Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.