Slashdot Mirror
Upheavals In UnitedLinux
An anonymous reader writes "I found this story on UnixReview.com - vnunet has some commentary about UnitedLinux and it sounds like it's struggling." I dunno - I plan on still giving them the benefit of the doubt, and see what comes out. Heck, I might even try installing a machine with the "united distro" - but it's still an interesting pickle some of the primary members are in.
Who's to say that they don't apply this same pressure to software makers? Just a wild guess on my part, really.
No, the problem is threefold (at least)
1) Internal apps. Need to be rewritten for the new OS. And believe me, a LOT of the company is run from 'Mary in accountings' custom spreadsheet.
2) User and help desk training. Can't drop a week out of production to roll out the new software, and then train the users on its use. And no, it is NOT seamless for the users.
3) Client compatibility. You MUST be able to trade documents with *all* of your clients. If Joe Blow from General Motors sends you a complex xls, you'd better be able to read it.
I consult most of my time with large corporates on how to adopt Linux. They love the `obvious' stuff like Samba, Squid (kinda - but better content filtering tools would be nice) and the fact that there is the glimmerings of a 3rd-party software market. Examples of the latter are virus checkers, the towering presence of Oracle in the market and so on.
For them, Open Source is less a religion than a hard-headed business decision. They actually *like* paying money for software, it makes them feel comfortable. The fact that United Linux isn't free is actually a PLUS POINT for them. You can argue that they are crazy or whatever you want, but that's they way they react.
Now, what they really want is low risk. They want to be sure that the anti-virus software they purchase will install and run without problems. If they are running Oracle, it's crucial that it works properly - no downtime, no data loss.
So they are sceptical unless the software vendor certifies that the product concerened has been tested and deployed and is supported on the release of Linux that they have chosen.
It costs software companies a lot of money to do the appropriate testing, train helpdesk staff and do the documentation for each slightly different release of Linux. Even if my-favourite-distro is a byte by byte copy of Redhat 7.x, Oracle will simply say it's not supported because it didn't come with Redhat's logo on it. They will laugh in my face if I ask them to check that my distro is compatible, they will more likely ask me for a huge sum of cash to provide me with certification. They can afford to call the shots.
That's the real reason behind United Linux. To get 3rd party accreditation and reduce the apparent fragmentation of distributions. So that large companies can say "Oh, yeah, ok, your software is certified to run on the system I use" and then not have to think any more. They don't want to waste time checking that my distro IS Redhat, they just want to see the logo and get the support contract in from the software vendor.
Mike
I think the command you're looking for is 'xrandr' (rotate and resize).
I'd like agree with you ... but, the reason I already don't like and never intend to use UnitedLinux has nothing to do with "that they want to make money."
It has to do with ruining the things that are best about Linux. I'm sorry, but when Ransom Love mentions things like "per seat licensing", to me, that's a step backwards. Without a doubt, from a technical standpoint, I'm sure UL will be top notch. But until SuSE GPLs YAST2 (it's still closed afaik) and they have more community friendly licensing, then that's totally worthless to me and to everyone in the Linux community.
Closed Betas? Preffered Partners? No thanks, we get enough of that crap with proprietary software.