I mostly agree with you here, but I would like to take exception with two points:
1) As a whole, the people who use and/or develop free software are often interested in both the freedom angle and the business angle. Just because the active posters on Slashdot tend to lean towards the political side of things, I wouldn't assume their counterparts in the real world feel the same way. A lot of open source development is funded or carried out by corporations.
2) The last thing the Linux community needs is more fanatics. Extremists like RMS are necessary to sow the seeds of change, but by their very extremism they're not well-equipped to actually lead the change. The ideals of the FSF have inspired a host of more moderate leaders (including Linus) who have what it takes to bring free software to the masses. You seem to equate fanaticism with intellectual ability, which is completely unrelated.
What good is free software if it can't be exploited? Are we supposed to display the code in a museum and admire it? Like it or not, the primary purpose of most software is to help people get work done.
Also, what do you mean by "My Free Software"? From what I've seen, the people who actually do most of the development on open source projects aren't complaining about the increasing corporate interest in Linux. Especially when those corporations are willing to donate code (like IBM with the Apache project).
Suits and hackers don't have to be enemies. If they make money off of your code but the code remains open, why do you care? Besides, they're probably making money by selling support, which is a lot more expensive to provide than the original code is. And if they have a decent relationship with you, you can probably score a piece of the profit. Meanwhile, free software flourishes and all the children join hands in peace and love.
Of course, "evil" can sometimes mean "good". Sorry if that sounded more extreme than I intended. Anyway, I can't believe anyone would compare Red Hat to Exxon in this context. You have every right to not give money to Red Hat if you consider their product to be inferior. Even if you continue to use the product. So maybe you don't win, but you definitely don't lose. Much better than finding a few thousand barrels of crude washed up in your back yard.
The industry I was referring to was the computer/IT industry. Red Hat is increasing awareness of Linux, and by association spreading the word about free software. Their visibility has been instrumental in rallying corporate support (again, maybe not useful to you, but very helpful to a lot of other people). The benefits are felt by the other distributions, as well as *BSD, HURD, or whichever flag you choose to salute. Meanwhile, a large number of people who would otherwise be stranded in Windows-land are learning the benefits of open source code. Some of them will contribute their time and/or money to support free software development. Incidentally, that means a larger potential base of support for Debian.
Metro X is from a different company. Red Hat employs numerous programmers who release their work under the (L)GPL. How can you complain about that? Do you think that the work they contracted Alan Cox for was evil and exploitative?
If nothing else, Red Hat can take much of the credit for increasing public awareness and usage of Linux. That in itself is improving the industry (as a whole, not just the Slashdot community).
If the good things that Red Hat has done are of no value to you (and I realize that might be the case), then you're under no obligation to send them money. If they've done something to *hurt* you, then let's hear about it.
I'm all for something like this, though I wouldn't want it to be Linux-specific. The main reasons these "analysts" are able to make a living with bogus predictions is that the public never remembers what they predicted last time around.
I vaguely remember a Gartner study in the early '90s that predicted ~50% penetration of the desktop market for NT in 1995.
A couple of minor factual errors, but overall it was a highly positive piece on Linux. Touched all the right notes to appeal to the suits. Sure, it focused excessively on Red Hat, but the format of the show almost requires that.
In any case, good publicity for Red Hat is beneficial to all Linux distributions because it raises awareness of Linux. I'm sure Red Hat users would be easier to convert to Debian than Windows 98 users would be. I'd be happy to see Red Hat leading the charge into the mainstream, with the other major distributions riding their coattails. There will always be a group of elitists who swear by Slackware (not that I have a problem with Slackware) and bitch about all the "lusers" getting in on the action, but the beauty of Linux is that they'll be free to carry on as they always have.
One other thing about the show: it skipped over many obvious opportunities for FUD. Sure, they mentioned the lack of retail sources for Linux software, but that's a very real concern for 90% of their viewers. Meanwhile, they said nothing about the embarassing infighting that's been sprouting up in the Free Software (or Open Source - I support both terms) community, like KDE vs. Gnome, Red Hat vs. other distros, GPL vs. everyone else, or ESR vs. RMS. I'm hoping that as Linux becomes more visible and mainstream, people will realize that most of these little civil wars are being carried out by a handful of extremists, while the people who are doing the real work are content to contribute to a great product that can benefit everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
I mostly agree with you here, but I would like to take exception with two points:
1) As a whole, the people who use and/or develop free software are often interested in both the freedom angle and the business angle. Just because the active posters on Slashdot tend to lean towards the political side of things, I wouldn't assume their counterparts in the real world feel the same way. A lot of open source development is funded or carried out by corporations.
