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."

Comments

Oh fer chrissake

[$RANDOMLUSER]

So rather than two organizations working towards open standards, we get one organization working towards competing against Microsoft. Brilliant. Where ODSL actually had some credibility while forcing Microsoft towards more open document standards, this new "Linux Foundation" just begs to be ignored as a competitor. Efffing brilliant.

T]he mission of the new organization is [to] help Linux, the leading example of the open-source model of software development, to compete more effectively against Microsoft, the world's largest software company.

/smacks head on desk

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[Anonymous Coward]

The word "Microsoft" doesn't appear in the press release or anywhere else I can see on the linux foundation website, you appear to be quoting the opinion of the NYT journalist directly or via consortiuminfo.

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[bigtomrodney]

The more we tighten our grip the more software will fall through our fingers. ....Oh wait, which ones are we Linux guys again, Rebels or Empire?

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[segedunum]

Where ODSL actually had some credibility while forcing Microsoft towards more open document standards

Errrr. Exactly where was this happening?

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[Merusdraconis]

"Linux, the leading example of the open-source model of software development"

I would have said Firefox, personally, but to explain why I'd have to make statements that could be construed as negative to Linux, and I'm not fool enough to do that on Slashdot.

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[Anonymous Coward]

So rather than two organizations working towards open standards, we get one organization working towards competing against Microsoft. Brilliant. Where ODSL actually had some credibility while forcing Microsoft towards more open document standards, this new "Linux Foundation" just begs to be ignored as a competitor. Efffing brilliant.

     

T]he mission of the new organization is [to] help Linux, the leading example of the open-source model of software development, to compete more effectively against Microsoft, the world's largest software company.

It's kind of a sad day when promoting your product and defending it's legal rights is seen as a negative. I personally think a high profile organization working toward promoting the development of open source projects in general is desirable and probably needed, but lets face it, Linux is the premier product of open source and it's well recognized by a large number of people worldwide. Other much less recognized open source projects will benefit tremendously from its success.

It's like when a popular candidate runs for president. All of a sudden, lots of other people of the same party are more electable and ride to office on his coat tails. But it's even better for other open source products than it is for politicians. You don't have to vote the same party down the ticket, and many people don't, so the coat tails effect is limited. But there is very little closed source software for Linux compared to the open source offerings. If Linux wins, by default people will start using lots of open source. It's good for everyone.

But your main beef is the term "win". Should we compete directly with Microsoft? I know a lot of open source proponents would like to see MS go down in flames. I'm not one of them, and I believe the new Linux foundation doesn't have to be one of them either. It doesn't have to lose credibility as an MS hater. Linux can be promoted as a positive without painting MS as a negative, We certainly won't win over MS, because they hate anything they perceive as a threat, but by promoting Linux as an open, viable alternative, we can win over computer users.

It's possible for Linux to succeed without an attitude, being overly aggressive in its competition, and without the loss of objectivity that goes with it. A perfect example of this is theOpenCD project. They produce a CD full of very high quality open source products that run on Windows. By showing respect for Windows users, they hope to earn their attention and trust. Similarly, many people hand out "live" CDs to Windows users, and they do it with a smile. How can we possibly be losing our credibility with respectful, positive attitudes like that?

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[blowdart]

Where ODSL actually had some credibility while forcing Microsoft towards more open document standards

Oh utter nonsense. It was more to do with customers saying the software they use must support it than the ODSL. Sure you could argue that the ODSL pushed the format to customers, but saying the ODSL was responsible? Naw.

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[Jesus_666]

Microsoft is the Empire. Apple is the Rebels. We are the Ewoks.

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[linuxboredom]

I disagree. Forming a single entity allows for greater unity in the Linux community. It will also allow for Linux to better compete with Microsoft, since the two largest sources of corporate support are now united. I look forward to seeing what benefits come from the creation of the Foundation.

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[Synic]

and here i thought apple was the hutt syndicate

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[Jesus_666]

Wasn't that traditionally IBM's role?

Bad or good idea

[Elektroschock]

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?

Re:Bad or good idea

[irlkersten]

a) A standards group must be independend. The FSG loses its credibility.

Yay! It'll be like a Micosoft sponsored survey :-P

Re:Bad or good idea

[doti]

I think that e) belongs to the "bad idea" group.

Re:Bad or good idea

[Elektroschock]

Politicians need someone to talks to. But who represents Linux? Difficult. Invite Richard Stallman or Alan Cox? No the best idea but it happens all the time. Linux Foundation sounds to an uninitiated reader as the name of a benevolent organisation behind Linux development.

For anti-software patent advocacy that groups would be real poison. Linux Foundation in favour of useless patent shield red herrings, this will make advocacy easy for patent agents which fight for their vested interests very well.

