Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Sells RMS Linux
Chilli writes "I just stumbled over RMS Linux on RedHat's web site. It includes only free (as in freedom) software and at least $1 is donated to the FSF for every sold package. This is super cool, I think, and I probably have to buy one just because it is so cool. I think, this finally proves that - as far as this is possible for a company - RedHat cares about the community. (The URL is to RedHat's secure commerce server, I hope it manages the /. effect, but I didn't find another URL - so, this is maybe not really official yet, but what's on the Web, is on the Web.)"
if you wanna help fsf buy their books, those are at least as good as oreilly ones i just ordered my second book from fsf.... http://www.fsf.org/order/order-europe.html
Let me get this straight: $1 to FSF, maybe $6 for making the CD's... That's leave 22.95 for Red Hat. I think that's a bit of a price gouge. but I don't think a software that is largely based on GPL or Free Distribution (Netscape for example) should be sold for as much as $70 when all they do is press some CD's and copy the Linux Doc website and call it a book.
I think what Red Hat has done for Linux is a good thing, but I am very aware and concerned about the tendency for Red Hat distributions to no longer comply with the File Hierarchy that has been established for the last ~30 years. If you don't believe me - take the Linux HOWTO's and start comparing them to the Red Hat 6.0 installation - things are moving around on us.
This will eventually mean that unless you are very good at Linux you cannot install anything that does not come packaged from RedHat. I don't like that implication, free software or not, it's no longer free.
They can come up with all the cool marketing schemes they want to, but I am not going to get any software that claims to support the FSF (and back it with money) and then put a spin on their software installations such that I cannot install anything someone elses binary packages and have it come close to working - and only because they libraries and files are not where they traditionally are supposed to be.
At this rate RedHat will start looking like RedMond
Legal? Yes, absolutely. I wouldn't argue with that a bit, and I'm sure there's some legal bits requiring that officers maximize stock value at all costs.
Moral? *rofl* Nonsense! This silly notion has justified so many repugnant outrages, from the Nestle baby formula, to the same jerky behavior that routinely gets Apple raked over the coals on Slashdot, to most things Microsoft has ever done worth being outraged about. There are no moral rules written into corporate law. If you think that working for a corporation automatically gives you the obligation to ignore your own morality and that of the world at large, and extort, abuse, lie, and harm in the name of being good to the corporation, then please don't ever work for a corporation, OK?
- That's not very much caring
- If RHAT expects to get some goodwill from the community for that $1, then a $1 contribution does not forcibly represent that they care about the FSF; it merely represents that they care to get some goodwill.
There's also some "flip side" considerations:Although if there turn out to be $30 RMS Linux boxes on store shelves, this probably means that RHAT is contributing about 10% of their revenues, which suggests that the small percentage is more meaningful than the 3.3% figure would imply.
In other words, $1 may be all that it's safe to contribute on a $30 "product."
It strikes me as a good thing that after the "product line redesign" of the last six months, they have chosen to redeploy the "FSF contribution" in a way that makes it more obvious that it is such.
Money isn't the most valuable thing that one can contribute to free software; the most valuable thing is in fact free software.
And the RHAT sponsorship of GNOME development as well as XFree86 (via Precision Insight) thus represents substantial contributions of software.
I'm quite certain that RHAT spent considerably more money last year on developers producing free software than the (publicly available, if you ask them) amount the FSF spent on "program expenses" (that is the category where "transforming money into software" lies).
The long and short of this all is that:
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Software product as defined by the FSF, this four CD set does not contain Netscape, Qt, KDE, and several additional non-open-source packages which are available in other Linux products.
Interesting implication there, eh? Qt and KDE aren't Open Source, says the article.
Based on the amount I've been coding with the excellent open source Libnet library as of late, having a library I can work with and perhaps release updated features for is critical to my personal experience of open source code. Since, as far as I can tell, there's a very strong "look, maybe even touch, but don't share in a convenient manner" aspect to the QPL, for the way I've been using Open Source Products, I probably have to agree with Redhat on this one.
