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."
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.
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
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
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
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
- 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.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!