Re:Bad or good idea

[jo42]

Where does one signup to join this new religion?

Re:Bad or good idea

[Elektroschock]

In fact it reminds me more of a kingdom. The Linux trademark here ressembles an empire crown. When Linux Foundation controls the Linux trademark would it be willing to let an initiative "Eurolinux" lobby against software patents? I think the GPLv3 addressed the problems with patents but what about the Linux trademark? Will I have to rename my new "Elektrolinux" distribution to "Elektrognu" because the Linux foundation does not like me and I criticised them in public? Or because I don't adhere to certain FSG standards and don't take part in an upcoming costly procedure ("certified Linux" by the Linux Foundation?). Linux Foundation sounds very powerful to me and kills many alternative efforts. FSG - it controls open standards, OSDL it has the money to pay core developers, Linux Foundation, it represents "Linux" and employes Linus. From a Cesar and Countercesar perspective: Control of the capital, control of the empire crown, control of the sword, control of territory, support by the pope/Rome.

Re:Bad or good idea

[geminidomino]

Except that Linux is not the Alpha and Omega of Open Source.

OSD + FS != Linux

[Daeron]

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.

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. But you have to admit that free software can appeal to more people when it is united under a common name that is not "FOSS" or "FLOSS" or "OSDL" or whatever. If we need something central to channel the efforts of the OSS community and expose more of the general public to the benefits of OSS, then it may as well be linux.

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[Calinous]

Then why not Firefox? Firefox has a market share in the public eyes (what Joe Sixpack would use) much greater than Linux (with all its variants like Lindows, Gentoo, Knoppix and so on) compared to Windows 98, Me and XP.

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[mangu]

"Open Source Development" and "Free Standards" somehow miraculously always seem to transform into "Linux"

That's because Linux has become the de facto standard open source OS. If you check the press release, it's an agglomeration of companies that's funding the whole thing. What they want is a neutral platform which can be used by everyone. On one hand, the "other" GPL OS would be the Hurd, still in its infancy after a long gestation. OTOH, there are the BSD alternatives, but these are too divisive to be used as a standard. Since the BSD licence allows anyone to close the source, no corporation wants to fund a collaborative effort to develop a BSD OS.

Of course, the OS is just part of a software system, but it's a basic part. Without an independent OS, everyone would become Microsoft or Apple developer. The idea isn't to make the world a Linux Box, but to make it stop being a Microsoft Box.

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[Elektroschock]

> And though it might not be palatable to numerous other high-profile OSS projects to appear as a "second fiddle", > the Linux name can provide some solidarity that could make OSS a topic at many dinner tables and, by extension,
> many board rooms.

Just have a look at Firefox. I used Mozilla Software long before it was usable. I also installed every alpha version of Firefox, reported bugs. But the solodarity thing does not work. Mozilla Foundation is now very rich and can fund developers or attract money but do they use their support for instance for an emerging project as Sunbird? No, that project is as slow as ever. And Sunbird is a Mozilla project. Open Source Solidarity doesn't work.

Same with Linux Foundation. As long as they are US-only you cannot take them serious and then they even take the patent attorneys on board. Disgusting.

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[g2devi]

But you're missing a key point. Most of FSG standards are implemented on BSD, MacOSX/Darwin, and Solaris too and many can be migrated to Windows too. By labeling this as "Linux", it's essentially saying that all others need not apply unless they do things the Linux way.

Personally, I hoped that FSG as going to involve into "POSIX Next Generation". I'm not sure this merger helps this or hurts this yet, but at the very least, I suspect it weakens the trademark of Linux to mean "Linux compatible technology" instead of the "Linux OS".

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[FrozenFOXX]

Have to admit, I was thinking the same thing. Granted, I use Linux and tend to think about it when I hear about Open Source but I know that's just me, there's a lot of people who think Firefox, BSD, and even little gems like Audacity. The name alone is going to hurt them I think. Linux is a wonderful face of Open Source but certainly not the one I'd use to portray ALL Open Source/Free Standards. Why not something like, "Free and Open Group," or "FOG?" I dunno, just off the top of my head.

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[Reed Solomon]

Don't worry, I heard a rumour that there is another foundation, operating in secret, somewhere in this universe, set up as a check to this foundation should it become too powerful.

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[bill_mcgonigle]

All the world's NOT a Linux Box. ...yet. ;)

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[Ambidisastrous]

I think they've just decided to acknowledge that Microsoft is not going to support open standards, Apple and Sun don't need foundations devoted to them, and BSD folks will probably support the Linux Foundation anyway.

