personal gain. Capitalism is not able to prevent that, but I don't see how it particularly encourages it. I think that we could give examples tit-for-tat of how this manifests in different systems, but I don't see any point.

You both seem to be implying an accusation that capitalism creates or encourages immoral/unethical behavior, so let me pose this back to you as a question: Can either of you name an economic system that is better at discouraging unethical and immoral behavior than capitalism?

I don't deny that people behave badly under capitalism, but I fail to see a causal link. As my scientist friend would say "correlation does not imply causation."

The one differentiating feature of capitalism is that "the market" can exert some pressure on those who are perceived as immoral or unethical.

-Peter

Re:So?

[Graymalkin]

By telling me not to steal.

Re:So?

[Malcontent]

"First off, your definition of morality is out of line with commonly accepted definitions"

Morality is a religious concept. Mores (or ethics) are a secular concept. Although we can argue about the definition of ethics there is less wiggle room with morality. Morality is very much what your religion commands you to do. Since America is a christian nation (by and large) I am using the christian definition of morality. Which definition of morality are you using?

"Morality is about behaving in a way that is "right," not about "making better human beings.""

You are wrong about that I am afraid. Morality is exactly about making a better human being (actually it's more about trying to attain spiritual purity but it's presumed to be the same thing). You once again have confused ethics and morality.

"Adhering to a code of ethics might be a competitive disadvantage, but it is certainly not contrary to capitalism."

Since capitism is about accumulating wealth and since there is no moral (or ethical) imperitive to accumulate wealth they are indeed opposites. Certainly no religious text ever said "path to god is through accumulating wealth" in fact the opposite is usually true "it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then a camel to go though the eye of a needle" and all that.

"So, capitalism is the optimal system, given the conditions of the planet and the nature of man, that is known at this time."

An odd thing to say. Man is by nature greedy and selfish that is why capitalism works. Capitalism recognized the inherent greed of humans, resigns to it, and attempts to build a system within that framework. Morality on the other hand tries to make people not greedy and selfish. All moral and ethical frameworks exhort people to set aside their greed and think of the greater good while capitalism encourages people to be as selfish as possible. That is why they are opposing forces.

"Hopefully one of these factors will change, or a new system will be devised that is closer to ideal than capitalism."

Capitalism will crumble only when people are not greedy and selfish. That will never come (says me anyway). All religious and spiritual people (not me) believe in their hearts that people can change, can become better then their animal selves and evolve to be a enlightened human being. Once enlightened people will stop thinking of themselves and dedicate themselves to god and serving the rest of humanity. If they are right AND if that ever happens capitalism will crumble. At that point morality will win it's war with capitalism. Until then capitalism will kick moralities ass like a left handed stepchild.

"Until such a time the only "moral" course of action is to operate under the best system available to us."

Morality is not about "making the best of it". It's about absolutes. You are talking about moral relativism which most religious people reject. Morality is to struggle against the material world and not be tempted by it's lures but to continue to seek enlightenment.

and is self-serving. Morality is about behaving in a way that is "right," not about "making better human beings." My following argument, however, will stand using either definition."

Re:So?

[Peter Harris]

So, capitalism is the optimal system, given the conditions of the planet and the nature of man, that is known at this time. Hopefully one of these factors will change, or a new system will be devised that is closer to ideal than capitalism.

Well, we could have had "Unification" but it costs 6 points and we really needed "Rich home world" and "Creative". :)

Re:So?

[pete-classic]

Well, for the record I don't believe in anything meta-physical. I try to avoid the label "atheist" because many who call themselves atheist would more accurately be "anti-theists" but strictly speaking I am one.

As for definitions

WordNet says:

morality
n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

and Merriam-Webster's says:

1: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

Neither mention religion. Perhaps you believe that objective right and wrong can only exists in the context of a supreme being? In any case I don't. I try (with a reasonable amount of success) to be a moral person without one.

Can you give me any reference that morality specifically denotes the religious? Clearly Christianity is the basis for the Western take on morality, but I think you are making an unwarranted linguistic leap.

Since capitism is about accumulating wealth and since there is no moral (or ethical) imperitive to accumulate wealth they are indeed opposites.

In all seriousness, is English your first language? What do you think opposite means? The opposite of wealth is poverty. The opposite of morality is immorality. Wealth and immorality are in no way opposite. People often face the choice between an action that is moral and one that will result in personal gain. I had a choice today at lunch between a hamburger and tacos, but they are not opposites.

Back to WordNet:

opposite
n 1: two words that express opposing concepts; "to him the opposite of gay was depressed"

Morality is not about "making the best of it". It's about absolutes. You are talking about moral relativism which most religious people reject.

No, the opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, not admitting that it is an imperfect world. I am a moral absolutist (if you like) and the objectively right system (again, given the state of man's nature an knowledge) is capitalism, because it minimizes suffering and maximizes prosperity.

I don't think that even the most religious believe that Earth can be made a paradise without divine intervention!

Capitalism will crumble only when people are not greedy and selfish. That will never come (says me anyway). All religious and spiritual people (not me) believe in their hearts that people can change, can become better then their animal selves and evolve to be a enlightened human being. Once enlightened people will stop thinking of themselves and dedicate themselves to god and serving the rest of humanity. If they are right AND if that ever happens capitalism will crumble. At that point morality will win it's war with capitalism. Until then capitalism will kick moralities ass like a left handed stepchild.

Hmm, you seem to be arguing that capitalism is "wrong" yet is the only workable system due to human nature. I would contend that capitalism is the only workable solution due to human nature, and therefor is the right way to go.

-Peter

Re:So?

[NineNine]

In other words, they're only in it to make money, right? (Now in fourth place as the current most overused and flawed argument)

Guess what? Business isn't and shouldn't be *only* about making money. Businesses only concerned with making money usually don't produce much of value.

I hereby bestow on you naive post of the day. Congratulations!

Re:So?

[Fjord]

The fact of the matter is that we aren't talking about a law that was passed without our input. Developers who release GPLed code agree to license their code on those terms. If they didn't like the stipulations in the GPL, then they should have picked a different license for their code or not extended a GPL project (the 2 ways to end up with GPLed code). If a developer thinks this is wrong, then why did they license their code with these terms?

Re:So?

[Malcontent]

Once again how is not stealing the same as accumulating wealth?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's preventing someone else from accumulating wealth. A very nice thing to do for the other person.

Re:So?

[Arandir]

And before you go on about how accumulating wealth makes one a more moral or ethical person...

I never claimed that. It is my opinion that the accumulation of wealth is unrelated to being a moral or ethical person.

Re:So?

[martyn s]

Arg, I hate these kind of arguments. We both agree on the essential facts, but you're saying I shouldn't have a right to register disgust simply because they are legally allowed to do what they are doing. I, for one, do not require permission to register disgust.

Re:So?

[Fjord]

you're saying I shouldn't have a right to register disgust

Where did I say this? My post was directed at your second paragraph, where you imply that UnitedLinux is being slimy and that the law isn't the only way of determining right and wrong. No where do I (nor, in fact, does the grandparent post so I don't know where it came into the conversation) say you don't have the right to register these opinions. I just give my opinion that in this case looking at the legality is appropriate.

As far as arguments I hate, it's the ones where words I would never say are put into my mouth and deconstructed.

Re:So?

[Malcontent]

"It is my opinion that the accumulation of wealth is unrelated to being a moral or ethical person."

Intersting opinion and I suppose you are entitled to it. However Jesus and Budha disagree with you as they have both stated unequavically that accumulation of wealth is detrimental to moral life. Mohammed had less problems with wealth or at least he didn't speak much about it.

Re:So?

[Malcontent]

"Can you give me any reference that morality specifically denotes the religious? Clearly Christianity is the basis for the Western take on morality, but I think you are making an unwarranted linguistic leap."

No I can't give you a reference off the of my head. It's just what I was thought in school. Morality is a religious term, ethics is a secular term. Even terms like good and evil are religous terms.

"Hmm, you seem to be arguing that capitalism is "wrong" yet is the only workable system due to human nature."

I don't say capitalism is wrong (that's a secular term) only immoral, specifically against the teachings of christianity which teaches that things like accumulating wealth and usury are immoral sins and are not condusive to spiritual enlightment.

"I would contend that capitalism is the only workable solution due to human nature, and therefor is the right way to go."

Well that certianly is a utilitarian view and the philosophical war between the the utilitarians and the religous have been fought for centuries now.

As I said. Capitalism works because people are selfish and greedy (evil in religous terms). If people ever achieve enlightenment capitalism will collapse. It exists only as long as people are evil.

Re:So?

[Arandir]

I'm not a Buddhist scholar, but I do know a bit about the Bible and the New Testament. Can you cite where Jesus states that the accumulation of wealth is detrimental to moral life? I don't mean the obsessive pursuit of wealth, or the placing of wealth at the top of your priorities, or anything like that. Just the accumulation of wealth itself.

Re:So?

[pete-classic]

"Can you give me any reference that morality specifically denotes the religious? Clearly Christianity is the basis for the Western take on morality, but I think you are making an unwarranted linguistic leap."

No I can't give you a reference off the [sic] of my head. It's just what I was thought [sic] in school. Morality is a religious term, ethics is a secular term. Even terms like good and evil are religous terms.

Well, teachers aren't gods, and what is rattling around in your head doesn't define the language. Many of your arguments seem to be build on your somewhat quirky interpretation of the meanings of some pretty fundamental words.

What words mean matters. Consensus on what words mean is the foundation of communication. Third party references are the only reasonable way to settle disagreements over the meanings of words.

Ideas are made up of words. If you are operating under your own non-standard language you will be trapped in your own unique world of ideas that can't be expressed to or influenced by the outside world.

There are several good online dictionaries. I personally like Merriam-Webster's very much. KDE has an application called Kdict which will bring up definitions of any word you highlight in almost any application. (Works with moz which is GTK+ based.) It uses WordNet and Webster's 1913 dictionary which is very good. There is a web interface to Websters 1913 at the U of Chicago. I also keep an old Websters (1969) handy. I got it at a used book store for six bucks.

My point is that sticking by a your personal definition of a word in the absence of any third party reference shuts down rational discourse. Even worse, it leaves you with a skewed perception of what other people are saying, and causes what you say to have a meaning other than what you intended.

Good luck.

-Peter

Re:So?

[Malcontent]

What a silly thing to say. If what yousaid was true there would be no need to teach anything except the dictionary. Sure words have meanings but those meanings are hotly debated all the time. I think I received a pretty well rounded education and took my share of philosphy and comparitive religion courses. I am not making up these things. You don't want to accept them that's up to you. There is a reason why we have different words for ethics, mores, and morals it's because they mean different things. I am telling you that the word morals are used to indicate religous concepts and the word ethics or mores are used to indicate secular concepts. This is a pretty well accepted terminology and is taught in most 100 level philosophy courses in the nation. Perhaps you could pick up an ethics textbook and confirm it yourself.

Re:So?

[pete-classic]

What a silly thing to say. If what yousaid [sic] was true there would be no need to teach anything except the dictionary.

I have no idea what you are responding to, but I am sure I didn't say anything that supports your conclusion. Of course I did say things that suggest that vocabulary is an important part of education. Would you disagree?

You have thrice gratuitously asserted that the word moral denotes the religious. As a student of philosophy you are surely aware of the principal Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur (what is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied).

I submit that we aren't debating. I have provided two references that support my claim that you are incorrect. You have simply insisted. (A la Monty Python "That isn't an argument, it is a simple contradiction!")

Am I expected to provide references to back up your argument?!

-Peter

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not ignorant. He's insightful, interesting, and informative. Slashdot has proved this by moderating him as such.

You, on the other hand, are a troll.

HTH HAND

Repeating Caldera's mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Although Caldera was the first major commercial distribution, it never achieved popularity. Caldera distanced itself from the core Linux community, always remaining something of an outsider.

Red Hat, despite occasional faux pas, has been an intregal part of the Linux community from its outset. Where Caldera was primarily a consumer of OSS technology, Red Hat was at the forefront as a producer, giving back millions of dollars in professionally developed software. Most of all, Red Hat has made their distribution easily and freely accessible to anyone with a net connection.

SuSe, Caldera, et al, appear to be ready to board a doomed ship. Folks at work will recommend what they use at home. And most of the time that will be Red Hat. The others, by cutting off the community, also cut off a future pool of admins and consultants--who is going to administer their "United Linux" systems?

Good news for Red Hat. Bad news for the rest.

Re:Repeating Caldera's mistake

[peterdaly]

AC Wrote:
The others, by cutting off the community, also cut off a future pool of admins and consultants--who is going to administer their "United Linux" systems?
---

Well, duh. The displaced SCO admins who have kept up with the times. Caldera aleady has mindshare with them...both of them. Why else you you think they bought SCO?

-Pete

Re:Repeating Caldera's mistake

[Rayder]

It's true that they are repeating (in part) the mistake of Caldera, the market now are mainly Linux developers, Linux enthusiasts, and Linux Administrators, that's the very first wave of Linux adoption in the market To this market, the move from UnitedLinux are wrong, and I'm pretty sure that they will not be popular among them.

But, the market now is changing, IBM, HP and Sun are injecting new customers to the Linux wave, and those customers are not "emotionally" tied to the Linux development, it's not "his baby" (at least how I feel it), for them Linux it's just a damm good tool, and for some of them the escape way to Microsoft domination, to this new customers UnitedLinux will be just another distro with more common business options, so for them will be a perfectly viable option.

Re:Repeating Caldera's mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

> The others, by cutting off the
community, also cut off a future pool of admins
and consultants--who is going to administer their
"United Linux" systems?

You're saying these admins and consultants will turn down paying work on a very RedHat-like system because of this? Certainly any competent Linux admin could handle a UL system, so it would have to be a matter of "no, I don't work on UL systems" attitude.

Not a big deal.

[tftp]

"They" are within their rights to package whatever they want - GPLed or BSD, or XFree... so there can be no complaints about that.

But if they don't provide binary distribution to a "common man", for free, then that common man is not going to buy their distribution at work, and is not going to recommend it to anyone. If they are crazy enough to believe that they can sell UL directly to a PHB bypassing PHB's own engineers, they live in a fantasy world. I personally control and dictate use of all open-sourced software in the company; good luck with your UL distro here.

Re:Not a big deal.

[Phroggy]

If they are crazy enough to believe that they can sell UL directly to a PHB bypassing PHB's own engineers, they live in a fantasy world.

Oh come on, why do you think Windows is so popular in business? Microsoft does EXACTLY this!

(Yes, Microsoft ALSO does as much brainwashing as possible so that if the PHB asks an MCSE what to buy, Microsoft still wins. But I've heard of a lot of places switching to Windows despite the objections of the engineers. Often the engineers are replaced by MCSEs that won't complain so much.)

Re:Not a big deal.

[Anomolous Cow Herd]

Question: when you say "engineers", do you mean people who are part of a professional engineering association, or do you mean "a bunch of jackoff code monkies from community colleges"?

It's always been mightily confusing to me when people use the term "engineer" and talk about OS advocacy in the same breath.

Re:Not a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people in the 'advocacy' community have never even met a professional trained Engineer.

Remember, these are the people who worship the 'Sysadmin' position. Sysadmins are basically this decade's boyhood role models. Just like Railroad 'engineers' used to be in part of the last century.

Re:Not a big deal.

[walt-sjc]

Windows != Linux.

Choosing which flavor of Linux is not the same as choosing windows over linux, sun, OS/400, or Mac. PHB's are MANY more times likely to support techs in which linux distro to use than they are for Windows versus something else.

First, Windows is a monopoly, and only MS makes it. You can say "Let's use Linux" and have hundreds of distros to choose from. If you have decided to use Linux, why choose a distro that behaves like UL? Why not RedHat or debian? UL does NOT have the same weight as MS, and the issues are VERY different.

Second, Win is popular in business because of the monopoly. Kinda hard to communicate with others if you use non-win when you are basically forced to use the defacto standard MS file formats. Yeah, yeah, Open office, but import filters suck, even in the latest version. Specialized Win only apps just clinch it.

Re:Not a big deal.

[Phroggy]

Question: when you say "engineers", do you mean people who are part of a professional engineering association, or do you mean "a bunch of jackoff code monkies from community colleges"?

Closer to the latter; I only used that word because it's what the person I was replying to used.

Re:Not a big deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gah! Who does *that*? I'd gnaw my left leg off before being coerced into *wanting* to be a sysadmin. Sure I'd do it for pay if I couldn't find better work but heck, isn't it buckets more fun being a developer? I *love* not having to carry to be on call with a pager any everything.

I just spent the last two months reverse engineering Xerox's Metacode printer file format. The chances I'd get to do something like that as an admin are slightly less than nil.

Foo on that. Josh ; http://www.greentechnologist.org

What does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like the maiden voyage of the titanic.

No, its worse. You know its going to sink to the bottom.

So don't get upset, its irrelevant.

Re:What does it matter?

[Srin Tuar]

This is like the maiden voyage of the titanic.

No, its worse. You know its going to sink to the bottom.

Not really, we dont know if it's going to sink.
The main difference I see is that the titanic actually had passengers ...

What is with you people?

[brsmith4]

Wah... they aren't providing free binaries, wah wah, boo hoo hoo. Its seems you people have gotten so used to having stuff handed to you that you forgot the one important rule in business: YOU HAVE TO MAKE MONEY TO STAY IN BUSINESS. The whole free software, give it away, download it for free strategy is a bad system to base a business off of. Even RedHat is having a miserable time making money (let me rephrase: staying profitable) off of a free operating system. Here is one thing: they are providing the source for free... Jesus christ, what more do you want? A suse rep. to come to your door and install it for you???? Someone is bound to compile it and distribute binary copies to everyone. Just relax, stop complaining, and someone please inform me, with your infinite wisdom, why UL is destined to fail? I just don't see it.

Re:What is with you people?

[josh crawley]

This looks fun. You look like the exact person you use as an example...

"Wah... they aren't providing free binaries, wah wah, boo hoo hoo."

See everybody.. He's crying already.

"Its seems you people have gotten so used to having stuff handed to you that you forgot the one important rule in business: YOU HAVE TO MAKE MONEY TO STAY IN BUSINESS."

What about all the GNU software on their linux distro? That ISN'T a business: It's free work done by volunteers. Also, it seems that distro's done by the actual users , like Slackware, Debian, Pentagram Linux (whatever the one is you 'summon' packages (cool, but hate the download)), are of much better quality than business linux packages. Anyways, the last time I tried swapping kernels on RH (6.1), I ended up with kernel panic (and yes, I did it right).

"The whole free software, give it away, download it for free strategy is a bad system to base a business off of."

Cause it WASN'T started at businesses. It was started as a volunteers donating to their cause (whatever it may be). Enough different causes created what Linux (the whole conglomerate OS) is today.

"Even RedHat is having a miserable time making money (let me rephrase: staying profitable) off of a free operating system."

They've managed to do it so far. They are a service company than an OS one. "You tell us what you want and we'll design it for this price. MS can do at 2x the hardware and 10x the price. Who do you want?"

"Here is one thing: they are providing the source for free... Jesus christ, what more do you want?"

I want many things, but that's not applicable in this conversation.

"A suse rep. to come to your door and install it for you????"

If I pay the 24/7/365 Linux Engineer costs, you damn right he'd better come.

"Someone is bound to compile it and distribute binary copies to everyone. Just relax, stop complaining, and someone please inform me, with your infinite wisdom, why UL is destined to fail? I just don't see it."

Nobody's (body as in person) going to buy this software. Corporates are. Money from corporatiosn is NO different than money from indivudials.

Re:What is with you people?

[brsmith4]

LOL - I knew i was gonna get flamed sooner or later... Lets start:

"What about all the GNU software on their linux distro? That ISN'T a business: It's free work done by volunteers. Also, it seems that distro's done by the actual users , like Slackware, Debian, Pentagram Linux (whatever the one is you 'summon' packages (cool, but hate the download)), are of much better quality than business linux packages. Anyways, the last time I tried swapping kernels on RH (6.1), I ended up with kernel panic (and yes, I did it right).

And your point??? Did i say anything about these organizations? If its a FREE group, non-profit, its obviously going to work fine for them.

"See everybody.. He's crying already."

If i have to explain this to you, you aren't worth my time anyway

Cause it WASN'T started at businesses. It was started as a volunteers donating to their cause (whatever it may be). Enough different causes created what Linux (the whole conglomerate OS) is today.

Thank you for explaining that to me, oh wise one. That whole concept just perplexed me... I see clearly now. Now, what was the point in telling me that??? I know this already. It obviously works great as a NOT-FOR-PROFIT model. As for a profitable business enterprise, it makes a great splash (RedHat's IPO) but doesn't last.

They've managed to do it so far. They are a service company than an OS one. "You tell us what you want and we'll design it for this price. MS can do at 2x the hardware and 10x the price. Who do you want?"

Are they really profitable right now?

United Binary Linux

[blixel]

First off: I'm not stating this is a good idea.

But ... just to be an ass ... what is to stop me from downloading their source code, making my own binaries and then rereleasing a "United Binary Linux" distro? That doesn't violate any license agreement that I know of.

Re:United Binary Linux

[blixel]

Note to self: UBL is a horrible acronym for a distribution. Could be confused with Usama Bin Laden.

Re:United Binary Linux

[Daemonik]

First, you can only recompile and distribute the code that is covered by the GPL. Any code that UL has developed will be theirs, so you'll come out with a half assed incomplete distro to start with.

Then, after you've rounded up all the pieces that were missing after you removed all the non-GPL code, and got that working, you'd be sued for trademark infringement because United Binary Linux sounds too similar to United Linux and as an entity defames their product.

Kinda the same outlook MS has taken on Lindows similarities to the Windows name. Unlike Windows, however, you'll have no leg to stand on because United Linux can not be considered a generic computer term.

And that's why you can't do it.

Re:United Binary Linux

[OriginalUsername]

Note to you: write "notes to self" on back of hand. Easier to find than comment on BBS.

Re:United Binary Linux

[blixel]

And that's why you can't do it.

Ah. I see.

Re:United Binary Linux

[ahde]

First of all, you can't use YAST2, their installer, so you'll have to write your own. Then you'll have to figure out all the dependencies. Some of them may not be open source. It'd be quicker to start from scratch.

The potential damaging effects of this strategy

[hillct]

While there is no technical violation of the GPL here, there is a deterrent to contributing to OSS projects, as you say, with the knowledge that your software will be subverted in this way.

On the other hand, all we're really talking about is filesystem layouts and perhaps makefile adjustments. The actions of the UnitedLinux group will simply cause developers to state that their software is explicitly NOT CERTIFIED (by the developers) for use on UnitedLinux, which would be particularly damaging to the distro companies, if enough large projects made this statement. Realistically though, these companies will come to their senses. There's no valid reason to anger developers in this way, because there are enough steps the developers could take to prevent use of their software on any particular distribution.

In not, this will be a big win for Microsoft, as large numbers of developers abandon OSS projects in favor of other hobbies.

--CTH

Re:The potential damaging effects of this strategy

[idiotnot]

The actions of the UnitedLinux group will simply cause developers to state that their software is explicitly NOT CERTIFIED (by the developers) for use on UnitedLinux, which would be particularly damaging to the distro companies, if enough large projects made this statement.

From the GPL...

" 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

Emphasis added on my part. UL isn't in violation of the GPL, but developers who impose such restrictions are. They'd have to use a different license. I recall one of the *BSD firewall guys who didn't want his software used in military projects...it had to be pulled from a few things because of that restriction.

All that said, UL has noble goals but bad execution, and I blame most of it on Caldera. The concept of per-seat licenses is antithetical to what Linux is about. I don't have a problem with per-seat support. The concept of the BSA coming after people for using pirated copies of UL....disgusting.

Furthermore, I think much of the ire aimed at RedHat within the Linux community is misplaced (I use primarily Debian, but I've also got a box running RedHat and one running Mandrake). RedHat releases its code under the GPL and gives qutie a bit back to the community. What the hell has Caldera done? A unified set of core components is a good idea, but not the way that UL is going about it with Caldera's direction.

Re:The potential damaging effects of this strategy

[ahde]

maintaining makefiles is probably the single hardest part of developing software

Re:The potential damaging effects of this strategy

[cpeterso]

After many years of GPL zealots shouting for open-source free software, UnitedLinux delivers a Linux distro with free source code (but charges for binaries). Now GPL zealots are shouting for free binaries?

Re:The potential damaging effects of this strategy

[erat]

I'll agree with you on the point that there is no GPL violation here. What I find particularly interesting is the fact that RMS himself is endorsing just such boycotts and restrictions, and he's responsible for the license that these actions would violate. Kind of odd if you'd ask me.

Now, on to Caldera.

The concept of per-seat licenses is nothing new, and to be honest it's what many large companies want. If you think Caldera did that to make tons of money, look at their numbers. There's more behind a per-seat license than money. Perception is everything, and other than the IBMs and Calderas of the world, the Linux realm *appears* to be dominated by hackers and zealots. This is not the case, of course -- not everyone who uses Linux considers it a religious or political revolution -- but that's the perception.

As for what Caldera has done for the Linux community... I guess the work they've done on the following don't matter:

PPP
IPX
PCMCIA
RPM
Red Hat's graphic tools (netcfg, printtool, etc.)
OpenSLP
OpenWBEM
Saving Netscape on Linux (would Mozilla even exist?)
NFS
SPX
Financial support for XFree86

I'm sure there are others, but as with all the other times I (and other folks) have posted such information here on Slashdot, it will probably all be ignored anyway so why bother...

Re:Geography for the brain damaged...

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you didnt know how I found it, please look into google.com.

Also search on google for the word 'Internet'

source/patches is all I really want anyway!

[Xtifr]

Speaking as a software developer (both free and corporate/IT), as long as they make their source available, I really don't care if they make the binaries available. The idea behind UntiedLinux seems to be that they're going to be based on the Linux Standard Base. Well, that's great, the LSB is an open standard, so I don't need their binaries to develop my code.

With the source code available, I could build my own binary version, if I cared that much and were willing to dedicate that much time/that many cycles to it. But I don't care.

If I were worried about other people making money off my code, I'd either make it proprietary, or use a semi-free no-commercial-use license. But I'm not.

If this were some whacky, customized system, with all kinds of special oddnesses everywhere, I might find it a little annoying to not have binaries (assuming they want me to support my software on their system). But if it's just a standard Linux system, it's really no big deal to me. I'll take source-with-no-binaries over binaries-with-no-source any day of the week, thank you very much. Especially when their system is already close enough to what I'm running right now.

UnitedLinux != ONE distribution

[jaaron]

I've posted something like this before and maybe this time I'll get a response.

Unless I misunderstand, United Linux is not ONE distribution. SuSE, Caldera, TurboLinux, Conectiva, and any others that join in the future will all still have their own distibution that will display the UnitedLinux logo, meaning it is compliant and built upon the UnitedLinux core specifications. So wouldn't this mean that say, SuSE (or one of the others) could release their distro with free binaries, while Caldera wouldn't. I'm not clear on whether the restriction on free binary distribution is tied to the United Linux base, or to each of the individual distros. Potentially, we're all getting upset here just because Ransom Love of Caldera doesn't play nice.

In either case, I think the idea of moving towards supporting the LSB and other standards is a good thing.

Re:UnitedLinux != ONE distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite... Here's a reply.

I think you are right. In typical /. fashion, since Caldera has per-seat licensing, United Linux is being demonized for not providing binaries for free.

In my shop, the bean counters have done a cost study on downloading ISO images and creating CDs as opposed to buying Red Hat off the shelf at the local software outlet at retail. Off the shelf is about 20% cheaper. The list of costs on both sides is pretty exhaustive and convinced me. This should hold true if United Linux were to export binaries.

I realize that small shops and individual developers may not have the ready cash to invest in the box version but face it folks, if you don't have the cash to buy a branded distro, you don't have enoungh cash to market your wares to corps that will be using a derivative of United Linux.

And, since all of this is happening before the UL members actually detail their release plans, I expect there will be some provision made for a discounted version (or downloadable binaries) for the down and out developers. I'm sure most /.ers are not novices at using "personal" versions for commercial purposes.

Ransom Love's Brain Bites Again!

[peterdaly]

This would be a non-issue if Ransom Love understood Linux PR. If he answered the question differently, with the same "content", we wouldn't be as pissed. Something along the lines of:
"The United Linux organization will assemble the source code of the product, which will be available to the public. We have decided it is the responibilities of the vendors to compile the product for their specific distributions. Since the raw code is not indended for end user use, UnitedLinux will not expend the resources to compile and maintain a binary distribution of the raw codebase, that is the responsibility of each UnitedLinux vendor..."

The "public outcry" may have been different. Same answer, same question, different spin.

-Pete

Re:Ransom Love's Brain Bites Again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! That makes ever so much more sense. Good to hear the one voice among the yelling slashdot hordes that actually researched the subject. I have one question, though.

What's the difference between UnitedLinux and the LSB? Does UL extend the LSB? Does UL replace the LSB? Does UL go further than, but not necessarily comply with, the LSB? Disinterested minds want to know.

Re:Ransom Love's Brain Bites Again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, letting each distro vendor compile its own binary won't work. Remember, one of the main selling points for UnitedLinux is that an application that runs on one flavor of that distro will run on all flavors. You can't certify that if you let the vendors create their own binaries -- because those binaries will undoubtedly suffer from vendor-specific quirks.

Re:Ransom Love's Brain Bites Again!

[erikdalen]

UL is LSB compliant. It doesn't replace it or extend it or anything. LSB is a standard and UL is a (few) distro[s].

But other distros than UL are trying to get LSB compliant.

/Erik

Give Up

[gabeman-o]

In my opinion, the've just handed the market to RedHat, the very company they want to overthrow, on a silver platter. Not everyone may like the RedHat distro, but they do contribute quite a bit to the community.

Keep your freaking pants on!

[TwistedKestrel]

Holy shit, folks! How long ago did they announce this project? Something this large takes a lot of planning and organization.... *if* they have any code right now, it would almost certainly not be damned enough to run! How's about we wait a little longer 'fore we start complaining about them?

Re:Geography for the brain damaged...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mirror in case Google.com gets slashdotted.

Just FIGHT BACK!

[FPhlyer]

If they are going to produce a distribution called "UnitedLinux" that doesn't release a free binary distribution, this gives the communinity to make a great statement.

Someone needs to take the UnitedLinux source code and compile a binary distribution: UnTIED Linux with no per-seat licence scheme. UnTIED Linux would be devoid of per-seat licensing and be based on the same standards as UnitedLinux, making it a natural choice over UnitedLinux.

Re:Just FIGHT BACK!

[OriginalUsername]

Yeah ... that will give Linux a good reputation in the world.

Linux is distributed by a bunch of squabbling childen.

Screw that ... I'll use Windows. You don't see the Windows 98 team making Windows PX to get around the WIndows XP licensing scheme do you? No ... they work together, release an OS and rake in the cash.

Christ! You're pathetic!

Re:Just FIGHT BACK!

[Daemonik]

It helps that no one is competing against Microsoft with their own code.

Gee, wouldn't that be nice though, how about a Windows PX With More Security! Or a Windows XX It Plays Nicer With Other Peoples Software.

No competition results in what Microsoft has become, a huge bloated inmovable object that tries to force the market where it wants to go rather than nimbly changing to meet the market. A company whose VP can stand up in court and beg to not have their code openly distributed because it's so pathetic it'd cause a massive threat to Government security.

Yeah, competition results in squabbling, backstabbing, one-upmanship and grandstanding and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Re:Just FIGHT BACK!

[OriginalUsername]

So why is no-one proposing the "untied" Linux be better than united linux then? It isn't competition when you're just being childishly petty to prove a imaginary political point

Re:Just FIGHT BACK!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Screw that ... I'll use Windows. You don't see the Windows 98 team
>making Windows PX to get around the WIndows XP licensing scheme do
>
Guess what? We don't care. Warez Dudes & Parasites like you were never wanted in the Linux community to begin with.

Microsoft Linux?

[Sean Clifford]

We're all entitled to one stupid ponderance and I'm maxed on karma, so here goes.

