Slashdot Mirror
Re: The Charity Case for Red Hat
The following was written by Slashdot Reader knarf
Hi Jack,
Being a former journalist myself, I was rather disappointed at your recent column about the upcoming RedHat IPO. To be quite frank, there were more faulty facts in this short column than I thought possible. A quick summary:
1: Unix has been, and still is a money-maker for a lot of companies. Look aroud large datacenters, network hubs, computer centers ad financial institutions and you'll find a lot of big, expensive Unix-based systems doing all the heavy work.
2: Unix was not thrown in the `public domain' as you suggest. AT&T fought long and hard just to try to prevent others from making something which resembled Unix. The mere mentioning of the name `Unix' in connection to something not from AT&T was enough to be sued, hence the frequent use of words like `Un*x'. This also led to names like XENIX, AIX, SINIX, ULTRIX, DG/UX, etc. The rights to Unix have moved from company to company for a while, currently the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) is the `owner' of the System V code. The Berkeley code was `cleaned' and released as BSD 4.3 lite (the `lite' stands for `without AT&T proprietary code'), and serves as the code base for some commercial and a lot of open Unix varieties. It is the Berkeley version which is in the public domain (under the BSD license), not AT&T's `original'. The BSD license has nothing to do with the GPL license, under which Linux is licensed.
3: The differences between all those Unix varieties have been greatly exaggerated, mostly due to marketing and media forces. Unix is not a perfect operating system, but at it's core it is rather clean and consistent. Any user of any Unix will have little trouble moving to another variety. That is not to say they'll like the experience, but THAT is something completely different. For some reason people tend to get religious about their choice of operating system, be it Unix version X of Windows version Y. For software developers, there are several ways the differences between the Unix versions can be solved. the GNU auto* tools are a prime example of this. Writing software for several varieties of Unix is no different from writing software for several varieties of Microsoft Windows, but at least the Unix developers have the benefit of the GNU tools and the often much better documented API's. In case of the free Unix versions, there ARE no `undocumented' API's since you have access to all source code.
4: Linux Torvalds did not create the `command set' for the kernel which got to be called `Linux'. He initiated development on the kernel, and has been managing the development effort ever since. What is generally called `Linux' is actually a distribution containing the Linux kernel combined with the GNU tools (which provide most basic user commands) and a lot of other software. From very early versions onward the X window system has been part of those distributions, making it possible to run GUI command interfaces on top of the kernel. Most early distributions contained the XView toolkit and the ol(v)wm window manager, giving Linux users access to the well-known `Open Look' style of user interface which has been available to Sun Microsystems users for a long time. Open Look eventually got replaced by CDE on Sun systems, while other toolkits (Motif, Qt, GTK) took over the Linux `desktop'. But early Linux users had access to a GUI interface as well.
5: Linux distributions all use the same kernel (give or take a patchlevel number, eg. 2.2.5 versus 2.2.9). They all use the same GNU tools (the `command set'). They all use the same X window environment. They all use the same basic toolkits and language interpreters (Perl, Tcl/Tk, etc.). The differences between distributions are mainly in the locations of these tools (`where are they installed'), and in the extra stuff they deliver (`what more comes with this thing?'. There are some cases where some distributors are quick in picking up on the latest developments, while others wait for stuff to calm down before moving to the `latest and greatest' version of some basic component. An example of this is the choice of C library (leading to incompatibilities between distributions) or the choice of loader format (a.out, ELF). There are all temporary problems though. The move from the a.out format to the ELF format is all but forgotten by most Linux users. The move to the GNU C libary will probably fare likewise.
6: There is nothing to be gained for Linux distributors in making their version of `Linux' incompatible with others. They rely on both open source developers as well as commercial vendors to supply them with software to run on their version of `Linux'. If they behave like you foretell, they'll loose support from the hard-core open source developers, and the commercial vendors will probably follow. Commercial vendors would rather support one or two basic varieties of an operating system, not a whole bunch of them. If a Linux distributor wants those applications to run on his distribution, he'll make sure it does. Now of course there is the question *which* distribution a commercial vendor will support. If they are smart, they'll support one or two (say RedHat and Caldera), but make sure their software runs on the `official' (not finished yet) `Linux Standard Base' or `File System Base' based distributions. That way, everybody wins, and they'll sell more software.
7: Sure, the Linux desktop user interface can be `improved'. But those improvements are probably not what you think they are. The command line will not disappear. It is a much to capable and valuable tool in the hands of even lesser Unix gods to be done away with. If RedHat is hiring people to make their Linux distribution more palpable to the Windows user community, that's fine. It will still be Linux. Until now, RedHat has licensed all their developments under the GPL (GNU Public License), and they are likely to continue doing this. If they don', they'll loose support from the open source developers (look at what happened to the KDE initiative, although that rift has been mended by making the Qt toolkit open source `compliant'). So they will most likely remain smart and keep the GPL flag flying.
8: RedHat is not losing $130.000.000, they lost $130.000 dollars. This is pure disinformation, and might be cause for RedHat to sue you. Please make sure you know what you write about before starting.
9: There is no such thing as `VA Linux'. VA Linux Systems is a hardware vendor in support of Linux. They support several distributions. They may have their preferences (on their website it says `...caldera is quite close to Redhat, but i've found I prefer RH's gui over caldera...'), but they point anyone interested to both RedHat as well as Caldera and SuSE and cdrom.com (Slackware, others) and linuxmall.com (all distributions, $1.89 per CD-ROM, also FreeBSD by the way).
10: I do not remember Microsoft being a proponent for open source software, not them being a beneficiary. On the contrary, Microsoft has from the very start supported a closed, `business-like' approach to software development. They have from time to time thrown some goodies at the developer crowd to get them aquainted with Microsoft tools, but that has nothing to do with `supporting volunteerism'.
11: Netscape did not create a `potential operating system', they created a browser with and API which was seen by Microsoft as a threat to their operating environments. The browser would commoditize Windows, since it would not matter anymore which platform was used to run the interface to whatever applications were used. Microsoft has done it's best to counter this move by embracing and extending Java and the `WWW protocol set', and Sun Microsystems has helped by being too tight-minded with regard to Java extensions. IBM has indeed helped the Java `platform', and is still doing so. They seem to be on a quest to keep Microsoft out of the higher-end application service market. Of course they are not benevolent gods, but they are much less malign than you portray them. Sun Microsystems HAS given access to the Java source code (throug htheir `community licensing scheme'), IBM HAS given and still gives a lot of software to the community (take a look at their AlphaWorks site, www.alphaworks.ibm.com).
12: Your comments about Microsoft flirting with Linux border the ridiculous. What do you think would happen if/when Microsoft embeds Linux in their products? What system would run Linux software better? A Microsoft operating system with embedded Linux, or Linux? You might want to compare this with running Windows software on Unix systems (which is possible by using products like WABI, or toolkits like WINE). Remember, when IBM called OS/2 `a better Windows than Windows'? What did you think when they said that? Did you try it? Now, Microsoft would come along and call their Windows 2001 `a better Linux than Linux'. What would you think when they say that? Would you try it? Even more important, what would you write about it?
13: My final comment, number thirteen. About your final comments. Why do you insist that people have to want to use `Microsoft Linux' to make it a viable proposition? I can very well do without Microsoft, and so can a lot of other people. This has nothing to do with ideology, but everything with stability, choice, and performance. I get more work done in less time using non-Microsoft products, and time (as you should know) is money, especially for the people who pay me to do my work. And why do you think the future and viability of Linux is dependent on the future of RedHat? If RedHat disappears of the face of the earth, there is still SusE (rather popular here in Europe), TurboLinux (rather popular in the Far East), Debian (rather popular amongst developers anywhere and everywhere), Slackware (with a dedicated crowd of followers), Caldera (rather popular in a lot of businesses), etc. Should I go on?
I won't. Linux has the marks of becoming an important player in a lot of markets, with or without RedHat. You may be right (or you may be wrong) when you say an investment in RedHat is not the best way to make money. But you are dead wrong in your reasoning against RedHat in particular or Linux in general. The IT market is not dependent on Microsoft, it can survive without them. So can Linux. Unix is not dead, and it does not seem to be dying either. There is a lot of money to be made in all thing Unix, and Linux is one of those things.
Linus did not start Linux to `kill Microsoft', and most Linux users use Linux because it fits their needs in a way that Microsoft Windows can not. If Microsoft embeds Linux within their own stuff, that's fine with me (as long as they abide to the licensing terms). Since Linux withoug any Microsoft-extensions fits my needs, I do not see what I would gain from such a development, so I will refrain from using `Microsoft Linux'. If they do produce some useful extension (and release it under the GPL) I will use it. If they embrace and extend Linux in the way they embraced and extended other `standards' I will not use their extensions, because I do not want to be tied to a single vendor. Such ties cost money, as experience has taught me. And I;ve got better things to do with my (or rather my employers) money than give it to some company because I am locked in their embrace.
My parting comment? Please do some more research the next time, or ask a knowledgeable person to proof-read your column. It may `only be a column', but a lot of people tend to trust the media a little too much for their own good. As you probably know...
With kind regards,
Frank de Lange
/* Former editor in chief, Unix Info magazine
* now full-time developer... mostly Unix, some Windows
* speaking for himself, not his employer
*/
well i dont know about everybody else but i learned that an effective argument is always best presented in and intellegent and calm manner. knowing what not to say is often more important than knowing what to say.
since we now how a comment moderation system maybe it is time we need a posted article moderation system too. diatribes like this dont do anyone much of any good regardless of how factual their basis is.
If Unix/Linux is so bad, then why isn't andovernews.com using NT ?
My cat lost its mittens. (Rare: a possessive without an apostrophe).
Your check arrived. (ownership)
One error that was missed was a typo:
It's tough to bet against an operating system that has won the hearts of geeks across the world (damn few of whom actually have the software on their computer).
Should read:
It's tough to write about an operating system that has won the hearts of geeks across the world (when I don't actually have the software on my computer).
Actually Jack had an article on May 12 origianlly titled "AT&T - An American Zairetsu?" where he said (first line):
"If you've never heard the word before, learn it."
Uhh, Jack, that might be 'Keiretsu' or maybe 'Zaibatsu'. I guess it isn't a big deal, unless you are Japanese and see someone trying to teach everyone the wrong word. This article isn't a big deal either, unless of course you actually have Linux/Unix/BSD installed and you see...
That all being said, I actually get Andover in the mail, and Jack is generally a pretty good 'lets get some feathers ruffled' writer. I guess the budget doesn't allow for a ton of proofing/verification...
All opinions expressed are also the opionions of IBM, Microsoft, AT&T, the US gov't, and Maxwell Smart.
It's not the problem that he is arguing against the profitability of RedHat. Most of us don't even care about that. The problem is that he's done it in such an unprofessional way. This article shows no signs of research at all and as such does not qualify as a valid technical piece or as an investment piece. In addition, he states that RedHat lost millions of dollars last year - a gross piece of fiction. As for his "well researched historical perspectives and in-depth investigative notes on the tech industry." I can only marvel for he has demonstrated no knowledge of the history of the high tech industry especially that of the Unix world. ." I am sure there will no mention of the gross untrue statements he made in his column.
Will he get flamed? Yes, I'm sure. And what will his defense be? "Those Linux people are so rude . .
I even used to read (and enjoy) Three Point's Linux News, the online publication Dave ran before he started Linux Today. In fact, I reviewed Three Point's favorably in TechSightings last September, which is how I originally started corresponding with him.
As far as Jack Bryar, his opinions are his own. I don't always agree with him (or with other Andover columnists, either). The great thing about writing for Andover is that the people who run it give all columnists complete editorial freedom, including the freedom to screw up now and then.
Perhaps you'd like Andover better if its owners forced all their writers to spout a Microsoft-style corporate party line?
Kurt Gray and I are both writing here as ourselves, not as corporate flacks. Kurt is a programmer. I'm a writer. We live and work 400 miles apart. We both use Linux. We both read and like Slashdot. Other than that, we hardly have anything in common -- except respect for our bosses at Andover, who let columnists write what they want, right or wrong, without censoring their words, even when they're a little, um, embarassing.
It's possible (IMHO) that the Open Source business model WILL take off, and Red Hat will be wildly profitable. If that happens, it won't be the Open Source Fad that drives people to invest in Red Hat...it'll just be sound business practice. Who knows? ...not me, that's for sure.
Werd.
It's a shame they allow people to be journalists who make "mistakes" like multiplying a company's losses by $1,000,000 (oops! sorry!) under the guise of reporting. I wish my employer made that mistake with my salary. :-)
I hope someone at that site reads Slashdot... because I'm sure the author of that article will be mercilessly picked apart.
So here's a question: Can we, the Linux community, respond to this guy without sounding like zealots? Because that's what he's trying to tempt us to do. The angrier we sound to him, the more he'll prove one of his points (that Linux is best suited for enthusiasts), and the more our comments will be disregarded.
Werd.
Maybe we need a disclaimer that our columnist's
opinions are not the opinions of everyone at
Andover.Net?
Believe me, we're big on Linux, sour on NT.
BTW: The DB backend of andovernews runs on
Windows NT -- and we hate it!
Full Dislosure: I work for AndoverNews as a Sys
Admin, I don't know Jack personally, but as far
as columnists go, I'm glad we have him.
In defense of Jack Bryar, his usual columns are
very well written and well researched historical
perspectives and in-depth investigative notes
on the tech industry.
This week's column I can't agree with.
I just had to get this word in before the
usual zealots sound off the usual accusations
that any writer who questions the profitability
of a Linux company is being paid by Microsoft
to make such remarks. Please.
"It's tough to bet against an operating system that has won the hearts of geeks across the world (damn few of whom actually have the software on their computer)."
What was that? I dont have any statistics handy, but I think that more than a "damn few" people are running Red Hat.
The author's tone and phrasing are meant to inspire anger and trigger immature responses. We must treat this the same as a Jesse Berst article, and simply shrug.
It would'nt hurt to drop him a note, though.
Four-digit slashdot ID. Recognize.
OK, this is going to sound so nit-picky, but I think it's an important point. This is a good rebuttal, and things like this tend to pick up coverage by the media who just loves a good war, be it physical, or ideological. Due to this high visibility, and the fact that documents like this tend to be taken as a representation of the entire Linux community, we should attempt to sound as professional as possible. I am of course getting all riled up about the use of the word 'to' instead of 'too.' Small potatoes, sure, but the last thing we (the Linux community) needs is more FUD about how we're all illiterate teenage "hackers" or whatnot.
Andover News said, "Hey, don't yell at us! Yell at Jack Bryar." So why shouldn't we send Mr. Bryar a note?
Send your thoughtful yet polite comments to:
bryar@vermontel.com or
jack.bryar@newsedge.com
I think some one should send him knarf's response.
I don't know of any Linux users who reboot into Windows to use the Windows GUI. They /do/ reboot into Windows to use windows applications, and nowhere in his article did he mention the lack of solid GUI applications as a weakness of Linux. Personally, I think that's the worst problem Linux has.
For many years, it was actually illegal for AT&T to attempt to sell Linux at a profit. That might have something to do with their failure to do so. Even if we skip forward a few years to where AT&T did in fact make the effort, you have to remember that AT&T has always been a big, clumsy bureaucratic company. You can't expect them to be an entrepenurial powerhouse just because they're big; the reverse is most often the case.
I've moved C programs between SunOS, Linux and SGI Irix without incident. If you stay within a fairly simple set of parameters - quite easy in this web-based world - even C programs are very easy to port.
I think the idea that people are going to stop developing for Linux because Red Hat exists is pretty specious. People develop for Linux to solve their own problems, to scratch their own itches, and to help others scratch theirs. I don't see that vanishing from the Linux world any time soon.
D
----
A well thought response, like the one above, is an effective means of countering a poor piece of journalism.
Unfortunately, its author's credibility becomes strained when it contains spelling and grammar errors.
Please, I must urge those who elect to take a high profile stand in any cause to ask somebody to review your writing for errors. A well crafted, well thought response will always be better received than just a well thought response.
You might even use a computerized grammar/spell checker.
It was RALPH WALDO EMERSON who said:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of LITTLE minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines.
With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do..."
My own take:
1. a) First, AT&T opened UNIX because if they tried to make money off of it, the feds would have raised anti-trust issues. b) I believe SCO has been profitable. Their entire business is UNIX. c) A lot of hardware companies have made money off of UNIX because UNIX has helped them move lots of boxes.
2. Hard to comment, the guy knows so little about OS architecture that his thoughts have melted into mush. I really don't want to try to educate him. Clearly, he is confusing APIs with userinterfaces, that much is easy to say.
3. VA Linux, loosing $130mill, can we substitute some facts here? Beyond that, RedHat is very deliberate about contributing back to the core. I am not sure what he means by "breaking UNIX" but RedHat is doing a lot more than other commercial distributors to avoid forking of the collective codebase.
4. Redhat isn't like AOL or Microsoft. They may be benifitting from volunteerism, but they also give back free stuff that other people, volunteers or not, can use without paying RedHat a dime, ever. Microsoft & AOL take volunteer effort and sell it back to the volunteers and the rest of their customers. RedHat is clearly engendering some ill will, but there is less justification for it than that which led to lawsuits against AOL.
5. Oracle & IBM, at least, make a lot of their money off of services & support. Sun makes it off of hardware. Service, support & hardware is nothing like software. The incremental cost of software is vanishingly small, which means the price can be set just about anywhere, including free. These other things have large incremental costs. Know what else, none of these companies make much, if any, money off of selling OS licenses. Linux makes little or no difference to their bottom line, while creating the opportunity to sell more of the things that do.
OK, class, today we will be studying division. Our first example is dividing 64 by 16.
64/16
We cross out 6 both on top and on the bottom, which leaves us with 4/1, which is the correct answer! And this, children, is how you do division...
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
You know, I am sometimes amazed by the sheer literal-mindedness and ignorance of the people out there, by their inability to grasp even the simple metaphors, or to comprehend even simple points about logic (present company excluded, of course ;)
My point was very simple: You can use the wrong methods, and STILL arrive at the right conclusion. There is nothing in faulty argument to say that the conclusion is incorrect -- the only thing you can infer from argument's invalidity, is that that particular argument does not support that particular conclusion.
The fact that the origional writer's arguments are bogus, does not mean that his conclusion is therefore false.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
If I had a nickel for everytime I've heard the arguments "Linux might splinter" and "Linux has no roadmap", my pants would fall off because of all the change in my pockets. These cliches are so tired and worthless, I'm not even going to bother arguing about them. Now I'm going to create my own personal version of Linux and doom you all to hideous consequences. All Linux users will bow before me! Muhahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
(Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that this message contains sarcasm.)
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
Okay, so I tend to look on the bright side.
--
And this is different from the rest of the $500M 'Our buisness idea is to sell get-them-yourself tuna sandwiches, but over the I-n-t-e-r-n-e-t' tech stocks on Nasdaq in what way?
Tech stocks have long since gone from serious investment to pyramid scheme anyway, and no serious investor would recommend any tech stocks. In the even of a crash, there isnt any solidity in the companies, most is just overhyped expectations of a rosy future, 'value' that will just disappear without any assets to sell off. They'll even lose most of their human capital since being paid in stock options useful for wallpaper isnt what keeps people around.
Compared to most, Redhat would actually be a good choice. They dont make a huge loss, they have employees who may be motivated by other than stock options, they're fairly knowledgable about their market and they've thought through the buisness model.
But either way, if you're into tech stocks you're into gambling and pyramid schemes. And in that context, Redhat's a good choice.
Hey folks,
I'm the original author of the grammatical riddle which got posted to /.
It's the content, not the container which counts in this case. As some readers have noticed, the English language is not my native tongue. I'm from the Netherlands, so Dutch is my native tongue. I also speak German and a bit of French, as well as a few lines of Russian. Now I know I make mistakes, and I know my spelling checker does not catch them, but I can live with that. If this were a book or a serious dissertation, I'd have someone else read it before publication. Since it is `just' a email to a misguided soul, getting the last remaining nits out of it was not my most important goal.
Oh and by the way, I did send this message yo Jack. It is only afterwards that I sent it to /., one of my stated reasons for that being that I'd let some others have a go at finding fault in my reasoning. Since most of you only found some spelling and grammatical problems, I think I passed my own test :-)
And I was a journalist, but I wrote in the Dutch language. How's your Dutch today, folks? Not so good? Well, then maybe you'll excuse me for not speaking Oxford English by the book... A lot of native English speakers who post to these fora (since forum is a latin word, the plural should be fora, right?) mistreat their own language in a much worse way than I do, so there...
Cheers//Frank
[Oh, and there may be errors in this piece as well. Sorry 'bout that... ;^]
--frank[at]unternet.org
You know, one thing the inaccuracies in the column demonstrate is how hard it is for people to grasp what Linux is and what OSS is about. They read some things, or hear some things, and they try to fit it into their model of the world. It doesn't fit, so they think it's crazy, or it's a guaranteed money loser, or whatever. But they don't grasp it. Jack's a good example of this.
It's easy to forget that Linux and OSS just don't fit into most people's view of how things work.