Slashdot Mirror
Commercialism and Linux on CNN
sallgeud sent us a CNN story that poses the age old
question is commercialism good for Linux?
Its a pretty good summary type article of the issues. Talks
about the fears of a single distribution taking control,
tag-along software, and has several Linus quotes.
I work for one of the giant corporations cited in the article. The kind of internal debates going on about how to handle Linux should make you very afraid. While we have more software today, all the best stuff IMO is still the independently produced software. Word Perfect shows potential but it is proprietary so I am waiting for KOffice. Between Debian, KDE, KOffice, etc. why do we want or need these big companies involved? So what if we are "accepted"? If the only motivation is the need for acceptance, then we all have some serious social deficiencies to talk to a shrink about. The software is FREE, dammit, we shouldn't CARE if they use it or not because there is no profit or loss to us either way!
I suppose you could look at it like this, was/is commerciallizm good for the Internet. In some ways yes, the net is now a big part of most peoples lives, I now have a super fast connection at home for a relatively cheap price, ... Or on the other hand look how many idiots are on the net, look how M$ is trying to screw it up....
The same will happen to linux, many more poeple will have access to it and use it, there will be better applications. On the other hand things that we don't like will also happen. You have to take the good with the bad I guess.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
It seems to me that the press delights in trying to make a soap opera out of Linux where none exists. The quotes in the article are by people who seem to have little inkling what the community is really like. For instance, they pound upon the "vendor will release only for distribution X" point. How many apps do you know that are theoretically "targetted" at, say, Redhat, which noone has gotten to run on Slackware? All it takes is a little knowledge; the gap between distributions isn't nearly as large as these articles would have you believe. Linus' "iron grip" on Linux? There's no such thing, anyone is free to fork, it's just that people have the good sense not to.
In short, I think that the press is digging for "juicy" stories where none exists, kind of like how Fox tries to turn all of their shows into bad soap operas.
...IF both "sides" (i.e. the Linux community and the commercial interest) can come to a compromise - but only the best compromise.
;)
I mean that, IMO, the Linux community should recognise that there will be a need to steer the way that the commercial people use Linux, and that the commercial side will need to learn how to work with the Linux side, and recognise that Linux developement will/should ALWAYS be controlled by the developer community.
I think that this is the way to go, and that anyone who tries to fork Linux off for their own commercial purposes should be encouraged not to do it - this would be divisive, and as we know from past history, anything that fragmented Unix was detrimental to Unix.
The commercial side MUST be discouraged to do this.
(Hope that made sense! Just been to a pub lunch
IDC?
Minolta?
If the enquiry of the piece was ``Will
commercialism help or hurt Linux?'', why are you
asking representatives from the commercial world?
What kind of response do you think you are
going to get?
One that will please your editor, no doubt.
Stupid journalists.
``Commercialism'' will not hurt free software;
what will is the perception that proprietary
software is acceptable or even necessary. In this
respect, it is more important that RMS continue
to do what he does ( I mean promote free
software, not the GNU/Linux debate) than it is for
Linus to go on blessing kernels.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
This was one of the few mainstream press articles about Linux that didn't have me shaking my head and saying, "No, you idiots!" through the whole article.
Every time I get worried about a big mean corporation snatching up Linux and turning it into a proprietary thing, I go back and review the GPL. I have to hand it to RMS and the FSF for having the foresight to develop a license that anticipated corporate interest in free software.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Commercialism will most certainly be decried throughout following comments as a vile stain on linux, but I see the commercial and free influences balancing out.
Primarily, I see the free market as diluting and dispersing resources in a way that allows developers to be creative in the most unencumbered manner, but does not focus and group resources quite efficiently.
The commercial market focuses resources, but eventually tries to move towards one or two solutions, which hinders creativity (and innovation).
Nurturing both is an excellent way to foster new innovation while focusing resources where and when necessary.