I know I'm not the first to ponder this, but I have to wonder when Microsoft will descend, slurp up open source code, and mint their own distro. The horror and wailing...

Re:Microsoft Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok so maybe I'm also missing something - im surprised there has been no MS distro either. They are in the business of operating systems, they would be less concerned whether someone uses MS Windows or MS Linux, than the fact they were using MS-something and not Redhat/Solaris/UL.

MS Linux could be the perfect answer to incompatibility between Windows and Linux!!

ill leave some space for the flames cos i mentioned Linux and MS in the same sentence without the word 'ownz'

;-p

Re:Microsoft Linux?

[rifter]

They think Linux is an escort.

And here I thought it was a go-cart built by hippies :)

How many times does this need to be repeated??

[erat]

UnitedLinux is a base from which Linux distributions will be produced.

Want a developer platform? Get SuSE 9.0, or OpenLinux 4.0, or Turbolinux WhateverItWillBe, etc.

You don't develop directly on top of UnitedLinux, folks... You develop on a distribution that is built from UnitedLinux.

Now for pete's sake QUIT BITCHING ABOUT BINARY DISTRIBUTION!! You'll have the sources, and you'll have Linux distributions that are built from UnitedLinux. If you want more, I can't imagine what it could possibly be!

DAMN this is getting old quick!

RedHat's Advanced Server does the same thing.

[Shane]

RedHat AS will only provide SRPMs. It is not a distros job to make it easy for non paying users to exploit their efforts.

Both RedHat and UnitedLinux provide source code so our freedoms are being respected. Why does the Linux community feel its a business/distros job to provide convient certified binaries to the general public? Remember it is freedom as in free speach not freedom as in beer. Binaries and ISO's have nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with free beer.

I am sad to say this but, I am seeing more and more users in our community take the perspective that they are owed something... this something seems to have more and more to do with end users getting something for nothing.

Re:RedHat's Advanced Server does the same thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The overwhelming majority of what goes into a distro is in fact "something for nothing." Despite IBM, SGI, RedHat, et.al. contributions to what makes up a GNU/Linux distro, the overwhelming majority of it has been given away for free, as in beer. You can't be considered a leeching slob if people freely give you shit.

This may actually make sense

[darkonc]

UnitedLinux is designed to be a distributor's Linux. It's not really a user's linux. Once a UnitedLinux distribution is out, various distributors are intended to take the source tarball, compile it, and add their own bells & whistles.

It is the UnitedLinux Distributors who are expected to put out the various United binaries (each with their own flavour). i.e.

• Caldara (UnitedLinuz compatible) Linux,
• 
  SuSe (UnitedLinuz compatible) Linux,
  etc.

all with their associated binaries released to the public. If you want a UL binary, get it from them... If you want a bare UL binary, then compile it using one of the distributed UL binaries.

Toreballs is fuming, Cocks is steaming!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just got done talking with both Linus Toreballs and Anal Cocks about this grave matter. They have both called for a Linux jihad. We, the faithful Zealots, will crush this menace to opensource communism and kill all in our path. Linuxu Akbar!!!

I would just like you to know that I love goats

[cmdr_shithead]

that is all.

fragmentation is killing *linux

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD got the model right with their centralized open source tree. Contrast this with linus's proprietary bitkeeper and closed tar files. No wonder more and more people are seeing the light and switching back to BSD, the more stable higher performance truly open Unix(tm) descendant.

Doesnt It Bother You?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, you work so hard on Linux, then someone else makes millions on it?

I don't understand

[magellan]

GPL has always been about free (speech) source, not free (beer) binaries. UnitedLinux does not violate the spirit of this.

The community cannot have it both ways, with commercial interest and support via workable business models, and no defendable commercial version of the product.

UnitedLinux will actually provide the source of their distro, and they will provide their modifications to the community. They are just trying to productize a server based Linux.

Believe me businesses want a good, stable, supportable version of Linux to employ instead of Windows and UNIX.

Re:I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

> The community cannot have it both ways, with commercial interest and support via workable business models...

Who said the GPL model was ever focused on "commerical interests" (aka. Distro' interest) and "workable business models".

The model, which probably outdates most of us, is based on academic sharing. It assumes... 1) The end-user should know how their systems work and be able to maintain them; 2) By using the software, they are somewhat likely to report bugs and describe useful enhancements; 3) If the need is real enough, they may make changes and enhancments themselves and offer the changes back for ongoing maintenance; and 4) you generally look to "The Community" for support.

"Distro's" were never part of the model. As close as we got was the GNU source tape dump.

The salable distro' theory is something of a bizzar side show seeking to exploit free software on the coat tails of Microsoft's buisness model. But, in reality, the best the distro's can achive is to act as systems consultants for end-use consumers.

I've rarely heard any concerted line of reasoning that suggests "the community" seeks anything other.

Unfortunately, like all things computerized, there is no long-term future in systems consulting. "Done once, done a million times" is a short term plan. The money is in managing the infrastructure over time, not in cutting a distro, sitting back, and expecting the profits to roll in.

Untied Linux - Bwahahahahaha!

[NFW]

Somebody mod that up.

Your missing the point...

[coene]

They are not releasing binaries because 95% of the people out there do NOT know how to compile a clean system from source.

If they force people to buy binaries, then the people who would download the "Hackers Linux" are therefore forced to buy the CD. With your suggestion, you cut off 50% of their revenue. For me, I dont want to compile from source. I DO want to download an ISO. I get the ISO, and guess what didnt happen, THEY DIDNT MAKE ANY MONEY!

something tells me they don't care

[bsDaemon]

from what i've read about UL from previous posts, it doesn't sound to me like they are intent to selling to "us" anyway (not that'd i'd want it even if it were free). They are selling to corporations who don't give a good god damn about the ideology of the free software/open source movement. Linux is still a buzzword. Make it easy and attractive for suites, and it causes more buzz. However, I am sure there are enough IT folk (admins, etc) with souls, that UL isn't going to do very well. This is probably why RedHat is sitting pretty without a care in the world. They are more or less accepted. They have given considerable support to the community through RHAD Labs (Enlightenment, GNOME, Gtk+ themes, etc. funded via this). They are probably evil too, but that's the nature of corprations -- to be evil. Honestly, I don't care either way. I'm happy with BSD-land. I do think UL is evil, but it doesn't phase me either way. I'm not going to have to deal with it -- ever -- and i'm sure a hell of a lot of people will also not have to deal with it, so why worry? it's going nowhere.

UnitedLinux and SuSE

[noodlez84]

As a faithful SuSE customer, I first appalled that SuSE would start charging per-user licensing fees. I noticed that many others felt the same way from the last Caldera, as long as I can remember, has charged per-seat. Thus, on the economic side of UnitedLinux, _nothing has changed_. The licensing is still the same. It's just that all the certified products are going to interoperate from the bottom-up (i.e., binaries, scripts, etc.).

Re:UnitedLinux and SuSE

[Anonymous Coward]

Suse started charging per user licensing fees? When? I had a look at their website but didn't find anything. Any felp/info?

Calling it Hackers Linux?

[MisterBlister]

Calling the downloadable binary installation "Hacker's Linux", as the article suggests, is pretty silly!

Everyone knows hackers are evil law-breakers, no better than a common terrorist.

Re:Calling it Hackers Linux?

[OriginalUsername]

Call it "Free blow job with every installation Linux" if you want ... once your intended market realises the amount of infighting that goes on between the linux factions they're not going to use any of them.

Re:Too bad

[Jim Jones (hacker)]

I am here! I've just been lurking.
Actually, thinking about it, mass suicide would topple Microsoft because of the public outcry. Slashdotters ... you know what to do!

moderators?!?!?

[BoneFlower]

This is not off topic. Redundant perhaps, but definitely not off topic. Moderation is steadily getting worse here... perhaps the karma level needed to be a moderator should be increased a bit... You can't moderate effectively if you don't know what a good post is, and until you've built up positive karma, how have you shown that you know good posts from bad and thus deserve moderator access?

Re:moderators?!?!?

[RTFA Man]

Actually, it's blatently lifted right out of the original article. That's what the "RFTA" is all about: squandering moderator points for those jagoff moderators who don't even bother to read the article. There are plenty of them to be found. Anyhow, cheers.

Re:moderators?!?!?

[ichimunki]

Thank you for the off-topic post that started at +1. If you don't like the way people are moderating: go to metamod. Thanks.

Yes, then Lindows can sue them...

[mrgrey]

for some sort of name infringment. Hehehe. Go Michael Robertson. Lindows.com

WHY!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

why are linux users bashing UnitedLinux, so what if they charge for per-seat licencing, personally i think it will not fly because there is Redhat and other distros that work quite well with Samba & Apache, and any sys admin that is worth their salt will take care of the support end of the deal...

so what, UnitedLinux is targeting small to medium sized enterprise business, so the avarage Debian or Slackware hacker/tweaker should find something else to bitch about and/or just shutup and wait & see and watch what happens to UnitedLinux, it could be a good thing or it could be a big flop, just depends on how good the distro is and how cheap it is to licence on each workstation & server, and how well and easily it is supported...

hey atleast there is a Linux in the first place or most of you would still be running that pirated copy of Win9x lol HAHAHA HEHEHE...

Huh?

[NFW]

brsmith4:x:500:500::/dev/null:/bin/sh The ideal user account

How come the 'ideal' home directory is a file?

Re:Huh?

[TheCrazyFinn]

It's not a file, it's the bit bucket
nothing in /dev are real files.

The Crazy Finn

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

and for the record, "everything is a file," even directories.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

All directories may be files, but not all files are directories. [root@scar /root]# cd /dev/null bash: /dev/null: Not a directory

Re:Huh?

[brsmith4]

Now, do I really need to explain to you why the ideal user account's home directory is /dev/null??? I suppose I do. I would rather all of their data and important information fade into non-existence on our storage array rather than take up precious space that 'rightfully' belongs to my mp3 collection. Of course I know this wont work, but wouldn't it be great if did? Thanks for disecting my sig, oh sig-less one.

I don't get the complainers

[aztektum]

I thought Linux and Open Source/Free Software was all about DIY. They're letting you have the source so what's the problem? I don't know the GPL by heart but does it say "And if you should take the time to use GPL code and compile it you have to give it up too for the lazy."

Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[alexhmit01]

The anti-management sentiment on Slashdot is disgusting. Look, we ALL love Dilbert, and while there is a LOT of truth in Dilbert, it does ignore the other side.

Businesses, large and small, want to make money. Within large organizations, you do have some empire builders (managers that only care about building up their clout through headcount), but senior management normally looks at the bottom line.

Sure, CEOs may not realize that there is a strange policy in one small division that makes no sense, but they are overseeing the general policy decisions.

Slashdot users seem to think that all managers are like the assistant manager at the fast food joint they work at. Senior people work weekends. They check email and take calls all weekend. They take risks.

Middle management avoids risks, but so do engineers.

