Slashdot Mirror
United Linux Dead
DesScorp writes "ZDnet has a story about the impending demise of United Linux, with former general manager Paula Hunter stating that 'the legal entity still exists but I turned the lights out'. While a couple of reasons were given for UL's demise, most of the blame was firmly laid on the shoulders of SCO. As a member of group, their lawsuits killed off any real product development. SCO apparently refused to resign from UL, and Hunter said that 'As long as they remained a member, it remained impossible for us to begin new projects'. Which brings up the question, couldn't the other group members have kicked them out?"
...is like Madonna running a mirror for suprnova.org, isn't it?
Or to put it another way, why would SCO join an organization designed to standardize the way in which their IP rights are violated?
Unless of course they have no IP claims to begin with. Which they don't. And we know that. And so did SCO, at one point in time.
I don't understand why that fact alone doesn't throw this whole case out.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
couldn't the other group members have kicked them out?"
That would depend on the agreements they had signed. It might have just been easier for everyone else to pull out and just reform a different group at a later time.
Novell pulled SUSE out of it already. Was that due to SCO or did they just not want to be part of it anymore?
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
Which only goes to prove the old adage:
"One rotten apple spoils the entire bunch".
No matter where you go... there you are.
If you'd have been paying close attention, you would have noticed it was born dead.
There were no early warnings because there were no intermediate steps.
So UL died. Financial chaos insues. Just create another distro based on what you learned. I find that Linux distrobutions are successfull based on the research that was done to them. Debian has apt and has official packages controlled and standardized. Redhat pushes ease of use with a corporate twist. SuSE has european nations in its grasp and has a little of column A and a little of column B in it, a well balanced distro you might say. Slackware is the tried and true throw everything in and let the user sort it out "hackers" distro. Though its become a lot more friendly to use and is evolving nicely. United Linux wanted to take all the ideas and somehow work them into one. Thier goal was to make a standard set of packages what would work seamlessly together and be user friendly. They wanted to create a set of rules to follow when adding non-official packages and work on schemes to make packages work together and not break each other be accident. There goals have never been met by any distrobution to date. I still see hope for what they were trying to do. Just move on and do it under a different name. Rework management AKA reorganize and try again. The little distro the could so to speak. /rant off
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
I've been involved in a lot of activist and community projects, and the one thing I've learned is that sometimes it's not a bad thing that a project ends.
The worst thing is to stay together when everybody in a bitchy mood and one person's causing trouble and the project really isn't going anywhere.
Usually it's better to quietly end the project, say your farewells, take some time off, and then start new.
Food for thought.
Based on that, UL very likely had no choice but to shut down.
"The time is always now" - Victor
I did not know a war existed between Micro$oft and Linux! Linux will never die as long as we have dedicated programers who take pride in the code they produce and the OSDN in general. If you look at IBM and Novell's earnings as well as Mandrakesoft's you will see a Linux is far from Dead.
The UL consortium is what's dissolving. Not SuSE as a company. You should be fine running Oracle on their distro. I know I checked out SuSE for OpenExchange as well and am not concerned if I do pull the trigger and deploy it.
No, begging the question is:
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I get more done becuase of my chutzpah and sometimes, I admit, arrogance. You gotta get attention for ideas to get them done.
UserLinux targets both desktop and server. Users employ servers too, just remotely.
We can get Oracle on board. It might take some time, but we can get their customers to bring them there.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Let's be positive. We needed a stronger Linux suport group than United Linux
We need a group that promote linux compatible drivers. We need hardware with a "Works with Linux" Tag. We need someone to protect goberment from de FUD, and someone who can promote some kind of open and voluntary standars so that All distributions become closer and closer.
So there must be an agrupation of more Linux vendors, distributions and even firms who have interest in the field of Linux. Not only RedHAT or SUSE but also, IBM, ORACLE, etc... And of course, not only firms: Debian must be represented, etc etc... It will have some kind of strength wouldn't it?
And, last but not least, it should be made so that even if SCO or M$ were members it could continue existing with some annoying visitors in the mettings.
Let's hope it is a beggining forempowement of linux users
---
A fire from the ash shall be woken
A ligth from the shadow shall spring
Reforged be the blade that was broken
The Crownless again shall be king ( LOTR )
It'll work, I promise. And there will be people who want to support you.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Hey Bruce,
So here's my question - okay - correct me if I'm wrong here - so we have the whole issue of KDE not being put into User Linux because KDE is not as commercial friendly as GTK. You can release a program under GTK and not open the source. People seem to rally behind that principle.
Yet, whenever some important software project is ported or achieved, people scream for the source. I'm not asking whether your choice to exclude KDE is right or wrong - rather, aren't the reasons behind GTK going against the spirit of the community in general? Businesses might release closed code under GTK, but they will be assailed from the community to open it. Do you think this will be beneficial to either the business in question or community? To me, it seems bound for conflict.
Another question - why did you choose the name User Linux when the target audience is clearly for business users. I was initially irked that KDE wasn't included but when I read your underlying principles for the distribution, I see your point. The cause of conflict - for me - was the use of the word "user". When I think User Linux - I think Joe Six Pack Linux. I think a lot people get confused with that as well.
In either case, Linux evangelism - whether it be KDE focused or GNOME focused is good for everyone. Now if only we can create a decent installer for the desktop without use of the command line or compiler then I'd kiss windows goodbye for good.
The idea that SCO killed UnitedLinux is about as valid a statement as the idea that it really was a cooperative group. That, too, is about as valid a statement as the idea that UL was more than SuSE's half-finished linux-like product kicked over the fence to an unsuspecting and powerless clientele, whose only choice was to beat it into something they could now sell.
.. the best product that no one's ever seen.
UL was a bad idea from the start, because one of those companies just doesn't play well with others. We all gave up trying, a long time ago, really, because of the arrogance. UL were just looking for an excuse to break up the whole thing, because it was a pointless exercise from the start.
Thankfully, Conectiva still has their own linux product, still maintained and untainted by these baroque four-year-old kludges. When RH9 is forgotten, I'll definitely be giving Conectiva a good, hard look. They seem to like technology they didn't invent themselves, seem to work very well with other companies, and really have a deent product
And they moved beyond RPM v3 sometime in 2000.
If my own experience with the UL bunch gives me nothing more, at least I will have learne denough about Conectiva to know they're a really grat company, and I'll be thankful for the painfully bad project that is UL for at least the opportunity to learn about Conectiva I would never otherwise have had.
(No, I'm not signing my name. Litigious bastards)
Considering your trying to make a 'standard' that has GNOME as it's only GUI, for how long would that hold true?
;) ) But your group isn't open to everyone. Only GNOME distros and users. How can you possibly view that as not locking out a large segment of the user base? Expectally outside the US?
I'm not saying this as some KDE zealot. Truth be told, I've not installed the desktop in at least a year. My enviroment of choice is ROX. There isn't a distro alive that includes it as default. (Yet
I'm not saying I don't see why you do it, and I'm not saying you don't have a right to do it, but you have to call a spade a spade. KDE users are locked out.
True enough, but ISTR that Linux itself is a community project. If the corps. want to play, thet's fine with me; I'll support them like always (with my wallet). What I object to was the implication that NotACorporation == NoVoice. In other words, I see Bruce's project primarily as a community project and the parent poster seemed to be dissing it because no companies were seen there. As if that was the only form of credibility.
C|N>K
Where were the early warning trolls?
They were labeled "SCO".
Figure that whatever SCO touches will be dead without further notice.
Linux is not comfortable being sold or consolidated....Let it run free and remain free.
Anyone that has tried to make money selling or sueing Linux has fallen victim to the geek equivelent of being on the cover of SI. A fast and painful death to all who try to pen her in or shut her down.
Due yourself a favor and dont sell out to "the man". Install Debian or Slackware and come back to reality.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
That's a totally different beast, actually. UnitedLinux was a standardized server distro, and as such was about as far removed from doing anything with the desktop as you can be while still running a modern OS.
DLWG may include the same players, and that should be no surprise as those are the distros that have shown in the past that they recognize the need to work together, but that doesn't make it the same thing.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Ironically, no. SCO have a proprietary interest in the group, and so cannot be kicked out unless the group has a constitution that provides for this. It doesn't really matter that SCO are doing their best to destroy the value of that interest.
On the other hand, there was nothing to stop them all quitting and starting a new organisation with the same goals.
Seriously, the entire idea of UL was shaky, and shady..
We are better off with out it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----