Slashdot Mirror
Ransom Love's Answers About UnitedLinux
1) LSB
by Anonymous Coward
From the description of UnitedLinux it seems to me that it is simply a commercialized LSB. How is what you are offering different from the LSB project?
Ransom:
LSB is a specification and does not describe a complete distribution. UnitedLinux is combining the efforts of four major Linux providers around the world to create a common, best of breed server implementation (full Linux Server distribution). It will be a full implementation of the LSB standard, but it will go beyond and include components not currently defined in LSB.
LSB does not attempt to solve the business model around Linux. UnitedLinux is not only providing packaged bits and bytes of a distribution, but also giving developers a global infrastructure of support in local languages and channels to sell their products on a global basis. UnitedLinux solves nearly all of the impediments facing the commercialization of Linux, such as market fragmentation, the availability of applications (by simplifying certification of hardware and software solutions), and a valid business model for Linux (Supportable business quality product through limited binary distribution and 12 month maintenance agreement with every license sold).
2) What will you give back to the community?
by dbarclay10
In a completely selfish vein, what will you give back to the community? Caldera doesn't have the greatest track record (I can think of a few specific cases but I'll omit them here for brevity) for providing some return to those people who have coded the _VAST_ majority of Linux, GNU, and everything else. Aside from, of course, providing jobs for developers.
Ransom:
I am a little frustrated by this question as it implies that somehow Caldera or any other Linux company is making millions of dollars off of Linux. Every Linux provider has spent far more on promoting Linux than they have ever received. Not even Red Hat is profitable and a lot of their revenues are generated from non-Linux technologies. Millions of dollars have been spent in recruiting applications, advertising, and tradeshows to promote Linux, not to mention the millions spent in employing engineers as well as the innovations that have been given back to the community. The actual development cost of producing a product is only about 20-30%; marketing, sales and support constitute the majority.
I am also troubled by your impression that Caldera's contributions to the community have been scarce. Caldera architected and paid Red Hat to enhance the original RPM. We were the first to address a graphical desktop; the first to provide a graphical installer; the first to provide a management system. I could go on and on. All of these innovations were given back to the community. You can see a more detailed list at www.caldera.com/developers/community/contrib/.
Please don't get me wrong - I firmly believe that what is produced by the community is vitally important. But it is not what creates a product or a solution that businesses have to deploy. Caldera has been a company for profit. Profit enables continued investment in Linux. UnitedLinux is for profit so that there is money that can continue to be invested in Linux itself. I do not believe in a Linux model that requires ongoing charity to survive.
That said, Caldera and all the UnitedLinux partners will continue to provide all of the changes and enhancements that are made back to the community. I believe that all of the participants have a very good track record of so doing. In addition to providing the source back, UnitedLinux will offer development programs that will provide continued access and updates for the serious developer.
3) Source and binary distributions
by RGRistroph
There has been some confusion on your statement in the UL teleconference to the effect that while source code would be available to meet the requirements of the GPL, "binaries would not be freely available." Could you clarify what that means? Is it possible that UL will distribute only source, or only distribute source and binaries to it's member companies? (Who will then be responsible for making sure they meet the license requirements on software which is in their distributions?) Surely UL or it's members don't intend to distribute binaries compiled from GPL code and assert the recipient can't re-distribute them?
Ransom:
The binaries that are certified by the major ISVs and OEMs will not be made freely available for distribution by anyone. This is to limit the support liability for these companies and to ensure a high quality, consistent product around the world for support purposes. The UnitedLinux product produced is not just a binary, but 12-months of maintenance. That maintenance is for a single system and therefore has limited distribution. The source code for the server will be made freely available for all in compliance with all of the Open Source licenses.
There will be programs for developers who need access to the binaries and they will include options for ongoing updates and patches to ensure continued certification compliance. Our desire is to make UnitedLinux easily available for serious developers, and give them means to make the development process easier.
4) Commercial Development
by Marx_Mrvelous
It seems to me that a group like UnitedLinux could bring a lot of commercial development to the Linux platform. Are there any efforts to bring companies who have so far neglected developing for Linux due to support costs, like most hardware venders, into UnitedLinux?
Ransom:
Certainly. By enabling one certification for hardware and software and then facilitating a global distribution of the solution through established global channels with support in local languages around the world, UnitedLinux should increase the number of hardware and software participants supporting Linux.
5) Future of Linux
by micro-colonel
Where do you see the true future of Linux being? Will it remain mostly in the enterprise and web server market, or do you think that it will also make large gains in the desktop market? Also, to what end does the goals of UnitedLinux fit into your predictions for the future of Linux?
Ransom:
Linux has great potential in moving beyond the web server market into the mainstream of the application server market. There is a lot of work that still needs to be done, however, to allow Linux to be a dominant application server platform. The objectives of UnitedLinux are to take that first step: enable Linux to be used by mainstream businesses. Accordingly, the initial effort is focused at the server.
I also believe that web services will become the dominant method for outsourcing IT. As the Internet becomes the primary business platform and Internet client interfaces become dominant, Linux will continue to make inroads into the client. (Take, for example, the fact that we now spend more time in email than in an Office suite.)
Finally, one of the keys to desktop penetration of Linux is in ease of management and provisioning. Making Linux easy to configure, deploy, manage and interoperate with Microsoft alternatives will greatly enhance Linux's acceptance at the desktop. Clearly, several of the UnitedLinux companies are addressing these issues individually. UnitedLinux may address this after enabling Linux to be used as a mainstream application platform for business. Another key, of course, would be the number of applications with which end-users are familiar. With the current balance weighted towards Microsoft, the need is for new software that makes end users more comfortable with and consequently more accepting of Linux on the desktop.
6) Business Model...
by powerlinekid
Mr. Love, I'm curious as to how you'll make money from this? By not giving away binaries it seems as if your group is trying to sell Linux, and probably service and support with it. Now you appear to be in competition with Red Hat (on server) and Mandrake (on desktop) who both give their software away. Red Hat makes it's money from service contracts and Mandrake from special software for paying customers. I guess my question is how can you compete against them, when they are just as good and give it away for free or cheaper? What is the incentive you will give consumers to actually purchase your software as opposed to downloading isos from other companies?
Ransom:
It should be noted, first off, that Red Hat has moved to a model on advanced server where they are not giving away the binaries and they are charging around $800+ for their advanced server product.
Going forward, there will only be two platforms certified by the major hardware and software vendors, Red Hat and UnitedLinux. For Linux to move from the peripheral of the business network into mainstream application server market, businesses must be assured that their platform is certified and will work with other applications and hardware solution in their environment. What the UnitedLinux customer is paying for is 1) the assurance that his applications will work together, and 2) the ongoing maintenance and support of that certified platform. The restriction on binaries is to ensure product quality and consistency of the brand for hardware and software vendors and for the quality of support within the business organization. I believe that Red Hat is moving to a similar model with business customers. The majority of the value will be in product assurance and maintenance. Both of these are of tremendous value to the business customer.
As mentioned earlier, binaries will also be made available to developers, but they will be through programs that can keep them updated and in sync with all changes. More information on this will be forth coming.
Desktop derivatives will be made available by each of the respective Linux companies. Since they will not carry the UnitedLinux brand and do not need application certification, their binaries may be available based on the individual company's policies.
7) Documentation
by forgoil
Will there be some form of initiative to work together on online documentation for both end users and developers? For instance making sure that there is up to date information on all applications and APIs in a common format (for example XML, that can be used to generate info, man pages, html, etc)? I personally don't think the distributions as a whole are well documented enough, and I think it would be one area where everybody would gain from co-operating.
Ransom:
We will be offering developer programs to address many of these needs and your suggestion here is a very good one. Clearly not having to duplicate efforts will allow us to create a much higher quality combined product and this is an important area to improve.
8) Who certifies compliance?
by Rogerborg
Who will certify compliance for each vendor provided distro, and who will pick up the pieces when (not if) an application appears that borks on one or more of the distros? If it's UnitedLinux, is each vendor prepared to pay to fix snafus committed by the others? If it's the individual vendors, what happens when one of them screws it up and wrecks confidence in UnitedLinux?
Ransom:
Every company will be shipping a common CD that will include a complete Linux distribution including installer and desktop. This is the UnitedLinux aspect of the distribution. All the additional value-add will be on separate CDs. Consequently, there will be a common quality check on the base components. The testing of the value-added components will be the responsibility of the individual companies.
9) Patents
by Rogerborg
Given the ongoing uncertainty over whether Red Hat's actions regarding patents will actually match its rhetoric, what is UnitedLinux's position on patents? Specifically which of the following will you do?
- Eschew patents altogether.
- Obtain your own patents.
- License, trade or buy outright patents from other companies.
- Oblige your members to hand over or license patents to UnitedLinux or to all other members.
- Match Red Hat's current stated intent and express a non-binding intention to stay enforcement for a given type of open source development as long as it is convenient for you to do so.
- Agree to explicitly license your patents at no cost, for a limited time or in perpetuity, to a given type of development (as sharply distinct from merely staying enforcement and leaving a Sword of Damocles dangling over developers' heads).
- Obtain and reserve the right to use patents freely against any target, as any other commercial software companies (e.g. Sun, Microsoft) would do.
The four companies have not discussed their position on patents. The official statement will have to be forth coming.
We live in a day when patents have not become a tool to protect, but a weapon to wield. Since the patent office lacks the technical expertise to discern between what is valid and what is clearly an attempt to blackmail, and because innovation continues at a rapid pace, this is a serious problem for our industry and one that will need to be addressed.
10) On the Relationship between Companies
by the-banker
How is the membership into the United Linux group going to work, and how much flexibility will there be? Can any distribution join? Are there significant costs to becoming a member? Can members set their own policies with regard to per-seat-licensing? In sum, how much freedom do the member companies have in how they market, contribute and license United Linux?
Ransom:
The membership will be open. Any Linux company will be able to join, but they will have to pay the fee to become a joint owner of the UnitedLinux LLC. That fee is to offset the cost of development and marketing the UnitedLinux product and brand and to have the upside potential of profits.
There is no per seat license for UnitedLinux. The restriction is per server and it is the 12-month maintenance fee for that system. Other companies can set their own pricing, but they are under obligation to deliver the same product and maintenance deliverable per system and will be responsible for the fees back to UnitedLinux. There may be several ways of participating with UnitedLinux. The details on membership and different options will be forth coming.
Guess that question wasn't ranked high enough. :(
Mr. Love's responses are so riddled with corporate jargon I can barely understand them... can someone translate please? :)
From what I can tell, he's so intent on selling a "secure, reliable, and hippie-free" product to other corporate-minded folks, he's fallen completely out of touch with the entire linux community.
This is the equivalent of Apple making computers without sound cards or high-end video, and Jobs saying that they think it's more "professional" that way (but ignoring the majority of Mac users who do audio/video work!)
Mr. Love claims that Caldera was the first to provide a 'graphical' install.