There is, however, a BIT of truth in the corporations want to feel safe. However, that situation is in large companies where IT is a small percentage of costs. If 15 minutes of network downtime costs the company more than the IT Departments monthly budget, then they are interested in feeling safe.

It all depends. If you are a high tech company, IT is a big chunk of your costs. If you are a manufacturing/distribution company, IT is likely a smaller percentage. However, if a network outage shuts down a factory where 2000 employees are doing nothing for 2 hours, they aren't going to be happy to learn that you passed on the redundant hardware Sun solution and hacked up a beige x86 box to save $15,000.

Corporations want to reduce costs and increase productivity. Part of this is lower cost solutions. Part of this is more reliable solutions.

Where Linux hurts is in the reliability camp, and that's largely a hardware issue. x86 hardware simply doesn't play in the same space that Sun's high end Unix Servers and IBM's mainframes do.

The fact that Linux is more reliable than Windows isn't that impressive... Intel was still (as of 2-3 years ago) still running their manufacturing processes on VAX systems.

However, saving $100 may seem like a lot to the users here posting from the parent's house, but it isn't a big deal IF it exposes you to greater problems later on.

Alex

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[Lumpy]

It's anti-management here because techs cant talk to management, they dont speak the same language..

I have learned the language of managment.. (Hint: talk money) and it instantly opens every door wide open. Most techies go to their boss and say, "let's use linux because it's better.." they get ignored..

I say , "the solution I have in my proposal can cut downtime by 25%, cut software costs by $13,000.00 and get the project to operational status 35% faster. all of this together will increase the profit margin by at least 5-10% based only on the faster time to operation."

I didnt say linux anywhere.. I gave management answers they wanted to hear, they all were the truth. (linux server with MySQL insterad of windows2000 advancd server and SQL2000 with 25 seat licenses on both) downtime is also the truth as implimenting a failover system is easier in linux.. yes things fail ALL things fail, but if you have 1 computer doing the work and 2 doing nothing but sitting there waiting to catch the first one... you get very close to 5 nines... close enough for management.

management is cool, I LOVE my managers... every level of them... I just needed to learn how to talk to them.

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[ahde]

Actually, techs (and everyone else) is anti-management, because they realize that by and large, they understand management but management does not understand them. Most any responsible worker could be an effective manager. But most managers could not (or would not) do any other job. Your manager may be different. But they're an exception. Congratulations. Management is a game of politics and connections and favoritism.

Many techies (or line workers or burger flippers) have better understanding of the market, the customers, the competition, and the company than both their immediate supervisor and their CEO.

Many techs can speak management but choose not to. Most managers can't speak tech.

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[Lemmy Caution]

Far more managers were talks than techs were managers. I'm afraid that you're simply wrong. Techs by their very nature over-focus. They are really good with hammers and assume that they live in NailWorld. Management has some politics in it, but so do techs, and ultimately good management will succeed where overpoliticized (that is, not results-oriented) management will fail. The trick is that bad tech is usually apparent immediately - it won't compile! - while bad management takes a while to come out.

Games of incomplete contigency (that is, action x has result y for some probability P where P Most techs have a very poor understanding of the markets they are in, of their customers, and their competition. (Remember, your customers aren't always your market - that tension is central to a lot of business strategy, and can affect decisions about upgrading.)

I doubt I've penetrated your Dilbert-sphere sense of the structure of the business world, but someday, if you're lucky, you may realize just how much you've been missing.

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[nomadic]

The problem is techs don't realize managers' motivations. Managers want to make money. Not necessarily for the company, mind you, but for themselves. And when techs DO realize this, they get all upset, and scream about politics. That's why, despite all the anti-corporate macho talk, techs make good employees; they work long hours, try for the best solution for their employer, and refuse to engage in the politics of the situation (as if that's some virtue).

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[antirename]

Realize how much I've been missing? What, and become a manager? I go out of my way to make sure that something REALLY needs to be done when the "manager in training" classes roll around. Ok, I'm not a manager, but I get things done. Keep your parking spot.

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... I would say all your pro-management rant is quite true, still the fact is that the motto "you will never be fired by choosing IBM" is quite true too.

Disregarding costs (you should take them into consideration, though) the truth is that technical decitions *should* be backuped by tech guys. So if you say "this technical solution will save 10% TCO on a 3 years frame" then is your ass at the fireline. If you success (both on your assertion and the way you sell it) it's probably you'll rise your cache and your employer's company will be stronger. If you fail you will be fired. If you don't want to bet (to support your decitions) then you're free not to take the responsibility, others will do it for yourself. But then, most probably technically clueless mid and upper management (dilbertian) will do. On the long run (see dot-com) this will mean your company will be rather unsuccessful, so most probably you will fired anyway (because bankruptcy).

At any rate, it's your choice.

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[oakbox]

I've got to disagree with that one. Most techs would NOT make good managers. Management is a 'soft' skill. Interacting with people. Communications, understanding drives, delegation, politics (good and bad), motivating others, etc etc etc. These things are on the ABSOLUTE other end of the personality profile from most programmers.

Dilbert has been mentioned a few times. I remember one where a really great programmer is moved up into management and ends up calling a help line because he can't figure out how Manager Clothing works.

[oakbox]

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful post, but...you recommended *MySQL*? What the hell _FOR_!?!?

You really should take a look at PostgreSQL as a commercial-quality RDBMS. It is just as free and open as MySQL is, only...it doesn't SUCK like MySQL does.

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[Cro Magnon]

Actually, techs (and everyone else) is anti-management, because they realize that by and large, they understand management but management does not understand them. Most any responsible worker could be an effective manager. But most managers could not (or would not) do any other job. Your manager may be different. But they're an exception. Congratulations. Management is a game of politics and connections and favoritism.

I think I understand management. I understand enough to know that I would suck as a manager. I could certainly manage a technical team well enough, but that's different. You said it yourself: management is a game of politics, and while I have the typical tech disdain for BS, the sad fact is that BS is neccesary in the business world. My boss couldn't do my job, but I really couldn't do his either.

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[Lumpy]

but again MySQL has a company that can be called for pay support. postgreSQL while better doesn't have that easy access pay for support...

I would also go Oracle if I needed a full SQL. 99.997% of all SQL database uses MySQL is prefectly fine even with it's limitations.

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[ahde]

that's what managers tell themselves to make themselves feel better. And they look for the exception to justify their rule.

Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot

[ahde]

The difference is that you don't want to do his job. That's why you'd suck at it. You could be a 'bad manager', which is to say, slightly above average. Most managers can not be techs if they wanted too.

Ask yourself why you don't want to be a manager? You don't want to waste your time? You don't want to deal with politics or BS or insubordinate subordinates? These are all things you could do if you have to, like cleaning toilets. You'd probably do a bad job as a janitor, too, but its not for lack of ability.

Oh, the irony

[Sri Lumpa]

With otehr software we have to bitch because the source code is unavailable/available-under-a-restrictive-license.

Now, for UnitedLinux they decided to make it available only in source form to the general public so we have to bitch about not having binaries available to us.

I find it quite ironic.

Re:Geography for the brain damaged...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh...actually, Japan is a group of islands. Putz!

Another GPL

[rant-mode-on]

If developers object to their code being use in this fashion, perhaps another version of the GPL should be drafted that excludes the option of binaries of the source being sold in this fashion. As always, you could chose which license it was distributed under.

If this were to happend, and Gnome and KDE signed up to it, I find it hard to see how United Linux would be viable.

Re:Another GPL

[An Onerous Coward]

I think the United Linux folks are shooting themselves in the foot, but it's hardly enough to warrant a rewrite of the GPL. One of the strengths of the GPL is that recipients of GPL'ed code have a great deal of leeway about how they make their work available to others. If they said "no free downloads, nobody even gets source from us without sending us $300 through PayPal and throw in a box of chicklets 'cuz I'm feeling peckish," they have every right to. And I say more power to them--I could use some chicklets right about now.

Look at this as an interesting experiment. Most likely, it'll tank because the proprietary software doesn't add sufficient value. But if it succeeds, everyone who buys it will get the source code they're entitled to. If it succeeds, it will be nice to be able to an example of people successfully selling Linux software. If not, oh well. As irksome as we might find this implementation of the GPL, rewriting the GPL every time someone finds--scratch that, tries to find--a way to make money with free software is not a viable answer.

As UnitedLinux brushes up against its customers, some of the rough edges are bound to get smoothed off. Even if they remain unbowed, there are other distros out there for the taking, and the GPL makes it very likely that the best ideas from UnitedLinux will make it to those distros as well.

No worries, mate. No worries.

More GPL insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL People: Freedom! Freedom! Freedom! Only open-source software is good...
Microsoft: Don't use GPL code, as it is viral and will impose unexpected obligations on your company.
GPL People: Rubbish. All you have to do is share the source code.
United Linux: Really? Great, we can use this after all.
GPL People: United Linux are bad!! We're gonna get you thru the courts 'cos maybe we can!! How dare you use GPL code you nasty profit-seekers.

Why is it that the GPL is (in practice) incompatible with basic consistency?

No Free ISO For Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

no corporate evaluation for UL, period. If I can not obtain and test a product at no cost other than bandwidth, it will never see the light of day on my network. I have been burned before by SuSE with their steaming pile of shite 7.3 release and it will never happen again. This, after I thought I knew SuSE from using their 6.x - 7.1 releases and actually looked favorably on them. There is a reason why VA (RIP) and Penguin Computing only ship their systems with RH. While RH is never flashy and hardly what I would consider an ambitious OS, the stuff simply (er, except for that f'd up gcc release a while back) works. Whatever, I could not care less about UL and have no intention whatsoever of even considering putting it on my systems. The inclusion of scum like Caldera alone is more than enough to turn me off to it. By SuSE, good riddance Caldera, Turbo, I never even knew ya. RH and Slack, you are welcome here, right beside Free & Open BSD.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:morons.

[Anonymous Coward]

a) That was what the original poster was implying.

b) The attempted irony failed because LucasFilm isn't a member of the MPAA.

Both of these reasons

[Chuck Chunder]

only relate to why you would need the source if you had a binary. The GPL requires and UnitedLinux provide this access so if you have obtained binaries from UnitedLinux you have all the access you would normally have to perform such analysis.

Re:Both of these reasons

[SWroclawski]

No, a GPL application developer will still need this.

I write an application- get a bug report from a UL user.

I test it out- it works for me.

How do I know what thier binaries are? I won't use non-free software nor do I feel obligated to pay them for the use of my own work.

- Serge Wroclawski

Why are SuSE and Connectiva in on this?

[ahde]

They are both wildly successful in their own target markets. Perhaps not profitable, not yet, but SuSE has a strong brand in Europe and Connectiva likewise in Latin America. Caldera and Turbo Linux offer them nothing. SuSE, at least, has a much larger base than Caldera in the U.S.A. anyway.