Linux was the final piece to a completely open system; the community is vital and committed; and the name, as far as branding goes, sounds like a cross between "lean" and "sex". No recursive or double-recursive acronyms, a theme of pragmatism as the motivation for open-source development -- Linux isn't everything, but it's a good mascot for what this group is trying to do.

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[PenGun]

Linux is free software. Open sores uses free software for it's own often less than free purposes. Oh why do I bother, it's just the top of your head, Anything in there?

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[arkaino]

That indeed is the best example one can find for a "funny && sad" thing at the same time.

Re:OSD + FS != Linux

[PzyCrow]

The problem is that GPL and GNU was created (and much work went into it) with the explicit purpose of promiting freedom. When GPL, GNU and Free Software is suddenly transformed into Open Source and Linux it is a huge disservice to those people who created GNU for the simple reason that most Linux based systems doesn't respect or promote the freedoms that GNU was created to promote.

Why not...?

[Calinous]

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"? :(

Re:Why not...?

[rumith]

They're not saying they're going to support every single FOSS piece of software written. There is Mozilla to guide Firefox, and OOo to watch over OpenOffice, and Apache foundation to support Apache webserver and a ton of other projects. So why not a foundation whose goal is SPECIFICALLY to help Linux [the kernel and everything LSB-related] evolve? I can't see your point.

Re:Why not...?

[Workaphobia]

> 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.

It may not have been good for you, but I feel like I need a cigarette after reading that.

Re:Why not...?

[pinky0x51]

I also can't understand the naming. Free and open standards are one of the most important things today a organisation like the "Free Standards Group" could do a great job in this area. Now merging this into a "Linux Foundation" just doesn't fit.

>Free Software is represented by much more than Linux.

If you want a Foundation which cares about Free Software in general why don't support one of the Free Software Foundations? They exist exactly for this task. I don't know where you living but today you can find a Free Software Foundation in North America, Europe, Latin America and India. If you don't live in one of this regions just select one of them which is near your location or which you like most.

Re:Why not...?

[geminidomino]

More fittingly: A cigarette and a blindfold.

Linux: Foundation Software

[POds]

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.

Re:Linux: Foundation Software

[rynoski]

Yes, lets all use Linux, because competition is bad.

OK, so now

[El Lobo]

So now, Microsoft should form it's own Commitee of Standards. Just to be fair, don't y'all agree?

Re:OK, so now

[Zontar The Mindless]

So now, Microsoft should form it's own Commitee of Standards.

Microsoft already is its own standards committee. Thanks for playing, though.

Good Move

[FullMetalAlchemist]

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.

Re:Good Move

[PenGun]

The hidden agendas are all in your mind. It makes perfect sense to bring this under one "Linux" roof then the vestigial OSs can wither and die at their own pace. OSS my ass.

Keyword is "Standard"

[mangu]

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

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.

Re:Keyword is "Standard"

[dosius]

Why, NetBSD of course - they don't pay lipservice to standards but are actively aiming at being a free AND fully POSIX-compliant OS and seem to be headed more in that direction than Linux or GNU (I am recognizing here Linux distros' dependency on GNU).

I use Linux because it Just Works, but I prefer NetBSD because it's More Standard and Less Bloated compared to GNU.

(then again one could prolly get NetBSD's userland running on Linux/glibc?)

-uso.

Re:Keyword is "Standard"

[PenGun]

Yeah NetBSD is gonna let me accelerate my games and throw HDTV to my Sony. No. Standard is nice but the real world is the real world.

  Because Linux _is_ the standard *nix I can get Nvidia blobs to sully my purity and crank my video. As there is FreeBSD support one might be able to hack up something but then NetBSD would be sullied and perverted ;).

Re:Keyword is "Standard"

[dosius]

In the real word, "the standard *nix" would be AIX, HP-UX or Solaris.

-uso.

Re:Keyword is "Standard"

[PenGun]

Yeah ... funny how that worked out eh' ;).

What about the other Free and Open Standards?

[NekoXP]

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.

Re:What about the other Free and Open Standards?

[mangu]

Linux just isn't suitable in every environment for every task.

Why not? After all, differently from the other examples you cited, Linux *is* being used in every environment for every task.

When you choose a standard, the basic fact is that there can be only one, by definition. Of course, they could have different standards for different applications, but it only stands to reason that it's better to have the most general standard for as many applications as possible. Since Linux is the most widely used open source OS, it's perfectly reasonable to pick it as the standard one.

Re:What about the other Free and Open Standards?

[Daishiman]

Because the people behind this organization want to gain mainstream support, and they know that's something they will never be able to achieve if they take a UNIX-encompassing view.

