SuSE Denies UnitedLinux Per-Seat License Model

hmmm by rickms · 2002-06-04 01:48 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Am I the only scared one here? Already contradicting each other?

--
Making something out of nothing : MD5 ("") = d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e

Re:hmmm by robburt · 2002-06-04 02:00 · Score: 1

I'm thinking that they've moved a little fast on this whole thing. Obviously they were trying to get to market quickly, but I'm thinking they should be a little more "United" before stepping into the press.

--
--- I'll have a Bloody Mary, a Steak Sandwich and a uh Steak Sandwich.
Re:Hmmm by jsse · 2002-06-04 02:20 · Score: 1

Seems that UnitedLinux is already divided.

No, there'll be UnitedLinux-Caldera, UnitedLinux-Conectiva, UnitedLinux-SuSE, and UnitedLinux-TurboLinux; each with per-seat, per-processor, per-user, and free-as-in-beer-but-only-come-with-source license.
Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:37 · Score: 1

Why? As far as I understood it, they just agree to develop the core distribution together. Then every company will bring it out under its own name with a "Powered by UnitedLinux" sticker. Nobody ever said that they agreed on details like prices or whether they'ld do per-seat licensing for their individual distributions or not.
Re:hmmm by AndyElf · 2002-06-04 02:51 · Score: 1

...and Caldera will charge a per-seat.

--

--AP
Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:58 · Score: 0

Why are all slashdot users against suse?
Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 03:07 · Score: 0

I have used SuSE starting with version 6.0 and am now running at least 2 8.0 boxes, not all slashdot'er are anti-SuSE
Re:hmmm by rickms · 2002-06-04 06:50 · Score: 1

Umm how is the fact that the members of UnitedLinux contradicting each other Offtopic? Sheesh.

--
Making something out of nothing : MD5 ("") = d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e

Doom... by MaxVlast · 2002-06-04 01:48 · Score: 2

This doesn't seem to be going very well. Is it me, or does any sort of combined Linux effort seem doomed to die on the rocks of licensing issues? When you have gangs of people obsessed with ephemeral issues, it's easy to get stuck on them forever.

--
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome

Re:Doom... by robburt · 2002-06-04 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

This really reminds me of the "Green Day" special that I watched the other night. The band had it's roots in "Real" punk rock, with the street kids an whatnot coming to the Berkley shows (Gilman St), but as soon as they decided to bank on their talent (which was becming apparent), the community turned it's back on them.

I see a similar situation here, and I have to say that I really do feel for the decision makers in this area. I mean, everyone has come to see RedHat as "bad" b/c they decided to make a profit on "free" software. It's got to be tough to decide where to draw the line. Do you really want to alienate an entire user group?

--
--- I'll have a Bloody Mary, a Steak Sandwich and a uh Steak Sandwich.
Re:Doom... by Clue4All · 2002-06-04 02:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

I think you almost hit the nail on the head with this one. Four Linux companies that haven't done anything in a long time (Caldera, TurboLinux? Are they kidding??) are ganging up to try to take on RedHat, but the fact remains that they're still four dying companies. I'm really not sure what they're trying to accomplish with this initiative, but it looks like a last-ditch effort on the way out, which is really a shame because SuSE was almost sustaining a business and I had high hopes for it, even if I'm a Mandrake fan, myself.

--

Is your browser retarded?
Re:Doom... by jaaron · 2002-06-04 03:31 · Score: 1

Wrong nail.

They're not competing, they're cooperating. Granted Caldera's Ransom Love doesn't play nice and probably won't ever understand open source software. But they're doing exactly what they should do, what open source is designed to do: cooperate and work on successful standards rather than duplicate work. These distros are finally picking up the LSB and implimenting. They're saving time and energy buy working together. It'll help standardize Linux which will help ISVs and marketing. RedHat is welcome to join. People blow this whole little distros vs. Red Hat thing WAY out of proportion.

What's more, these companies are far from 'dying.' Struggling at times? Yes, but they have a global market that you may not be aware of.

--
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Re:Doom... by thesolo · 2002-06-04 03:42 · Score: 5, Informative

Four Linux companies that haven't done anything in a long time (Caldera, TurboLinux? Are they kidding??)

SuSE hasn't done anything in a long time??! Nonsense. On top of being the first distro with KDE3 and Alsa .99 drivers, SuSE 8 also has an extremely customized version of YaST2 which is amazing. (I couldn't care less that it's not free). Also, Caldera & TurboLinux both have a very loyal userbase in their respective locales.

re ganging up to try to take on RedHat

If you read the original press release, you'd see that the companies involved in United Linux extended an offer to Redhat (as well as any other distro that is interested) to join the effort. This is not a direct assault on Redhat, it's an effort to get a standard, easily supportable distribution.

but the fact remains that they're still four dying companies

SuSE is dying?? Really? You might want to tell that to IBM and the German Government.

In my opinion, UnitedLinux is an effort to focus on the LSB, to make an easily-supportable version of Linux that works the same regardless of the localized vendor you pick. If they do it right, I think it will definitely be a Good Thing (TM).
Re:Doom... by Izeickl · 2002-06-04 03:56 · Score: 2, Informative

SuSE is the distro the German government are using with this new IBM deal apparently, according to the BBC Here

--
Laptop Reviews
Re:Doom... by aquarian · 2002-06-04 04:03 · Score: 2

So, they gave up trying to please a vocal but miniscule clique of snot-nosed whiners in order to reach a much wider, and more appreciative ($$$) audience. Sounds like a good plan to me!
Re:Doom... by lunenburg · 2002-06-04 04:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

This may be cynical, but this is how I look at most of the "Wah wah, Red Hat is Microsoft" talk.

A sizable portion of the "computer elite" get a great deal of self-worth from how obscure the software they use is. So back several years ago when your choices were Microsoft and Apple, they could crow about "You're using those toy operating systems? Hah - I'm using Linux." And it really didn't matter what distro you were using (even thought most people were on Red Hat or Slackware), because Linux was so small and off-the-radar that Linux was Linux.

Now, however, with Linux becoming mainstream (preinstalled on servers, available in Wal-Mart, etc.), you can't be "cool" just by using Linux any more. If you run Red Hat, there's the chance that you might (gasp!) be running the same OS as the neophyte computer kid down the street. Can't have that happen and keep the cool-points. So you see the kiddies running to the other Red Hat-like distributions (can't be too complicated or different) such as Mandrake and SuSE, so they can still keep that air of superiority on Slashdot ("You use Red Hat? Hah - I'm using Mandrake. They're not sellouts.")

Red Hat may not do the right thing 100% of the time, but they come as close as anyone. From the way some of the kids talk around here, though, you'd think they were skewering babies and switching the gas at the local BP with sugar. So I chalk most of it up to insecurity. But that may just be the cynic in me.
Re:Doom... by MrResistor · 2002-06-04 04:30 · Score: 2

Having been a Green Day fan since 1991, I have to say that Dookie was a definate departure in sound and feel from their earlier albums. I think that people turning their backs on the band had much less to do with the fact that they were making money than the fact that they just didn't sound like the old Green Day that they knew and loved. The same thing happened to Metallica with Load, Iron Maiden with Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, and Chumbawumba with Tubthumper. The band changed their sound, and the old fans didn't like it.

I do have to say, though, that I was irked that the Circus Tents sticker on his guitar was blurred out in the Longview video. The Circus Tents were from my town, and picked the other path of the "get famous or break up" debate.

I don't think Green Day sold out, I think they just grew up. It was unhappy coincidence for them that their sound change coincided with their release on a major label. As a musician, I know the change of sound was innevitable. You can't play the same thing over and over for your whole life (well, maybe if you're a Ramone you can, but I think they've spent a little to much time sedated). I'm certainly playing a lot more Jazz and Classical and a lot less Punk and Metal than I was 10 years ago. It happens to everybody.

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Re:Doom... by robburt · 2002-06-04 04:48 · Score: 1

According to Billy-Joe (as well as the club owner at Gilman) it _WAS_ infact due to the fact that they "turned" their back on the punk culture. I too have been a fan (before Dookie) and I agree it was a departure, but the fact still remains, that the sore spot was due to the fact that they were becoming part of the establishment (in the eye of the "kids" from berkley). They went so far as to heckle the guys when they played at other Berkley clubs (post Dookie).

I definitely agree with you in respect to the fact that they grew up, and as I've said to friends, doing what they wanted was just about the most "punk" thing that they could do. Isn't it all about breaking the rules and going against the grain? They chose the dangerous path instead of the one that was clear and safe.

--
--- I'll have a Bloody Mary, a Steak Sandwich and a uh Steak Sandwich.
Re:Doom... by jav1231 · 2002-06-04 05:43 · Score: 1

Excellent point. I think you're right on target with that. I see so many newbies migrating to Slackware because (I think) they think it's cool to be obscure. Or supposed "guru's" wearing it like a badge. Don't get me wrong, Slackware is a great distro and certainly more hardened than alot of out-of-the-box distro's, but it's not geared toward the average user and isn't intended to be. Furthermore, go into some of the linux help channels on IRC and help is not something you're likely to get much of the time. Newbies get chided for the distro they choose, others get chided for not reading the howto's. The fact is they came in for help and you hardly help the cause of Linux by telling them to fuck off; esp. when so many of the howto's are so outdated as to be irrelivent. The truth is, as you have pointed out, that many don't want the newbies to become proficient because then they lose something. It's as if they see knowledge as something finite (like Democrats see money). If I give you some, I must therefore lose some. When the truth is, there's always more to be had with some work and determination. >
Re:Doom... by DjCheeto · 2002-06-04 05:59 · Score: 1

I've been a green day fan since the beginning too and I can assure you they haven't sold out. A lot of time poeple get pissed when their favorite band gets too big, it's called ignorance. Go see greenday play live sometime soon, you'll see that they have remained true to themselves and are just having a lot more fun now. They give a mean performance.
Re:Doom... by minkeyboodle · 2002-06-04 06:32 · Score: 1

Your analogy doesn't quite fit here. Green Day was catering to their "street kids and whatnot" community and depended on them for money and popularity. They allegedly turned their backs on them by deciding to "bank on their talent" which alienated the very people who were giving them respect and money.

On the other hand, United Linux is taking something built by a community and building more on top of it to cater to the enterprise business. They are not trying to cater to the Linux community specifically. Since the enterprise is being sought here (along with popularity and money from said enterprise), I doubt the enterprise would deliberately turn their collective back on United Linux.

These are two different situations.

That is not to say the community still won't benefit. The work done by United Linux on the GPLed and other Open Sourced code goes back to the community. The using of money to push Linux into the Enterprise only boosts the popularity of Linux to yet another market segment. I'm sure there are other benefits, but these two are fairly significant.

== This is my personal opinion. You can share it if you like. ==
Re:Doom... by _Sprocket_ · 2002-06-04 08:37 · Score: 2

Furthermore, go into some of the linux help channels on IRC and help is not something you're likely to get much of the time.

First off - I have to admit that within IT circles, there are those who wrongly assume hording information makes that information valuable (giving out information makes YOU valuable as the source of knowledge). It has to be happening in IRC channels too. But that doesn't mean it is ALWAYS happening.

I, too, occasionally step in to Linux channels on various IRC networks. Usually as a last resort (Google and Google Groups / Usenet tend to unearth far more answers). Quite often there is nobody there to help me with my particular problem - being polite and patient helps. But that is lost on some.

Every time I enter one of these channels, there is always someone who pops in, blurts out a question, and then complains or becomes obnoxious if there are no forthcoming answers. These people seem to be under a mistaken assumption that those who attend such channels owe them answers.

Those who wish to have a guarenteed level of service should install the distro of their choice and promptly purchase a tech support contract (if they didn't get one with a purchase box set, etc).

One final comment. "RTFM" is, in fact, a valid responce... with qualifiers. Those who say "RTFM" should also provide a URL, file path, or at least a document tittle. Those who recieve a proper "RTFM" responce should be willing to read the provided document and learn.

And again - if you don't wish to learn, hire someone to provide tech support.
Re:Doom... by rodgerd · 2002-06-04 09:38 · Score: 2

Would these be the same kids that put Jello Biafra in hospital for being a sellout?

If they are, pardon me for considering their judgement suspect.
Re:Doom... by __past__ · 2002-06-04 09:47 · Score: 2

SuSE is the distro the German government are using
...as well as about everybody else in Germany. SuSE is pretty much the "default distro" here, and the only one you see in the window of about every bigger bookstore (where Linux distros usually are sold) when a new release comes out. Not to mention that a lot of books on advanced Linux topics are from SuSEPress, and I'd say they even have a better stand in the consulting market than their competitors. Sure, RedHat is well-known too, and Debian has it's share among both hackers and ISPs, but they are nowhere as big as SuSE.
Given that Germany is one of the more Linux-friendly countries, and hence an attractive market, SuSE is not likely to go anywhere - even if they fail badly in, say, the US market (IIRC they did - didn't they have to close their US dependency recently because it fucked up, even so that Dirk(?) Hohndel (of XFree86 fame, one of the founders) had to quit?), they still have the german one as a comfortable home-ground.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Re:Doom... by LinuxHam · 2002-06-04 12:02 · Score: 2

I don't think Green Day sold out

Yes they did. :) Its okay. So did U2 and Goo Goo Dolls.

you can't play the same thing over and over for your whole life

I have actually been nauseated by just about anything released after 1990. I still listen to 17 year old Big Black and Alien Sex Fiend stuff every freaking day. But that's just me.

I love the smell of burning karma in the morning..

--
Intelligent Life on Earth
Re:Doom... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-05 00:24 · Score: 0

What does sell out mean exactly anyways? As a professional musician of over 20 years, I find it funny to hear people throwing this term around when they truly don't have a clue what it means. I adapt my music to appeal to the larger audiences, hence increasing my viability as a musician, as well as income, and because I do not follow the same ol tracks that everyone else has, I'm a sellout. I tell you what, the next time your boss comes up to you and offers you a promotion with new responsibilites and a 50% increase in pay, tell him no. You would hate to be a sellout to your current customers. It is stupid and pointless to assume that we as musicians want to be any less successful at our careers than you do at your own. Most musicians who 'do it for the art' work at Walmart during the day.

Other rumors/misunderstandings? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 01:50 · Score: 0

Can they also confirm/deny that there is, in fact, no giant corporation behind them (say providing global support services) that is trying to gain a significant foothold in the Linux world?

There's a word for poeple who think that everyone is out to get them: perceptive.

Hmmm by cdrudge · 2002-06-04 01:50 · Score: 2, Redundant

Seems that UnitedLinux is already divided.

Miror by Alan_Thicke · 2002-06-04 01:51 · Score: 0, Funny

Here is a mirror.

--
Alan Thicke's Journal
My Slashdot ads say "

Re:Miror by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 05:06 · Score: 0

junkbuster

"Divided Linux" is a better name by nurb432 · 2002-06-04 01:51 · Score: 0, Troll

That didnt take long to happen... Though we all saw it coming..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:"Divided Linux" is a better name by JordanH · 2002-06-04 02:28 · Score: 1

Anyone could have predicted this. Think about it, had the UnitedLinux partners all insisted on per-seat licensing, then some new distro would pop up that takes the UnitedLinux base with no per-seat licensing.
I guess I'm a little surprised that it happened so fast. My guess is that SuSE was never really on board with the per-seat charge in the first place.

How to use it for free... by alapalaya · 2002-06-04 01:52 · Score: 3, Funny

per-seat licensing

Don't sit down while using it, remove the seats from the pc room, and you're done! :)

--
667 The Neighbour of the Beast

Re:How to use it for free... by Bios_Hakr · 2002-06-04 02:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Even better, replace the seats with chairs...Nice comfy ones.

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Re:How to use it for free... by TonyZahn · 2002-06-04 02:50 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, you can't remove the seats from the techies, and knowing the physiche (sp?) of the average Slashdotter, there's going to be some big licenses...

--
- sig? who is this sig of which you speak?
Re:How to use it for free... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 03:50 · Score: 0

667 is across the street from the beast. 668 is the neighbor of the beast.
Re:How to use it for free... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 04:11 · Score: 0

or the native Japanese port - no seats required..
Re:How to use it for free... by sharkey · 2002-06-04 04:15 · Score: 2

Even better, replace the seats with chairs...Nice comfy ones.

Homer: "What you guys need...is hammocks!
.
.
.
Excuse me, Hank? Do you know where I can get some business hammocks?"

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:How to use it for free... by drinkypoo · 2002-06-04 05:07 · Score: 1

I think the seat they're talking about is actually your butt. Maybe you can reduce the licensing fee via dieting or liposuction.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

That's too bad by Burgundy+Advocate · 2002-06-04 01:52 · Score: 2

I'm serious.

SuSE, with UnitedLinux, had an innovative idea for selling Linux. They are within their legal bounds, and I see nothing wrong with a company taking full advantage of the GPL.

I guess this is just one more Linux company that's headed for the scrap heap. If they could have gained some respectability among business (which seemed to be their plan) they might have been able to earn money and succeed.

And really, who better than SuSE to lead the next wave of the revolution? Ah well... *sigh*

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

Re:That's too bad by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:36 · Score: 0

They are within their legal bounds

No one is claiming Caldera is violating their legal rights with the per-seat/no source thing. The complaint has nothing to do with legality, the complaint is that they are treating their customers poorly, and this is a bad decision from a customer service and relations standpoint.

SUSE has already *gained* respectability among businesses. If you remember, yesterday there was an article on slashdot explaining how SUSE (through IBM) had gotten a massive contract to run linux on all the german government's webservers.

In my opinion, instituting painful, irritating license terms that make it more of a hassle and more expensive for businesses to use your product is *not* a way to gain "respectability" among businesses. In my opinion, unless you're Microsoft (in which case people will put up with anything you do), per-seat licensing is a good way to gain a reputation among businesses as a spoiled child. It also does not seem that denying your customers the right to download and make free copies of your binaries when your competitors (*who offer a near identical product*) do, is not a good way to appear "respectable" or appealing to businesses.

There is no way that the caldera/unitedlinux freaky licensing terms are in any way a sane business decision.

-- super ugly ultraman

Damn... by ImaLamer · 2002-06-04 01:54 · Score: 2

So many jokes to make and I can't seem to think of a great one.

So make your own...

UnitedLinux ______divided_______________!

--
Get your Unix fortune now!

Re:Damn... by grahamlee · 2002-06-04 01:59 · Score: 1

It seems that Sham 69 (famous sarf Lahndan punk band) were wrong when they said "If the distros are United / They will never be divided".
Also, it seems strange that SuSE want in on a UnitedLinux project...it means removing rc.config
Re:Damn... by HiQ · 2002-06-04 02:07 · Score: 1, Funny

cat unitedlinux > /div/null
Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:11 · Score: 0

Who the heck is Sham 69? Lahndan punk? No wonder United Linux is in trouble... it's the Geek Reality Distortion Field. You know, the same one that makes you think a socialist like Ralph Nader would give you MORE freedom.
Re:Damn... by JordanH · 2002-06-04 02:24 · Score: 1

UntiedLinux!
Re:Damn... by caca_phony · 2002-06-04 02:29 · Score: 1

cat unitedlinux > /div/null
I don't get it. Is this some joke about The LSB and having a directory called /div? Are you playing stupid? Are you trying to repeat a Unix joke you once heard, while knowing nothing about Unix? Have I just been trolled? I just don't get it.

--
...and this lie crawls out of its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'
Re:Damn... by HiQ · 2002-06-04 02:40 · Score: 1

Lighten up, t'was only a small joke, but it doesn't get any better if I explain it. And no, I'm not stupid (and certainly don't like being called that); I do know a thing or two about Unix.
The abbriviation of 'divide' is 'div', which looks a bit like 'dev'. It also looks like UnitedLinux is already on destruction course. These things combined...get it?
Re:Damn... by jdavidb · 2002-06-04 02:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hey, I made it first. :)

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Damn... by jdavidb · 2002-06-04 02:48 · Score: 1

the Geek Reality Distortion Field. You know, the same one that makes you think a socialist like Ralph Nader would give you MORE freedom.

A quote like that makes me wish you'd posted as yourself so I could add you to my friends list.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Damn... by grahamlee · 2002-06-04 03:32 · Score: 1

Who the heck is Sham 69?

From the greatest hits,

Sham 69 were formed in 1976, in the white heat of the British Punk scene. The name, famously, came from faded football graffiti on the wall of a public toilet (originally, it had said Walton & Hersham `69).
[...]
The next single, If The Kids Are United became a youth anthem across the country, preaching a more positive message to Punk youth than many of their contemporaries chose.

Graham (waiting to be moderated Offtopic)
Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 04:18 · Score: 0

So you ARE stupid!
Re:Damn... by Flamester · 2002-06-04 05:27 · Score: 1

rc.config is not used in SuSE 8.0

From the 8.0 features list:
"Complete revision of the previous /etc/rc.config, which was split into several configuration files in the new directory /etc/sysconfig"

--
The surgeon general has determined that Windows may be hazardous to your wallet.
Re:Damn... by grahamlee · 2002-06-04 10:05 · Score: 1

Thank god for that.

It was starting to feel like SuSE thought we should have one big configuration file containing all the options that could possibly be set in the OS. A kind of Registry of config options. And we all know what happens When Registries Attack...

Communications by southpolesammy · 2002-06-04 01:54 · Score: 2

I wonder if SuSe obtained the permission of the UL team members to issue this statement. If not, sounds like the UnitedLinux project has some communication problems at the least, and possibly some larger problems looming on the horizon.

I know if I had issued a statement like this without consulting my team members first that there would be hell to pay, but we'll see.

--
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.

Re:Communications by ctid · 2002-06-04 02:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Judging from what the United Linux partners have said, there wouldn't be any restriction on SuSE saying this. As far as I understand, SuSE, Caldera and the rest will sell distros which are "powered" by United Linux. The idea being, presumably, that software updates/packages for one UL-based distro will be compatible with all UL-based distros. However, the companies will all have independent contents, pricing, marketing etc. Therefore, SuSE is just saying what their pricing approach will be. What SuSE chooses to say about selling their UL-powered distro is no business of the other partners.

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Re:Communications by RevAaron · 2002-06-04 02:36 · Score: 2

Someone mod this up- there are a lot of cornfused slashkiddiez in the house, and this may be just what they need!

--

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

Sith lord Love by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 01:56 · Score: 0

Did n't Caldera try this before and no one bought into it? if I were united linux I would anadon this idea quickly

No Choice by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 01:56 · Score: 0

They have no choice but to unite. This is what must happen in hard times. It will happen.

Re:No Choice by alapalaya · 2002-06-04 02:15 · Score: 1

They have no choice but to unite. This is what must happen in hard drives. It will happen.

If you change you post in this way it's perfect for the article about the IBM & Hitachi.... :)

--
667 The Neighbour of the Beast

Doesn't "plan" by Penguinoflight · 2002-06-04 01:58 · Score: 1

He said he didn't "Plan" to do per seat licencing, but he didn't say he DIDN'T plan to. Basically he's just saying what we want to hear now.

--
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14

Re:Doesn't "plan" by thefogger · 2002-06-04 02:44 · Score: 1

He said he didn't "Plan" to do per seat licencing, but he didn't say he DIDN'T plan to

Is there something in this sentence that doesn't make sense?

He said he didn't plan but he didn't say he didn't plan? What did he plan to say that they didn't want to do, but didn't?

--

Um... I didn't do it!
Re:Doesn't "plan" by Penguinoflight · 2002-06-04 07:01 · Score: 1

Well, merely saying you haven't planned to do something is different than saying you plan to not do it. Theres something in your mind that doesn't quite make sense if you can't follow this.

--
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Re:Doesn't "plan" by bankman · 2002-06-04 10:00 · Score: 1

Nope, it's not his mind, rather your original statement that doesn't make sense. Now it's much better and I for one, agree with you.

--
I feel so sig.

Slashdotted already by Hellkitten · 2002-06-04 01:58 · Score: 0

Does anyone have the text, or a mirror?

Too lazy too try google cache

--
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -

Re:Slashdotted already by HiQ · 2002-06-04 02:04 · Score: 1, Redundant

Don't think so, bet here you go:

By Brian Proffitt,
Managing Editor, Linux Today

Representatives from SuSE Linux are anxious to help clear the air about some misunderstandings they feel have arisen around recent news regarding UnitedLinux. And to accomplish this, they have revealed plans for a developer's release of the new distribution.

UnitedLinux, a joint enterprise-oriented distrbution that will be created from the combined resources of Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, and TurboLinux, was announced last week to the Linux community at large. Most of the reactions from industry analysts and community notables has been a wait and see approach. Some, however, have taken some strong exceptions to what they perceive UnitedLinux is trying to accomplish.

One of the most prevalent concerns is the alledged implementation of a per-seat licensing policy for UnitedLinux. According to SuSE, nothing could be further from the truth, at least as far as SuSE is concerned.

"We really don't plan any per-seat licensing for UnitedLinux," said SuSE's US Director of Sales Holger Dyroff. While he could not speak for the other companies within the UnitedLinux consortium, Dyroff was emphatic that such a major shift in licesning policy was never in the works for their products released under the UnitedLinux banner.

Under the agreement signed by the companies last week, each of the four distribution firms will contribute skills, manpower, and other resources to the development of a single UnitedLinux distrbution, which will then be marketed and released separately by each individual company. Each release will be branded by the individual companies, and will carry a "Powered by UnitedLinux" logo.

From some media reports, early statements from Caldera indicated that they were considering a per-seat license model for their UnitedLinux products and that perhaps other members of the consortium were considering this model as well. Given the separate marketing and sales structure each company has, it is entirely possible that any of the firms involved could use a per-seat license model, though no one in the consortium has made a formal statement regarding this possibility.

According to statements made by the consortium, the source code for the product would be made available under the GPL, though the binaries would not. This raised speculation that a per-seat licensing arrangement was in the works, particularly when no details were given on just how that source code would be distributed.

Dyroff acknowledged that no mention was made at the time of last week's announcement regarding the source code or development access to the UnitedLinux distribution, but he told Linux Today this afternoon that plans were indeed in the works to provide access to the distro for developers.

"We plan on having a downloadable developer's version as well," he stated. "We are absolutely committed to working with the community to produce this product under the GPL."

Currently, none of SuSE's products have a per-seat license arrangement, though the SuSE Maintenance utility (similar to the Red Hat Network) that is integral to the SuSE product does have a per-seat fee arrangement, Dyroff explained. The company has no plans to change this approach when they released their co-branded UnitedLinux enterprise product.

Bradley Kuhn, Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation, who spoke strongly against a per-seat license model from UnitedLinux in media interviews last week, was interested to learn that SuSE was not planning on engaging in per-seat licensing. But, he was quick to add that this did not change the FSF's main concerns regarding UnitedLinux.

Kuhn stated that the FSF has long been concerned with the distribution companies' approach to free software. "Every one of these GNU/Linux companies have been including non-free software with their releases of GNU/Linux," he said, "It's a wrong-headed approach to mix free and non-free software."

Citing SuSE's own YaST application as an example, Kuhn said that the inclusion of software such as this completely negated the value of distribution. He feels the market is bearing the FSF out, too. "Users don't want this non-free software in their distros."

Dyroff and SuSE is engaged in a bit of damage control with respect to other areas surrounding UnitedLinux.

Because the product is targeted solely to the enterprise, Dyroff lamented, many people are under the impression that SuSE will be abandoning its desktop product line. Dyroff reiterated statements he made last week to the media that while they won't be within the UnitedLinux line, SuSE plans on maintaining releases of their SuSE Personal and SuSE Professional editions and stressed that SuSE has absolutely no plans to give up on their desktop models.
Re:Slashdotted already by Penguinoflight · 2002-06-04 02:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Here's the Google Cache

--
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14

Per seat licensing - not a RedHat killer by illsleydc · 2002-06-04 02:01 · Score: 1

Out in the competitive market and company who places major restrictions on their products which their competitors don't won't last long.

UnitedLinux is a group of companies commoditising a shared distro. Some of them will add stuff requiring per-seat licensing. Some won't. Buy the one you want, don't buy the one you don't want. They'll get the message pretty quickly. Remember none of these guys have a monopoly, they can't just change licensing terms and have eneryone swallow it like Microsoft (come to think of it, even they can't do that all the time!)

Ransom Love's Brain Bites Again by peterdaly · 2002-06-04 02:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

As I said in a post to the previous related slashdot discussion; Ransom Love doesn't understand Open Source PR. His mouth gets the Open Source community to hate him each time he opens it in public. Different spin on his previous "no binaries!" comment and nobody would be upset.

Ransom Love does not understand Open Source PR, and it would be better for everyone if he were not so press-hungry. SUSE has a much better spin on essentially the same facts, and understand the Open Source community is not just a place to leech code from in order to turn a buck. SUSE understands to give/take relationship, Calera, specifically Rasom Love doesn't get it.

Next time you read a quote from Ransom love, understand two things:
1. He doesn't speak for his partners (SUSE/Turbo Linux in this case), even though he will make is sound like he is.
2. He doesn't understand Open Source PR and will be needlessly sticking his foot in his mouth...that's just what he does.

-Pete

--
Soccer Goal Plans

Re:Ransom Love's Brain Bites Again by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 12:21 · Score: 0

> Ransom Love's Brain Bites Again ...

What does a press release from SuSE, about how they will handle their specific brand of UnitedLinux, have anything to do with Ransom Love? Last I heard, SuSE != Caldera.
Re:Ransom Love's Brain Bites Again by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 15:05 · Score: 0

Yeah they really understand give and take making yast2 only available if you pay or something i heard. I might be wrong but I could swear i heard that somewhere. Am I wrong?

UnitedLinux is Dying by isa-kuruption · 2002-06-04 02:02 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Just kidding...

one has to wonder by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:04 · Score: 0

Considering the UnitedLinux website also says there'll be no source with the alpha and beta versions, maybe whomever made the website was a little confused?

More misunderstandings... by pointwood · 2002-06-04 02:07 · Score: 5, Informative

UnitedLinux is the base distro. Suse, Caldera, etc. are going to be *basing* their distro on that. They are not going to release a UnitedLinux distro. They will release a distro, "Powered by UnitedLinux. Each company can decide their licensing terms themselves.

If Caldera wants to put some extra propritary software in their distro and use per seat licensing, then they are free to do that. Suse has just said that they will not be doing that.

UnitedLinux is IMHO a good thing! They are using and selling free software - they aren't breaking any licenses or anything like that. They are *the good guys* trying to earn a bit of money to stay in business. Is that such a bad thing?

Re:More misunderstandings... by Arethan · 2002-06-04 02:27 · Score: 1

Someone Mod this parent up!
Someone is finally talking with some sense, instead of waving their arms and shouting without reading any of the facts. Again, mod the parent up!
Re:More misunderstandings... by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · 2002-06-04 02:59 · Score: 2

But is UnitedLinux itself based solely on free software? Can I make my own United Linux compliant distro, or is that protected by trademark? It's all unclear to me.
Re:More misunderstandings... by joestar · 2002-06-04 03:00 · Score: 2

Please read http://news.com.com/2008-1082-929697.html

CNET:
So UnitedLinux will remain an open-source project?