I predict the PR flack is enough to make United Linux crumble within the next couple weeks.

Re:Why are SuSE and Connectiva in on this?

[TheCrazyFinn]

TurboLinux is also wildly successful in Asia. I'm starting to wonder if Ransom Love is developing a mild Reality Distortion Field. Caldera has nothing to offer the other 3, and they really don't need to even work together, although having the 3 most common distro's for non-english speakers using a common platform is a good idea. The per-seat costs are the real killer, as Linux's main advantage over the competition is the lack of per-seat costs.

The Crazy Finn

Re:Microsoft Linux? no, but maybe a BSD

[Isaac-Lew]

Wouldn't a more likely scenario be Microsoft using a BSD, along with other packages with either a BSD or BSD-type license (since they wouldn't have to release any source)? Along with possibly a linux-compatibility layer to run Linux binaries, that would actually be an interesting idea for them (they already use some open-source code: for example their TCP/IP stack & zlib).

WTF is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're distributing the source.

They're not providing binaries.

And? So? The problem is...?

Jesus Christ, what a pathetic bunch of wankers. (That goes for the author of the article, as well.)

"Developers won't have binaries!" Huh? If "developers" can't figure out what to do when they have the source, but not the binaries, no way in hell do I want them "developing" on a system I intend to use.

Not that I intend to use UL.

Pink Tie?

[hitzroth]

Are the U Waterloo mathies releasing a distro optimized for Maple? Why else would there be a Pink Tie Linux?

"Insightful???"

[NFW]

there is a deterrent to contributing to OSS projects, as you say, with the knowledge that your software will be subverted in this way.

What? Do you figure it took this event (and this long) for open source coders to notice the "charge a fee" clause in section 1 of the GPL?

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

I'll admit I've never contributed something to a Linux distribution, and I've only released one small GPLed project, but still... I don't think the rest of the GPL-lovin' Linux-buildin' community is anywhere near stupid enough to be surprised by UnitedLinux.

UnitedLinux isn't subverting GPLed software in any way. They're supporting some pre-existing standards, and they're selling some non-GPLed tools that (they hope) will make Linux easier for their corporate customers to use. When those customers buy that non-GPLed code, they will also get copies of a bunch of GPLed code (with source of course). Where's the subversion?

Releasing code under the GPL still means what it always has - it means that other people can take your code and do whatever they want with it, so long as they include the source if/when they distribute it. Again, where's the subversion?

Re:Geography for the brain damaged...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, a post that tells us that Japan is an island in the Pacific gets modded up as informative. Moderator, where are you from? Mars?

(posting anonymously because yes, this *is* offtopic. As is the parent, now that I think of it.)

I tell you

[Anonymous Coward]

Random Love is the Sith Master

Re:I tell you

[ce110ut]

"Random Love is the Sith Master"
hahaha nice!

and we the jedi counsel?

---
"...i gotta eat too!"
-anonymous professor

Re:I tell you

[Anonymous Coward]

if we are ..then we are blind to the actions that Random Love is doing

waaaah...

[deviator]

once again,

a whole bunch of geeks with no business sense complain again and again about how evil Microsoft is and how Linux is the answer, and "gosh darn it, corporate American should switch to it if they know what's right for them."

Finally, at least one group has come up with a way to make Linux palatable to mid- to large-sized corporate environments by extending it in such a way that coporporations can better get their minds & wallets around it.

And yet the geeks complain, because it's not the way they want it done. Does anyone really have a better idea? Do you really want Linux to continue to be a niche operating system just because it makes you feel "cooler" than the rest of the world?

Groups such as UnitedLinux (and RedHat, to a lesser extent) should get the full support of the very same community that has been pushing for widespread Linux adoption anyways.

The main point of the article...

[Oswald]

...is that UL is only hurting themselves, and I think that's right. Ask yourself if RH would compile the binaries and release them just to spite UL--probably not, because if you're RH, you prefer fewer copies of the distros in use, even if the ones on the margin didn't directly benefit UL. It's in the same vein as RMS's argument that--far from killing M$--pirating Windows OS only perpetuates the monopoly by spreading the software around.

That in mind, (and even though Joe Hacker isn't their target "market") I think UL had better release the binaries if they want this thing to go anywhere.

Why would anyone want binaries?

[Zymurgy]

Why on earth does anyone care at all about this? Who the hell wants binaries anyway? Are we not Unix users? Then we should compile our own binaries!

I'll have you know that my Linux system was created entirely from source I compiled myself. That's right, no freaking "distribution". Now, granted, I used a SuSE system from which to compile it, but still.

I'm disgusted, quite frankly, about my MS-DOSish Linux presenty is. RPM is a prime example. Get with the picture. This is Unix! Software is distrubted as and installed from source! That's how it works.

Sorry, I'll step off my soapbox now. I didn't mean to be that bitchy, and, of course, there is a need for distributions. I can't help mention, though, how much it pains me everytime I hear people talking about how "we need to make Linux more user-friendly" and "anything that makes the Linux userbase larger is great". I don't know about you, but I don't want Linux to become Windows! If you want Windows, use Windows! If you want a free Unix, Linux is nice. If companies want a Unix with support, they can afford Solaris. Why can't the Linux community be satisfied to stick to itself? Do we really want to conquer the world, too? Great, the Linus can be the next generation's Bill Gates. Accept Linux for what it is, and like it! Seriously.

Re:Why would anyone want binaries?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't speak for all Linux users; if you want a source-only Linux, keep using LSF or Gentoo and stop bothering the rest of us that aren't OS hobbyists/zealots.

Support

[Joe_Pineapples]

I work for a company that wats to kick M$ because of the latest changes to the Enterprise Agreement model, such changes would cost us around US$ 3.000.000,00, and that's per year.

As a workaround, I'm adopting Linux wherever I can, and since my size and partnerships with IBM and Oracle allow it, I'm dealing directly with Chiefs at major " flavors".

Anyhow, I've been with RedHat, Conectiva (Caldera) and Suse. What's the strongest feature they try to sell me? Support from Oracle and IBM ('cause of my farm).

That's something that HAS to cost money, Caldera is apparently absorbing Conectiva so they can get the structure AND provide such homologations to make front against RedHat's investment that start next month targeting Latin America.

Something that comes around over and over is the story about how IBM didn' t go for the PC idea and got stuck in a moment with it's Mainframes in the past, and how microsoft seems to be heading likewise, losing share and scaring big customers by unleashing BSA's dogs of war.

I say trainning and support won't feed a 700 plus workforce sucha as RedHat's. Their partnering agreement gives them control and 40% of any contract they sign for an authorized partner. They receive the total and make the split, they grant themselves the right to audit your work, they won't allow you to use other distros.

The new approach (amazon.com is an eg.) is to show how much money you can save your client and charge a % of it. Call that a win-win situation.

If an alliance is to try and compete with this, I don't see how you can keep everything open. StarOffice looks to me like a good example of what is to come... i always say that if you're gonna sell to a big company, you gotta have certified workforce and some warranty that your product is going to survive the next couple years.

Average garage software won't appeal. You have to pack your merchandise and assume some kind of responsibility. I wouldn't invest money in something I can't control.

But that's just me.

~IZZATAFACTNOW?

What are you smoking?

[NFW]

Windows was an XWindows clone, Direct3D was an OpenGL clone (or should I say a series of clones), and IE was Mosaic clone. Apache has been around since 1995 or so. When was IIS first released?

Next I suppose you'll ask us to believe that Microsoft invented C, and all those other compilers are just rip-offs?

Your "Mozilla" thing is pretty damn funny, given how long IE has been announcing itself as Mozilla (or "Mozilla (compatible)") in the HTTP_USER_AGENT string.

You're in luck.

[Anonymous Coward]

But if they don't provide binary distribution to a "common man", for free [...]

Yeah, god forbid someone in charge of open source software usage should have to actually build that source in order to evaluate it.

Conspiracy theory

[dcavanaugh]

I can't believe the "UL" people were so naive as to think this concept would fly with the mainstream Linux community. Knowing how poorly Caldera's initial "per seat" licensing concept was received, they had to have something radical in mind.

Suppose Caldera, SuSe, and non-RH people all see the handwriting on the wall: What little money there is to be made on Linux distribution is going to be made by Red Hat. As Red Hat siezes market share, the non-RH people need a good way to exit the distro business. Why not create this "UL" concept and sell it to Microsoft? Let M$ "embrace & extend" it into their own proprietary monster while exploring the limits of minimum-GPL compatibility. If anyone could distribute source code with no possibility of making it compile, it would be you-know-who, right? No matter what M$ says, they must be wondering how to infiltrate the Linux rebellion and redirect the "lost" revenue back to Redmond.

If you want "Hacker's Linux"

[CrosseyedPainless]

compile the damn source code.

Have you no pride?

Fuck Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck linux, everyone knows that Windows is better.

Licence is sole expression of an authors desires.

[Chuck Chunder]

Indeed, an author expresses his desires through the licence he chooses. Author's make up the most important (though not the noisiest) part of the Free Software/Open Source 'community'. As far as the community goes the one thing that actually binds things together is the software licence, it is a social contract as much as a legal one.

But the licence and licence alone defines what is acceptable behavior. If an author isn't happy with how their software is being distributed then they should amend the licence it is under (hello Transgaming!).

If you're just some loudmouth whose unhappy about how someone else's software is being distributed then you are entitled to your opinion but it's of little value, the author has set the rules and as long as a distributer follows them all is peachy, it's got nothing to do with you.

The licence is core, ultimatly it's all we have, anything else is just your imaginiation.

want to require binaries? say it in the license

[liquidmarkets]

By releasing source, but not binaries, UnitedLinux is not violating the GPL. I don't think UnitedLinux is going to win with this strategy, or even survive, but they're free to pursue it.

If we want to require Linux companies to release binaries, then we should modify the GPL or make a new license. Here, we can call it the LiquidMarkets Public License:

1) The GPL
2) Plus you must release binaries together with source.

But don't hold your breath waiting for people to adopt the LMPL.


"But Officer, I was going 65 mph, just as the speed limit says."
"Didn't you notice that everyone drives 75 on this here highway? I'm ticketing you for obstructing traffic."
"That's not the law!"
"It's the custom."
"Then shouldn't the sign say 75?"

This is kind of naive

[Svartalf]

Yeah, and it's the same story with a MS or other proprietary solution- and all you can do when you use that is point at 'them' (Sue them? Yeah, riiight.), blame 'them', and hope to hell the powers that be buy into your excuse and don't just fire you on the spot.

In all honesty, if you're in that scenerio, they're most likely going to fire your sorry ass anyhow- so I'd rather like to have that desitiny as something I can control a lot better.

I don't see MS as providing the needed control of things to ensure that it really wasn't my fault on something- and I've not seen them as an answer for years now.

Common Message

[Anonymous Coward]

Pursuit of profits does not excuse from ethical responsibilities. Don't know why you even brought up profits. The GPL either allows their business plan or it doesn't, and UL had plenty of time to read the GPL before forming their business model. Noone is pulling the rug out from under them. THey were spoiling for a fight from day one, and noone should be surprised if they end up getting one.

binaries *and* source

[Anonymous Coward]

As it says at: http://www.unitedlinux.com/en/faqs/index.html , there'll be no source code with the alpha and beta versions.

Re:binaries *and* source

[foonf]

As it says at: http://www.unitedlinux.com/en/faqs/index.html , there'll be no source code with the alpha and beta versions.

I seem to remember turbolinux trying that trick in the past (specifically it was some kind of time-delay thing where the release of the source was some time after they began selling binaries). I believe they got away with it. And who happens to be one of the partners in this operation...

Re:binaries *and* source

[Anonymous Coward]

Corel did the same thing with CorelLinux.

Re:Not a big deal. (Mod this parent up!)

[rasjani]

Exactly.

well

[Anonymous Coward]

united linux has no legal obligation to release jack squat to the free loaders. Only if you distribute the binaries do you have to distribute the source _to the people that got the binaries_. Since you didn't pay for it, and hence didn't get the binaries, you have no legal right to the source code either.

Stop bitching, the sky ain't falling.

Re:well

[foonf]

Only if you distribute the binaries do you have to distribute the source _to the people that got the binaries_. Since you didn't pay for it, and hence didn't get the binaries, you have no legal right to the source code either.

Not exactly. They can restrict distribution of the source to paying customers only, but all of those customers also are allowed to distribute under the terms of the GPL. And all it would take is one person to throw it up on an ftp to render the whole the restriction quite moot. Which is probably why they are making it publicly available anyway.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if there is any copyrighted software...

And forget isos, they could pull an OpenBSD and copyright the cd image, then what are you gonna do?

Ya sure some warez dood might put it on his fserver on irc or something but no college or business is gonna blatant violate copyright like that...

Oh the humanity of it all!

[Arandir]

Oh this is horrible! UnitedLinux is going to release sources to a distro without binaries! They can't do that! Let's all go set fire to Caldera's headquarters. After that we can turn our wrath on SuSE, TurboLinux and...

...Gentoo, Linux From Scratch, Rock Linux, etc...

Re:Help!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go forth my son to the psychiatric ward, do not be afraid! I believe that this is caused by watching TV. Whatever you do, do not watch the TV any longer.

Feces can be deadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Human feces has the most bacteria per cubic inch out of any substance on Earth! It harbors all kinds of viruses, worms, and parasites which can lead to serious illness and even death if you happen to ingest them or allow them to get onto mucous membranes (ears, nose, mouth, cuts in the skin).

So see a mental health expert soon. The last thing you want to do is continue this behavior.

Re:morons.

[nomadic]

b) The attempted irony failed because LucasFilm isn't a member of the MPAA.

But Twentieth Century Fox, however, is. Guess who distributed Episode II...

We can wrangle all we like...

[BrokenHalo]

But let's face it, any distro (or quasi-distro for that matter) that appears to be troublesome or tedious to set up and get productive with is unlikely to get any support from corporate linux newbies or seasoned hackers alike. This is where RH, Slackware, Debian or [insert favourite distro here] win hands down. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if United Linux dies an ignominious death.

Perfection

[AdmrlNxn]

Let me start by saying I am a Windows fanatic. Probably by this first sentence I will get modded to a negative one. Read on.

I read Slashdot every day. Generally the theme, besides news for nerds, is all about Linux. This is fine with me. There are plenty of topics for me to choose from. Linux does interest me though.

In my time of reading /. I have noticed two important themes. Down with Microsoft. Up with Linux. Again this is fine with me. Everyone has the right to choose the OS that suits their needs. However, with the sudden rise of United Linux I have noticed one problem. Bias.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you want Linux to be mainstream and hit consumer desktops, you have to start somewhere. UL is that somewhere. Since the birth of Linux, the OS has boomed to be somthing of comparison. In the buisness world it offers a low-cost solution to workstations and servers. It can get the job done and without hassle. One problem. There is no standard. None. You look at Windows and it is standardized. From top to bottom it is standardized. It is also on 90 percent of all computers or somthing like that.

Standardization plays a huge roll.

UL is what Linux needs. To create a standard. To charge a little money to keep revenues up so development will always move forward. With a business standard a consumer standard will follow. It is guarenteed. The Linux community needs to stand behind UL and be with them. To support them and give feedback. If you want Linux Mainstream you have to pitch in.

So what if it isn't entirely free. Free doesn't mean profit, it means loss. Money going into developement isn't being returned on sales.

I just think that all GPL/OSS/Linus Worshipers need to rally up and say "HEY! UL is it, watch out!"

test case reveals predictable slashdot behaviour

[rifter]

Okay, so for ages now, free software advocates have pointed out Micorosft's claim that GPL software must be distributed free as in beer is false. In fact, if someone (like HP recently, and now UnitedLinux) wants to release GPL software and charge loads of cash ($3000 in HP's case) it is just fine and dandy, and legal according to the GPL, so long as source is distributed with binaries.

Yet, lo and behold, here a company releases a linux distribution which will tie together several others, and releases source for free, but charges for the binaries, including support with the package, and is immediately lambasted by this site and several who claim to represent the "open source community." Of course, this plays right into the hands of those who claim all the open source people want is software for free, ergo linux is NOT a viable market. Sadly, there seems to be more and more ammo for this insidious view.

First off, I think we should remember the story specifically states the original distributions (Caldera, Conectiva, Turbolinux, SUSE, et al.) will not necessarily cease to be, in fact they will probably go on, probably in their current form, e.g. downloadable, available on Cheapbytes, etc. These distributions would contain UnitedLinux at their core, with unspecified value added changes. It is reasonable to assume applications written for these would work on UnitedLinux, unless some relevant library were changed, given the kernel, libs, and filesystem would be close if not identical.

It has been pointed out that a real developer will have no trouble compiling binaries, but heck, honestly, real developers are used to paying for tools and even os software. Usually OS vendors make it easier for developers to get hold of betas and even finished copies. For instance, Apple tends to give OS copies away at dev conferences and sell the OS cheaper to developers. MSDN cost about $1200 a year last I checked and included with such subscription a copy of every OS they sell, mailed to you in nice little CD packages. If developers will pay that for Windows, how much are they willing to pay for a real OS?

Most importantly, there has been no mention of how much this new linux distro will cost. If you buy Mandrake or Redhat outright, they cost anywhere from $25 to $2000+ depending on support, bundled commercial apps, etc. Obviously they are also available for free, without support, by download. It is possible we are getting up in arms about a distro with a similar pricing scheme, though without the "free download." Besides, even if they did have free downloads, who would pay for the hosting? In the real world, providing such things cost money, you know. In any event, it is possible, even likely, that whatever the cost there will be a low-priced version for developers, and unless they copyright the layout of the CD as OpenBSD rightly does (I am certainly agreeing with Theo here...), there will be versions on cheapbytes in approximately 5 minutes.

I will admit I myself am a cheap bastard and a major reason I like linux us its freedom (as in Beer) and because of the freedom in licensing which means I don't have to worry about software police. I also have not contributed a line of code to linux, and though I would like to, it is unlikely as I am not the best programmer in the world. But I certainly think this wonderful system will not enjoy the success it has had of late if there is this kind of backlash to all commercial efforts in this field.

Folks, a lot of companies are pouring money into this, and they are in business to make money. A lot of development hours, both on and off record (off record meaning people working on linux while they are being paid to do something else...) are being shouldered by companies who have been, if you haven't been following the stock market for three years, struggling. Now here we have an effort to help linux on several fronts, by making a new commercially viable product, by unifying disparate distributions, and it is even in keeping with the spirit and letter of the GPL, and you tear it down because you can't download free copies. For shame!

Puzzled...

[Rogerborg]

It would be good for Microsoft to include source (any source) in their overwhelmingly binary offerings. But it's bad for OpenLinux to offer only source?

Can anyone reconcile this? Personally, if I'm given the option of source and/or binaries, I'll choose to take the source every time. I'm just not seeing what's so evil about this.

Like a hole in the head

[Simon Brooke]

Some Linux people will be able to live with this and they will stick with the operating system they helped build. Most however will probably move to some other fringe OS like AtheOS, OpenBEOS, QNX, or most likely a BSD variant.

Some of UL's methods may be questionable - but Linux really needs this kind of kick in the ass from a standardization standpoint.

Linux really needs this like a hole in the head. If the Linux project gets sufficiently hijacked by commercial interests, then yes, you're right, the people with the talent to write and maintain an operating system and the commitment and willingness to do it for love will drift off to other projects. Companies like the UnitedLinux conspirators cannot afford to pay for developing and maintaining an operating system. So if they succeed in shooting the geese that lay the golden eggs, they will die.

The UnitedLinux licensing proposals are stupid, blinkered, narrow minded, and ultimately self-defeating. They need to be dropped and dropped now.

What is the problem here?

[j_w_d]

The UnitedLinux group plans to release a source-only /wo binaries. The OS movement opposes binary-only software /wo source. I usually dl source versions and compile - and I am just a user. Compiling seems to suit my system resulting in fewer problems and a better idea of how things are working. Even the dimmest of us users can generally dope out how to compile a program or an entire package of them given an adequate documentation of the necessary steps - check out GRASS as an example. What was the problem here?

The problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the problem. When you open source software, you end up with people thinking they have a right to control the business. Do you really think companies that are into making money will be impressed by non-sense such as this?

is this one of those situations...

[Anonymous Coward]

where shouts of 'rights' will drown out any intelligent views that correctly point out that it is actually 'priveledge'? more importantly, that in this shout out, it will only piss people off who would normally agree that this is not good, but the zealots have pissed them off so as to not want to help? Hmmm, seems that the zealots just never learn that you don't get any support when you act like an ass.

Service... Not Software.

[13Echo]

So how about charging for service, instead of software that was written by volunteers. This is software that was intended to be free.

What is happening here is that UL is taking something that doesn't belong to them, and are making up their own rules to slide around GPL restrictions (Suse *cough cough*).

Then again, most software companies have forgotten what offering service was about. You certainly won't get it with MS, despite the false sense of security that one may have by going with their products.

We aren't asking for everything to be free. We just don't want new restrictions to be imposed on the work that UL didn't create to begin with.

Jack yourself off, monkey.

[13Echo]

At least jack-off code monkeys from community colleges can spell the plural form of monkey.