Your Mileage May Vary, of course.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
No. Read it properly - it says they're not free. There's a difference between free and open-source (at least in connotation, despite what ESR says), and you appear to have missed that distinction. As http://www.gnu.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html says,
``Open source software'' describes a category of software licenses, almost but not quite the same as ``free software.''
Qt 1.x is not free (Qt 2.x is, AFAIK). It may be open source, but it is not truly free. AFAIK, KDE is, but as has already pointed out, it's useless without Qt and Qt 2.x won't do.
The goal of RMS Linux is like Debian, to be a 100% free distro, not open source. If you want open source, just go for the regular Redhat.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
What am I missing? Why not just donate to the FSF directly? Using RH as a middle-man seems a pretty round-about way of giving support..
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Isn't debian already 100% Free? I know for a fact that if you buy debian money goes to the FSF. It's cool that RedHat is doing this, but I kind of wonder what the point is since there already is a distro that does this.
From Red Hat:
>To qualify as an exclusively Free Software
>product as defined by the FSF, this four CD set >does not contain Netscape, Qt, KDE, and several
>additional non-open-source packages which are >available in other Linux products.
Note that Red Hat here does NOT distinguish Qt 1.x (old license) from Qt 2.x. Qt 2.x IS "free" according to FSF guidelines (and RMS himself) and should have been included. By being unclear and fuzzy on this issue, Red Hat is playing the usual politics of division, something I thought they had grown out of. Qt 2.x as a toolkit is independent of KDE and can be used outside of that context (just as Gtk is independent of GNOME and even of the GIMP). Red Hat knows this quite well; leaving it out is clearly an attempt to discourage the use of this particular "free software" in any context.
Some have said that this is a "hackers" distribution. Well in that case, then those interested in hacking KDE 2.0 (which uses the FSF-free Qt) could have benefitted from the inclusion of both the latest KDE sources as well as Qt! Or Red Hat could have included the sources of the present KDE official version (also DSFG-free) so that hackers could work on compiling it with Qt 2.0. Doing so would have gone some way in showing that this is not merely an anti-Qt/KDE distribution.
Note that Red Hat did not call this a "GPL-only" distribution. So one cannot claim that since Qt 2.x is non-GPL that this is the reason it was not included. This is clearly a pathetic attempt to throw a bone to all the KDE haters out there. Those who do not like KDE should also see this and not let their sentiments be played with so casually. Red Hat would have been more honest to simply call this thing a "non-KDE, non-Qt distribution" instead of falsely and shamelessly hiding behind the DFSG and RMS (who himself agrees that Qt 2.x is free!).
I used to be a big Red Hat fan. With each childish stunt like this, my opinion of them is being continuously revised downward. I hope that KDE lovers, haters, as well as neutral parties will all see through this divisive political stunt.
RMS Linux costs $29.95 and FSF will be paid at least $1. (Of course, this prevents us from interpreting it as exactly $1.)
We are supposed to buy this as it is "cool" and gets FSF a dollar! Works to 3.3% of the proceeds... tell you what, buy linux at $2/$3 from cheapbytes and donate $27 to FSF. This will show that *we* care for FSF.
RMS -- it used to mean Richard M. Stallman... over time, marketing and morphing will ensure that RMS stands for Red hat Means Source! To deprieve a man of his name is not cool, it is cruel.
Yes, very cynical indeed... but very true, unfortunately. While I also believe that there are people at RedHat who believe in what they're doing, they are in many selling linux down the river. It is extremely difficult to maintain your integrity while selling it (your integrity, that is).
For too many newcomers to linux, RedHat == Linux. Is this a good thing? Well, no. But, perhaps more importantly, is this a bad thing? Well, not necessarily. But maybe.
A year ago, we were saying that everything and anything that puts the name Linux out there into the popular media and "technical" press is a Good Thing -- there's no such thing as bad publicity. But, as one poster mentioned, RedHat is rapidly becoming the Microsoft of Linux -- in the sense of being the most well-known and arguably the most popular (meaning RedHat is the version that non-technical people know and are most familiar with). An example: I was talking with a tech support guy who worked at one of the major universities here in Boston (ahem, Harvard, ahem), and he mentioned that they were starting to use Linux on some of their servers. Great, I said; which distribution? He looked at me as if I had asked him the stupidest question in the world, and said "6.0, of course."
