Slashdot Mirror
Ransom Love to Focus on UnitedLinux
morhoj writes "Looks like Ransom Love, who recently was host to a /. interview, has been replaced as CEO of Caldera and is now exclusively leading the UnitedLinux initiative. Some other stock buybacks and board swaps also happened at Caldera. Can't say that I'm all too pleased by this, I for one didn't like some of his answers in the interview, specifically that fees would be required to become "UnitedLinux" certified. That should really help wider Linux adoption."
1) become united linux certified
2) ??
3) profit
Fault loves the past, worry loves the future, but content enjoys the present.
Is taking this guy seriously with a name like THAT.
We might as well have this guy lead UnitedLinux. Or this guy. An Oriental guy would be good for diversity. This guy too.
That should do for now.
Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski
Robert Love is. Ransom Love is not a kernel developer.
Ransom Love has never really understood the concept of free software. He's stuck in the mindset of proprietary == added value and Caldera has suffered because of that. The same thing will happen to United-Linux if he has a strong controlling interest in its productization. The end result will be more of an Untied-Linux which will probably never even have as much relevance to the linux world as even Caldera was able to achieve.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Caldera bought DR DOS from Novell, sued Microsoft, settled out of court, and promptly sold it to Lineo. It is still, BTW, closed source, though Lineo is using it to expand its roles in the legacy and embedded device areas.
;)
The basic problem here is that Love has made Microsoft-inspired statements about the GPL, helped his company get a large chunk of their capital from suing Microsoft, buying worst-of-breed products (like SCO), etc. Is he really the person you want to have head the United Linux effort?
I personally think that United Linux will flop, and may take down Turbolinux, SuSE, and Conectiva as well. I would include Caldera as well, but that company has already lived up to its namesake
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Well, by charging, corporate america will be able to think with it. Besides it might become able to fund the partners to continue creating distributions we've grown so fond of.
It seems few here have any experience with keeping a company afloat. It's always complain, complain when these guys try to get paid for all the work they put into this. It would be one thing if they were making money head over heals like MS.
They have all been running at a loss with their linux distributions. Do you want to pay for them to continue?
I for one am willing to pay for what I get. Fair exchange, don't you think?!
So unless you can put up the money, and time it takes, and make it go right to bring out a great distribution, shut up!
Personally, I don't mind that United Linux is trying to make a profit. I also wouldn't mind paying for it, if it was worth it.
Having something be commercial is *not* the same as being closed (propriatary). If they try to charge money for something that sucks, no one will pay for it.
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, and I'm a huge open source fan. But, people do still need to make money. And, I would rather see closed source software on an open platform, than closed source on a closed platform.
Just my $.02 worth, anyway.
LinuxSoft? MicroLinux? Either way, at least someone is taking the first step. To really be competitive means making money, and making money means charging for the product.
Redhat charges for Advanced Server (targeting the Enterprise), but allows server and desktop for free. If I understand correctly, United will charge for "Server" and up, but the desktop will be free. Sort of like "If you build it, they will come" for the desktop piece.
What is troubling (to me) is that, in the end, the precedents here are well documented. We all remember the "free" for life" services when the internet was in first bloom. Free E-mail, web hosting, etc. Those are gone. They won't be back, either. Because they didn't make money.
The "give" here (by United) is on the GPL and releasing source code to developers. That keeps the platform "open", while still managing to charge for the product.
Is Linux on the desktop "ready for Prime Time"? No, probably not. It isn't mindless enough. Certifications? Let's hammer away at that like MS and get 500,000 + folks certified (how many MCSE's are there?). Looks good to IS departments, anyway.
My point? The Linux community will have to answer United's push, and the answer will be an MS-like Linux based counterpoint to Windows. Things are fixing to change.
As I see a few bits & pieces of the UL puzzle, I can't help but think of OSF. The Unix community was supposed to be united at last, as the software giants combined forces to create the one, truly standard OS. Focused more on fees than creativity... we all know how the story ends.
The more I read about UL, the less I like it. I seriously doubt that the people who developed most of Linux were expecting to be used as free labor in a conventional retail software product.
Ransom Love will destroy any hope UnitedLinux had. I hope he does not take SUSE down with him. He has never from day one understood anything about how to run an open source related company. Just look how popular Calera is with "Open"Linux (quotes are intentional.) They have boughten SCO, which is a horrible OS with a mainframe like following, and is slowly destroying that too. They had some cool technology years ago, like Linux NDS which was never widly used because nobody wanted to "tie themselves" to Caldera. He seems intent on creating vendor lockin, which is exactly what his market wants so badly to avoid.
Love seems to shoot himself in the foot each time he opens his mouth. People are complaining about the slashdot interview. That was one of the best interview he ever gave...go search for more, you'll see. This guy does not belong in the Linux business, he just doesn't understand it. What's even worse is he thinks he does.