Same Old Tatics from SUSE

[haplo21112]

This is the same old crap SUSE, and others have been pulling for a while now. Suse has for sometime now not provided an ISO image for the distrobution. They have simply taken it a step further now, by providing compliled binaries at all. One would expect this as a natural business evolution. Now from an honest point of view I would have only ever downloaded the ISO, and have never even considered purchasing the distrobution. Infact I have only purchased two linux distrobution CD's in my life in the early 90's when I was a bit of a UNIX/LINUX newbie.(which were both turbolinux as I remember, and one of which I think was when turbolinux as simply repackaged slackware.) Since that time I have moved to using only distrobutions that offer a downloadable ISO image, Stampede for a while, then a breif flirt with Mandrake, Debian for my DEC Aplhas because its the only distrobution I can get to install on them, and now Slackware for everything else I do, although Gentoo, and sorcerer seem promising once they stablize a bit more(Yes I know these are not Binary distobutions in the strictest sense, but they do provide a downloadable that gets things off the ground). From a business sense, I think that it would make more sense to provide for the download(and sell a boxed distrobution in the store at minimal cost) and provide for signing up for service/support on a web site. This really is an elegant answer, get your distrobution in the hands of the people who want it, and make the money on those who want support. This would also allow a corpation wanting to use the distrobution the opportunity to break the M$ support cycle and lockin clauses they have been stuck with for years. Support costs should be for the people who need support. Not this per seat(aka per person your company employs, per computer your company owns M$ crap).

Don't bother.

[supabeast!]

"The thought that UnitedLinux won't even offer a development distribution to the community does not sit well with me."

The thought that people really believe that companies unable to compete with Red Hat can succeed by repackaging their work into one big pile does not sit well with me. Spend your time worrying about something important, not worrying about the losers in the open source world. Wasting time with UnitedLinux will do nothing but hold you back.

So what...?

[Hard_Code]

Why is this a big deal? From what I can tell UnitedLinux is not a distribution. Therefore you will not be installing "UnitedLinux". You will be installing some distro that some vendor has adapted from UnitedLinux, and that vendor will choose whether to publish binaries along with source. If you *want* you can take a peek at the source for the framework called "UnitedLinux" that several vendors will be using to create distros, but really, I don't see that it is their responsibility to fully distro-ize something that is not a distro.

Overreaction

[p3d0]

People have totally flipped over this. It's as though everyone thinks that people should not be allowed to profit from Free software. Even RMS doesn't think that. In fact, his gripe with this situation is not that people are selling binaries; it's that they are charging a per-seat licencing fee for it.

Personally, I think these guys may have finally found a way to profit directly from Free software; namely, the software is free, but they charge for the service of compiling it. To me, that sounds just fine.

Face it people: nobody's freedom is being denied by this, so it's only offensive if you choose to be offended.

Regardless, this system doesn't even work for GPLed code anyway. The GPL rests on copyright law, and copyright law protects derivative works. Since compiled binaries are derivative works, the GPL applies to them, and the UnitedLinux folks can't stop me from purchasing one copy of their software and giving the GPL'ed binaries to my 300 million closest friends.

The real Freedom problem here, assuming there is one, relates to non-copyleft software. And hell, we all knew that already, didn't we? If the authors of a piece of code that has made its way into UnitedLinux didn't give it a copyleft license, then they have allowed this to happen. They have no right to bitch and moan about it, and we should bitch and moan at them, not the UnitedLinux folks.

Can I say "make all"???

[Lisias]

Alienating the community by lack of BINARIES???

Someone here remembers make and gcc?

How about a little more work, and a little less nonsense?

United Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

People just don't understand, United Linux is the evil brain child of Criminal Mastermind, Ransom Love. What were you expecting, doves and puppy dogs?

Get the record straight

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking morons, United Linux IS NOT A DISTRO. It is the core FOR OTHER DISTROS. Other distros WILL COMPILE THE SOURCE CODE THEMSELVES.

Get a fucking clue before boycotting everyone and their dog. Slashdot is not a viable source of news.

LUNIX RUELS

[TweeKinDaBahx]

Aww po' baby.

You're just going to have to develop for BSD like you should have been doing all along :P.

Open Source Is About Choice

[klosskorban]

And I Choose not to use United Linux. If they do not violate the GPL then don't complain. This strategy may put more Linux Computers in the corporate environment, Or it may just put all United Linux companies out of business. What-ever, Linux will survive, Open Source will prosper. And the Best OS will win in the end. Personally I'm glad there are less Linux platforms out there, it makes it easier for me and my distro of choice EvilEntity One of the only Linux Distributions that sticks to the UNIX standards.

He completely misstates the problem

[T.E.D.]

I see a lot of "so what?" comments, here and attached to the orignal article. Given that he claims the problem is that they are "refusing to release binaries", I'd have the same reaction.

However, that is not the problem. The problem is that they are releasing binaries, but they are doing so under a custom proprietary license. This means that people who have a UnitiedLinux CD won't be able to share it or loan it legally without first uninstalling the whole OS from their system. If the BSA comes and audits you, and you have UnitiedLinux on your systems, you are no better off than if you had been running WindowsNT.

Yes, it is also a bit disrepectful to all the people who worked on that software perhaps. It perverts Linux into just another business' proprietary OS, no better than Windows or OS/2 or MacOS. But more importantly its a very dangerous trend.

However, I think its a doomed trend, just like Divx was doomed, boycott or no. Someone (probably just out of B-school) thought up this great business scheme for how they could start to just rake in the dough, without stopping to ask why consumers would be willing to sign up for such a horrible deal. Unless your name is Microsoft, you have to compete for business. When much freer and cheaper options are avilable, you aren't going to do well. Why on earth would anyone drop RedHat, at $60 for their whole site, to pay $60 per seat?

Not Everyone is a AnimePhile or a NippoPhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people don't have this incredible love for all things Japanese. The parent's confusion is not unreasonable.

Most people would not know what a Keiritsu is initially.

You do get the binaries!!

[bobaferret]

All you have to do is download a SUSE or Caldera distribution etc. Since they all are compliant, it doesn't make a whole hill of difference wich distro you use. If you write an app for Suse, it sohuld work for Caldera. Isn't this the whole point!

Isn't this whole thing just a standard between a few comapnies.

It Was Only a Matter of Time

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to compete with Microsoft and Sun, somebody was going to have to standardize and commercialise Linux. If software is free, most people think it's crap. Believe it, the mainstream still thinks price=quality. As for the future of free Linux distros, let me paraphrase Dvorak: When Linux is mainstream, the Linux zealots will go elsewhere. Can you say Qnx or AtheOS?

Editor is an idiot

[Crapflooder Supreme]

You are the clueless one for believing that UnitedLinux has any sort of obligation whatsoever to do anything. If they don't want to distribute binaries, that's just fine. Don't use the software if you don't agree. How much more simple can it get?

Bwahahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

A new song for Linux!
Fork fork fork fork
Fork fork fork fork
FORK! Glorious Fork!

Told ya so

At risk of repeating everyone else

[Felinoid]

I'm far less supprised this happend now than I am that it never happend before.
The source code is provided so that we can re-create and compeate.

I write GPLed program Ishi and give it away.
If you want to make a commertal product and sell it I'm all up for it.. buy a commertal liccens from me.. like you'd do for any non-free software. I gave this program to the world and people quickly confuse this gift to that of a Christmas or birthday present.

I give a present to a single person he can sell it if he likes.
But if I give a gift to three people.. say a house.. and one collects rent from the other two I'll be very pissed.

I give this program to THE WORLD.. No single person should be able to sell my work to annother person.. let alone myself. Great that you added code but if your work dosn't stand alone then you'll have to recreate my work. Sorry just how it is.

Now.. you take my code and put it in a pacage with exsisting commertal software.. I'm ok.. Your just including something that is already free.

Your pacage is a bunch of free software.. well thats nice.. show me the code..

You tossed in some commertal software. Ok hay no skin off my nose.

Destrobutions give away a compleate binary for free becouse the community expects it.
The commertal realitys are that any Linux distro COULD go give source code...
But....

Every Linux release we all jump in the air.. Linus just shoots of an e-mail..

Microsoft spends billions and everyone says "Oh" for each Windows release.

Linux the question is "why shouldn't I update"
Windows the question is "Why should I?"

For that reason it's douptful anyone is using anything as old as Kernel 2.2 but Windows 3.x is still in use today...

Why? Linux is free.. I pay $35 to Slackware for the latest Slackware becouse it's free...

I download each version but from time to time I'll buy a CD... last time I got the manual as well.

I won't touch RedHat becouse I can't download it.

It's a marketting advantage..

Caldera offered Open Linux lite... The full pacage includes comemrtal software.. you have to buy that....

Also when I buy How To books on Linux they come with freebe Linux CDs.. Slackware, RedHat, Debian etc... It increases the value of the book. But wait... UnitedLinux is going to miss out on that...

When we give away CDs at the office and to friends guess who won't be in the burnner? United Linux.

Who won't be available at the Linux UGs? United Linux

Who won't be available at any of the Linux community sponsered type giveaways and freebes done to premote Linux.. or in ANY Linux premotion deal.. United Linux.

Even if they provided a United Lite they'd be included...

Or we can say "Oh well.." and let it die a slow and painful death...

"Good bye... sorry you misunderstood us..." and maybe it's better now than later....
So that somebody won't be hurt and bitterly clame no money in Linux...

Stop pissing and moaning....

[Eric Damron]

As Linux travels into the mainstream we will see more and more of this. I can see a day where companies such as Redhat and Mandrake will also stop offering free binaries.

Why? Because the Linux community has shown itself too immature to voluntarily support companies that support Linux. There are, of course, the exceptions but out of the millions of Linux users only a VERY SMALL percentage actually donate to the companies that support them. Most are just takers.

So, let's talk about the "spirit" of GNU/GPL. The idea was to allow others to freely take software, improve it and then put it back where everyone could benefit. Because the vast majority of people don't know how to program, it became "Free Software" instead of "Open Source Software." Most can't give back by improving the software. This shouldn't stop them from making a modest monetary donation to the people developing the software.

We cannot expect companies to sacrifice themselves to give us free products. If the current open source business model doesn't work then that model will have to be modified to allow companies who support our community to earn a living.

If we're not willing to allow the current business models to work, we shouldn't piss and moan when those models are changed.

Mod Parent Up!

[lay]

If you don't know how to dance, it's the floor's fault. If you don't get it, mod it offtopic.

Slashdot...

Pickier still

[bcaulf]

If you distribute an application that is built from GPL'd source code, you must make that source code available to anyone who wants it.

Actually you have two choices:

1. Include the source with all distributions of the binary
   
2. Make the source available to all at a nominal fee
   

Either way the license must be the GNU GPL. But you can, for example, sell the product to someone under the GPL, give them the source, but not give the source to all and sundry. This is essentially a technicality since the recipient of the source is free to redistribute. But the GPL doesn't mandate making the software available to everyone, nor does it mandate FSF style nominal fee distribution.

Do I really have to do EVERYTHING myself!?

[signal7]

Big freakin' deal - So I have to compile it and then resell the compiled version. At least I'll make some money on the lamers who can't type ./configure; make; make install

I guess that's another loss for the 'small' distro companies...