CEO of Caldera:
Absolutely. The only difference is that the UnitedLinux binaries will not be freely distributed. People will be able to download the source code and compile their own binaries, but they will not be able to use the UnitedLinux brand.

Merging free-software and proprietary software is already a shame, but here we are a step higher!
Re:More misunderstandings... by jaaron · 2002-06-04 03:11 · Score: 1

Yes, you could make your own United Linux compliant distro, however, unless you we willing to fork out the cash for the United Linux 'brand' name, you couldn't advertize under the name of or use the logo of United Linux. Does that help?

--
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Re:More misunderstandings... by chill · 2002-06-04 03:11 · Score: 3, Informative

You can make your own UL-based distro, but you can NOT use the trademarked "Powered by United Linux" or probably anything similar.

"Compatible with United Linux-based distros" would probably be fine.

Think of UL as a formalized LSB implementation. The addons might be proprietary (like an MS Exchange client, Lotus Notes client) or it might be bundled with something like Oracle, SAP or UniCenter.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:More misunderstandings... by jaaron · 2002-06-04 03:17 · Score: 2, Informative

You don't get it at all. That's okay, since most people don't get it.

The software that will make up the United Linux base is and will be FREE software. That's free as in speech. United Linux will provide the source code. You can compile it. You can get your binaries.

What United Linux doesn't want people doing is taking the binaries (which may or may not compise a fully working distro), slapping them on a CD and market them as "United Linux". First off, that infringes on their trademark. Secondly, it causes confusion about support and service. If you want the free as in beer binaries, then download the .iso of one of the member distros. I'm sure eventually at least one UnitedLinux distro will provide free .iso's.

Remember, United Linux is not ONE distro, currently, it's FOUR all using the same base.

--
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Re:More misunderstandings... by anshil · 2002-06-04 08:12 · Score: 1

Yes thats true, I'm a pasionate Linux and KDE user for a year now, I have even wiped my windows partition 8 months ago. And I'm a full free software suporter.

But all these free everything, all business is bad assholes could only shut up, we don't need these weekend warriors who are bored and just grap something up to fight for. Anything.

Now some Linux distros come up join together and try to survive, and you cut in your own flesh! I know these people from face to face. They usually sit in front a screen. Always with a frown in their face, and complain about everything. everything. You can't make it right for them. I know one, he complained about the way I did something, I took the complain serious and changed the system. Then I hear him complaining again that the system has been changed. Argghhh!

See people complain against windows, micrsoft or anything. Now people just want to get a trademark, and as far I understood most importantly one sane way to organize the system V directory structure acroos distro's, and this asholes are complaining again.

You guys are not against microsoft, or for free software, or against the evil music industry, or verisign, or unisys, or patents. You're just against! Against to be against! Find a better meaning in life than flaming the good guys on slashdot for things you do not understand.

--

--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.

How is this divided? by jaaron · 2002-06-04 02:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Okay, maybe someone pointed this out already, but how is this divided? UnitedLinux is NOT ONE distribution. It's a standard base that several distros will be based on. Just because Caldera doesn't understand the market and wants to compete with Red Hat using per seat licenses doesn't mean that SuSE, TurboLinux, Conectiva, and any others who join in the future have to follow this madness. They will STILL be SEPERATE distributions each with their own licenses and quirks. They'll just have some common components that will allow interoperability. This wouldn't be news if so many people would just quit jumping to conclusions about this project before much information is available.

--
Who said Freedom was Fair?

UnitedLinux or MS Linux? by m0rph3us0 · 2002-06-04 02:08 · Score: 1

Doesn't per-seat licensing seem to go against the whole of the GNU/Linux spirit.

I mean its one thing to charge for support, thats fine by me. But, why should support cost more if your mail server supports 5 users or 5000 users?

From what I understand UnitedLinux is just a standardization of where things are located and the init style, and possibly a different installer for each distriubtion. So, it essence they would be charging for support, and not development.

Per-seat licensing seems silly to me. It makes me think of email support for Exchange, where the email you send to Microsoft for support actually counts against your daily licensed limit for Emails sent through the MTA.

Re:UnitedLinux or MS Linux? by nuggz · 2002-06-04 02:38 · Score: 2

But, why should support cost more if your mail server supports 5 users or 5000 users

Because having support for a 5000 user system is more valuable, so people will pay more.
Because a 5000 user system is more complicated, or at least larger. More to go wrong, higher likliehood, not as easy to recover.

I believe the per seat licensing refers to computers with UL installed, not the number of clients connected to a server.
Re:UnitedLinux or MS Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 03:39 · Score: 0

"Doesn't per-seat licensing seem to go against the whole of the GNU/Linux spirit."

But if you forget about the money, what is the practical difference between standard GPL licensing and a per-seat license? No matter how many "seats" you install GPL software on, the GPL applies to every one. Sounds like some open source advocates have forgotten the difference between "free-as-in-open" and "free-as-in-beer".

Progress by KingKire64 · 2002-06-04 02:08 · Score: 1

Well it looks like everyone is looking at this as the beginning of the end for UL. But to me it looks like they are actually working on this. Ive seen plenty of Open Source project announced and nothing is really done with them. Its good to see they seem fiarly serious about this. There is going to be problems. My only worry is that becuase Suse is the biggest of the distros they will try to throw their wieght around.

Feel free to mod me down

--
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org

Per Seat never worked for SCO by Neil+Watson · 2002-06-04 02:09 · Score: 1

If anyone, Caldear should know that a per seat license model cannot work. SCO Unix used that model and Caldera ended up buying them on the cheap.

--
UNIX/Linux Consulting

Differences between Linux distributions by joestar · 2002-06-04 02:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's funny to see the different approaches of Linux distributors to solve the issue "how to make money with a free product".

Red Hat bases everything on their strong image and the fact that they are #1. They base most their business on services while remaining very open-source-spirit oriented.

MandrakeSoft, which more and more appears to be now #2 in term of installed user base, is the biggest defender of Free Software after Debian. They sell boxes, and start to offer business-orieted services such as Red Hat does, but they also had a great idea: they offer extra services to their users (individuals & enterprises) with the Mandrake Club which provides them many subscriptions and a good income.

SuSE, Caldera, TurboLinux... Their deep wish would actually be sell their products "a la Microsoft" with one license per seat, without providing ISO images and so on. They actually have a very "proprietary" ideal, so they try to offer a not too bad image to the Linux community while acting against its ideals in reality.

In my opinion, Red Hat is lucky because they can stay open and make real business, MandrakeSoft is *extremely* innovative in inventing a real business model for Free Software while being a fervent defender of its rules. And SuSE, Caldera... didn't understand anything to Linux/Free Software and are going to be banned by the Linux community, and see their revenues decrease.

Re:Differences between Linux distributions by nervlord1 · 2002-06-04 02:24 · Score: 1

im geniuenlyl asking, not claiming your wrong, how do you KNOW mandrake is making money, we can take a guess with redhat, but mandrake?

--
Microsoft IIS is to webserving as KFC is to healthy eating
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by Tester · 2002-06-04 02:26 · Score: 3, Informative

MandrakeSoft, which more and more appears to be now #2 in term of installed user base, is the biggest defender of Free Software after Debian.

May I say bulls**t... I'd like to remind you of how Mandrake came to be.. They where RedHat+KDE ans why didnt RH already integrate KDE? Because it was based on non-free software.

There are in my opinion only two major distribution that are true defenders of Free Software, RedHat and Debian. (Well, there's also Gentoo, but its in a class of its own).

Mandrake is just like TurboLinux, Suse and Caldera... They are doing nothing innovative, they are just trying to survive because they didnt move fast enough out of the "sell boxes" market.. Which was also rh's market a few years back (but they moved to offer much more because its a fairly limited market.

In my opinion, Red Hat is lucky because they can stay open and make real business, MandrakeSoft is *extremely* innovative in inventing a real business model for Free Software while being a fervent defender of its rules.

RedHat is not lucky, they are very very good. They have gone from one profitable business model to another when the market changed. They have been very well managed since the beginning and that's the reason they are #1. As for Mandrake, they tried to follow in RedHat footsteps, but following is never a good idea... So at least after a few years, out of desesparation they tried that Club thing.. Its corporate charity, its not a business model!

Caldera and TurboLinux are already almost dead... And Suse, if they dont play well, they will follow. Here at work, we had a bunch of Suse fans who just said "Suse 8.0 sucks, its the worst linux distro that I have seen in years"...

Now for innovation, see Gentoo and Debian
For good business, see Redhat
The rest is crap
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by Caligari · 2002-06-04 02:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Add Slackware to the list of "defenders" of Free Software. Slackware is one of the oldest and most secure distros around, and still going strong.

--
The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by joestar · 2002-06-04 02:41 · Score: 3, Informative

>May I say bulls**t... I'd like to remind you of how Mandrake >came to be.. They where RedHat+KDE ans why didnt RH >already integrate KDE? Because it was based on non-free >software.

It was because Red Hat has started to finance GNOME before, and they wanted to kill KDE/Qt at the time. And can I remind you that Red Hat included KDE/Qt early in 1999 _long time before Qt became GPLed?

>There are in my opinion only two major distribution that are >true defenders of Free Software, RedHat and Debian.

Red Hat patents...

>Mandrake is just like TurboLinux, Suse and Caldera... They >are doing nothing innovative, they are just trying to survive >because they didnt move fast enough out of the "sell boxes" >market.. Which was also rh's market a few years back (but >they moved to offer much more because its a fairly limited >market.

Mandrake is the most innovative Linux distribution for a long time: they have introduced many new great tools such as remote updates, the best Linux installer available, security levels, automatic hardware configurator, and so many things. Most those things have been introduced in Linux distros after Mandrake started to introduce them.

I want to remind you that Mandrake started from nothing (not even a company) three years ago, long time after SuSE and Red Hat, and now they are #2, with more users than SuSE + Caldera + Turbo Linux. It's not financial power to market their product, they don't have.
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by joestar · 2002-06-04 02:43 · Score: 2

Because their results are available publicly on their website. They aren't profitable yet but their income has increased much the last year, and their expenses have been reduced significantly.
Just have a look at: http://www.mandrakesoft.com/company/investors/news letter
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by Baki · 2002-06-04 02:46 · Score: 2

Others have solved the issue "how to make money with a free product" even better: Not to try to make money at all, but to spread the distribution freely just as the kernel itself is developed: as volunteers that give it away. For example Slackware, Gentoo etc.
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:53 · Score: 0

You know what? I'm really tired about people complaining about "Company X does not offer ISO images of their linux distribution, so they go against Linux ideals". Which are the linux ideals? I really doubt one of the ideals is to offer ISO images of everything. Someone explain to me, please.

There is no perfect distribution, RedHat puts everything under /usr (7.1 does that) creating a big mess, Mandrake installer is visually the ugliest thing I've ever seen (in my personal opinion), Suse has it's own configuration file (rc.config) and so on. You are free to choose, but saying that because they don't offer an ISO image of the distribution or because they try to make money is going against Linux ideals is just plain wrong. If that were true, then the only real and good Linux distribution should be Debian, everything else is going against "ideals".
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by Mordaximus · 2002-06-04 03:22 · Score: 1

The rest is crap
Nice attitude.
If you've got any wonderful ideas on how to improve the products, or the business models, feel free to offer it up. Comments like that are detremental to the linux community as a whole. Try being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. I find it amusing how people are saying that UnitedLinux is divided already. Well, the community is as well and you're demonstrating that.

Saying Mandrake is doing nothing inovative is complete ignorance. Just because you don't need the features that Mandrake has brought to the community doesn't make them a crap distro. It has brought in many people to the linux community thanks to it's installer and ease of use. Hardware detection is second to none. And quite frankly, I think the 'Club thing' is a very good idea and I hope it works out well for them.
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by CynicTheHedgehog · 2002-06-04 03:42 · Score: 5, Informative

SuSE wrote the (first? only?) USB kernel drivers.

SuSE contributes heavily to ALSA.

SuSE wrote many XFree86 servers for some of the less popular cards from S3 and trident.

SuSE creates integrated E-mail server, collaboration, and database products that are more than just some slapped-together GPL code with an installer.

You talk about innovative? Free ride my ass. Do a little research.
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by CentrX · 2002-06-04 05:32 · Score: 1

The software that SuSE makes is also proprietary. Not offering ISO images is purposefully limiting the possibilities of distribution, which is clearly against established practices of "linux ideals".

--

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by mandolin · 2002-06-04 06:33 · Score: 2

Mandrake is the most innovative Linux distribution for a long time: they have introduced many new great tools such as remote updates, the best Linux installer available, security levels
I would just like to point out that Caldera (!) was actually the first linux company to come out with the clicky-touchy GUI installer (Lizard?). Actually that's the last innovative thing I can remember them doing. Redhat soon copied them, and Mandrake after that. I've used both the RH and Mandrake installers and I couldn't say that one is really better than the other.
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 07:51 · Score: 0

XFree... yeah. and released them on their CD Distributions as binary only beta drivers, not available to the rest of the world, in order to make a plus-point for their release. Not really what i would call fair open source development, isnt it? Obvious to say that those drivers were heavily marketed that time as well.

So - why can't SuSE GPL their developments, such as other Companies (Red Hat, Idealix, Gonicus, lots of others)? Are they afraid that their business model is not stable and therefore needs this? If so, i would advise any investor not invest a single $ into this company... and they definately need cash it seems.
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by srpayne · 2002-06-04 08:11 · Score: 0

Have you ever heard of SuSE Labs and all the other things which SuSE does to promote and FINANCE free software. Sounds like microsoft to me....

--

F******* LOUDER! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! --Ozzy Osbourne
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by GauteL · 2002-06-04 09:28 · Score: 2

"MandrakeSoft, which more and more appears to be now #2 in term of installed user base, is the biggest defender of Free Software after Debian."

What makes MandrakeSoft a bigger defender of Free Software than Red Hat? I'm just curious. Red Hat has AFAIK open-sourced all of their tools, and they are a huge contributor to different free software projects.

"In my opinion, Red Hat is lucky because they can stay open and make real business, MandrakeSoft is *extremely* innovative in inventing a real business model for Free Software while being a fervent defender of its rules."

So you're saying that Red Hat is just lucky for being where they are? I'm curious about this one as well. Mandrake would never even be where they are if it weren't for Red Hat. In fact, Mandrake owes Red Hat its life.

Red Hat got a lot of shit for doing the 2.96-gcc release.. but Mandrake does the exact same thing.
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by jfunk · 2002-06-04 10:13 · Score: 2

XFree... yeah. and released them on their CD Distributions as binary only beta drivers, not available to the rest of the world, in order to make a plus-point for their release.

They're called NDAs. That's why they were binary-only. SuSE signed them. It should also be mentioned that the guy who started SuSE was one of the original XFree86 developers.

So - why can't SuSE GPL their developments, such as other Companies (Red Hat, Idealix, Gonicus, lots of others)?

So, if Red Hat are so perfect, where's the RHN server source? Why do I have to register to get automatic updates? Why do I have to pay a monthly fee to get any more than a measly 5kb/s out of their FTP server?

If you check SuSE's zq1 directory, you'll find source for everything they've written and provided, including the widely misunderstood YaST2. You *are* allowed to modify it. There's even a YaST2 development environment complete with project generation and auto-documentation.

But it's not like facts make any difference around here...
Re:Differences between Linux distributions by tarogue · 2002-06-04 12:06 · Score: 1

Red Hat patents...

And Linux® is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. So what? Red Hat said "[...] Red Hat agrees to refrain from enforcing the infringed patent against such party for such exercise [...]" http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html

I want to remind you that Mandrake started from nothing (not even a company) three years ago,

Technically, Mandrake started from Red Hat three years ago, but lets not ge pedantic.

--
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp

Re:Ransom Love by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:11 · Score: 0

Funny thing is that RL was the first on the scene with a major commercial Linux. He could have been
as big as Red Hat. He could have been a contender. But he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

United or divided they fall by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:12 · Score: 0

This is no big issue. There is currently only one Linux distribution competing in the buinsess space, which has a clear track record on licensing and community respect and that is Red Hat. The players who are part of the United&Divided Linux effort are mostly small time players who seem bent on trying to lock in their customers with proprietary extensions.

Before more 'Divided Linux' posts start ... by jaaron · 2002-06-04 02:12 · Score: 3, Informative

This has nothing to do with the UnitedLinux Group being 'divided.' If you would actually READ their website, you'd understand that they are still SEPERATE companies and will still have SEPERATE products each with their own licenses and 'added value' content. The amount of FUD being spread about this project before it even really starts simply amazes me. Can we at least wait until there is actually a product out before passing judgement? Most of the bad press has nothing to do with SuSE, TurboLinux, or Conectiva, but is instead based on Caldera's plans. Don't mix up Ransom Love's messed up business ideas for the UnitedLinux business plan. They're seperate.

--
Who said Freedom was Fair?

Re:Before more 'Divided Linux' posts start ... by redtoade · 2002-06-04 04:39 · Score: 1

Not meaning to nitpick, BUT:

separate

If you're going to use caps for emphasis, spelling the words correctly helps.

Re:Hmmm Get serious by justsomebody · 2002-06-04 02:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Divided, yes. LSB standard is not standard for Complete Linux distribution, it's more a set of needs to be LSB compliant >> gcc, kernel, xfree.
Have a lower layer defined and upper layer will get more uniform as it was. Every

Any company can extend LSB to its own potential, main thing is that basic layer defined by LSB stays the same.

Same as puting gnome in LSB, YES you can. Being LSB compatible means being LSB compatible.

Read LSB specs and then after that you'll see where you got it wrong. Also read pdf on UL site, you'll realize that they already inteded to make separated distributions. LSB does never defines per-seat licensing. Per-seat licensing is company choice. example Lindows

It should be useful for people to realise that united linux (all 4 companys) is just the first one to accept LSB standard. They don't define what LSB standard is. So instead of "United Linux compatible", "LSB v.X.x compatible" would be more preffered and acceptable.

--
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition

Not so united after all? by blalor · 2002-06-04 02:20 · Score: 0, Redundant

Heh. I guess UnitedLinux isn't so united after all, eh?

--
-bjl

per-seat licensing is a killer by tclark · 2002-06-04 02:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Per-seat licensing of a Linux product seems like an obvious marketing suicide attempt. As an admin, one of the big attractions of Linux is freedom from licensing worries. Given the easy licensing optiona available from Red Hat, Debian, et al., I think a United Linux-based distro would have to offer some unbelievable added value in their distro to get me to buy it.

Re:per-seat licensing is a killer by ctid · 2002-06-04 02:35 · Score: 2

Didn't you read the article? The point is that the United Linux partners are free to choose their own pricing model. Caldera want to do per-seat licensing. This article says that SuSE don't want to do that. There's nothing about United Linux that requires per-seat licensing. It's the decision of each partner how they want to charge.

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Re:per-seat licensing is a killer by tclark · 2002-06-04 04:33 · Score: 1

Yes, I know that they are free to choose their own pricing models. I'm arguing that per-seat licensing would be a poor choice.
Re:per-seat licensing is a killer by ctid · 2002-06-04 06:17 · Score: 2

Sorry. I misunderstood your post. Perhaps I should read more carefully.

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room

in fud wee trust? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:24 · Score: 0

never mind those L00ftwafter .comm0KazzIE freedumb paddlers. there can be only one naykid furor. get used buy IT. just FEEl the momeNTdumb

What is the *aim* of UnitedLinux by Nomad7674 · 2002-06-04 02:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

OK, I took a week or so off for a vacation and seem to have walked into a new firestorm of information here. I have read most of the UnitedLinux articles referenced at Slashdot and am still somewhat in the dark here.

Can someone tell me what the *intended*aim* of UnitedLinux:
1. To provide a standard "base Linux" to compete with RedHat?
2. To provide a single Linux to be distributed by all members?
3. To provide a single group for all communication/development outside of sales?
4. To provide a single face for customers (i.e. only marketting)?

It sounds like others in this thread are similarly confused. Course, that may be because the members of "United Linux" are a little confused on the aim themselves.

I humbly await enlightenment. ;-)

Re:What is the *aim* of UnitedLinux by jaaron · 2002-06-04 02:50 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm not part of UnitedLinux, but this is my take: UnitedLinux is a brand. It is a consortium of several companies, current Caldera, SuSE, Conectiva, and TurboLinux. These, and any other future member companies/organizations, will each produce their own distribution under the UnitedLinux brand, i.e.- there will be SuSE United Linux, and Conectiva United Linux, etc. All these UnitedLinux branded distros will adhere to a set of standards defined by United Linux (ie- the member distros). These standards will include the Linux Standard Base, kernel release, libraries, filesystem layout, etc. Each distro will then take this UnitedLinux base system and add their own specialties to it. The UnitedLinux base system alone (not SuSE United Linux, or Conectiva's United Linux, just the base) should be a properly working system, but without a lot of bells and whistles. Just the basic foundation for a distro. It will be distributed in source format at least. Because all these UnitedLinux member distros are based on the same core, applications should the same on any of them. This makes development easier since ISV's don't need to target four or five different distros. This is a good thing. The resulting "aim" of UnitedLinux is then to provide a standard base that is really implemented by several major distributions. It's not necessarily to target RedHat. RedHat can join UnitedLinux, and they may, who knows? But the real purpose is to provide some standards across distros so that it's easier to develop for and consquently market Linux. Sorry this is so long, but so many people seem to misunderstand UnitedLinux.

--
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Re:What is the *aim* of UnitedLinux by thefogger · 2002-06-04 02:53 · Score: 1

1) Yes.

2-4) Sort of. They won't release a UnitedLinux Distribution but the companies will distribute their products with a "powered by UnitedLinux". Packages from the different distros will be interchangeable. A package for e.g. Mandrake Linux will work on SuSE and Turbolinux too.

--

Um... I didn't do it!

The article title may as well be... by gamorck · 2002-06-04 02:34 · Score: 1

"SuSE denies attempting to turn a profit in an effort to save their dying business. Story at 11."

Translation: Could anybody really blame them for trying if they were going to do that? They aren't going to be around much longer otherwise...

J

--
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.

Re:Are YOU looking for a superior LINUX? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:42 · Score: 0

Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:44 · Score: 0

Thank you! Congratulations on being the one post in this thread so far to say what the article summary *SHOULD* have.

Moderators, could the parent post be bumped to +5? It would clear out some of the less relevant flames around here

Starting to really disagree with the FSF by drew_kime · 2002-06-04 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

[Bradley] Kuhn [Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation] stated that the FSF has long been concerned with the distribution companies' approach to free software. "Every one of these GNU/Linux companies have been including non-free software with their releases of GNU/Linux," he said, "It's a wrong-headed approach to mix free and non-free software."

Citing SuSE's own YaST application as an example, Kuhn said that the inclusion of software such as this completely negated the value of distribution. He feels the market is bearing the FSF out, too. "Users don't want this non-free software in their distros."

The official line from the FSF is that the "correct" way to make money off of free software is by charging for the services surrounding it. That used to include charging someone to install and configure systems. Isn't that what YaST does?

It's starting to seem like all the "services" that can be profitably charged for can eventually be automated. Once these services become programs, suddenly it's no longer OK to charge for them.

If the FSF got its wish and non-free software could never be shipped or used alongside Free software, the companies charging for services would have no incentive to automate these services. One of the selling points of Free software is that it doesn't require as much service. Barring non-free software from working with Free software provides a disincentive to automation.

--
Nope, no sig

Re:Starting to really disagree with the FSF by oGMo · 2002-06-04 03:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's starting to seem like all the "services" that can be profitably charged for can eventually be automated. Once these services become programs, suddenly it's no longer OK to charge for them.

Er, no one has a problem with charging for them. The problem is when they're not Free(tm) Software. If the FSF had a problem with just charging, they wouldn't want to see commercial distros at all.

--
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Re:Starting to really disagree with the FSF by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 03:43 · Score: 0

Why doesn't the FSF let the marketplace decide what they want?
Re:Starting to really disagree with the FSF by discogravy · 2002-06-04 04:02 · Score: 2

well, suse doesn't make .iso's of their latest distro available (i think 7.0 or 7.1 is the most recent that's available) but they do allow FTP installs and make individual programs/files/packages available for download. there's nothing preventing anyone from rolling their own distro out of suse parts (except the propriatery, "non-free" parts like YaST.) SuSE charges for being SuSE, not Bob's-SuSE-Based-Linux-Distrubution. YaST (and YaST2, et al) are part of what seperate SuSE from other distros.

--
FreeBSD for the impatient.
Re:Starting to really disagree with the FSF by oreilco · 2002-06-04 05:22 · Score: 1

The FSF is not in a position to stop the market from deciding what it wants, they just have an opinion...
Re:Starting to really disagree with the FSF by Cyno · 2002-06-04 09:38 · Score: 1

Nobody is saying you can't charge for GNU software. We're just saying that you should not include non-free software with GNU to make a proprietary package that you then tell us you can't give away for free, because it has proprietary non-free software included in it. Follow the license, give away the source online with enough bandwidth to match demand, give away isos of exactly what you sell. Then sell all you want. That's the distribution model intended by GNU software. Don't like it? Write your own.
Re:Starting to really disagree with the FSF by FunkMonkey#9 · 2002-06-04 11:42 · Score: 1

If the FSF got its wish and non-free software could never be shipped or used alongside Free software...
You're half right. The problem is shipping non-free software along with a Free distribution.
This is called 'bundling' (c.f. The Problem we had with Microsoft All Along).
I'm sure the FSF would have no problems if free software and non-free software were made available seperately.

--
-- The One and Only NotMike.
Re:Starting to really disagree with the FSF by oldstrat · 2002-06-05 02:27 · Score: 1

"One of the selling points of Free software is that it doesn't require as much service."

Duh? I hadn't seen that misconception before, thanks.

I have question please by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 02:45 · Score: 0

hello, welcome to me. what is the lunix and how i install it on my windows? there is croaetion lunix?

why compete? by prisen · 2002-06-04 02:45 · Score: 1

While I understand that there is a multi-million-dollar market for Linux, why make such a competition out of it? The basis for the OS, the code, the meat - is open source, as we all know, and it's not "owned" by any one person or company, or anyone at all. IMO, these organizations that package distros do just that - they take something that already exists (Linux and thousands of other packages for individual peices of software), make it pretty (I'll continue on that in a moment), and put it on a store shelf. Good, I applaud this. I think, however, that some of these companies may have lost sight of what is being paid for -- not the actual OS or its accompanying software, but the printed documentation, the tech support (which seems to be becoming less and less these days), and the pretty installer that makes it all happen. Back to a per-seat license scheme -- this screams Microsoft at me, and I don't think that this is the way anyone intended Linux to be. If I get printed documentation for every license that I purchase, that's one way to go, but I think that kind of makes the per-seat scheme void. In a per-seat situation I'd just be licensing that pretty installer. For the moment, I think "Redhat vs. " is a bad idea. I think that effort could be better focused on development of software. Thoughts?

Re:why compete? by prisen · 2002-06-04 02:48 · Score: 1

...ehh, that was "Redhat vs. (collaberation of several Linux distribution companies)"

not so sure by einhverfr · 2002-06-04 02:46 · Score: 2

Look at the contributors-- Caldera, Conectiva, Turbolinux, and SuSE. Of these contributors, Caldera seems to see per seat licensing currently as part of its revenue plan, while the other companies are ones that live off OEM contracts and consulting fees.

It is not at all surprising that Caldera would want per-seat licensing while the other ones would not. But look at it this way-- if UnitedLinux is to do well, it must be able to compete on the low and high ends and this means that per-seat licensing is a bad idea (but per-seat support contracts, OTOH, are a really good idea).

My suspicion is that per-seat licensing will not happen with United Linux, and that Caldera will either drop out, go out of business, or change their business model.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Re:not so sure by dcavanaugh · 2002-06-04 03:26 · Score: 1

"My suspicion is that per-seat licensing will not happen with United Linux, and that Caldera will either drop out, go out of business, or change their business model."

I sure hope you're right. Then again, someone out there really likes per-seat licensing. Maybe it was just a trial baloon, to see if the defense is awake.

Gross Generalizations by Carnage4Life · 2002-06-04 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

SuSE, Caldera, TurboLinux... Their deep wish would actually be sell their products "a la Microsoft" with one license per seat, without providing ISO images and so on. They actually have a very "proprietary" ideal, so they try to offer a not too bad image to the Linux community while acting against its ideals in reality.

I don't work for SuSe but consider it rather slanderous (or is that libelous) for you to claim that they are trying to get a free ride out of the Linux community and usurp the GPL by being proprietary when they have explicitly stated that this is not the case. I can believe that Caldera would be in support of per seat licensing since this doesn't differ much from how Ransom Love has described his business plans but to simply paint other companies that contribute to the Open Source community with the same brush because they want to provide a Linux Standard is extremely unkind.

In my opinion, Red Hat is lucky because they can stay open and make real business, MandrakeSoft is *extremely* innovative in inventing a real business model for Free Software while being a fervent defender of its rules. And SuSE, Caldera... didn't understand anything to Linux/Free Software and are going to be banned by the Linux community, and see their revenues decrease.

It is rather sad that such a glorified troll is currently rated +5. All the companies you mention are trying to make money while giving you Free Software. Quite frankly, people like you are the ones that give Slashdot a bad name and make it seem like the Open Source community is a bunch of unfriendly freeloaders.

By the way, most reckonings indicate that MandrakeSoft is just barely doing well and although Red Hat's financials are good, they are one of the few software-based company to be able to make a living off of Free Software. Even then they've been on the ropes a bit, I don't see why people should begrudge others for trying to find a way to provide Free Software and still make a living or is it that you'd prefer that all the companies you just besmirched created proprietary software?

How to create a profitable business from Free Software is still a black art and in many cases may be impossible but while we are still trying to figure that out I don't think that it is fair to malign the people who are simply trying to make a living while contributing to Free Software.

Re:Gross Generalizations by ryepup · 2002-06-04 03:03 · Score: 1

How to create a profitable business from Free Software is still a black art

Isn't offering support and configuring the way to make money off free software? I was under the impression that a lot of RedHat's income came from support contracts.
Re:Gross Generalizations by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 08:28 · Score: 0

The bulk of redhat revenue is from redhat consulting and services.. not redhat boxed software per-se. Now of course most of the consulting revenue comes as a result of boxed software.
Re:Gross Generalizations by GauteL · 2002-06-04 09:33 · Score: 2

"How to create a profitable business from Free Software is still a black art and in many cases may be impossible[...]"

Humm? Red Hat is doing fairly well, and by all means seem to be getting profitable. Doesn't that prove that a business on Free Software is NOT black art, and is viable?

The reason why noone else seem to be able to, is just because the Linux market currently isn't big enough for more than a few players. Either the Linux market grows a lot, or most of the players will die, while Red Hat will probably survive anyway. Just natural selection.
Re:Gross Generalizations by Cyno · 2002-06-04 10:01 · Score: 1

is it that you'd prefer that all the companies you just besmirched created proprietary software?

Short answer: Yes! If they don't agree with the gnu philosophy then they shouldn't use GNU software. EVERYONE is moving to Linux, but why? Is it the kernel? Or is it GNU? If it is GNU then it is the idealism behind linux that gives it its power. By diluting that idealism in a bunch of words about economics nobody understands and whining how you can't make any money from free stuff or how something that's given away for free has no value. You're just like Jack Valenti. GNU software never has and never will need the support of money hungry companies. It gets its work for free from contributing members of a community. I'd prefer Suse and Caldera made their own proprietary software. I used to like SuSE, I gave them over $100 last year. But if they don't like the GNU model of software distribution they shouldn't be in this business to begin with. SuSE released 2 or 3 releases last year, stopped giving away ISOs of their products and still expect me to pay $60 for the benefit of upgrading all the free GNU software I used to download and upgrade off the net for free? I predict in the next few years, except for the very specialized applications, all software being developed or sold will be GNU software. Because its by far the most efficient method of producing these products. The free market has spoken.
Re:Gross Generalizations by __past__ · 2002-06-04 10:20 · Score: 2

It is rather sad that such a glorified troll is currently rated +5. All the companies you mention are trying to make money while giving you Free Software.
Um, so they are trying to make money of me by selling me stuff they got for free. How exactly does that make them heroic?

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.

Who's the freeloader? by jav1231 · 2002-06-04 02:57 · Score: 1, Troll

Here's an analogy for you: Linus, RMS, and the FSF purchase a field (think Woodstock). They decide to make this field freely available to the masses. It's a sort of park where you're free to come have parties, camp, throw festivals, improve it if you like. Entrance is free, though vendors are welcome to sell cokes, snacks, rent chairs etc. Soon groups from all over the world are coming to use the park. They each kind of congregate in their respective areas but mix and mingle to share ideas on occasion. Then along comes a biker group (sorry, I like bikers but I had to think of something somewhat daunting). They decide to carve out a chunk of the park and setup camp. Everyone is intrigued and at first the bikers mix and mingle and get good ideas and share good ideas. Everyone else is interested in the neat happenings in the biker area and some decide to go check it out. Ah! But the bikers have setup gate and are charging a cover for their festivities. Some pay the cover, but most decide it's not really worth it. Others protest that the spirit of the park has been broken. The bikers claim that the other users are just a bunch of freeloaders and they should expect that with all the money spent on beer, food, and the band that the users should expect to pay something. Sound familiar? What the bikers, we'll call them The Caldera Gang, don't understand is that THEY have freeloaded on the property to start with. They've taken advantage of this free concept and decided to carve out a proprietary niche there. Now they've created this consortium, in an effort to get the groups closest to them to band with them. This would make their section of the park larger without them having to really give up much. They send some of their people over to help these new members and vice versa. The bikers just assumed that the members of the consortium would all agree to this cover charge. Ah! But will they? Apparently not. Now it appears that at least one of the new member groups doesn't want a ticket booth on their section of the park. >

Re:Who's the freeloader? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 03:45 · Score: 0

Here's an analogy for you: Linus, RMS, and the FSF steal Unix from AT&T ...
Re:Who's the freeloader? by Black+Jack+Hyde · 2002-06-04 04:45 · Score: 1

There's no freeloader here. You have beer vendors, t-shirt vendors, food vendors, all of whom have carved out a proprietary niche here to sell their wares. The field's freely available, so there's no problem.
Along rumbles our biker gang. Since it's 2002, they're mostly financial analysts and anyone else who dumped stock before the March 2000 meltdown, so they aren't as scary as Altamont-era Hell's Angels. But they're smart enough to understand the concept: here's a free field, set up shop on part of it if you like, just like the other vendors have.
Now they've set up a gate, and posted some nasty lawyers on guard. Sure you can use the biker's part of the field, and enjoy the improvements they've made therein. But there's an admission fee.
"A fee?!" wail the users. Well, yes. The bikers believe they have improved upon their area of the field considerably, with a BillG dunking tank and a massive Beowulf cluster dedicated to some serious gaming. Setting all that up cost money, and the bikers would like to recoup their investment, improve upon it, and profit from those improvements.
It's only the bikers who are charging for their area. The rest of the field is still free. If the bikers are wrong then the people who opened the field without laying down usage guidelines are at fault.
The moral of the story is this: if you want something to work a certain way, you'd better define it in advance and be able to back it up later. People do the unthinkable all the time; you'd better think of it first. Hopeful naivete doesn't last long these days.
Jack
Re:Who's the freeloader? by jav1231 · 2002-06-04 05:28 · Score: 1

You make some valid points, and I can agree to some of them. I didn't intend to piss anyone off with this per se' (despite the Troll label), and by no means was it a perfect analogy. I would differentiate the coke vendors from the bikers as the coke vendors are simply supplying good and services in a supportive if not parasitic kind of way. You are right that guidelines should have been laid out beforehand. Perhaps the GPL is imperfect in that respect. I would further agree that this was bound to happen (as some have suggested). Marketing reps and commercialization have sort of spoiled our collective IT playground. But it the process of this spoiling that has lended to our way of life; giving us the ability to gain employment in the very field that heretofore was our hobby. I don't think, however, that negates our justification or right, if you will, to criticize. >

While understandable its a shame by nurb432 · 2002-06-04 03:21 · Score: 1

I doubt that enough distros could ever cooperate long enough to make something like this work, and it is needed badly, a common, **compatible** base to work off of.

Then add all the bells and whistles that a distro is made of.. and charge for that part...

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

No Surprise if it is true by Conspire · 2002-06-04 03:26 · Score: 1

Somehow, it does not surprise me that some distros and in particular this newfangled "United Linux" is looking at a per seat licensing arrangement. I mean, I love linux, but I really do feel sorry for the distro companies. Per seat licensing, at a much lower price, may actually increase their revenue.

Then again, the outrage from the linux community would probably make them stop in thier tracks, which seems to have already happened....

--
Real men don't need signitures!!!

Deja vu all over again by r_j_prahad · 2002-06-04 03:42 · Score: 2

OSF, the Sequel.

I started out meaning for this to be funny, but I was on the battlefield during the System-V versus OSF wars. It was an ugly war with massive civilian casualities. In the end, both sides annihilated each other and paved the way for a non-combatant to rule the world. I expect more of the same from this virtual replay. Too bad; it would have been better for everyone if this alliance had never happened.

What Per-Seat License? by MrResistor · 2002-06-04 03:53 · Score: 4, Informative

Where has anyone acually involved in the UnitedLinux project actually said that there will be a per-seat license?!? All I've seen is a somewhat vague statement in the UnitedLinux FAQ which could be interpreted as allowing for the possibility that there might be a few UnitedLinux distros using a somewhat non-standard license. Somebody mentioned it on /. wondering what they meant by it, and the Chicken Littles around here latched on to it a cried that the sky is falling. RMS heard the screams and, without bothering to check if the sky was actually comming down, issued forth his opinion on the matter. Apparantly the /. editors haven't bothered to look up either, since they keep posting stories about this totally unsubstantiated rumor!

The fact that not a single one of these stories or opinions has been able to find a quote which substantiates this rumor is quite telling.

Sure, Ransom Love is an idiot, but come on people! He already got smacked down for per-seat licensing once, is he really dumb enough to try it again? Are the rest of UnitedLinux dumb enough to go along with such a stupid idea after seeing what happened to Caldera? I very much doubt that. Obviously SuSE isn't, and I'd be very surprised if Connectiva or TurboLinux where even giving the idea consideration.

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.

Proprietary vs Commercial by nullard · 2002-06-04 04:07 · Score: 2

Merging free-software and proprietary software is already a shame, but here we are a step higher!

You may be confusing "proprietary" software and "commercial" software. There's nothing wrong with selling free software. Just look at the fsf's category list.

--

t'nera semordnilap

Re:Proprietary vs Commercial by __past__ · 2002-06-04 10:12 · Score: 2

Maybe the categories set up by the FSF are not those relevant to all people.
IMHO, freedom is not all about licenses. The GPL is basically all about granting rights for consumers, and doesn't care a bit about programmers rights. One of the major reasons for the "geek pride" going with the success of Free Software before the hype came over us was the feeling of "See, we actually can build cooler stuff without marketing drones telling us what to do". That is about freedom as in freedom to do the Right Thing, without caring about marketability, deadlines, or shareholder value.
In that sense, it doesn't really matter if you code for Microsoft or SuSE or Ximian. Maybe the attitude towards nerf guns is different, but still you have to shit out potentially sucky software because some clueless moron tells you so. And all experience shows that this software will suck, as well as the life of it's programmers.
Then again, the companies engaged in United Linux do produce proprietary software, even in the GNU sense, and any other imaginable. Try forking Yast (whyever one would want to), I'm confident SuSEs lawyers will explain.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.

unitedlinux thinks backwards by jms258 · 2002-06-04 04:13 · Score: 1

you cannot compete with a large, successful binary distribution (redhat), if you can't establish a widespread userbase, if you REFUSE to make binaries available.

Divergance or Convergance? by broody · 2002-06-04 04:18 · Score: 1

Because the product is targeted solely to the enterprise, Dyroff lamented, many people are under the impression that SuSE will be abandoning its desktop product line. Dyroff reiterated statements he made last week to the media that while they won't be within the UnitedLinux line, SuSE plans on maintaining releases of their SuSE Personal and SuSE Professional editions...

This really makes me wonder if this is going to turn out well after all. I was delusional enough to think that this effort would be leveraged to make a more common target for the desktop distributions. Maybe I am reading too much into it but it sounds like they are going to keep them seperate product lines.

If United Linux takes off and starts to corner the enterprise market while the desktop wonders off in a different direction, I can see some headaches as vendors pick the fatter enterprise market over the desktop. I would hate to see vendors say 'ah forget all those incompatable desktop versions' all we need is the profitable enterprise market. I could care less if Linux replaces windows on the masses desktop but if some of those higher end video cards, UPSs, backup devices, etc start ignoring the cheaper desktop Linux versions I'll be bummed.

--
~~ What's stopping you?

Re:Divergance or Convergance? by Te1waz · 2002-06-04 04:37 · Score: 1

I doubt they'll keep that up for long...

What will they be calling their versions?

Suse UnitedLinux 2000 ?
Suse XP Proffessional Edition ?
Suse XP Personal Edition ?

I'd guess they won't carry the Brand 'United Linux' but I can't see them going out of their way to make them incompatible (Suse Proffessional is already pretty close to the LSB).

Brand names are for people with more money than sense. Brand names are going after PrintPhoto Proffessional(or whatever) at $499 when you can get a lesser known program for a lot less.

--
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...
Re:Divergance or Convergance? by broody · 2002-06-04 07:06 · Score: 1

I hope your right but for some reason I can imagine something like this lasting a long, long time.

SuSE Enterprise Edition powered by UnitedLinux
SuSE Professional Edition
SuSE Personal Edition

--
~~ What's stopping you?

So there!! by Te1waz · 2002-06-04 04:28 · Score: 1

No surprises here.

The 'per seat licensing' reference was either mis-interpreted and then blown out of all proportion until Suse had to come out and set the facts straight.

No GNU/Linux distro company could do a 'microsoft' on anybody. Its not possible. Everybody would wander off to debian or Slackware or non-participating distros and leave them on the dance-floor, on their own, during the slow set, looking very sad and lonely.

This is purely in order to go after Enterprise money. The hobby user, geek and techheads will get the benefits with (I think) is a modest outlay for a distro (I have never used the install support, but I do like the manuals and the Install DVD).
Plus we should all benefit if this brings more applications and support to the GNU/Linux Platform.

I do think United Linux is a naff name though - sounds like a football (soccer if you are in the US) club - And I'm sick to death of the 'World Cup' already.

--
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...

Now that's a new beast. by blair1q · 2002-06-04 04:33 · Score: 2

What would a per-seat GPL look like, anyway?

--Blair

Re:Now that's a new beast. by oldstrat · 2002-06-05 02:11 · Score: 1

By definition there cannot be a per-seat GPL.

The per-seat clause controls the free to give away copies portion.
The ONLY per-seat license that could be accepted, is one for support.

I can sell support per-seat, I cannot sell GPL code or executable per-seat.

From how I see GPL, it changes dramatically what is normally thought of as 'product'.

The software becomes as free as air, with the change that it does have an owner that allows you to use it freely, provided you do not attempt to charge someone else for it, after/whle you are using it.

On the other hand, I can charge for getting the air to you and can charge you for telling you how to use it.
I can also charge you for modifications to that air(warmer,cooler,brown, or clear), but I cannot prohibit you from giving that altered air to someone else, or altering it further.
You must pass on the same rights.

It's quite simple, too simple.

Clarification of the idea, seems to only cause more confusion.
The idea is not communist, socialist or capitalist, but it is without a doubt radical.

All this bruhaha over UL/Linux is interesting, and I am certain the issues are the reason that Apache is not GPL.

GPL is great, but it carries an obligation.

I could not resist by SomeOtherGuy · 2002-06-04 04:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

A sports analogy:

United Linux is like the bottom 4 teams in a league combining forces to take on the champions. (Basically you have the best of the worst taking on the winners.)

The last thing businesses want to do is continually reinstall new distributions all of the time in order to get the new versions of applications -- imagine in the MS world having (or perceivably having) to upgrade from Win98 to Windows 2000 to use Office2000 or the new Windows Media player --- etc, etc. I think the big winner (functionally) will be the distribution that ends the need (or perceived need) to constantly have to install new distributions every 6 months -- just to get the upgraded applications. I would like to see the ability to easily go from say KDE 2 to KDE 3 from within a distribution without having to upgrade to a new point release distribution. I know that you can go to KDE's site and go through RPM hell to manually upgrade the RPMS's one at a time -- or you can add a "special" line in your sources.lst file in some cases to get new versions in the Debian world -- or you can use the source and compile yourself, but we are talking about my Mom and Grandma here...

The only time someone should have to go through a full reinstall of the whole ball of wax should be every few years. Not every 6 months. It should be easy to keep applications up to date or on the bleeding edge -- without compromising or reinstalling the base distribution.

--
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.

Re:I could not resist by Enigma2175 · 2002-06-04 06:42 · Score: 3, Informative

I think the big winner (functionally) will be the distribution that ends the need (or perceived need) to constantly have to install new distributions every 6 months -- just to get the upgraded applications.
The Red Hat Network and up2date do just that. It allows you to keep all your applications current. It solves the dependancies and downloads the appropriate packages. You can schedule updates for all your machines from a central place. So far I have just used the free personal service, but I am getting my employer to buy subscriptions for all the Red Hat machines that we have. It helps to support Red Hat and it reduces the time I spend applying security updates. In addition, you get priority access to ISOs if you care to download the whole distro. To quote the marketing guys, "it's a win-win".

--
Enigma

This is doing my head in by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 04:57 · Score: 0

It seems to me that the 'no United Linux binaries' refers to just the United Linux 'base' and NOT the distros that Caldera/Suse/etc will build on them?

Which imho is fair enough, seeing as the base probably wont even come with an installation tool or anything else (which will be supplied with the distros built ontop of UL). The only people that would want the binaries of just teh UL base would probably be developers which would build their own.

Quit fucking whinging. This is a good thing, Caldera/Suse/etc will or will not die irrelevent of UL, if anything its a push in the right direction for them to succeed.. agreeing on a standard open base for their linux distros (and any others that want to join in) can only be a good thing. Who cares if their are no binaries for the base as you wont want to install it anyway as it wont be much use by itself!

Its like youve all turned into an army of fucking 10 year olds without a clue! Do any of you even read the linked articles?

Smart Idea. by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · 2002-06-04 05:08 · Score: 2

Has United Linux been developed?

I understand they are trying to get momentum for this distro, before its released. However it seems that they are getting more negative press than they can chew. Hype can't carry a company's product as well as it could 2-4 years ago.

--
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."

Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 05:13 · Score: 0

United we fall, divided we stand.

Seriously, Under one banner it would be easier for the dark forces of the evil Redmond horde to squash the cries of impending freedom (commericlized ofcourse).

Who wins this time around? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-06-04 05:17 · Score: 0

I guess that in the war, the "victorious noncombatants" will be either Debian, Slackware, the underground distros like Source Mage, or *BSD.

I'm rooting for *BSD myself.

UnitedLinux FUD by Charlie+Bill · 2002-06-04 06:06 · Score: 1

I, for one, am suprised at the sheer amounts of Fear And Loathing being directed at this project before its even gotten off the ground. I'm not entirely sure why these four companies as a consortium are now the new Evil (Linux) Empire when singularly they have been historically much lauded.

BTW: Its the _Linux_ that's United, not the business model.

Windows vs. Linux by sxe_p06 · 2002-06-04 06:59 · Score: 0

It appears that while Windows cannot be modular, UnitedLinux can(at least their management) ;-) Another reaosn to use linux.

--
-- p06 "On religious wars: They're essentially wars over whoo's imaginary friend is better"

What a Misconception of Open Source by Eric+Damron · 2002-06-04 07:47 · Score: 1

"Kuhn stated that the FSF has long been concerned with the distribution companies' approach to free software. "Every one of these GNU/Linux companies have been including non-free software with their releases of GNU/Linux," he said, "It's a wrong-headed approach to mix free and non-free software."

Kuhn is making a fundamental error here. It is NOT "free software" it is "open source software."

If we look at the original intent of GNU/GLP we see that the trust is not to make the software "free" but to make the source code available. The idea is that, as a community, we can work together on software projects. In this way everyone contributes.

However, software without users is meaningless and the vast majority of the world's populations are not programmers. Most people cannot contribute by adding code to the projects. This is where the concept of open-source software gets twisted into free-software.

A lot of people who create open-source software really love programming. They love it so much so that many would do it full-time if they could. However, the reality is that these people have bills to pay, they need to buy food, cloths and pay rent. So, If they do, do it full time then they must find a way to earn a living writing their open-source code. The tight fisted, self-centered, takers who can't write code and are unwilling to voluntarily support open-source code are of no help. This unfortunately describes the vast majority of the Linux community. If your not one of these then don't be offended, there are the exceptions. If you are one of the "takers" then I don't give a damn if you're offended or not. Pick a project or two and support the people who are unselfishly giving so much to the Linux community. It's the right thing to do.

The open-source business model is not working very well due to the misunderstanding of "open-source" vs. "free" software. Working all day on code and then trying to support yourself providing support isn't working too well.

It's really time for the Linux community to step up to the plate, admit that open source is of value and support it.

It's really up to each one of us. We can voluntarily support the current open source business model or we can watch it die.

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

divide by 0 error by ajrs · 2002-06-04 07:48 · Score: 1

the users of United Linux don't know which way to go.

Qutoed a bit out of context by bkuhn · 2002-06-04 07:51 · Score: 3, Informative

I was quoted a bit out of context in this article. Here are the full statements that I recall making, that were quoted only in part:

" [ For a distribution business, ] I think that it's a wrong-headed approach to mix free and non-Free Software, because it leaves corporate users in a dilemma: they don't know off-hand what parts of the distribution they can freely copy around the company and what parts they can't."

and:

"Many users care about freedom, and those users don't want this non-Free Software in their distributions."

I just wanted to clarify the statements, because I don't believe they were as sensational as the article makes them out to be.

Newbies and How-Tos... by defeated · 2002-06-04 08:18 · Score: 1

While I would never tell a newbie to fuck off, it is irritating how many people will not RTFM. Some of the How-Tos may be outdated (it's been a while since I looked through them), but they still provide a good jumping off point. Hell, it been a while since I ran Linux (I cut my teeth on slackware, am I 31337?) but I learned a LOT from those How-Tos. Most Linux distros have gotten so easy to install that people think they can just blunder their way thru the GUI to get things done, like you can do with MS and Mac OSes, and they're puzzled when that doesn't work. It's not rocket science, but you DO have to READ. I've had so many friends and co-workers ask me questions, and I point them to relevant sources to read up on the answer, but that's not what they want, they want to me to tell them step by step how to do it. And these aren't idiots I'm talking about, they're fairly clued-in, tech savvy people who want an alternative to Windows. But they won't fucking read! *pant*pant*

--
Christina! Bring me an axe!

Moderators on crack? by Hellkitten · 2002-06-04 18:36 · Score: 1

How is this overrated?

If I was wrong redundant may have been correct, but overrated? And I wasn't wrong as a reply suggested, at the time i wrote the comment I could not access the story linked to, but I could access other websites. To me that translates to slashdotted

--
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -

Slashdot Mirror

SuSE Denies UnitedLinux Per-Seat License Model

193 comments