2) The last thing the Linux community needs is more fanatics. Extremists like RMS are necessary to sow the seeds of change, but by their very extremism they're not well-equipped to actually lead the change. The ideals of the FSF have inspired a host of more moderate leaders (including Linus) who have what it takes to bring free software to the masses. You seem to equate fanaticism with intellectual ability, which is completely unrelated.
What good is free software if it can't be exploited? Are we supposed to display the code in a museum and admire it? Like it or not, the primary purpose of most software is to help people get work done.
Also, what do you mean by "My Free Software"? From what I've seen, the people who actually do most of the development on open source projects aren't complaining about the increasing corporate interest in Linux. Especially when those corporations are willing to donate code (like IBM with the Apache project).
Suits and hackers don't have to be enemies. If they make money off of your code but the code remains open, why do you care? Besides, they're probably making money by selling support, which is a lot more expensive to provide than the original code is. And if they have a decent relationship with you, you can probably score a piece of the profit. Meanwhile, free software flourishes and all the children join hands in peace and love.
Of course, "evil" can sometimes mean "good". Sorry if that sounded more extreme than I intended. Anyway, I can't believe anyone would compare Red Hat to Exxon in this context. You have every right to not give money to Red Hat if you consider their product to be inferior. Even if you continue to use the product. So maybe you don't win, but you definitely don't lose. Much better than finding a few thousand barrels of crude washed up in your back yard.
The industry I was referring to was the computer/IT industry. Red Hat is increasing awareness of Linux, and by association spreading the word about free software. Their visibility has been instrumental in rallying corporate support (again, maybe not useful to you, but very helpful to a lot of other people). The benefits are felt by the other distributions, as well as *BSD, HURD, or whichever flag you choose to salute. Meanwhile, a large number of people who would otherwise be stranded in Windows-land are learning the benefits of open source code. Some of them will contribute their time and/or money to support free software development. Incidentally, that means a larger potential base of support for Debian.
Because the rest of us (including the laborers) are also benefiting from Red Hat's work. The beauty of the situation is that it isn't a zero-sum game.
Metro X is from a different company. Red Hat employs numerous programmers who release their work under the (L)GPL. How can you complain about that? Do you think that the work they contracted Alan Cox for was evil and exploitative?
If nothing else, Red Hat can take much of the credit for increasing public awareness and usage of Linux. That in itself is improving the industry (as a whole, not just the Slashdot community).
If the good things that Red Hat has done are of no value to you (and I realize that might be the case), then you're under no obligation to send them money. If they've done something to *hurt* you, then let's hear about it.
I'm all for something like this, though I wouldn't want it to be Linux-specific. The main reasons these "analysts" are able to make a living with bogus predictions is that the public never remembers what they predicted last time around.
I vaguely remember a Gartner study in the early '90s that predicted ~50% penetration of the desktop market for NT in 1995.
Yeah, sorry. It occurred to me a few minutes after I posted, but by then it was 3:30am and I was mostly asleep.
I don't really like the idea of putting libraries under the GPL. It's coercive in a way that I normally associate with Microsoft.
A couple of minor factual errors, but overall it was a highly positive piece on Linux. Touched all the right notes to appeal to the suits. Sure, it focused excessively on Red Hat, but the format of the show almost requires that.
In any case, good publicity for Red Hat is beneficial to all Linux distributions because it raises awareness of Linux. I'm sure Red Hat users would be easier to convert to Debian than Windows 98 users would be. I'd be happy to see Red Hat leading the charge into the mainstream, with the other major distributions riding their coattails. There will always be a group of elitists who swear by Slackware (not that I have a problem with Slackware) and bitch about all the "lusers" getting in on the action, but the beauty of Linux is that they'll be free to carry on as they always have.
One other thing about the show: it skipped over many obvious opportunities for FUD. Sure, they mentioned the lack of retail sources for Linux software, but that's a very real concern for 90% of their viewers. Meanwhile, they said nothing about the embarassing infighting that's been sprouting up in the Free Software (or Open Source - I support both terms) community, like KDE vs. Gnome, Red Hat vs. other distros, GPL vs. everyone else, or ESR vs. RMS. I'm hoping that as Linux becomes more visible and mainstream, people will realize that most of these little civil wars are being carried out by a handful of extremists, while the people who are doing the real work are content to contribute to a great product that can benefit everyone.
Derek