This move of his saddens me. It also makes me want to go out and purchase some RedHat stock. All of RedHat's serious competition is about to die. I hope SUSE can maintain itself, and not sellout to Love's screwball mindset. I thought they knew better.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
On the Microsoft thing, you have to remember Microsoft created XENIX, mostly by farming it out to SCO to do the port. XENIX eventually became what is now OpenServer 5, which was SCO's mainline (and only UNIX) for many years. Kind of hard to hate MS when they formed the core of their business for decades. MS also owns some amount of the old SCO, dunno how that played out with the Caldera purchase. A lot of XENIX => OpenServer code had MS copyrights, and MS got a cut of every OS5 sale until 1997 I read...
This is the same guy who is angered by the question about what Caldera does not give back to the Open Source community in the recent slashdot interview. He tells of how much "merketing" caldera has given to Linux, and how we should be greatful.
That shows how much he understands the Open Source world. I remember when Caldera was considered a "bigger" more reliable Linux distribution than RedHat back in the kernel 1.2 days. Look at the two of them now, and the business/respect they have. If he thinks "marketing" his own product is enough giving back to the open source community, he deserves to fail. Calera should have died a long time ago. He bites the hand that feeds him...we have bitten back. I am afraid he will stunt (if not completely destroy) UnitedLinux's growth like he did Caldera.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
The way I see it, the certification fee is more a method of appealing to big businesses than an attempt to pocket some cash. Corporations can use any distribution of Linux they want, but most still don't use Linux at all. They want to know that the product they're getting meets certain standards. Although being certified doesn't imply any sort of superiority or higher quality than non-certified distributions, it does help.
Or does anyone else think the blue part of the Caldera logo looks like the left ear and part of the head of Mickey Mouse?!?!?!
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Here's what I think. I think a company needs to be started (let's call it Microsoft for our purposes), and that company will take all the GPLd software, package it, and license it under a commercial license so strict that you're not even allowed to remove the CD from the shrink-wrapping, let alone try to execute any of the information on it.
I don't know about huge. CEO of bit player in the corporate Linux world steps down. Nobody cares about Caldera.. a few people (most of Redhat's competition) care about UL. You seem to be saying that he'll do less damage this way, but I think he has the potential to do more damage.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
With any luck, the demise of UL will take RL with it. Unfortunately, the M$ hype machine will be screaming at full blast to announce the death of Linux, when it's really just UL being flushed down the toilet.
Regarding SUSE, I'm not so sure any of the Linux parters in UL can survive this expensive mistake. These companies simply don't have the financial reserves to go out and take foolish risks like this. Of all the potential UL casualties, SUSE is the only one that I will miss.
It remains to be seen whether UL will be a good thing or not. But I thought the whole point of Open Source was to allow you more freedom (as in speech) over the code you run. Since when is charging money going against this ideal? Even RMS says it's ok to charge for Free Software.
Say UL is successful and lots of businesses adopt it. They still won't have the kind of control over the users that Microsoft does - because they can always take the source and go elsewhere if they don't like the direction UL is going.
Certification is about giving businesses the comfort factor that applications will work out of the box on their linux systems. Certification means testing - which means time and manpower - which costs money. Charging for it seems to make sense to me. And you're only getting charged if you want to be part of the UL distro club (as far as I can see anyway).
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, and I'm a huge open source fan. But, people do still need to make money. And, I would rather see closed source software on an open platform, than closed source on a closed platform.
I agree, and while my experiences with Blender have led me to conclude that proprietary software coupled with proprietary formats is a no-win situation on any platform, open or closed, there is a place for commercial software in the Free World.
The problem with United Linux is that they are promoting a very erroneous and IMHO destrictuve meme: that (a) a single commercial entity imposing a defacto embrace-and-extended standard is better than a community consensus and (b) that commercial products are better off targeting one imposed distribution and counting on compatability with others (in contrast to packaging their binaries in a distribution-neutral manner, the way VMWare does, Blender and Loki did, etc.).
Point (b) is particularly problematic (and my sole signficant gripe with Red Hat, who I otherwise like as a company, as they have promoted that harmful meme to some degree as well), and why I will actually be cheering the demise of United Linux (to put it bluntly).
Their strategy is to encourage vendors to package stuff for their distro, arguing that they are the standard to which all other distros (e.g. Gentoo, Source Mage, Slackware, Debian, etc.) must become compatible, then use that in)compatabilties to coerce those who would like to use said commercial products into purchasing their distro.
In short, they are about coercion and removing choice from the community, and as I said in another thread, the losers will ultimately be the commercial vendors, whose products would simply be disregarded regardless of merit because of their incompatability with the installed distribution (which in our case we prefer for a number of reasons, the details of which aren't important here). The vendors will likely then think, erroneously, that they failed due to a lack of GNU/Linux interest, when in fact they failed because they targeted a coercive distribution that the majority of the community rejected, and thus closed themselves out of the very market they were trying to address.
The entire notion of United Linux is based upon at least two false pretenses: (1) that it is somehow impossible for vendors to package binaries in a distribution-neutral manner, despite numerous examples to the contrary and (2) that the GNU/Linux community will accept a compatability standard imposed upon us by either a unilateral or multilateral corporate interest instead of community consensus.
They are sorely mistaken on both of these points, and their arrogance will likely prevent them from seeing that until it is far too late.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy