Where UnitedLinux Got It Wrong

Not for retail stores by rtaylor · 2002-06-02 13:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!

--
Rod Taylor

Re:Not for retail stores by beamz · 2002-06-02 14:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

Binaries and GPL by slashclone · 2002-06-02 13:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

--

US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil

Re:Binaries and GPL by Daemonik · 2002-06-02 13:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Grax · 2002-06-02 13:48 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Coding Blog

keiretsu... for the english speakers by whydna · 2002-06-02 13:05 · Score: 5, Informative

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....? by Daemonik · 2002-06-02 13:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

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....? by big.ears · 2002-06-02 13:20 · Score: 2

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....? by SWroclawski · 2002-06-02 14:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

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....? by denial · 2002-06-02 14:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

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....? by istartedi · 2002-06-02 14:37 · Score: 2

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.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:And this is bad because....? by dinotrac · 2002-06-02 14:51 · Score: 2

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....? by Trepalium · 2002-06-02 16:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Re:And this is bad because....? by Chris+Johnson · 2002-06-02 20:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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....? by rifter · 2002-06-02 20:28 · Score: 2

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....? by Znork · 2002-06-02 22:30 · Score: 2

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....? by dinotrac · 2002-06-03 02:43 · Score: 2

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....? by flatrock · 2002-06-03 05:03 · Score: 2

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....? by Chris+Johnson · 2002-06-03 06:11 · Score: 2

...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....? by hawk · 2002-06-04 09:41 · Score: 2

>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... by gamorck · 2002-06-02 13:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:What I dont understand... by cpeterso · 2002-06-02 13:12 · Score: 2

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.

--
cpeterso
Re:What I dont understand... by archen · 2002-06-02 13:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

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... by Phroggy · 2002-06-02 13:47 · Score: 2

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?

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:What I dont understand... by erat · 2002-06-02 13:51 · Score: 2

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... by crawling_chaos · 2002-06-02 17:51 · Score: 2
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
--
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Re:What I dont understand... by erat · 2002-06-03 01:55 · Score: 2

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.

What's the big deal? by RevAaron · 2002-06-02 13:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.)

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad

Re:What's the big deal? by Daemonik · 2002-06-02 13:25 · Score: 2

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? by RevAaron · 2002-06-02 14:00 · Score: 2

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.

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:What's the big deal? by Daemonik · 2002-06-02 14:16 · Score: 2

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? by rant-mode-on · 2002-06-02 14:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
- 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? by ErikZ · 2002-06-02 16:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Re:What's the big deal? by TheSHAD0W · 2002-06-02 16:59 · Score: 2

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? by thales · 2002-06-02 22:19 · Score: 2

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

Redhat. The Anaconda installer is GPL software.

--
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Re:What's the big deal? by Linux_ho · 2002-06-03 01:14 · Score: 2

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

--
include $sig;
1;
Re:What's the big deal? by RevAaron · 2002-06-03 03:31 · Score: 2

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

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:What's the big deal? by RevAaron · 2002-06-03 03:33 · Score: 2

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

;)

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:What's the big deal? by RevAaron · 2002-06-03 03:37 · Score: 2

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.

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad

United Linux wants to stay in business by GoatPigSheep · 2002-06-02 13:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups

Re:United Linux wants to stay in business by GigsVT · 2002-06-02 15:13 · Score: 2

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

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:United Linux wants to stay in business by Chris+Johnson · 2002-06-02 19:39 · Score: 2

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 by NineNine · 2002-06-02 22:59 · Score: 2

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

big friggin deal by tongue · 2002-06-02 13:14 · Score: 2, Flamebait

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 by pjrc · 2002-06-02 14:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

--
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Re:big friggin deal by tongue · 2002-06-02 15:54 · Score: 2

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 by joto · 2002-06-02 20:45 · Score: 2

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 by Tony-A · 2002-06-03 01:55 · Score: 2

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 by tongue · 2002-06-04 02:05 · Score: 2

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

So? by Burgundy+Advocate · 2002-06-02 13:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.

Re:So? by martyn+s · 2002-06-02 14:18 · Score: 2

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? by The+Cat · 2002-06-02 14:50 · Score: 2

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? by Malcontent · 2002-06-02 20:19 · Score: 2

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.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:So? by Graymalkin · 2002-06-02 20:32 · Score: 2

By telling me not to steal.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Re:So? by Malcontent · 2002-06-02 20:36 · Score: 2

"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."

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:So? by Peter+Harris · 2002-06-02 21:16 · Score: 2

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". :)

--

-- What do you need?
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
Re:So? by NineNine · 2002-06-02 22:50 · Score: 2

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? by Fjord · 2002-06-03 02:21 · Score: 2

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?

--
-no broken link
Re:So? by Malcontent · 2002-06-03 04:13 · Score: 2

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

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:So? by Arandir · 2002-06-03 05:34 · Score: 2

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.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:So? by martyn+s · 2002-06-03 06:34 · Score: 2

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? by Malcontent · 2002-06-03 17:00 · Score: 2

"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.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:So? by Malcontent · 2002-06-03 18:36 · Score: 2

"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.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:So? by pete-classic · 2002-06-04 08:06 · Score: 2

"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? by Malcontent · 2002-06-04 16:52 · Score: 2

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.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:So? by pete-classic · 2002-06-04 18:24 · Score: 2

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

Repeating Caldera's mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-02 13:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by peterdaly · 2002-06-02 13:40 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
Soccer Goal Plans
Re:Repeating Caldera's mistake by Rayder · 2002-06-02 17:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Not a big deal. by tftp · 2002-06-02 13:22 · Score: 2

"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. by Phroggy · 2002-06-02 13:53 · Score: 2

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.)