That's certainly incorrect. Yggdrasil had a graphical install in the Fall of 1993.
I wonder how much of the other stuff he mentions in his answers is incorrect?
Take the memory management or disk allocation buffer patches. RedHat includes them, Debian rejects them as being too unstable (as if Debian users know more about software development than Linus).
Anyway, you'd think that Mr Love could have looked up from the bottom line long enough to look us in the eye before lying through his teeth.
What is that supposed to mean? I have to pay for the United Linux product to get upgrades (free with any other linux distro) and tech support (mailing lists, faqs, deja, etc)? I must assume from this model that they are really only targeting the numb masses of people who don't like the nuts and bolts of linux. Seems clear that UL will become not a distro for linux users, but a crossover distro for people who don't like to think.
Help, I'm being repressed!
sure he defends caldera's community participation, but was it not caldera that did not release the source to its installer originally until everyone cried out at their hypocrisy? i am all for gnu/linux in the enterprise and wider use in general, but consolidation of control over any software product is in general bad, especially given the money-driven quality of this undertaking.
i hope that the competition between RH and UL not only makes for much better software, but also that they pressure each other into having better community relations. i mean, if one of these companies ends of just totally pushing off from linux's core audience, then it will probably fail (and rightfully so).
Cause it works better in some cases than any bsd.
I like obsd persnally but it sucks in some ways
as does fbsd.
Fix that HTML starting from:
4) Commercial Development
by Marx_Mrvelous
UnitedLinux has become our enemy: they are the Microsoft of the Open Source community. Fortunately, we do not need to expend effort to oppose them, as their business model is sufficiently flawed that they will not survive long.
Ive just read the article and there is no sign of questions 5 and 8! Where are they?
Guess what, I can buy a UL disc and distribute every GPLed binary for free. GPL says I can do so. GPL also says that UL cannot charge for the binary, but merely for the act of compiling it on the media. Similar arguments for the BSDed bits as well.
Now, if they are looking to stop me, they have to include something in that distribution that is not GPLed. Then I can't redistribute the distribution. This starts to sound like the old ploy that Caldera tried to use on FreeDOS -- suck up the free stuff and combine it with their proprietary license to stop everyone else from redistributing it. I know because I was there. They approached all the FreeDOS developers, alluding to GPL, but then released OpenDOS with a nasty proprietary license that made every developer's work property of Caldera. They eventually pulled their source altogether when their ploy did not work.
Love simply cannot give me that mock annoyed/hurt/indignant response. No one is attacking Caldera, but don't try to misrepresent what you are actually doing. It is not a true, open source distribution. Period.
But it is not what creates a product or a solution that businesses have to deploy.
I hope the dark irony of that statement doesnt escape this audience. The fact is GNU/Linux was created exactly BECAUSE of this concept. Sad, Ransom Doesnt Get It.... or he thinks we are all stupid.
He dodged most of the important questions. What little of his views came to light showed that he is just trying to reap (or is it rape) profits off the backs of the open source community. Profit motives have a place in the Linux community, but this isn't the way to do it.
UnitedLinux and Sun are both going the wrong way here. Heed the advice that has been around for years now - Give Away the Software (that means code and binaries, in a usable form), and Sell Hardware, Support, and Maintenance.
11*43+456^2
Your right, It does look like it would suck.
Hail to the king, baby!
That some STUPID MODERATOR moderated down to -1!
Are you trying to undermine the linux movement? Because of what ive heard your going to brain damage and cripple linux and make it properitry!
It was NOT FLAMEBAIT! I was really concerned about this matter and it was just moderated down by a DUMB MODERATOR! So whoever did it is a MORON!!
First off, theres a formatting error in Question 4...needs to be bold and italicized, etc.
/. must have been interviewing advertising pamphlets in the past.
.02$
Pardon me if im wrong, but if that interview was viewsed as very "straight up", then
Dont see what I mean? Take this phrase from the answer to question 4- "By enabling one certification for hardware and software and then facilitating a global distribution of the solution through established global channels with support in local languages around the world,". "enabled" "facilitating" "global".....at least he didnt say "paradigm".
Desktop derivatives will be made available by each of the respective Linux companies. Since they will not carry the UnitedLinux brand and do not need application certification, their binaries may be available based on the individual company's policies.
I think that Mr Love's defence of his Buisness Model is very weak. I appreciate the Red Hat/Mandrake/Gentoo. etc. ability to download an ISO, and then burn it onto a CD. Not FTP'ing the files, not being given a limited time trial....And I thought that it was interesting that United Linux, essentially has forsaken the Desktop. It looks to me like United is just the last ditch alliance to stop Red Hat from complete buisness market domination. The companies making up United Linux dont really have the best Desktop/ISO policies, and as far as I could see there was no asssurance at all that the Desktop Distros would be LSB compliant. I came away from reading this very underwhelmed....
Just my
These are actual quotes from the article. People who talk like this can only relate to two things: other people who talk like this, and their huge egos. Clearly, Ransom Love has fought no battles, written no code, has not earned any glory for his name. His heart is not truly Klingon.
create a common, best of breed
giving developers a global infrastructure
local languages and channels
sell their products on a global basis
Supportable business quality product
address a graphical desktop
innovations
By enabling one certification
facilitating a global distribution
solution through established global channels
hardware and software participants
dominant application server platform
dominant method for outsourcing IT
Internet client interfaces become dominant
continue to make inroads
ease of management and provisioning
peripheral of the business network
quality and consistency of the brand
quality of support within the business organization
a much higher quality combined product
to have the upside potential of profits.
maintenance deliverable
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I agree, this one goes pretty high on the Slashdot Top 10 Best CEO Interviews. And that is one hallowed list, let me tell you.
I was pleased with this. He managed to spill the proverbial beans without letting the equally proverbial cat out of the bag. That is, we got some insight into the oft-overlooked (VA Software, I'm looking at you) business side of Linux, without Mr. Love giving away any proprietary trade secrets.
So, as a businessman who was hoping to get a leg up on the competition, I'm disappointed. But I can't expect one of the nation's top CEOs (in terms of Slashdot interviews) to just give me information for free, I suppose. After all, you get what you pay for, especially in the world of Linux.
Keep up the good work!
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Allow me to translate a summary of all his answers into simple programmer speak:
bandwagon[Linux].push_back(RansomLove);
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
for as long as volkerdi's been selling it.
I guess it just goes to show, you can splash around millions and millions of $$$, and -still- not make a profit, unless you've a clear vision of what your potential customers actually -want-.
umm, what is it?
this is just needless text to fill up the 20 seconds that I have to wait to post. thank you.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
questioning fees or the idea of paid binaries:
If you don't work in a large corporate environment with some heavy iron or reliability/QoS contracts with customers, shut your yap now and read on.
Allow me to explain.
Current primary linux distros (RH, Mandrake et. al.) provide a set of binaries and source for multiple target platforms.
Each of these "should" work, or will "probably" work on a given platform, and the free updates, or access to source from which you can upgrade your system will also probably work; none of these distros go through any heavy-duty regression testing or certifications for uptime guarantees or reliability.
What Mr. Love is getting at, and the idea behind UL, is to provide a serious platform for linux in the server market.
By maintaining strict control of the binaries (both Linux base and applications) UL can fully test and certify that "out-of-the-box" the software and server combos are completely compatible. No guesswork. No hoping that source compiles and runs ok the first time on platform x,y or z.
They can also begin to provide guarantees on the availabilty of critical applications.
That's what business customers are going to pay for. They'll demand nothing less. To get something for free in a quality-controlled environment is useless if you aren't 100% certain that it will all function as-promised.
>Profit motives have a place in the Linux
>community, but this isn't the way to do it.
Great... so what are they?
Under the GPL, would it be legal for me to compile the United Linux source code and distribute the binaries on my site for free?
I am a little frustrated by this question as it implies that somehow Caldera or any other Linux company is making millions of dollars off of Linux. Every Linux provider has spent far more on promoting Linux than they have ever received. Not even Red Hat is profitable and a lot of their revenues are generated from non-Linux technologies. Millions of dollars have been spent in recruiting applications, advertising, and tradeshows to promote Linux, not to mention the millions spent in employing engineers as well as the innovations that have been given back to the community. The actual development cost of producing a product is only about 20-30%; marketing, sales and support constitute the majority.
If marketing and sales are that high a percentage of your costs, you're doomed. What he means is that millions of dollars have been wasted promoting linux to the wrong people. As much as I like free beer and booth babes, you don't need to spend millions of dollars selling a free product to a bunch of geeks who already have it, and don't intend to buy support. Furthermore, they should take a lesson from microsoft, and have virtually zero support costs. All support should be billed by the hour. Somebody needs to stop giving this guy money.
The worst of it though is that he feels that we, the developers out here writing the actual code, owe him something because of all this "promotion" that Caldera has done. It's like the guys who used to wash your windshield at the toll booths and then ask for a tip. Did we ask for this "promotion"? No, so go away. At least now we know not to hold our breath when looking for community support from UL.
Linux will be sold the same way all other platforms are sold: by the applications. When there are applications you need that run on linux, you get linux. I see it every day as the purchase orders come in. No distribution provider out there looking to make a buck understands yet.
I have to give Ransom credit for his good answers. Especially in the area of whether Caldera will make billions off Linux without giving back to the community. Ransom makes it pretty clear that Caldera's development of Linux, even though done for profit, is in itself something big that's being given to the community--it's the effect that takes place when a product has a lot of support from reputable companies more than which lines of code Caldera writes and puts wherever. Even in Caldera didn't write a single apostrophe of code but only packaged other people's hard and free work and sold it for profit, they'd still be opening a market window for the Linux community that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
I believe that for Linux to really be successful, both in terms of code quality and widespread acceptance, a team of companies needs to get together with a specific purpose to fulfill: To develop a desktop version of Linux similar in functionality to Windows XP or Mac OS X. In other words, other than a few options here and there, it wouldn't really have the possibility of configuring every detail. The bare-bones system, which basically means a desktop with a few icons on it for basic functionality (and no applications) would basically be integrated into the kernel. When the computer boots up, it boots directly into a nice graphical desktop, kind of like the way BeOS did, except Linux will actually stick around. Most of the configuration would be built in, heavily reducing the number of "system" files. No desktop system needs to drown in its own configuration. I would say that a really good bare-bones desktop Linux OS shouldn't take more than 15 to 20 megs of space, and that includes all the beautiful graphics it would have. To make this system useful, a number of applications made specifically for this version of Linux would be included, increasing the size to about 60 or 80 megs. This might include the standard "fun" stuff that consumers look for, like video editing, audio editing, image editing, and the more mundane crap, like word processing and whatnot. Obviously, major formats would need to be recognized. Only when something that's actually easy to use becomes available, Linux will skyrocket in popularity and Windows will go into the dumpster. Yeah, most of the code for this exists. Someone just needs to recognize why Linux tends to be so damn complicated, and rearrange these pieces into something that's really well designed and coherent.
As a disclaimer, just so someone doesn't say, "You stupid fsck! If you think Linux is too hard, go back to Windows and enjoy crashing all the time. Otherwise, learn how to use the damn thing!" I've been using Linux for years now, since an old Yggdrasil distro I picked up at some computer trade show, and a 8 CD set of crap they downloaded from a bunch of mirrors and stuck on some CDs. (Back in those days, those CDs were really handy, especially considering that most folks had a 14.4 connection. And that was considered fast! Even 56k was far off! So that was a loooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago.) Anyway, I've since realized that Linux is too fragmented. There's way too much duplication of effort. The Linux file system "standard" is totally wrong, IMO, because everything's in the wrong place. (/home should be under /usr, for example.) And the configuration is a nightmare! There are literally hundreds of configuration files strewn all over the system! So I since moved on to FreeBSD. All ya'll Linux folks out there can learn a shitload of great stuff from the BSD folks. Just look at how much of the system configuration for a FreeBSD system is in a single file (rc.conf). In Linux, this would be scattered across 10,000 different files in a monster directory structure under /etc/rc or something like that, as far as I remember. As you can easily tell, I haven't touched a Linux system in ages, and there's a reason. That's why I say this desktop thing needs to be made. Linux can kick Windows' ass in server stuff. Now it needs to start kicking Windows' ass in the desktop, because only when Microsoft loses that battle, they'll no longer be able to embrace and extend, a practice that fscks up all our code because we have to be compatible with their bugs, flawed design decisions, and programming features probably designed by lawyers and marketeers rather than programmers. Ooooooooooh well. Oh yeah, I had all kinds of Negra Modelo last night. It was fun. (If Cerveceria Modelo made software, their operating system would kick everyone's ass!)
The GPL doesnt ask for any of which you are demanding from businesses. Indeed, some of the other Open source licenses (notably, the BSD license) are even less demanding than the GPL. Noone forced the authors of open-source software to pick a specific license - they did so of their own volition. One of the consequences of that choice is that other companies can make money off of that work. How is this immoral?
Redhat (and some other companies) have done more than what is required off them by the license. I wont go into their motivation - which is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make - that is : just because some companies may not go the extra mile, doesnt make them immoral. If you cant stand the consequences of the open-source licenses, dont pick them to license your code in.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
UnitedLinux is a very logical move that should
have been done a loooong time ago.
Linux in the name is good because Linux
continues to grow in market share even right
through the toughest of times.. And predictions
of mass extinction from Microsoft and others..
Linux will continue...faster and fuller.. The
name will likewise grow in reverence..
history tells us that combining many company's into one to
make a standard doesn't work. example OSF RPC standard to
have a alternative to Sun's RPC. what do we use now?
sun's RPC not OSF's RPC. also, lets not forget about
the chrp/prep powerpc architecture that
IBM/BeOS/Apple/SUN where all supposed to be a standard,
well that didn't work very well at all.
Mr Love:
I love it when you run your mouth up and down my dick, and suck on my balls. By the way, you probably have the gay cancer aids now.
Love,
CmdrTaco, faggot l'extroidinaire
Seriously, if they distribute the source code but refuse to let the binaries out, how long do they expect it to be before someone else compiles the source and puts up a ULClone ISO ?
Reading the answer to the question 2 and the related links to a statement on Caldera's 'contributions' I suspect Mr. Love is rather overstating what Caldera has provided.
... free software?
For example cscope was made available on an open source licence *before* Calera bought SCO. Further being the first to do something is certainly not a contribution to the free software community unless it is, er how can I best put it,
The GPL mandates that free software remain
free exactly so that companies like Microsoft
cannot hijack it the way they are doing with BSD.
Congradulations BSDer.. You've added more value
to Windows 2000 than any corporate acquisition
could have dreamed of.
Did all those developers do all that work just so
Microsoft could further its domination?
Besides, Linux pioneers.. BSD follows in almost
everything...
Matthew
For example, I am now forced to interpret MiB (Men in Black) units when I check my network interface. Did I miss a meeting? Trying to get fonts working -- perhaps one of the simplest operations in Windows next to Solitare operation, BTW -- is a two-day adventure, and don't even think about trying to operate a printer. I use Debian, and while testing Gentoo next to it I find that I am capable of burning a CD-R by using 'cdrecord dev=ATAPI:0,0,0 speed=16 -v' (have to figure out how to enable BurnFREE someday)... under Debian, I still can't get it to recognize a standard ATAPI burner!
These are the things I hope UnitedLinux can address. Give us one of everything to make support problems easier to diagnose -- one window manager (KDE), one MP3 player (XMMS), one video app (MPlayer), etc. Test everything thoroughly to guard against trojanned Open Source applications and only release upgrades a CD at a time to reduce dependency breakage. Then we'll have something to compete with Microsoft.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
I think United Linux is bad because it seems to be selling its product based on fear. It plays up this "lack of interoperability" angle on Linux and works by creating fear that Linux is hard to deploy, use, and maintain. And it hits us where it hurts, the CTOs. Linux is just starting to get a reputation for being an easy, cheap, and robust way to get things done. This marketing strategy can only set us back 2 years as far as corporate mindset is concerned. This is a very bad thing especially right now, when its a lot easier to sell Linux to a corporation because it has both the buzzword factor to appease CTOs and management, and it has the low cost factor to appease CFOs and other financial types.
Saying "Linux is hard to use. But we're not nearly as hard as the other guys." is not going to sell their product, it's only going to decrease interest in Linux in general.
So, basically, they're providing specific-situation or specific-task distros of linux for a fee? Or what? I couldn't decipher the corporate jargon.
And the attack on the person criticizing Caldera certainly got my hackles up. (If that's a term for being pissed off and defensive)
I will now redundantly add my name to the end of my post. You know, in case you forgot me or something.
Although this is true in concept, many companies who require 24/7 solutions, can't afford to pay the staff to maintain them. This solution caters to those companies (who make up the majority of the buisness world). Now the companies can concentrate on what they create, not what platform they create on.
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
It's not as though Caldera is making millions off of Linux?
This indicates Mr Love is making $277k/yr off of Linux, so I'm pretty certain they aren't strugling...
A United Desktop makes even more sense than
a United server platform. These companies
are simply not interested, so they should let
someone else do it.
They have only expressed interest in a desktop
version for developers--not home users or even
business desktops. Caldera has, however, focused
their other products on application servers.
That is, to address thin-client use as business
desktops.
Matthew
This of course sails completely over the heads of "All corporations are evil" shower. Cue some utterly inane commentary w.r.t microsoft to complete the picture of total cluelessness.
Curmudgeon
24 hours after I get the source code; I garauntee it.
One of the most frustrating things about using some commercial products under GNU/Linux has been the Red Hat centric methods of distribution: binary RPMS designed for Red Hat that may or may not work with other RPM based distros, and will require quite a bit of hoop-hopping on non-RPM distros such as Slackware, Debian, and all of the excellent Source Based Distros.
Not all products do this
Now it looks like United Linux is trying to reduce the choice of anyone wanting to run a commercial product on their system to two choices: Red Hat or United Linux. How likely is a product released as a cross-distro compatable tarball going to be to get "certification" vs. a Red Hat/United Linux RPM. It looks like the behometh forming here has every intention of dictating standards and shoving de-facto norms down the community's throat, rather than taking the consensus-based approach we have used up until now. If this impression is correct, this is anything but a positive development for GNU/Linux or free software and will likely be quite detrimental to the communities which surround and support them.
Having tried Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian, Source Mage, Gentoo, and others, I can unequivocably say that, in my place of work as well as in my home, the kind of prior restraint on my choice they seem to be aiming for (with their 'certification' requirements) is such that it will eliminate commercial products we would have considered purchasing from contention altogether (We are a Debian shop, currently transitioning to a source based distro for performance/reliability reasons. Red Hat and United Linux are not, and never will be, under consideration for deployment here).
It would be unfortunate if this were to become the norm
This reduces choice, and is a bad thing for the Linux community IMHO. The result is more likely to be less willingness to deploy commerical products if a marginally usable free alternative exists that happens to be usable on the platform/distro of choice (whatever that may be). Contrast this to current conditions, where many vendors are sufficiently neutral that one can deploy their product anywhere, and the free community drives most standards, not Red Hat and Caldera.
I started reading this interview with a very positive "I'm glad to hear the negative rumors are likely wrong" and by the end of the interview have reluctantly concluded that this isn't going to be a positive development for GNU/Linux at all, and many of the worst fears expressed by others earlier are quite probably entirely well founded.
Worse still, the answer given to the patent question was downright chilling...thank [deity] it only affects the United States, and not (yet) the entire world. This is one way they could very effectively steal our work and cut off our access to the products of our own labor, perhaps even in spite of the GPL.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
These guys are in for a rude awakening when they realize that they could sell one copy of their product for one server, have to give the source away, and then have their customers create as many copies of the binary as they want, using their own system to do the compile. To satisfy the GPL, the binary created by the source code would HAVE to be identical to the binary they sold. Customers would do a binary compare of the two images, and either 1) sue because the binaries didn't match - implying the source was incomplete or bastardized, or 2) happily go about using their new binaries on as many machines as they chose to deploy, getting support from their vendor for a year by simply identifying any problems and duplicating the problem on the supported server.
Where is all the money going to come from?
I realize this is flamebait, but I mean this will all sincerity and I'm not trying to insult anyone, but leave the business to the business people. If you don't want business people exploiting things for profit, don't GPL them. Or figure out a way to license things so that they can't. Otherwise, let these people do their jobs and you do yours.
Progeny has made a great graphical installer available for Debian woody. Sorry I can't remember the link. But you need to do the install over the net, AFAIK.
you know. i hate the fFact that you started your comment in the subject. thats awfully irritating. BUT NEVERMIND THAT. :)
you really have a good point.
I am remninded of Golf. I hate golf. golf is a stupid stupid game in which old men walk around and swing a stck at the dirt fFor hours on end and come home grumpy.
But golf was not *meant* fFor me. It's meant fFor old men who like to walk around all day, and would come home grumpy regardless.
lesson: fFor linux to be successfull in the Real World, it must comply with a fFew things which the Real World expects software to be like. my boss used to say he would never use linux because if something goes wrong, who do you sue? Not that he would sue, or even would be ABLE to sue. (ever try suing microsoft?) But it's the idea that out there somewhere is someone who speaks the business language and is standing behind a product and saying "This will work."
You don't like UnitedLinux? well, you're reading slashdot. so probably, UL was not meant fFor you.
As long as you don't call them to ask for free help, I doubt they'll care.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Put on your Viking helmets and Sing with me: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
I agree with your points. Caldera, SuSE, et al are pretty far down the list of desktops that I'd use (for any number of reasons.)
It's like these guys want to say, "Hey, we make Linux servers, too" to compete with Red Hat. Plus, by trying to get on the hardware wagon (doesn't Red Hat have deals with Compaq/HP and, I think, Dell?) it looks even more like a desperate attempt to gain market share.
Sadly it will probably muddle the waters among the uninformed 'thinking about Linux' community.
I think they realize they're on the verge of becoming an afterthought and realize they have to market NOW.
The opposite of progress is congress
Am I missing something? All I see is an answer.
In late April, Red Hat released Advanced Server - a distribution that will be guaranteed to be supported for an 18-month period with minimal change. If you go to ftp.redhat.org and poke around for this distro, you will find that Red Hat has a nice collection of SRPMS (source RPMs) for the distro, yet no public binary release. Any complaints?
Do people not realize that this is going on, or is it not a problem because it's Red Hat?
Personally, I think it would be great if all Linux companies made all of their distros freely available in binary form on ISOs, but sadly this is not the case, not even with Red Hat.
So what's it going to be? If everyone is going to get up in arms over United Linux, they better put Red Hat in the same boat (IMHO).
Can someone explain to me the difference between per-seat and per-server? Does that just mean that you can't buy a copy of UnitedLinux without the maintenance agreement?
GPL also says that UL cannot charge for the binary, but merely for the act of compiling it on the media. Similar arguments for the BSDed bits as well.
that's an interesting interpretation...
i believe the portion of the gpl you are commenting on refers to the sourcecode. indeed i believe ul can charge whatever they want for the binaries, but are required to supply the source to the gpl'ed software under the conditions you specified above.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
by adding their own programs to the distribution, they can charge whaever they want for the binary distro. when asked they must provide the source to the gpl'ed stuff. not that the source to the gpl'ed stuff would be any more useful than say downloading the srpm's from redhats site. without the extra stuff they (ul) _own_, the gpl'ed source and binaries derived from the source would not be that useful.
so sure you can purchase a cd from ul, and post the binaries derived from the gpl and the source to the internet. who cares? it's already on the internet. if you didnt want the extra stuff you should have just downloaded the source in the first place.
-- john
What I read from the subtext of this article is that the major Linux distribution companies have lost confidence in the GPL. He doesn't come right out and say it, but it's clear that they are fighting the license. Without violating the GPL, they are trying to make it inconvenient for users to redistribute the software and avoid the per-seat licensing. He also says that he not does believe in a Linux model that requires ongoing charity to survive. This sounds like a dig at Mandrake.
He is right, though. Charity is a terrible business model. The only time it works well is when you campaign for some worthy cause (e.g. feeding starving children in Africa) and then spend 90% of the money on "administration". Here's an interesting tidbit from the other side of the political spectrum. Did you know that Ayn Rand (a laissez-faire capitalist and staunch opponent of taxes) believed that if income tax was abolished then the rich citizens of America would voluntarily donate money to establish an army? Can you imagine a world in which armies were established and paid for solely by robber barons? I mean, they'd probably be sent off to fight any country that threatened to mess with our oil supply. Oh wait, that already happens.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
...is that they have no clue about how enterprise computing works. You can't just be like, "oooh, here's a problem, throw a linux box at it", that would never happen. Companies that are worth millions and billions in business every year move very carefully. Every piece must either work perfectly or have channels of responsibility, which in the case of 3rd party products (like Operating Systems) often falls back to the vendor.
Why doesn't Linux get deployed at the enterprise level (5000+ employees, not to mention 170,000 employees like the company I work at)? Because there are no support channels, and no, "ask the local LUG or post a message to a mail list" is not a valid support channel at that level.
UnitedLinux may be on the right path, why not support them for what they're trying to do, bring linux onto the enterprise stage, and not make up things like they're trying to take away your rights or make linux proprietary or some other nonsense. UnitedLinux, IMHO, is trying to innovate, they might get some things wrong here and there, but very few people have tried to bring Linux into the enterprise space and they deserve a little support just for trying that.
-Chris
My $.10
-- Breaking Windows: Not just for kids anymore KDE
What? GNU/Linux was created for business deployment? Where do you get that?
Posts like this reinforce my belief that most Slashdot posters are computer-crazed teens with no business experience. They can't see the big corporate picture. But in truth, businesses don't want to have to learn every detail about Linux. They want to get on with their operations. Computers and operating systems are a means to an end.
I think Ransom acknowleged the importance of software generated by the open-source community. But until packaged in a business-ready (read: dumbed-down, simple, hassle-free, supported, whatever) distribution, the hundreds of open-source projects we're talking about really don't do much for business.
Obviously there are other distributions out there, some might cost less. Ransom feels that there's a market for a business distribution. He's probably right, that's where the money is.
I fixed the formatting error. Thanks.
As for straightupness, remember that we're talking about it in corporate CEO context here, not about a normal person. For a CEO, Ransom is pretty okay. He uses buzzwords because it's part of his job, but the use here is light compared to most.
(An aside: Peter Wayner and I have registered BuzzwordInstitute.org so we can issue "buzzword compliance certificates" and such; it's a joke, one we'll get going as soon as we have time to actually make the site. We can use some help if you're up for it; we're both very busy. We'll give you some sort of impressive title, even. "Executive Director in Charge of ______" or some such. Peter pointed out that inflated titles are part of buzzwordness, necessary "for executive retention purposes.")
Anyway, I'll admit that I prefer interviews with people like Moshe Bar, who simply speak their minds, but some of the corporate activities are important and it's worth knowing what the Linux corpses are up to even if you have an RMS shrine in your dining room before which you genuflect 5 times daily.
- Robin
It seems to me that so many are still missing the point of UL entirely. Someone posted that nobody will pay for UL when they can go read FAQs/Usenet/etc. The issue that UL is addressing is not ease of installation and such, but rather the issue of accountability. Under a binding legal support contract, someone is *responsible* when something goes wrong. You can never get that from community support.
To address the parent comment, UL could care less if someone downloads their source an puts up a free binary of their distro. That's not what businesses are paying for. The point of limited binary distribution is to make it *possible* for one company to support a distro on an certified list of hardware. Anyone who has spent hours trying to configure some obscure net/audio/whatever device knows why these businesses are willing to pay for this service.
> > But it is not what creates a product or a
> > solution that businesses have to deploy.
> I hope the dark irony of that statement doesnt
> escape this audience. The fact is GNU/Linux was
> created exactly BECAUSE of this concept. Sad,
> Ransom Doesnt Get It.... or he thinks we are
> all stupid.
I tought it was created because some Finnish kid wanted to learn more about the internals of the i386 processor...
Many of the people in this discussion are talking in broad generalities about how you *think* corporations are going to react to UnitedLinux; let me tell you how *I*, a sysadmin for a company that uses both Linux and Windows 2000 servers, gauge this interview.
First of all, Mr. Love is entirely correct about what corporations want, which is a standard, consistent server platform with regular upgrades. We currently use Caldera OpenServer for file sharing and DNS, and we love it. However, we're nervous about utilizing this platform for more than these two functions.
Example: we want to move to an LDAP mail and message server, akin to Exchange. So, I hit the boards and forums, check SourceForge (of course), and come across 8 - 10 server products that *sound* like they fit our needs. My problem is this: how can I tell that this is going to work as advertised on our systems, and how do I know that it's not going to bork everything else we're running? Sure, it's all *supposed* to run properly and play nice with the other boys in the garden, but everyone knows that server platforms, regardless of manufacturer, have interop glitches. Yes, it's true that, if I had all the time in the world and was being paid 200% more, I could download each of these products, set up a staging environment, and try to hammer out the bugs myself.
Or, I could install Exchange and be up and running with a high confidence level in about 3 hours. I know, I know- you all think Exchange is a steaming pile; but the reality is that it's quick and easy to install and administrate. Why? Because Microsoft has farms full of paid developers making sure that it is.
If UL can provide my company with the peace of mind Linux does not currently provide, it will have made a new customer. In turn, the rest of the community will benefit because the installed base will expand, and perhaps another developer gets a job. There's a whole lot of sweetness to be passed around!
One more thing: I would like to remind all die-hards here that corporate profits are the *only* thing supporting Linux development right now. Every developer who works on any open source project gets his beer/rent money from a job someplace; even though he doesn't get paid (most of the time) for the time he spends on a project, he only has the luxury of spending spare time because he has a job to cover the expenses. Why not support UL, so that maybe a few more Linux geeks can have a good job doing something they love?
I believe the point about the free binaries was not that people will be restricted from distributing them, but that THEIR binaries (the ones compiled and distributed by UL) will only come from UL. It won't be like other distros that let you download RPMs or ISOs off of theirs or any other of a dozen websites. When you buy a copy of UL, you get a CD that has UL on it in binary form that you can install on your computer. It will also come with the sources. If you like, you can compile those sources on some other platform and distribute the resulting binaries. The GPL hath spoken, and it hath blessed this technique. But UL hath NOT blessed this technique, and once you do this the binaries that you have compiled cease to be ULs to care about. They are disowned, disinherited, and dis-supported. In other words, they can't stop you from compiling the sources yourself and handing out CDs, but they CAN have a business policy that once you do that it's out of their hands and they have nothing more to do with it.
\
PD wrote:
These are actual quotes from the article... Clearly, Ransom Love has fought no battles, written no code, has not earned any glory for his name. His heart is not truly Klingon.
RIGHT ON DUDE!! I have written the TRUE MEANING of a few of those quotes below. UP THE REVOLUTION!
*****
local languages and channels (Obviously part of the Klingon Plan to subjegate or destroy all other species. And their television channels.)
sell their products on a global basis (This of course is where those Klingons all start, but the next thing you know you're getting in the wazoo from a Klingon shouting _Give it to me, my Linux Love Slave!_)
Supportable business quality product (Supporting a business quality product - my god, these klingons have no decency.)
facilitating a global distribution (yeah, and we all know what _distribution_ means in Klingon)
Internet client interfaces become dominant (yeah, right, buddy. For _Internet client interfaces_ we know you mean _Klingons_!)
continue to make inroads (nuff said!)
********
Geez! Who does this doofus think he is dealing with!? A bunch of dweebs!!??
Yeah, man, don't you get it? Eschew duplicated efforts by... duplicating efforts!!! Seriously, make yet another [insert type of program here], so that everyone will have to maintain 100 different programs that ls in color, rather than just one program that does the same thing without the 100 times duplication! Oooooooooooh well.
The binaries that are certified by the major ISVs and OEMs will not be made freely available for distribution by anyone.
... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise ..."
If he is referring to binaries of GPL'ed programs, this is a violation of the GPL. The GPL specifically states:
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form..."
and
"6.
of the rights granted herein.
So anyone who receives copies may redistribute.
'nuff said. Flame Mr. Love at will!
Why is Bill Gates laughing? Because everytime he reads a post like this, he know's Linux users are fighting half of his battle for him. It's thinking like this guy's that chaps my ass. I wish people like this would understand one thing; there is no required consensus about much of anything in the Linux community. I got into Linux because I liked Unix, and I liked the volunteerism aspect of Linux. The first time I'm expected to submit to some quasi-religous code, I'm out, and headed to FreeBSD land. "United Linux has become our enemy..." What a crock of shit. Do you know how that sounds? He sounds like some Al Queada outfit, pointing fingers at the "unbelievers" in our midst. There are as many differing opinions among us as any other group. We should NOT allow Linux to become a "priesthood", where only believers in the Purer Faith can practice.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Nowhere is it written in stone that a graphical installer can't be ascii based graphics.
