Slashdot Mirror
OSDL Answers SCO With Kernel Awareness Campaign
prostoalex writes "Open Source Development Labs announced a new initiative to increase customer confidence in using Linux in business. The initiative is launched in answer to legal claims by SCO Group. So far managers and developers around the world are supposed to boost their confidence in Linux with the help of this little poster, which explains the kernel development process."
You mean:
5. Share!
That's not a volcano, it's an Erlenmeyer flask. It's a metaphor for the churning, volatile, active state of the development kernels. That's why it's red, too - red means "Use at your own risk! If it breaks you can keep both pieces."
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
My only peeve is when companies do stupid things like outsource. It's basically selling your company's soul, and it actually costs MORE than having your own department.
Anyway, my point is that managers arent supposed to be 'clued in' to technology and IP rights. Thats why they hire IT staff and legal departments.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
One of the things from the poster that mystifies me is the lack of mention of testing. How does each new build of the kernel get validated for release? What types and levels of testing are done (e.g. integration, HW compatibility, etc.)? Can anyone explain?
Well I suppose the hypothetical target audience has a legal department that takes a sheaf of press releases backed up by no evidence whatsoever as adequate support for a claim of copyright infringement. So maybe it's understandable if the OSDL comes across as a little condescending....
Linux end users need to understand that *they* can not be sued. Forget the ibm v scox case - that is a case between ibm and scox.
The idea that scox can sue linux end users is completely absurd - even if ibm did break some contract, even if there is illegal code in linux.
Companies and individuals that buy linux in good faith, have done nothing wrong. They have not violated any copyright - and certainly they have not violated any patent, trademark, or trade secret. Therefore, scox has absolutely no grounds to sue linux end users. I don't care if ibm broke one hundred contracts with scox. That is the message that the needs to get to the linux end users.
The idea is to show that there is continuous public review of the code, and that there is no real way to add malicious or illegal code into the kernel unnoticed. It's no show managers that their systems are plenty legal with the SCO tax.
You are all fartheads.
What I find disturbing (besides your lack of faith) is that apparently no one at OSDL is a graphic artist. That poster is half whitespace, and it's unbalanced to boot. I haven't figured out what the big whitespace at the top is for... are they trying to save money on ink? Or maybe it's so you can use that space to attach your darl mcbride dartboard? Inquiring minds want to know.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think this is a very good idea. Most techies think this is a battle of intellectual property, but in reality it is a PR/marketing-hype battle. The tech community should have more efforts like this to educate people so they understand the issues and are not misled by the legal meandering.
... IT is only a piece of the pie- it isnt the whole pie....
Well, yeah, that's true, but management wants to pretend that management is the whole pie. Despite the fact that the tech people have a lot to contribute to the qualitative running of a business, tech people are treated like line workers (who also need to be treated better, but that's a whole other post) because of the two distinct worldviews of corporate culture and IT culture.
IT culture is open and flexible, based on "what happens if we do this?" and "does it make sense?"; corporate culture is built around conformity, procedure, and (sometimes) personal prestige, which few geeks have any patience for.
Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars.
Okay, you made fun of my awkward syntax. I knew that was coming right after I hit the submit button.
:-) Nonetheless, thanks for the clarification, as I'm not opposed to managment per se.
"Where management isn't involved and/or overseeing 'the whole pie' you're talking about a mismanaged company."
Well, you can see how the omission could give a misleading impression.
In fact, your word "involved" is exactly what I'd like to see more of. I'd love to see business management more committed to the explicit goals of business. As a libertarian, I'd like to see the people who run businesses become emotionally involved in the process of manufacturing the best possible product, or providing the best possible service.
What tempers my libertarianism IRL is that a state of mind like that is un-natural. It's completely biological to want to take care of yourself and those who bear your genes. You have to be trained to see el photo grande, to realize that making the best product and giving the best service require short-term sacrifices, but result in maximal long-term benefit, even to yourself.
And that's the day-to-day problem that results in my coming on strong to the all-management idea. You said it by accident, but a lot of people do mean it; many who aren't literate enough to say it in so many words follow such a philosophy instinctively. People way too often has a here-now-and-me take on things. People's duration in xyz-space, t-space and social-space is minimally-existent without training, and management is just people.
The outcome is that management, like people in general, make decisions to their own immediate benefit; this is to the detriment of profit, the other people involved in the business, and their own long-term benefit. The people in managment don't just see managment as "the whole pie".... they, like everyone else, have an instinctive view of themselves as the whole pie, even to the exclusion of their own future selves. Managers (and leaders of all sorts) require training to see the long-term outcomes.
Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars.