Slashdot Mirror
Ex-Novell CEO praises FreeBSD
There are a number of interesting things to take from this article. It's unsurprising that an ex-Novell CEO does not want to use MS software after the way Novell were treated by them, it is mildly surprising that he hasn't chosen a Novell, or other 'industry standard' solution.
Encanto's choice of FreeBSD over Linux is also interesting. Naturally, we all know that FreeBSD is the best choice (heh heh heh :-)), but Linux (or Solaris) would be the anti-MS knee jerk choice. Using FreeBSD suggests that they've actually investigated the different OS choices open to them, and chosen one on merit -- or that the first SA they hired preferred FreeBSD over Linux.
As ever, the media have got the licensing issues wrong. One of the key things about the BSD license is that you don't have to contribute enhancements back to the original codebase if you don't want to -- of course, that doesn't stop many companies from doing so anyway, because it's better business sense in the long run.
Having looked at the Encanto web site, and the products they're selling, the license may very well be the key issue. They sell network appliances -- plug and play web servers, that sort of thing, and the ability to make proprietry changes to the code base to support their product (and enhance their product's value) without having to disclose those changes is probably key to their business plan.
This is quite similar to the approach taken by Whistle and their Interjet devices. Whistle have been the classic example of a company which has contributed code back, even though the license doesn't force them to -- typically 6 to 12 months after they've deployed it in their product, and reaped the commercial benefit. This lets them recoup their development costs plus profit, and lets the rest of the community benefit from (and extend and support) the code later on.
Finally, CBS's phrase, "so-called open-source software" should get them a stiff letter from ESR...
Whistle could keep their code to themselves -- certainly a number of companies have done that when it comes to BSD-style licenses. Still, they gave it back to the community. The only stipulation was that the community had to wait a little while. I have no problem waiting 6 months (or even a year) to use a companies add-ons. If they're not useful after a year, then they probably weren't that important to begin with.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
red and gold...YUM! NOTE: it's spelled C-O-L-O-U-R-S, you yankees
I love the new colors!
PS Why are you still using Middle English? Just kidding!
The fact that he's using an open source OS is good, and smart. But I've said this before and I'll say it again: If this guy were in a position to create a monopoly, he would, just like Gates. Most businessmen are ruthless enough. Thats how business works, and thats why we need the government to keep monopoly power in check.
Novell, netscape, and any number of other companies got beat up by the bully, Microsoft. Now that the bully is falling down, the executives are flexing their ego's and trying to get their "self-esteem" back. Other than the fact that choosing an open-source OS is a Good Thing, this is nothing more than ego flexing.
Read the FOF if you must know. Microsoft threatened to cut off licensing to OEM's who preloaded NN. They paid OEM's to break their contracts with Netscape. They threatened IAP's who distributed NN. They paid IAP's significantly to not distribute Netscape, and only promote IE.
Basically, they bought, bribed, and buried all Netscape's distribution channels. Without OEM's and IAP's licensing Netscape's browser, Netscape didn't have the cash to continue to innovate. That's why 4.7 is a lot worse then IE 5. Remember 4.x is basically 2-3 year old technology now. That's like comparing a '97 model Chevy to a 2000 model Ford. And again, why wasn't Netscape able to keep innovating? Because Microsoft cut off their ability to compete, and stifled their freedom of innovation.
Consider it another way. Before the internet became a big shopping mall, publishers had to sell their books through stores. Imagine if you were publishing books on computers and I was. But books on computers were your only topic and you were well known for them. I decide to get into the computer field too, but although I'm a big publisher in other fields I'm not a big publisher in the computer field. So bookstores won't carry my books, because yours are much more popular.
What do I do? First, I sell my books at cost. (IE = $0) That helps, but its not enough. So then I go to all the big chains and say, "Look, if you carry my computers books I'll pay you $10 million dollars to market the books." There's a catch though. They can't sell your books. That helps, $10 million dollars is a lot of money and they can't afford to let competing bookstores out spend them.