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Not a big deal. by Anomolous+Cow+Herd · 2002-06-02 14:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush

Re:I demand a boycott! by nomadic · 2002-06-02 13:22 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

The potential damaging effects of this strategy by hillct · 2002-06-02 13:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

Re:The potential damaging effects of this strategy by ahde · 2002-06-02 15:06 · Score: 2

maintaining makefiles is probably the single hardest part of developing software
Re:The potential damaging effects of this strategy by cpeterso · 2002-06-02 15:56 · Score: 2

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?

--
cpeterso
Re:The potential damaging effects of this strategy by erat · 2002-06-03 05:35 · Score: 2

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...

source/patches is all I really want anyway! by Xtifr · 2002-06-02 13:31 · Score: 2

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.

Ransom Love's Brain Bites Again! by peterdaly · 2002-06-02 13:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
Soccer Goal Plans

Microsoft Linux? by Sean+Clifford · 2002-06-02 13:41 · Score: 2

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...

How many times does this need to be repeated?? by erat · 2002-06-02 13:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

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. by Shane · 2002-06-02 13:43 · Score: 2

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.

--
-- You can be a geeklord too :)

This may actually make sense by darkonc · 2002-06-02 13:46 · Score: 2

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.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.

Re:What is with you people? by josh+crawley · 2002-06-02 13:53 · Score: 2

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:This is kind of naive by Lumpy · 2002-06-02 13:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Well, by Phroggy · 2002-06-02 14:00 · Score: 2

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.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

Re:United Binary Linux by Daemonik · 2002-06-02 14:01 · Score: 2

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:Just FIGHT BACK! by Daemonik · 2002-06-02 14:09 · Score: 2

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.

I don't get the complainers by aztektum · 2002-06-02 14:20 · Score: 2

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."

--
:: aztek ::
No sig for you!!

Anti-management childishness on Slashdot by alexhmit01 · 2002-06-02 14:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Lumpy · 2002-06-02 14:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Anti-management childishness on Slashdot by ahde · 2002-06-02 15:03 · Score: 2

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 by Lemmy+Caution · 2002-06-02 17:01 · Score: 2

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 by nomadic · 2002-06-02 18:58 · Score: 2

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 by ahde · 2002-06-05 16:57 · Score: 2

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 by ahde · 2002-06-05 17:03 · Score: 2

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.

Another GPL by rant-mode-on · 2002-06-02 14:29 · Score: 2

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:United Binary Linux by ahde · 2002-06-02 14:35 · Score: 2

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.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-06-02 14:37 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Both of these reasons by Chuck+Chunder · 2002-06-02 14:39 · Score: 2

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.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

Re:Both of these reasons by SWroclawski · 2002-06-03 02:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

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? by ahde · 2002-06-02 14:45 · Score: 2

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:Microsoft Linux? no, but maybe a BSD by Isaac-Lew · 2002-06-02 14:48 · Score: 2

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).

Re:This is kind of naive by ahde · 2002-06-02 14:54 · Score: 2

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.

Why would anyone want binaries? by Zymurgy · 2002-06-02 15:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
-Lawrence
Visit Zymurgy Records!

Re:Why worry? by zangdesign · 2002-06-02 15:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.

Conspiracy theory by dcavanaugh · 2002-06-02 15:33 · Score: 2

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" by CrosseyedPainless · 2002-06-02 15:39 · Score: 2

compile the damn source code.

Have you no pride?

Licence is sole expression of an authors desires. by Chuck+Chunder · 2002-06-02 15:59 · Score: 2

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.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

This is kind of naive by Svartalf · 2002-06-02 16:09 · Score: 2

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.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

Re:Not a big deal. (Mod this parent up!) by rasjani · 2002-06-02 17:22 · Score: 2

Exactly.

--
yush

Oh the humanity of it all! by Arandir · 2002-06-02 17:53 · Score: 2

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...

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Re:morons. by nomadic · 2002-06-02 18:36 · Score: 2

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...

Re:well by foonf · 2002-06-02 19:04 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--

"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre

Re:binaries *and* source by foonf · 2002-06-02 19:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

--

"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre

test case reveals predictable slashdot behaviour by rifter · 2002-06-02 20:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

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... by Rogerborg · 2002-06-02 20:19 · Score: 2

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.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Like a hole in the head by Simon+Brooke · 2002-06-02 20:23 · Score: 2

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.

--
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.

What is the problem here? by j_w_d · 2002-06-02 20:30 · Score: 2

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 only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.

Same Old Tatics from SUSE by haplo21112 · 2002-06-03 00:53 · Score: 2

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).

--
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.

Don't bother. by supabeast! · 2002-06-03 01:23 · Score: 2

"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...? by Hard_Code · 2002-06-03 01:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?

Re:Why worry? by zangdesign · 2002-06-03 01:38 · Score: 2

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.

--
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.

Overreaction by p3d0 · 2002-06-03 01:40 · Score: 2

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.

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....

He completely misstates the problem by T.E.D. · 2002-06-03 03:27 · Score: 2

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?

At risk of repeating everyone else by Felinoid · 2002-06-03 07:45 · Score: 2

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...

--
I don't actually exist.

Stop pissing and moaning.... by Eric+Damron · 2002-06-03 07:47 · Score: 2

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.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

Slashdot Mirror

Where UnitedLinux Got It Wrong

127 of 327 comments (clear)