To sum up -- while RedHat has done a great job of positioning Linux as a "corporate" solution, they have done it by becoming a Corporation themselves. And, as the previous poster wrote, as a corporation, they have more to worry about now -- shareholders, stock prices, turning a profit, and positioning themselves as a viable company. To assume that these guys can still maintain the kind of commitment to the Linux community, the FSF, and individual programmers/Linux users like me is perhaps a little naive. This is not your father's RedHat.
darren
(darren)
Just goes to show what a treacherous business selling distributions can be.
Heh, RMS probably will not like his namesake distribution because it's not being presented as GNU/Linux.
This is your change I'd say; proof RedHat wrong and put your money where your mouth is.
If you won't; fine. But then I would suggest you'd better shut up about the amount of money at all since you are then very busy proving that the idea of buying cheap & donating heavily does not work and that you're simply bashing.
I'd expect major donations to FSF after reading all the comments but I would not wager my money for it. Unfortunatly I might add.
I have seen in several postings here some confusion about the differences between Open Source and Free Software (as in GNU licensed according ot the Free Software movement).
r eedom.html for
:-)
I too mixed these two definitions up in an article I wrote a while back about GIFs. However I got a mail from RMS who put me straight about which is which. I'll leave the general population to argue about which is best etc, but here's a snippet from the mail I received from RMS:
------------------------
The Open Source movement is a different group, started in 1998. We and they do similar activites, but we do them for completely different philosophical reasons. The Open Source movement aims to get support from business, by mentioning only practical advantages, and never talking about deeper issues. The Free Software movement says that freedom and community are important in themselves.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f
more explanation.
-----------------------------
Seems like a bit of a "Bite Me!" comment to me, but it explains why QT, Netscape et al are not included in this Free Software version of Red Hat.
Hope it helps clear up some confusion.
(and RMS - if you are reading this, does this atone for my earlier confusion?
A little planning goes a long way...
at least $1 is donated to the FSF for every sold package.
When you're examining the apportioning of the pie, look at how much the other parties are getting as well as how much the FSF is getting. I think you'll find that $1 is not that big of a share.
This is super cool, I think, and I probably have to buy one just because it is so cool.
Sorry to sound cynical, but this just means you've been suckered by their publicity ploy.
I think, this finally proves that - as far as this is possible for a company - RedHat cares about the community.
People need to realize that Red Hat is now a PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY. This means all of the normal PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY APPURTENANCES, such as a Board of Directors, SEC filings, PR departments, marketing consultants, branding consultants, market research managers and liasons, and many, many other gears of the corporate machine. It is now a very naive belief to feel that Red Hat, as a corporation, "cares" about anything or anyone other than the value of their stock. In fact, it is now the legal and moral obligation of all officers of Red Hat to do everything in their power to maximize that value.
It is truly a mistake in perception to attribute human behavioural characteristics such as "caring" to a corporate machine. A group of people in an organization with a purpose will behave differently than any individual. My favorite example of this is two forces of civil war soldiers charging each other. No sane individual would contemplate running at a group of armed enemy soldiers who are hell bent on shooting you. But as a group, you are under an extremely complex set of psychological motives, manipulations, and pressures, and it is historical fact many soldiers died in exactly such circumstances.
Now, there may very well be INDIVIDUALS at Red Hat who "care about the community." I believe this is true. But rest assured that every action taken by the CORPORATION is carefully weighed and executed based on its short and long run potential impact on that all-powerful share price, and you should keep this in mind as you evaluate a company's behaviour. Remember that shareholders are more than ready to BRING SUIT against officers of a public company who engage in actions motivated by objectives other than that share price that seem to hurt the company.
Judging by the reactions here, it was a good move for Red Hat though.
You were warned. ^_^
Crusade against lame software! votezone.com