But some of the largest bookstores are still holding out and selling your books. Your books are hot sellers after all, and they can afford to budget another $10 million to compete with the other bookstores. So it's time to pull out the lethal weapon. No one buys any of my books unless they also exclusively sell my computer books. The last of the large bookstores find that they have to give in because without my other books, your books just aren't enough to continue making a profit. So they give into my demands.
What's more, people aren't buying your books anyways, because only really small shops are able to carry them anymore. So it's more important to sell my other books which people would go to other stores to buy, then sell yours, which aren't sold buy big book sellers.
Your sales dwindle from millions to a mere few hundred thousand. What's more, you no longer are able to pay writers and spend money on good publishing, so your books slide to a mere shadow of what they were.
However, any intelligent consumer can see that I didn't do any damage to you at all. After all, just compare the books in question.
Right?
Hopefully, in this imaginary scenario, you've been able to discern what was Netscape, and IE, and Windows. It shouldn't be too hard now.
-Brent--
The first thing I want to ask is, "What kind of crack are you on?"
I run Linux. I also happen to have a really huge amount of affection in my heart for OpenBSD. One's my preference for desktops, one's my preference for servers. Am I a BSD supporter? Absolutely. Am I a Linux supporter? Absolutely.
So, who's this "we" you're referring to when you say "we hate the GPL"? I certainly don't hate it. It's a software license, not the end of the world. It doesn't virally infect your software; rather, the authors of GPLed software merely assert their rights as authors to keep you from using their software in non-GPLed software. Most authors who release their code under GPL do so for strong moral reasons. You might not like someone else's strong moral reasons, but I certainly hope you're mature enough to respect their reasons instead of hating their reasons.
Insofar as Linux being technically inferior to BSD, I really don't see how that's happening, either. The various BSDs are significantly lacking when it comes to hardware support; Linux tends to punch new drivers out like they're movie tickets. That doesn't make Linux more technically advanced; it just means they get drivers out faster. And BSD's faster TCP/IP stack doesn't mean that Linux's is inferior; it just means the BSD TCP/IP stack is faster.
A difference between two things does not always imply that one is superior and one is inferior.
Linux is an SVR4 clone. It has a poor development model.
A lot of really cool hacks were developed on SysV systems, friend. I'd suggest showing a little more respect for our AT&T brothers. Insofar as Linux's "poor development model" -- this one is so laughably false that I really can't refute it. Is it chaotic? Unquestionably. Haphazard? Not hardly. Chaotic systems coalesce and interact to create extremely complex, subtle effects. The Linux kernel is a good example. BSD has the planning and structure of a classical symphony; Linux has the general feel of a really good jazz quartet. Which one is better? Depends entirely on whether you prefer classical or jazz.
I'm a jazz man, myself.
BSD isn't fragmenting the UNIX community...
Agreed, wholeheartedly. Each flavor of BSD caters to a different segment of the community, and the richness of BSD flavors is one of the reasons why BSD is such an attractive choice. I don't like FreeBSD or NetBSD, but OpenBSD rocks my world.
Linux is.
Let me repeat my earlier question: what kind of crack are you on?
The real UNIX fragmentation problem is the absurd number of Linux distros, which, despite what some Linux folk say, have very significant differences.
Well, duh. OpenBSD and FreeBSD have very significant differences, too, but they have far more in common. Similarly, SuSE has significant differences from Debian, but I've never had problems installing SuSE packages on my Red Hat box and then installing a Debian package.
If you're going to claim that the fragmentation of BSDs doesn't fragment the UNIX community, then you've got to extend the same civility to the Linux community. Neither one is causing the fragmentation of UNIX. UNIX fragmented long, long before either BSD or Linux came out.
BSD was in widespread usage before Linux
... and MVS/TSO was in widespread usage before BSD. Older != better, newer != better.
I'm really getting sick of the Linux mentality that we need a gleaming, one world OS.
Find me a Linux user who believes this and I'll personally whack the idiot with a clue-by-four. The people who grok Linux know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Linux is not the Way, the Truth and the Life. Linux is an operating system, and a pretty damn good one. As soon as Linux stops fitting our needs, we'll toss it and make something that does.
And y'know what? BSD will do the exact same thing if BSD ever stops being useful.