Sun is already backing Solaris and it has much more weight to throw around than these organizations could ever dream of; I doubt they need to promote OSS as benefit to their operating system, especially considering that, in practice, Solaris is an enterprise platform that usually runs very heavy, very proprietary apps.

OS X has Apple. It's goal is certainly not open source; it's an interesting side effect of using a BSD and LGPL technologies.

The BSDs do not have the commercial interest for any of this, however it is very likely that, being standards-complying OSses, they'll get along for the ride without any trouble.

Re:What about the other Free and Open Standards?

[Bert64]

Neither is windows, but microsoft are pushing it into every orifice...
People will buy a brand they've heard of, wether it's suitable for the task or not.

Re:What about the other Free and Open Standards?

[inode_buddha]

That standard would be POSIX, the SuS3 API's.

Re:What about the other Free and Open Standards?

[wolf31o2]

No offense meant to any of the non-Linux free software crowd, but...

Maybe they only care about Linux?

Re:What about the other Free and Open Standards?

[TheAwfulTruth]

Huh.

I thought they stood for free and open source software and open standards.

I guess that was wrong. At least they are being honest now, all they care about is Linux after all :(

Load up all the eggs in one basket.

[that this is not und]

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)

Re:Load up all the eggs in one basket.

[Ash-Fox]

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)

I've noticed there are often a tonne of Microsoft adverts on Sourceforge.

Re:Load up all the eggs in one basket.

[DogDude]

I think you're wrong. I don't know what you mean by "taken out by big competing entities" is supposed to mean. Companies can compete with each other, but I don't know what "taken out" means. More importantly, this kind of thing is sorely needed. The current state of OSS is a mess. There are no standards, and every system is some hodgepodge mix of lots of competing products, none of them working together well. Right now, I can call Microsoft, and get them to sell me all of the software my business needs, and it'll work and they'll support it. (We'll be a 100% Microsoft shop except for our web server, in a few months). Same with Apple. If I want to run Linux and Open Source stuff, then about all I can do is spend lots of time with Google, and find somebody with no particular certifications or qualifications to patch together some custom system for me that is ultimately supported by nobody. I can't run my business this way. That's like if instead of having one company take care of all of our garbage collection as I do now, I'd have one company that picks up garbage, but they can only work with certain types of dumpsters, which I have to buy here, and another company to handle cardboard, but their trucks only work with this other type of dumpster, blah, blah, blah. I see the Linux platform the same way: a mess that I don't have the time or money to try to decipher. Althoguh Linux has a loooong way to go before business owners can just use some Linux platform, and have things actually work together, this sounds like this is a step in the right direction.

Re:Load up all the eggs in one basket.

[geminidomino]

What are these "adverts" you speak of?

Audio Interview with Jim Zemlin

[reverendted]

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

Uh-oh

[reacocard]

Stallman's not gonna like this. They forgot to call it GNU/Linux...

but it's not dead Jim!

[gmby]

BDS is not dead yet!

Rock -n- Roll

[gmby]

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!

Ophirkrysache

[mysticgoat]

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.

Other systems using Linux standards

[Per Abrahamsen]

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.

Pros and cons

[CodeShark]

I like this on one level: developing a stronger group with a unified vision and goal promoting open source development and free standards -- because those two are key to a non-corporate dominated future.

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?

Linux Foundation Champion...

[Dareth]

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.

Poor is good. Big makes easy targets.

[pilbender]

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.

Re:Sign of industry maturation

[shagymoe]

am also unable to be objective, as a holder of nearly 4,000 shares of LNUX.

Wow, I hope you didn't buy before 2002! LOL

"Full Disclosure" anyone?

[flydpnkrtn]

Umm... can I get a "Full disclosure.. Slashdot is owned by the artist formerly known as OSDL" Zonk?

Re:"Full Disclosure" anyone?

[flydpnkrtn]

lol ignore the OSTG link at the bottom of the page... it's all lies i tell you!!

Sorry bout that /.

Re:This old tune

[eclectist]

This is perfect - this new 'Linux Foundation' has the oomph to say 'If you want the protection of the OSDL, you now have to adhere to the LSB! If you do not accept distro-independent packaging, you will not get our lawyer-umbrella!'

Re:Sign of industry maturation

[geminidomino]

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. Gotta love it. What is an academic-career-killer for the rest of us is an "ethical gray area" for the Moneybags.

Re:Standards? Hah!

[Brandybuck]

It is about time someone got a spine and said Linux is the only chance the open source movement has of winning.

You have just illustrated why Linux continues to languish in adoption by the general public. It isn't a kernel it's a freaking political ideology! Someone's choice of operating system shouldn't be about "winning". Someone isn't a "Microsoft employee" just because they chose a different OS than you.