I always wondered why Redhat and Mandrake and the ilk always made binaries available for download for free. People would sometimes scream and cry about SUSE not offering ISO's at EXACTLY the same time as the packaged distro for purchase. People would scream bloody murder but forget that the GPL is a SOURCE CODE license, not a binary license. The binaries are yours to do with what you want. If you want to sell your brand of Linux for 1 million dollars per seat, you can. However, you cannot deny anyone access to the gpl'd source code. If they wish to recompile the entire distro and sell it for $1 or give it away, there's nothing Caldera can do to stop them. And there's no reason for Caldera to worry about that.
They don't care. They want to do business with people that want to exchange money. Companies forge relationships by the exchange of money. That's how business is done.
They like it.
Open Source coders build relationships by exchanging code.
They like that.
The GPL allows for both and encourages both. It's really pretty simple and elegant... any engineer can appreciate that can't they?
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
Here goes my karma.
A CEO takes time out from his busy day, and the highest ranked comments accuse him of being a liar or against the 'cause'.
Moby says that just maybe P2P cost him a dime or two, and now he's a no-clue traitor to the cause who sucks now anyway.
You suck. You all suck. Nobody should agree to be interviewed by you. Other sites would be better off refusing HTTP referals from slashdot because too many people here are incapable of being civilized.
The embarassment to the OSS movement and the DRM debate caused by Slashdot posters has probably set both respective causes back 6 months.
Now I understand the trolls.
Now I agree with the trolls!
Please people, learn how to be decent human beings!
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Whether he succeeds or not is irrelevant. His *intention* is to to do as I stated.
11*43+456^2
Check it out:
[snip from question #6]
Now you appear to be in competition with Red Hat (on server) and Mandrake (on desktop) who both give their software away. Red Hat makes it's money from service contracts and Mandrake from special software for paying customers. I guess my question is how can you compete against them, when they are just as good and give it away for free or cheaper?
[/snip]
[snip from response]
Ransom:
It should be noted, first off, that Red Hat has moved to a model on advanced server where they are not giving away the binaries and they are charging around $800+ for their advanced server product.
[/snip]
The wording here is very misleading. No fault of Mr. Love, he has not the insight to make statements about our positioning or products, so here's a bit of clarification of what Advanced Server is and isn't:
1) The charge is for the packaging, updates and support subscriptions, not for the software in and of itself.
2) The code is still available. Binaries, Red Hat Network, ISO's/CD's are available for those who pay for the whole package. The source will be available publically for all to build their own.
The intent is *not* a per boxed set price of $800+. The intent is *not* to keep any errata or other updates exclusive to paying AS users, but to keep the convenience and associated services exclusive to those that pay for them. Which is very fair.
There was also a question about patents and a comment as to whether we could/would be held to uphold "Our Promise".
Our patent policy is issued as an estoppel statement which binds us as well as subsequent "owners" of such patents to the spirit of our intent. That is, any party relying on Our Promise has an absolute defense to an assertion of patent infringement by Red Hat (and subsequent owners of any such patents), subject to the limited obligation that they not sue us for patent infringement with respect to software we have produced.
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
I'm no lawyer, but in layman terms, the agreement is much more than a press release.
--jeremy
Mr. Love has charged /. and is planning to charge all readers a "per question fee" for this interview. This is to limit the support liability for these companies and to ensure a high quality, consistent answers. These fees will not be per seat as previously feared. Instead, the restriction is per server.
On a more serious note, it seems like UnitedLinux will be trying to feed corporate customers to what they are used to - being ripped off. The general attitude at an average corporate IT consumer, most will agree, is and has always been "you get what you pay for". It's certainly so for the management who makes decisions. At the same time the same attitude is being smashed and ridiculed by most in the community when it comes to software (I am not talking about support!). UnitedLinux will be landing 2 different impacts with this move - make corporate friends, and alienate an average developer to develop for UnitedLinux. They will try to work this from top to bottom, not from bottom up.
But by pushing only in corporate server market, in my opinion, will not put UnitedLinux over the hurdle; you need to have the word of mouth and average developer support. Again, in my opinion, UnitedLinux selling back to developers what developers have given to UL for free will not sit right with many. That was I think one question that should have been asked - Mr Love, to accomplish UL goals do you believe today that you need developer support? What do you think his answer would be?
Italics quoted from interview.
what happens when you hose one script in linux with multiple scripts....
that service doesn't start.
what happens when you hose your one master script file?
the computer doesn't start?
I agree that simpler is better but sometimes you need to be modular and multiple files solves that problem better then one large modular, specially formatted file.
example: xinetd vs inetd, inetd uses one script for all services, it got really really messy. Format couldn't be changed when new options came in... etc.
xinetd has one files per service, the files are extendable format. If they decide to change the format of the file in the future, they can without breaking old files.
It is unfortunate that someone like this guy is envolved with linux. He is going to drag the companies and their product to the ground and emerge RedHat as the only commercial distribution. TurboLinux would ramain a good distrobution for clusters. This guy is a terrible CEO and his practices are annoying and not needed in the linux community.
I would be happy to see Caldera and this guy gone for all the negative things they do. # years ago they had a paper on their website claiming that RedHat business model is fraud and that RedHat by using the GPL won't last. I think time showed that the GPL business model can be profitable but abusing the community and microsoft like tactics would lead to a company called CALDERA.
If you pay for it, both MDK and RH will do this. http://www.mandrakesoft.com/company/contact if you need more info.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
You're assuming that a clueless company that doesn't have clueful staff can merely call Caldera and they will get their problems fixed.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
"The restriction on binaries is to ensure product quality and consistency of the brand for hardware and software vendors and for the quality of support within the business organization. "
Heh... Well, that could be an argument against the distribution of _modified_ binaries not labelled as such, but not one against the distribution of _unaltered_ binaries. The only reason I can see to restrict the distribution of unaltered binaries is to obtain more money.
Now, keep in mind that all GPLed bits of UL will be freely available to the public in short order. (After all, the UL members can't enjoin their customers from distributing the GPLed bits, so even if the UL members won't do it directly, the sharing that is the basis of the linux community will ensure that they sneak out somehow...)
Anyway, the UL base seems to have a good chance of reaching the segment of the enterprise market looking for well-supported linux server distributions (that Red Hat is trying to reach with their Advanced Server product, for example). They tend to buy distros that contain a lot of non-GPLed value-add anyway, and will spend big chunks of cash on wider (more "end-to-end"-integrated) products.
But, it's kind of odd to try to go after them with the "standardization" angle, isn't it? I mean, they don't care very much about standardisation as a tool to integrate products from different vendors, because they don't want to spend any time on that anyway. Reaching a minimal cost to fit the requirements isn't really very important to most enterprise customers, when it comes right down to it, as long as the cost is below a subjective "too high" level. So wouldn't it be better for UL to pump out as much distribution lock-in as the customers can handle?
that you got beat up by a future MBAs. Ive seen alot of MBA's and they dont look like lawrence taylor.
I recommend XP ...
That's cool. Let the governments of the world spy on you Windoze lusers. XP is pure spyware; don't trust Gates and Co. to be on the side of the consumer.
i hate the fFact that you started your comment in the subject. thats awfully irritating.
you know what? i hate the fact that you do that stupid-ass fF thing in front of every word starting with an "f". thats awfully irritating.
that linus isnt deployed in youre environment?
If the UL distro is required to distribute binaries, why can't someone just compile them all and distrubyte/release a UL-based binary and source distro with no strings attached under some different name? FUL anyone? (Free United Linux that is... :)
I fear UL can be a danger for Debian GNU/Linux: When all the big firms produce for and use UL or RedHat, support for Debian from their side may decrease and even vanish. Would be very pitty - especially since Debian has the best package format of all the larger distros. Regards zapyon
It was X based and written in TCL/TK. Worked "ok".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Usually I would disagree with Robilmo, if nothing else then just for the heck of it ;o) but this time I can't but agree completely: this interview really did provde me with straight answers. A very useful and as a consequence, rather envolving.
Now I wish more than 10 questions could have been allowed....
As an aside; I was a bit surprised R. Love hasn't mentioned Caldera's contribution to Linux's TCP/IP stack. If you ask me, that's more useful than RPM.
Sigged!
(Ransom) Love Will Keep Linux Together
(Ransom) Love, (Ransom) Love will keep Linux together
Think of me babe whenever
Some sweet talking guy comes along singing his song
Don't mess around,
You got to be strong
Just Stop, 'cause I really love You
Stop, I'll be thinking of you
Look in my heart and let (Ransom) love keep Linux together
You, You belong to me now
Ain't gonna set you free now
When those guys start hanging around talking me down
Hear with your heart and you won't hear a sound
Just Stop, 'cause I really love you
Stop, I'll be thinking of you
Look in my heart and let love keep us together
Whatever young and beautiful
Someday your looks will be gone
When the others turn you off
Who'll be turning you on
I will, I will, I will, I will
Be there to share forever
Love will keep us together
Said it before and I'll say it again while others pretend
I'll need you now and I'll need you then
Stop 'cause I really love Ya
Stop I'll be thinking of Ya
Look in my heart and let (Ransom) love keep Linux together
Unfortunately Mr. Love is the most outspoken (at least in English) member of the United Linux group, because he is not someone that a sensible party would choose. I *do* wonder what Caldera brought to the party, as practically any other English Linux distribution would appear to have more reasonable spokesmen.
OTOH, he is making sure that they get publicity. Negative, perhaps, but publicity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
People forget that OSS is a development model, not a business model. Linux has proven the effectiveness of the OSS development model. (So the OSS stuff is just snow, okay?)
... sorta like how Dell, Gateway, and Micron all support Microsoft. Now, the question is how much of a hold will Love keep on this? If he keeps too loose a control, the distributions will fragment (losing effectiveness), if he keeps too much control, the distributions will quit and won't join him.
Now...I think Love has correctly interpeted the business market and recognizes that unless some radical changes are soon had Caldera (and a number of the other small distributions) are going to be out of the market. Right now, RedHat has the mind share and Mandrake the market share. (Debian, much as I like it, is a non-issue for most businesses and is, for the most part, a speck on the business horizon. --- which is, imo, a good thing.)
So, Love proposes (to other soon to be out-of-business distributions) commodizing the OS. This isn't a bad thing (especially for Love if he can get them to agree). This allow other distibutions to differentiate on other things
It'll be interesting to see if he can pull it off.
But then again, considering his alternatives, he didn't have much of a choice.
..fFuck are YOU to fFlame somebody fFor their style?
Ok, I think you completely missed the point on most of his answers. The fact that the binaries can be assmebled onto an ISO with an install script is nothing. Go ahead and do it. Licensing is on your side, and it isn't what they are selling.
Go to a large enterprise (their target), and give them a choice:
1. This distibution, built form a consortium of companies CERTIFIED to run with Oracle, DB2, Checkpoint-1, etc etc... for some price (say $2,500)
2. This free distribution which has all the same components, but is backed by some volunteers over the internet. It mirrors (1) in all regards but support and certification.
Most medium to large companies will go with (1) in a heartbeat. So go ahead. Make a distro. The linux community will shun it because it is essentially UnitedLinux, businesses will shun it because it isn't what they asked for.
I am no Ransom Lover (had to get that in), or a fan of SuSE, but they are finally hearing what commercial enterprises have been demanding - reassurance. Red Hat has moved even further down this path with training certs. I don't think United Linux will make a huge impact. I don't ever see myself considering it. But then again, my annual revenues are markedly lower than the annual revenues of the people they are targetting this thing for.
There is little or no information that needs to be graphically conveyed to a human installing a linux distribution.
There is a tiny amount of information that is more easily assimilated through graphics; mostly status bar and partition size stuff. This can be readily represented with ASCII character-based graphics.
The system requirements of a graphical installer are higher than the system requirements for a non-Xwindows server - which is a significant portion of the linux user base!
Money spent developing graphical installation routines is money wasted. Linux does not need and has never needed a bitmapped installer. The resources would be better spent on something like the Gnome or KDE projects, where pretty pictures have some justifiable use.
I am always amused when some trade rag rates one distribution higher than another because of a bitmapped installer. Shows that the reviewers have the priorities of a five-year old - "ooh, pretty!" and are not competent to judge distro quality.
I do have experiences that back your assertion as to how they will figure things. I may feel that they are lamentably ignorant of history, and foolishly trusting of salesmen's promises, but they do frequently figure that way.
This doesn't keep them from being wrong, of course. But I can understand trying to sell in that market. There are a lot of buyers they. Of course they are mainly committed to MS, with a faith that even the recent license changes won't shake, but there are a lot of them...
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
As an employee of a small company bringing desktop / home user software to Linux, the need to purchase an ongoing contract to target this was going to be very problematic in a monetary sense.
Now I know I can stick with RedHat, Mandrake, and Debian as targets, since UnitedLinux appears to only be consistent in the server market. (Note that the desktop versions seem, according to #6, to not support that consistency.)
Exactly what the hell is wrong with you kKeybBoard? Or this is an attempt to be cool?
Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
If all the 'distros' will be based off a common 'universal' cd ( the first disk he spoke of ) and then VAR cds added to the set to refect each companies slant..
Why isnt the *first* disk to be available if its
not got any 'special' stuff that must be supported, as he says is the reason for not releasing binaries..
Ever hear of 'unsupported' download versions?
Sure they need to make money too, but what if i dont care about the VAR parts, but would like to be compatible with this 'standard'...
Does that mean i can download the source to recreate the 'base' system totally?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
yeah -- you too
Ransom gave this link for contributions from caldera: http://www.caldera.com/developers/community/contri b/
Lets take a look at these.
AIM benchmarks: Well if you are not satisfied with cat /proc/cpuinfo now you can clock your system with benchmarking software that caldera has provided for you.
Caldera Open Administrations System (COAS): these are supposed to be contributions to the entire linux community not a small crappy GPL'ed program they use to promote their own bastardized distro?
CScope: it is amazing how they take credit for this, as SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) released this openly before Caldera had anything to do with them
Java: Now you are taking credit for Java?!?!?
Linux Kernel: and I quote "Caldera has contributed several Linux kernel enhancements, including Windows support, IPX support, NFS, and more". Well I know that I have excellent "Windows" support in my linux kernel, how about you. It looks as if the ipx support is genuine, but NFS has been around longer than caldera.
Lizard: Yet another installation system. but this one seems to be very locked down, with not mention of OS licensing, or any available downloads. Again isn't this supposed to be contributions to the Linux community?
Netscape: Well sure you saved netscape! OS is the only thing that has saved netscape to this point.
NCPS for linux: more netware stuff. Well being that ransom did have a lot of dealings with novell, I guess contributing to this dying networking technology seemed like the right thing to do.
NKFS: yet more dying netware support.
OpenSLP: Well another BSD style license, for I program I'm sure everyone uses everyday.
RPM: quote: "Working with Red Hat, we developed the first package manager." BS! The first and best package management system was the good old tarball. RPM has cause me more trouble than it has avoided me.
Webmin: yet another BSD style licensed project "started" by caldera.
WordPerfect 6.0: Well thanks for paying for the copy of WP for linux that I also paid for. (someone made a lot of money off this deal). WP for linux was so bad I had to revert back to staroffice after using wp for a week. some things are best not shown as a badge of honor.
UDI: vaporware. looks like it was started back in 99, and 3 years later, it is still as un-heard of.
So what we have here, is some loose attachments to BSD style licenses, and a bunch of programs written for the dying netware protocols.
Ransom, look at what the linux community has actually DONE for you, such as what the foundation for your entire company is. and your ticked!!
This guy dosn't stop, so he must be stopped.
What I think a lot of the posters are missing is that, this is not being marketed as a desktop, per system solution, at all. It's being marketed as a server platform, with support. As in, for small/medium companies that want a solution, regardless of platform, but don't have the money to spend on a full IT department, and aren't geeky enough as a company to just have someone who runs linux all the time and is used to it's quirks. Sorry to say folks, but they are offering something that people want, and that's why they are bothering. It's not as if they are, by what they are doing, in any way detracting from the overall linux community. That's the whole idea of the gpl, after all, that you can use the ideas and writen word (code) of another person, without ditracting from what they've done, and add back to it if you decide that you wish to make it useable for more than yourself. They are offering something to people who would otherwise ignore linux altogether. An overall gain for linux, even if it's a bit hard to see in the short term.
I may personally prefer an all free solution, but all free solutions don't cut it if the application has not been developed yet. If a comperable open source system doesn't exist, people pay people to develop it for them, and biz people don't yet have the concept of paying for an open source development team to make improvements or adaptations to existing open source projects. I won't go into the why, that's a much larger topic. So, they want a platform they know will work, for their closed source solution providers to aim at, and not be tied into one vendor. After all, that's one of the main selling points of linux in the biz world, and anywhere, not being tied into one vendor. Well, that's only the case with open source software, because oftentimes, you need a recompile to get things working on seperate distros. UnitedLinux is a way to help insure that closed source solution providers can build crud that'll run on all the providers platforms.
In other words, it's a stop gap solution to the ideal world of all open source development, but you can't expect to change existing practices of closed source software by being completely unsympathetic to them. There must be a road to transition. I don't agree with all their methods, but I don't need to. It's not hurting the comunity directly, and it's aiding people to transition from the older closed souce model to the newer, and, at least most people here think (myself included) better model of open source development, so the net effect is a gain for the community.
it's not a bad idea...
Wasn't Ransom Love a character out of some old sci-fi from the 60's or 70's? I'm sure I have the book....
OK, I'm a tad confused by your logic here. IBM certifies their hardware for Linux and sells that hardware day in, day out. They are making a good buck off of it while they're at it. They also charge a pretty penny for service contracts. How much do they give back to the community? Not a whole lot. UnitedLinux, it seems, wants to do the same thing, but for a wider range of vendors. Both IBM and UL go through a lot of trouble to verify that a particular system works with Linux and periphery software. Why is UL the bad guy, and IBM not? As other posters mentioned, the target audience for UL are big corporations, who don't have time to go through all the hoops of assuring that their Linux computers will be 100% compatible with that distro they chose. Sure, it might be cheaper to do it yourself, but when you're a big corporation, you don't have the time or the resources to do that. It's not what you do on a daily basis. You don't have the experts in-house to do that for you. It's a lot less of a hassle to go with someone who guarantees compatibility. Even if it costs more. Now why is that unreasonable if such a vendor charges you for that 100% compatibility assurance? Remember, they're not selling a run-of-the-mill RedHat or SUSE distro. They're selling a distribution which they've modified on their own. Which they've worked for. They've earned that money.
I speak from personal experience. I know what it's like to create a custom boot kernel for that IBM x330 or Netfinity computer with that particular IBM RAID controller, only so that I can boot it up and install Linux on it. It's not rocket science, but it takes effort -- sifting through man pages, online documentation, looking for that one itsy bitsy detail that makes it all tick. I get paid to do that -- why shouldn't they?
Have EVDO, will travel.
They can charge whatever they want for selling those copies of GPL binaries. They are not in any way restricted in this.
What you mean is they are not charging you for a license to the binaries, but for the copy itself.
That's the GPL.
You seem to be implying that they can't charge much because it's only a copying fee; that isn't so; I can take GPL stuff, modify it, and charge enormous sums of money for copies.
The idea of charging for binaries doesn't bug me that much. I've always paid for my SuSE distros and consider the money well spent. I also compile and install a lot of stuff by hand (mostly WindowMaker and GNUstep, etc.) The stuff I do by hand is the stuff I really care about, and it always takes longer than I think it will. OTOH, the stuff that comes with the distro generally just works. I can afford to take it for granted. That is worth more than the modest cost of the distro.
Maybe if the distro companies started using this approach (free source, charge for binaries) then we could get business people to understand that the "free" in free software is all about freedom, and that freedom is what drives the real cost savings.
I've also worked on a free software project and would be thrilled to death if anyone wanted to include it in a distro so it could be installed via RPM. I would not feel exploited in the slightest way. Heck, I'm giving the stuff away anyway, why wouldn't I be happy about being chosen for inclusion in a distro?
Thats the claim that United Linux is makeing. 24/7 year long suport as a business model.
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
Exactly what the hell is wrong with you kKeybBoard? Or this is an attempt to be cool?
mMaybe hHe hHas a stTutter?
Cue Monty Python:
"Well he wouldn't bother to write it out, would he?"
"Perhaps he was dictating."
Linux is not unified: many people contribute to its development.
... but for me that's none sense.
From my understanding, Linux is not about standards but about "lets try different things and the most efficient will win".
Neither RedHat nor UL is making this stuff. Many people are building what we call Linux for many different reasons. Linux development doesn't depend on RedHat or UL.
They can try to sell an "exclusive" Linux, which they don't build
Conclusion:
Sell the service contract, not the CDs.
Whoops, I guess the Slashcode undid the +1 moderation I gave you when I replied to your post (even as an AC!)
Sorry dude.
basically, ransom love is rallying behind this concept:
windows admins can now be linux admins without the learning curve of compiling, libraries and linking.
binaries are guarenteed to work so any dummy should be able to install anything.
lovely...
All United Linux has to do is create a nice little logo. Copyright that logo. And put a PNG of the logo somewhere on the CD. Since the PNG is simply aggregated with other software, it does not have to be licensed under the GPL.
If you redistribute the logo, you are violating their copyright. If you remove the PNG file from the CD and redistribute as United Linux, you are in violation of their trademark.
Of course, United Linux would probably do more than simply put a copyrighted logo on their CD.
It's a shame that Ransome Love is being equated
with UnitedLinux. It's a great concept but
the mere fact that Caldera is part of it and is
speaking for it automatically makes for a great
deal of skepticism.
I disagree a lot with Caldera, but I think
UnitedLinux is a good concept--really a necessary
one. SuSE is also a big part of it and they're a
great company. I am not impressed with Turbo
Linux as a company, but their not as bad as
Caldera... Connectiva? I don't know...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, I know, this is anathema in the linux world, but some of us have other things to do besides compile a fucking kernel.
sulli
RTFJ.
> This is the equivalent of Apple making computers without sound cards or high-end video, and Jobs saying that they think it's more "professional" that way (but ignoring the majority of Mac users who do audio/video work!)
I'm a Mac user who'd be more than happy not to have sound card or high-end video - as long as this was reflected in the cost of the machine. The Mac 'community' (and the Linux 'community' for that matter to bring this a little back on topic) are more diverse than some people realise.
well that was civil and balanced. :) what the hell are you doing here?!
Go to a large enterprise (their target), and give them a choice:
1. This distibution, built form a consortium of companies CERTIFIED to run with Oracle, DB2, Checkpoint-1, etc etc... for some price (say $2,500)
2. This free distribution which has all the same components, but is backed by some volunteers over the internet. It mirrors (1) in all regards but support and certification.
Most medium to large companies will go with (1) in a heartbeat.
This assumes that the purchasing managers at large companies are idiots, and will continue to act like idiots. Let's see how long they are willing to flush money down the toilet when the economic slump continues for another 3 years. Unless you are an experienced con-artist, any business plan that depends on the gullibility of the consumer is probably flawed.
Seriously, why would you pay $2,500 to get something when you can get the *EXACT* same thing for free. We're not talking about a cheap knock-off here. It's the *same damn thing*. So what if it's backed by a consortium of companies? If a bug in Linux causes me to lose data or allows an intruder to hack into my network, I guess I can sue Caldera, then? Why would I bother suing a financially strapped company with no discernable revenue source; why wouldn't I just use the free version and buy some insurance from a bank?
The way you describe it, it really does sound like the UnitedLinux companies are just selling insurance. Sure, they may contribute the odd bug fix here and there, but it reminds me of that insurance commercial where the car insurance company describes how they fund research into eliminating dangerous intersections "because ensuring your safety saves us money."
-a
How to rationalize theft.
I fail to see how this, for the open source community, qualifies as 'going forward'. It sounds like the seizing of power, instead.
Is this a blithe prediction of what will happen in the absence of any activity to the contrary? Or is it a statement that UnitedLinux and/or Red Hat will try to BLOCK 'certification' of other distributions? (cue 'we're just trying to turn a profit' meme here)
Somehow this just seems to be a rejection of something... or at the least a refusal to work towards something... why EXACTLY would JoeBlowLinux not deserve 'certification'? Is it because Joe isn't getting help in meeting the needs of other vendors? ...if it's that, then why not?
(In a similar context, Peter Wayner and I have acquired the sought-after BuzzwordInstinute.org to enable our issuance of "Buzzword Compliance Certificates" and related offerings. We will capitalize on the humour potential inherent in such a product immediately after the completion of an extensive Research and Development phase. We would be interested in exploring the potential for a mutually beneficial partnership with you. We can discuss a position on the Board if you feel, as do we, that this would enstrengthen our business relationship. Peter has brought to my attention that suitably descriptive titles are an integral part of Buzzword Compliance, and necessary for "Executive Retention Purposes").
This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
Who's the sucker? The company "stealing" 5000-man-hours code created by volunteers or the volunteers not understanding what the GPL is?
If you, the author of your code, don't like "Big Companies" stealing code, then change your license. Attach a license that more or less says, that no one can use your code commercially(for profit).
IF you don't realize this or don't care(and think GPL is the holy grail of "Open Source"(tm)), then I don't give a flying fuck who's using your GPL'ed code as long as they comply with the license.
As an aside, don't cry about UL not releasing binaries either; as they are adding a "cost-to-use" factor. For example, not many people would install linux, if you had to compile the kernel, compile 100s of packages, configure and write scripts, etc. all on your own.
and a valid business model for Linux (Supportable business quality product through limited binary distribution and 12 month maintenance agreement with every license sold).
Hmmm.... IMO, this has been Caldera's problem from Day 1. It is impossible, IMO, to make money be decommoditizing Linux, and it looks like Caldera is going to try this one. Caldera has a worse track record in terms of businesses than the other members of their team, so I am unsure why exactly SuSE, TurboLinux, etc. are so quick to follow suit.
My prediction is that if Red Hat, SuSE, etc. are to survive for more than another few years, that they will have to come up with a free, unified distribution and stop trying to sell it in competition with eachother-- instead selling the services that are their life-blood, they are pumping large quantities of money into distributions which are costly to produce and are loss leaders.
Instead, a free universal distribution would help the consultants and OEMs reduce prices, and be better able to compete with UNIX and Windows. I had hoped that UnitedLinux would be it, but it looks like it will be really good for RedHat.
Again, they are trying to sell Linux to the wrong crowd. Too bad...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
While Linux is a cool operating system, it was designed as a UN*X clone. Funny that the speaker is from the company once known as SCO. BTW: They went out of bussniss. it sounds once again like the theory of "Hey! let's make money off of other people". Ok let's put a retro on this. Talk to L.T. and see what he thinks, if were all going to decide who did the _MAJOR_ code I guess we have to declare the man that started it. Did he rush out and get a patent? I have been reading these posts and i'm getting sick of all the crap I hear. Ok, you like linux, use it. You want to charge for it (Not support) then develop a new system your damn self. From the fantastic idiots that brought you, SCO Open Server at $5000/25 clients to the FSF's Father of the Internet (Who DID NOT WRITE the C Language) I'm sick of all the BS about how good, and great they did (and actually Didn't). Why is it Companies Like SUN still survive? They cost to own, and yet work. I would rather here them say, we have a new model for you to apply to Linux then Mr. Love saying it.
Go figure, Perhaps Lindows has it right, take others work and call it yours, then package it and sell it, then tell the people that developed it for you to piss off (the Public that is)
me-
/Morax\
For the Joe Sixpack user, I think the Packman game in the Caldera install is pretty useful ;)
I think some other distros offer this sort of thing (and Windows doesn't).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
A few ideas tossed into the mix.
Isn't this just trying to make linux and the whole gpl'd software world into a proprietary product, with all the hassles that come with it? Why would I want to install a closed source binary anyways? My experience with linux and binary applications has been universally negative. Is the solution somehow to try to limit the open and moving free software, where source is available, hence no need for binary compatibility? Now we make our systems like the proprietary software systems, to try to attract some applications that will not work well, not permit local fixing, and probably will not exist for long due to the above. Orphans once again.
Isn't this what we all have fled from, putting up with the odd inconvenience, but enjoying overall a much better experience?
In other words, it is a good idea from a business stand point, but it won't work because these firms are going up against better funded, deeper outfits. The key is changing the rules. Linux has, now they want to change them back.
My view is that the barrier to linux in large corps. is simply due to it not being around for long enough. I don't mean in absolute terms, but a good complete workable system. The graphical interfaces are just now arriving. Has linux been effective and in common use as a server for 5 years? Just about. I was conversing with the admin guy at a small local auto parts manufacturer. I asked what he thought of linux. He has worked with unix before, SCO, etc., so wasn't afraid of that. He said you gotta stay with what has stuck around for a long time, otherwise it costs you a pile of money. Hence microsoft.
This initiative will add nothing to that. Possibly some warts caused by different distribution quirks, but not much else.
Time has been very good to linux/etc. I believe it will continue to be.
Derek
I do not believe in a Linux model that requires ongoing charity to survive.
While I can't speak for them, I don't think Linux Torvalds or Richard Stallman believe in such a model either. Both Torvalds and Stallman are earning decent livings with their skills. A "limited binary" distribution is not a viable business model, service is. It's not the shiny disk it's the ability to use it that people value. Obfuscating the works by binary distro will make United worthless. How does the fsf say it, something about having the choice of who to give up your rights to.
OK, I lied, I did not stop there, I read most of his answers. He wants people to pay him a fee to develop his code? This is better than the current free code how? He's not going to say he will be using patents but defends their use? He's leaving he QC for "value added components" to his fee paying member companies?
He says many of the right things but his approach is exactly opposite of succesful coding:
For Linux to move from the peripheral of the business network into mainstream application server market, businesses must be assured that their platform is certified and will work with other applications and hardware solution in their environment. What the UnitedLinux customer is paying for is 1) the assurance that his applications will work together, and 2) the ongoing maintenance and support of that certified platform. The restriction on binaries is to ensure product quality and consistency of the brand for hardware and software vendors and for the quality of support within the business organization. I believe that Red Hat is moving to a similar model with business customers. The majority of the value will be in product assurance and maintenance. Both of these are of tremendous value to the business customer.
The only way to insure this is to use free code and nothing but free code. Certifying configurations of that free code will make plenty of money. Trying to rebuild everything yourself and trying to tack on propriatory junk that no one else can sync with will never work.
As for you, what's this all about? When there are applications you need that run on linux, you get linux. I see it every day as the purchase orders come in. No distribution provider out there looking to make a buck understands yet.
What do I need that runs on any other platform that does not have a substitute on Linux? I'm not aware of it, that's why I own one of those white boxes like 45% of all other computer buyers last year. These white boxes are going to come with Linux, Lindows, even BSD and restrictive software companies are goint to fade away into some foggy nightmare.
OK, I can stop now.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Binaries, Red Hat Network, ISO's/CD's are available for those who pay for the whole package. The source will be available publically for all to build their own. [Hogan]
The availability of binaries and ISOs has obviously contributed to Red Hat's success. I find it obnoxious that some companies stick a proprietary license on the packaging tool to enforce, in effect, a per-seat license on the whole distro.
The proof will be in the pudding, but UnitedLinux sounds like it will be very similar to Red Hat Advanced Server. The core will be free software (with the possible exception of Acrobat Reader). The lack of binaries, ISOs, and a trademark license discourage use of the product without support. Support will cost much more than the regular products, and is, of course, per server.
This business of certifying a specific combination of Dell, EMC, RHAS, and Oracle is what really strikes me as exclusive. I wonder whether you could get an Oracle support contract on a built-from-source version of RHAS, without Red Hat support. (Given the relative price of Oracle and RHAS, the question is academic.)
What I find curious is that RHAS and UL are positioned as increasing developer support. As a developer, I'm going to find barriers to entry (such as lack of ISOs) annoying, considering that it may be but one of a dozen potential platforms. For that matter, are these really platforms to bet on? The increased cost may increase the O/S vendor's profits, but probably over fewer customers. If I'm Oracle, I may be able to require an "enterprise" Linux distro. Otherwise, I'd rather make it easy to use my product.
