Slashdot Mirror
OSDL and The Free Standards Group to Merge
Andy Updegrove writes "On Sunday afternoon, the Free Standards Group (FSG) signed an agreement to combine forces with Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) to form a new organization — The Linux Foundation. The result of this consolidation will be to dedicate the resources of the combined membership to 'accelerate the growth of Linux by providing a comprehensive set of services to compete effectively with closed platforms.' Jim Zemlin, currently the head of FSG, will lead the new organization as its Executive Director. The new organization will continue to support Linux in a variety of ways, including by providing economic support to Linus Torvalds and other key kernel developers, managing the Linux trademark, and providing legal protection to developers through such initiatives as the Open Source as Prior Art project, the Patent Commons, and the Linux Legal Defense Fund. All in all, a tall order, but eminently possible given its membership: The Linux Foundation's founding members will include every major company in the Linux industry, including Fujitsu, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Intel, NEC, Novell, Oracle and Red Hat, as well as many community groups, universities and industry end users."
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
There can be only one.
That is a bad idea for several reasons:
a) A standards group must be independend. The FSG loses its credibility.
b) Patents risks cannot be combated with baseless tinkering and playing nice. Give a credible lobby group 1 million to build up an equivalent movement in the US as in Europe and US software patents will be gone within 3-4 years. In Europe they continue to exist because of the weakness of US advocats and their waste of money in superficial reform proposals (red herrings). Software patents are of abolutely no use. It is time to prepare a soft landing in Alexandria "to promote the sciences and the arts".
c) If you want patents to cause no harm and pose no risks let them lapse.
d) The strong US bias is a problem which will be regarded as a risk in the rest of the world, also given the insecure US legal situation (patriot act, DMCA etc.).
It is a good idea for these reasons:
e) A Linux foundation now represents "Linux" (the trademark, the founder, the LSB, perfect).
f) The package of services looks complete and gives certain gravity to the project.
g) The name is very catchy
What do you think?
It keeps amazing me over and over again how "Open Source Development" and "Free Standards" somehow miraculously always seem to transform into "Linux" ...
All the world's NOT a Linux Box.
Beaverton... sounds nice!
Why not the Firefox foundation? Or the OpenOffice.org foundation?
:(
Free Software is represented by much more than Linux. In the operating systems area (well, Linux is just the kernel but let's not detail this too much) there is the BSD (having the same general market niche), there are several research operating systems, some real time, some very small, and so on.
On the application side, there are plenty of implementations for integrated development editor (Eclipse), tens or hundreds of languages/compilers, plenty of Office clones or wannabe, graphic manipulation programs, and so on - in a list longer than a day of fasting.
And all of this takes the name of "The Linux Foundation"?
Is this a step in the direction to making Linux the defacto standard on which to build all future software? Such a platform will be needed one day, as security and reliability become all the more important, reinventing the wheel at this level will be no more.
Linux is the Foundation Software of the future.
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
So now, Microsoft should form it's own Commitee of Standards. Just to be fair, don't y'all agree?
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
This is a good move, for the rest of us. Both these organisations where pretty much a Linux-only club; to say the least, at least extremely Linux-biased.
This new name spells it out in clear text, which is great for all of us that don't use Linux; be it Solaris, BSD or whatever. It also means that OSDL will lose part of its meddling ability because its now in the open that it only exist to promote Linux and not other open source systems.
I love it, I wish more organisations and companies did the same; no more hidden agendas.
And which of these would you choose as a standard?
I find it funny that one of the criticisms people often make against Linux is "too many choices". But when someone says "OK, let's agree to a standard", people start complaining against that. Let's face it, once you agree to a standard, it becomes exactly that.
I think it's a big step forward that the industry (represented by several big league players who are funding the whole thing) is finally acknowledging that Linux is something more than "just a kernel". Linux is the idea that's driving things forward. If I were forced to become involved in the itty-bitty details of the differences between FreeBSD and OpenBSD, I would still be using MS-Windows. Over the years I have used Yggdrasil, Slackware, Red Hat, Mandrake, Conectiva, Suse, Debian, and now Ubuntu. That's exactly what a standard should be. Let there be a hundred different flavors, but don't let any of them become a monopoly.
JUST Linux?
Meh. What about BSD, the embedded systems like eCos/RTMS? GNU in general runs everywhere. MacOS X is based on Open Source.
Why only focus on Linux? OSDL used to be a bit Linux-biased but now this is just ridiculously narrow in scope, Linux just isn't suitable in every environment for every task.
Subject says it all.
A decentralized OS community is a strong one. An OS community where all the projects are crowded onto one or two servers (i.e. sourceforge) is one that is easily taken out by big competing entities (i.e. Microsoft)
Novell Open Audio plans to release an audio interview with Jim Zemlin about the merger at http://www.novell.com/feeds/openaudio/?p=127. --Ted Haeger
In business schools, they teach that as an industry matures, two things often happen. One is that a single company becomes dominant (in this case, Microsoft), with several roughly equal second-tier competitors, and a huge number of smaller players. Second, that pure competition gives way to increased industry standardization by umbrella organizations that promote common interests of vendors, consumers, and technologists.
My biases include that I have no MBA. The current President of the USA (with his bizarre anti-science stance, belief in some weird god less plausible than the Flying Spahetti Monster, and psychopathological decision-making) does have an MBA, and provokes an ad hominem attack on the very credibility of the degree, compared to, say, an M.S. in Software Engineering, or a Ph.D. in Physics, or a degree in History, for instance. I have written two MBA dissertations for Fortune 100 executives, for cash, with my name nowhere appearing, nor the nominal author's name or institutions to be disclosed, as this is a gray area, ethically. But I got the benefits of the education. I have also authored or coauthored papers in Mathematical Economics, some particularly about global competition in high-tech industries.
I am also unable to be objective, as a holder of nearly 4,000 shares of LNUX. Still, all in all, I see this as a good move, that can benefit all parties. Please keep updating the status of this on Slashdot.
-- Prof. Jonathan Vos Post
p.s. Do I never get modded up because I forget my password and only log on as Anonymous Coward? Or what? Isn't Slashdot sophisticated enough to judge by content, and not author?
Stallman's not gonna like this. They forgot to call it GNU/Linux...
BDS is not dead yet!
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
Linux Rocks!!!!
I love it...
Long Live Linus!!!
And feed him good for his work!!!
Thanks Linus!!
You've made my life better.
Thank You... and all the companies that have supported you.
I will direct my money in your direction.
Thank you all.
One cause, one direction, one goal!
Good day!
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
Probably because their focus isn't in one or other specific application. Judging from the sponsors, their aim is to have an open platform on which their software can run.
Given the emphasis on "trusted" computing by Microsoft and all the Apple DRM, other players such as Oracle want to build an insurance against the day their software won't run unless it's blessed by the OS vendor. If you think having to pay the "Microsoft tax" when you buy a computer is bad, imagine having to pay extra for every application.
I can't find anything in parent post to agree with, and I did try to. Really.
I couldn't even find agreement with the spelling in PP's subject line.
I don't see anything negative about this merger of OSDL with FSG. Both have become increasingly focused on Linux; their interests have been converging for some time. Overtly recognizing this will allow the new Linux Foundation to speak with clear authority. That will increase the signal to noise ratio, decrease the opportunities for third parties to FUD the messages, and generally be a good thing all the way around.
I think TFA's statement about The Linux Foundation competing directly with Microsoft is both unfortunate and not true. Linux will continue to win converts on its own merits: that is its manifest destiny. To paraphrase a great quote from someone else (since I can't locate the original): the goal of Linux development is to continue to improve this operating system. That this will also destroy Windows is merely an unintended consequence.
I hope Linux (and all other FOSS) will get a real boost from this...
...this is btw. neither a troll nor a flamebait... this is the truth but they would kill me for this.
I do however wonder why there are so many Microsoft Überfans in the support group...
Unless they have seen the light and realized that Microsoft, as we know them now, will not survive much more than 3 to 5 years.
--
Like everybody else here, I thought it was strange to give up the cross-platform independence of, in particular, the Free Standards name.
However, it might not be so bad. Other systems are free to support "Linux standards". It might even be both closer to reality and good for a marketing perspective. At least the proprietary Unixen are increasingly sold as "a better Linux".
And it is worth remembering that Linux itself started of openly implementing Unix standards, not just the "neutral" Posix, but also the Open Groups Unix98 set of specifications (which was basically SysVR4). Whenever there wasn't a very good reason to do otherwise, Linux would follow Unix98.
I assume other organizations can take a similar stance towards the Linux Foundation.
Novell will join the new organization? Oh crap. Now Microsoft is going to have an even bigger, even more underhanded claw in the Open Source movement because of them.
how is babby formed?
But on two levels I don't, primarily for a simple reason of naming -- Linux is not the the be all and end all of free standards (FSG) or open source (OSDL) -- Linux is a result of both.
My first objection is systems based. Assume I and a group of my peers develop the world's greatest new open source architecture -- that is not Linux. Will the Linux foundation support the open standards and open source efforts by making it easy to hook to it, etc.? Or am I and my peers now competitors?
The second is lesser because without corporate financial involvement, the proprietary solutions will always win by virtue of deep pocketbooks, lobbying, etc. So there has to be corporate buy-in in order for an open source approach to be viable in the future But Fujitsu, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Intel, NEC, Novell, and Oracle and have all been both black hats and white hats in the "Open Source" arena, so I have a level of distrust in their backing of a "single" organization under a single OS titled name.
My thoughs only. What do you think?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
will be a lone geek with a sleek black impervious computer with a turbo boost and advanced artificial intelligent (for the 80's) that sounds like William Daniels.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
One of the most effective things about Open Source and Linux is the small targets they have traditionally represented. Now I'm not advocating that Linux/Open Source/Free Software stay small and underground. I would love to see widespread adoption. I only wonder how the larger target is going to fair out. Companies like Microsoft can go after a slam dunk target and really hinder Linux/Free Software in more effective ways when it's consolidated instead of being represented by small, fragmented entities. Case in point: The only reason SCO went after IBM was because they had money. Notice that SCO didn't bother with Open Source Development Labs and kernel developers, which are poor for the most part. I echo the sentiment about keeping the various bodies separate and focused on their respective tasks. Hopefully their interests won't ever be in conflict with each other so they can continue to be effective.
Fresh horses and more whiskey for my men.
the point was to get away from standizatiton (IE microsoft Vista) and come up with a method that improves on user-centric preferences. Rather than estiblishing on method. It should be multi-diverse and mulitdirection
Didn't buy. Got them as my equity when a company, Brave New Worlds, on whose Board of Directors I served, was acquired by what was then VA Linux. The purchase price was a nominal $7,750,000 of which 10% was cash, 90% LNUX shares. My cash component has long since vanished into mortgage payments. At least, with the dot com bust, I didn't lose my house, which happened to people I knew.
On paper, the 3 founders of Brave New Worlds were each worth $2.2 Million at the acquisition. One bought a house with his share of the cash, and sold it to move to another state with his new wife. When stockvalue slid, those 3 sold at low prices. One sold out at $3 per share; he did the best of them. The two others sold at $2 and $1 respectively. And one of those two bought more shares as they were sliding.
Goes to show. The skills that enable one to found a run a small high-tech start-up are NOT the skills than enable financial stability.
Eric Raymond told me, when one of the other Brave New Worlds officers and I took him to lunch, how unhappy he was that his LNUX shares "were below sea level."
Umm... can I get a "Full disclosure.. Slashdot is owned by the artist formerly known as OSDL" Zonk?
Here's to the crazy ones
Yet another song and dance by people with good intent, lots of money, and not a single iota of understanding. Economic support for Torvalds... all good and well, but updates to the Linux kernel are not going to put the OS on desktop computers. As much credit as the man deserves for making the kernel, it and he have become irrelevant to Linux adoption. We have a functional open source kernel and it isn't going away.
The project that needs the most attention, economic and otherwise, right now is WINE. If someone was able to fund WINE as a full-time project, you would see a lot more advancement in Windows compatibility, which is really the only thing keeping people tied to Windows.
They have done that years ago already, it's called ECMA.
The Free Standards Group is now for Linux only? What a freaking joke! Is the Linux community so insecure that it needs to have exclusive standards? Is its self-esteem so low it cannot stand to share a file system hierarchy with BSD or Solaris? What a bunch of stupid lusers...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!