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.
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?
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 question itself is typical from the community that has grown to embrace Open Source, but the answer is pure PR fluff. Keep an eye out for this technique; you'll see it in play whenever cable rates go up or a business is about to make it harder for you to cash a check.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
If the quality is higher than the free alternatives, there will be people willing to buy for that extra reliability.
Stop the brainwash
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.
Not exactly.
They're targeting corporations. Companies that can afford to pay large amounts of money to have someone else worry about the operating system for them.
Much like Redhat's enterprise edition.
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.
Provided that more "traditional" variants on the Mac were still available (just as other Linux distros will remain available), I don't see what would be wrong with a move like that. The whole idea would be to get the Mac into a new market, not to sell that model to the people who already use Macs to do audio/video work. If Jobs were to try to sell a supercheap audio-less "BusinessMac" to people who run spreadsheets all day, I would applaud.
I think Love is up to the same thing. He's not interested in you "Linux community" people. You'll go on running Slackware or Debian or whatever. Corporate jargon, on the other hand, is the language that the people running NT know, and those are his prospective customers.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to 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
I'm gonna have to disagree.
If you want to swim in the financial waters, you need to speak the financial language.
Being able to sling around financial buzzwords no more implies technical incompetence then being able to sling around Linux buzzwords implies programming competence. (Not to mention that it is not a given that technical competence is necessary to run a technical business; it's just so few CEOs, or indeed people, can stand to trust the tech people enough to make good decisions just based on their word.)
While it can annoy people like us to slog through a language with a lower informational density (caused by the higher density of words meant to signal things to the listener's subconcious like 'conformity' and 'if I sound like this, I must know what I'm doing', annoying to us but CEOs who don't use this language aren't CEOs for long), the true test of the value remains the content of the speech.
On that measure, this CEO did quite well, and your harshness is incredibly unfair, and your moderation probably undeserved. They equally justifiably think the same thing about people who are only concerned about tech, and never the business. ("What actually puts food on the table? Do the techies think they can eat their server?")
Look past the surface.
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.
Yes, the parent was modded as funny (rightfully), but...
People who talk like this can only relate to two things: other people who talk like this
Welcome to the real world. The real world does not consist of coders who ignore everyone else in their insular little universes and think that everyone should be as smart as they are. There's a reason that there's more MBA's than engineering degrees out there -- more people think in a management/marketing perspective than an engineering one.
Is Mr. Love spewing a lot of horseshit? Sure. But it's horseshit that other horses will sniff, recognize and find comfort in rather than the bullshit that a lot of the Linux community spouts. Bullshit is just confusing to horses - it smells kinda similar, but the nuances are missing and it makes the horses nervous.
Insert sheep or lemmings for horse if that makes you feel better.
It still doesn't change the reality that Linux is still far, far away from serious corporate acceptance. IBM, Redhat, and other companies are making headway here (hooray), but it's largely through the same kind of crap that Mr. Love is talking. It's not based off some ethical superiority, and it sure as hell isn't because businesses think OSS is a good model for their core logic.
We'd love to move our systems over to Linux here... but upper management starts looking nervous every time it's mentioned. So instead we're on AIX (gack) and horribly overpriced PPC boxes. Maybe once Linux gets some more positive press from companies like Redhat, IBM, Caldera, etc. we'll finally be able to move to something better than AIX.
If you want to swim in the financial waters, you need to speak the financial language.
Slashdot isn't financial waters. Any good speaker knows that you pick your language to match what the audience will respond to. If you can't speak techie, then you probably can't think techie. If can't figure out when it's inappropiate to speak financial, you probably can't figure out when it's inappropiate to think financial.
A bit offtopic, but I was wondering if something could be a loophole here. While the source should match the output, does the GPL make any requirements about the build process? I mean, would it be any less GPL because it includes Visual Studio Build information as opposed to automake/autoconf stuff? What about no build information at all and raw source? That last option could really make a codebase so not worth putting together that a customer would rather buy than try to piece it together. Of course, someone could release a GPLed builder of the product and that would go away. But on the other hand, what if the company devises and implements a really different and proprietary build system with which they build the product, that can't easily be reverse engineered and leave the source mostly unusable?
I guess the ultimate example of this would be a company developing a proprietary language for internal development. Release things in this language, but make no compilers or platform documentation available outside the company. This extreme example is not plausible (company would lose more than it gains), but it still raises an interesting question.
Also, where is the line drawn between source and binary? One could make the argument that binary is source, if you can just grok machine code. A simple translation from assembly code, and many gpl projects at least include assembly, and I guarantee you there is at least one entirely assembly based project under the GPL. In those circumstances, whether you have the source or the binary doesn't matter too much (well, depending on the linking). Same as having Java class files, Java class files easily decompile to readable, modifiable code.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
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?
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!
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.
[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
I think this is a misconception. RedHat, and I think most major distributions, do extensive hardware testing. Whenever you hear about IBM/HP/etc. providing Linux on their servers, you know that they've made a deal to certify their hardware with the given distribution. So sure, if you buy a random server and load RedHat it may not work (although I've never had a problem on normal server hardware), but if you ask RedHat or your hardware vendor what's guaranteed to work, they'll have no problems telling you. In fact it's probably in the marketing material already. A few seconds of clicking on IBM's web site revealed this handy little chart.
The real story behind United Linux is the fact that the companies involved want to save development $$ and they had to come up with some sort of license that all the parties could agree to. More power to them - I hope they succeed. But they're not providing anything fundamentally different than what's already on the market.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When I first heard Mr. Roboto, I interpreted the last part as "my brain I B.M." (where "B.M." is short for bowel movement, i.e. "I shit out my brain").
Surprisingly, it seems that Love has done the same in order to rid himself of hippies. ;-)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Exactly what the hell is wrong with you kKeybBoard? Or this is an attempt to be cool?
Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.