You're really reading into the meaning of "have". If things like United Linux don't exist, Linux will never be popular as business use, and all the wannabe sysadmins on /. will have that much harder of a time getting work and will have to bitch about everyone having windows in business.
Businesses don't want 31 flavors of linux, two or 3 biggies would be fine. Let the developers use the other 28+ flavors.
Forget about I want linux to be popular, but don't commercialize it. You can't have it both ways.
I'm kind of curious as to where the leap happened between
and
I would assume at some point, your organization took Exchange and ran some tests against it to ensure it would manage to deliver what it claimed. Perhapse you even talked to Microsoft and got some information as to what to expect out of their product and good implementation strategies. And you would have sought out reviews and opinions from industry news sources and technical discussion forums.
Many of the same strategies apply to investigating Open Source applications for the Enterprise. One advantage to Open Source is that its community and developers are rather exposed to the public - discussions over implementation, scalability, bugs, and other technical issues are often a google search away. Furthermore, these projects usually offer forums (web forums, mailing lists, usenet groups, etc) where one can seek out informed answers to direct questions. Sometimes these projects are the product of a group who consult on implementing the software - engage them. Or seek out some of the other organizations involved in providing business support for Linux and associated products (such as RedHat, SuSE, or Caldera). There may be enough free information available - or a small enough fee that is easily absorbed as a "cost of business" when compared to future licensing fees (or lack thereof).
The final step is simply testing. After you've narrowed down on a few possible products based on your desired needs (you DO know what your user base NEEDS, right?), underlying architecture, etc... implement it. Set up a testbed. Stress test it. Look for odd performance kinks and usability or administration issues.
Of course, this should be old hat. After all, we know not to trust the glossy brochure. The proof is in the performance. And that holds true no matter if the product comes from a Mega-corporation or a modest listing on Sourceforge.
UL does not change any of this. Granted - it does provide another vendor listing. But this is not something new. Linux vendors, contractors, and independant contractors have been serving business interests and concerns for years.
COAS - the web site to promote community involvement has not been updated in over 2 years.
CScope - has never reach the level of functionality or easy of use of Source-Navigator from Cygnus/Red hat
Java - Caldera's contributions to Java on Linux has greatly lagged behind those of IBM. But this fact does not seem to stop Caldera from claiming itself to be the leading provider.
NetWare Cross Platform Services - similar functionality to the open source MARS project but without the source code. MARS is still supported by the project maintainers but the suckers that bought Caldera NCPS no longer recieve support from Caldera.
NKFS - largely undocumented source code/API for messaging a file system which is implimented in user space. The code is such a mess that it is easier to do a rewrite from scratch than try to figure out Caldera's "contribution"
OpenSLP - open implimentation of a protocol popular in Novell enviroments. However, to install and run either Novell ConsoleOne or eDirectory for Linux, OpenSLP *MUST* be uninstalled since it is not API compatible.
OpenWBEM - Enterprise Managerment that can not log correctly due to a bug logged in Dec 2001 that still has not been addressed. Trust your Enterprise to an unmaintained Caldera project today!
RPM 1.0 - the *second* package manager where the first one was RPP which already layed the ground-work for RPM. Caldera just assisted in funding the rewrite from Perl to C.
WordPerfect 6.0 - no longer supported by Caldera. More current versions for Linux are also not supported by anyone. This is just another product in a long line of products that Caldera claimed they would provide Enterprise grade support for and then they dropped the ball withen a year.
Uniform Driver Interface - Intel's effort to make close source/binary only drivers popular for Linux. Rejected by the majority of Linux kernel developers as a bad thing.
Other contribution not listed:
Promises to Wine developers - Caldera promised that some of the harder to impliment Windows functions would be implimented by Caldera consultents. Caldera later worked out a deal with Sun to distribute WABI for Linux and decided not to release the Wine contributions.
The reason for no binaries is obviously to control the brand "UnitedLinux".
Say I wanted a preinstalled "UnitedLinux" system, or I wanted a prepackaged "UnitedLinux" distribution.
What this does is prevent "Bob Schmoe's UnitedLinux distribution", since Bob is not able to legally use the trademark on a binary release compiled from their sources. Only binaries from the participating companies can use the trademark. Bob would have to "buy in" to obtain the same rights (Ransome said as much).
This puts UnitedLinux in relative the same boat as the UNIX trademark, where use of the trademark is controlled by licensing fees and/or buy-in to the club. The main difference appears to be that the base system is, in fact, compatible -- at least until you load on the vendor "value add" or try and load software from a third party that depends on a particular vendors value add (this is the same problem all non-RedHat Linux distributions already face today, since RedHat has used the same embrace-and-extend technique).
The consumer benefit to this is that if a software package that depends only on the UnitedLinux base system is shipped by a software company, they are guaranteed that the software will run on any UnitedLinux system.
The LSB fails to provide the extended features of UnitedLinux, and therefore there is a barrier to entry for LSB compliant systems, and even systems derived from the UnitedLinux code base, in the corporate market.
Or, in one sentence: it is a marketing play.
I actually rather doubt that there is a liability issue involved for UnitedLinux vendors, unless they (some day) pool their technical support services. The only liability left is on the part of software vendors, who want to guarantee that their applications will "run on UnitedLinux". If each vendor guarantees that, then a third party hacked up version could potentially fail to run the tvendor's application. So it's also a minor amount of risk mitigation for the vendors they hope to attract to get them to port software to the combined platform.
Most likely, what will happen instead, is that each vendor will have it's own support services for their product, and each vendor will embrace-and-extend UnitedLinux -- the same way that the UnitedLinux vendors have done the same thing in regard to the LSB.
Unfortunately, "standard, plus extensions" is, by definition, non-standard.
I don't think this is really a reesclation of "the UNIX wars"; GNU already lit that fuse when they started embracing and extending command like "tar" and "gprof", etc., with options that are not present in POSIX, and with more than single character options, and with expression reevaluation in GNU Make, etc..
What this works out to is a shot across the RedHat bow. It says that RedHat is not going to be permitted to own the distribution standards for Linux.
Frankly, someone needs to shoot at FreeBSD the same way (IMO).
-- Terry
No, it doesn't. Linux from Scratch or Gentoo may use the latest and greatest, but most major distributions patch (i.e., fork) the major components. They back port bug fixes to a relatively stable version. That, and testing, is why Red Hat 7.2 stayed on Linux 2.4.9.
In fact, the situation is even crazier with Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1. It has asynchronous I/O, more scheduler patches, and lots of goodies you won't find in 2.4.18, let alone 2.4.9.
I actually find the RHAS scenario kind of scary. Red Hat 7.3 was unusable on our VA Linux box until the ext3 update (2.4.18-4) and the Mylex update (2.4.18-5). Do I really trust them with more advanced features and an even smaller (albeit, higher paying) user base?
kkkkKen....
*grin*
I'm sorry, but I'm not liking the way linux appears to be going these days. Redhat charging large sums for their "top of the line" server product and aquiring patents. And Unitedlinux.....well, I just don't like the entire idea behind United linux. Sure it will be good....in some ways. But in my honest opinion, Mandrake is the best desktop solution, and redhat it the best server solution. I just don't like seeing a bunch of distros getting together like they are and "muscling" anyone in any way.
I for one will NOT have anything to do with UnitedLinux. Either by use or development.
It's not a sell out of Linux. You can run whichever distro you want. The more Linux is accepted, the more companies will be designing software . . . with actually Linux in mind this time.
I agree that a special interest group needs to pay close attention to what they do in regards to GPL compliance but this can be a win-win situation for the community as a whole.
As a consultant, programmer and general out and out techie, I find it hard at times making a Linux sell into some small mom-and-pop shops that need robust tools. We have many solutions for all sorts of applications but we need more choices for the average consumer.
Maybe UnitedLinux will be that voice of affirmation to the corporate world that Linux is mature and has been mature for quite some time. It and its users demands the respect and attention of acceptance and application development.
It was pre-installed on the Mac, and it didn't run on older machines (well, it kind of ran under emulation on the Lisa). It may even have been stored in ROM on the Mac.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The word you are after is from: "...making millions of dollars from Linux".
Thankyou. We return you to your regularly scheduled shareholder meeting.
Considering which key it was, I was just going to say that his keyboard was 'fFscked up'.
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
Don't you mean GNUflect?
Enigma
So please, don't even try to say who the enemies of the OS movement are.
As long as a company respects the GPL they are very welcome to use GPLed software to make as much money as they possibly can.
Widespread use of OS software makes everybody's life easier and better, so all the power to companies trying to make a buck from GPLed software.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What matters is:
1.- That Caldera respects the GPL (or any licensing for that matter, but most people here have an interest in OS licenses).
2.-Caldera can convince clients that it is worth paying for the "marketspeak gobbledygook" as you put it.
What should you or anybody else take issue at them as long as they respect the GPL?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Please enlighten us.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In a corporate environment there is not enough time and resources (people) to compile your stuff for every single utility or program you need.
When your priority is to keep systems running the last thing you need is to "learn" to link and compile, these activities are completely superfluos to the objectives of your work.
In case you did not notice (illiteracy is high everywhere), the source code is fully available (as it should be, this is GPL stuff we are talking about) so if you find a problem you can still contribute to solve it. Or you can try to suit some code to your needs. You still have the certified binaries but can play with code to adpat it to your needs if so are you inclined.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Big companies require standards, otherwise the cost of support is too high, and also some support form an entity entirely devoted to provide it is highly desirable.
A bank or an oil company are not in the business of testing and releasing operating systems, that is why they turn to other companies to do the work.
Companies like Caldera an RedHat can sparehead the introduction of Linux in big companies, thus bringing money into Linux development and convincing the skeptics about the quality of OS software.
People still have the other distros, and failing everything else, you can still choose to get the source from Caldera;s distribution and compile and link, activities you seem to be very fond off.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"must not discriminate against people or groups" (DFSG 5)
"to run the program for any purpose" (FSF freedom zero) - e.g; the GPL is a copyright license only. Not some click-wrap/accept-before-you-use piece of shit.
China fights the unions - workers don't even have the right to free association.
Like the old qoute goes: under capitalism, man oppresses man. Under (leninist or maoist) communism, it's the other way around.
Same oppressive shit, different name.
Uh, tell me what happens when you hose your initrc in Linux? Computer won't start eh? Guess you have the WORST OF BOTH WORLDS!! AHAHAHAHA!
This probably is the thing he tries to tell. It is consistent with what redhat does (copy our cd's by all means, but don't sell it for $1 with OUR BRAND on it).
But if only they would utter the sentence you typed instead of that management-speak-filled they usually utter when confronted with this question. What they *say* keeps curling my toes. I really like SuSE, so I hate it when they say it in a hacker-irritating way...
Reinout van Rees
Think RL's condescending answers here about Caldera contributing to the open source movement had anything to do with him getting shitcanned a couple days later?