If you read some of his books on photography, you quickly realize that this guy would have been drooling over the kinds of image manipulation possible today.
It's obvious that he wanted to be able to do all this stuff, but due to the technology available to him, he could only do it in the camera/darkroom...
That was a pretty cagey move -- if she says 'yes', you have a quarter of a million people that will wish you well.
On the other hand, if she says 'no', you have a quarter of a million people to buy you drinks, and say that she wasn't good enough for you anyway...:-)
That car example is a blatant rip off of the opening paragraph on my paper on Intellectual Property in schools. I wonder if he read the paper, or we just think alike:)
Well, I guess it's a matter of great minds thinking alike.:-) I know Bob, and he was using this analogy when I first met him back in the '95-'96 timeframe...
I've written a book, and several editions of a good-sized manual in LaTeX, and migrated that manual over to DocBook/SGML, and have found that working with DocBook is *much* better.
There are the initial learning curve issues, and you've got to find a writing tool that you like to use (I personally swear by Emacs' psgml-mode, but that's just me), but it is *so* much better than writing LaTeX.
Now don't get me wrong -- I've used LaTeX to typeset some *beautiful* output; it's great at that. However, in an environment where you can live with output that's 80% as good as LaTeX (with the lack of flexibility that missing 20% implies) and you want to do it in 10% of the time it takes to get the LaTeX "just right", something like DocBook just can't be beat...
Well, from what I've seen of some non-profits, I don't know that I'd consider them lily-white, either.:-)
Be that as it may, anyone that isn't a Red Hat employee can't have the same viewpoint that someone in my position has. I'm a minute's walk away from the bulk of our Linux development team. Our CEO,Matthew Szulik, is right there, too, in a cube between the guy heading up the installer team, and the person that works on our printing-related stuff. He's approachable, and is genuinely interested in doing the right thing, no matter what the situation.
Sure, Red Hat exists to make money. But that doesn't mean we have to become morally bankrupt to do so. I have the advantage of seeing the people in charge, day in and day out, working hard to ensure that our company does the right thing. So what I'm doing here is to try to show people that don't work at Meridian Parkway (or any of our other offices) what's going on inside Red Hat (and to help those inside know what's going on outside -- it's a two-way street, after all)...
Well, I think you are forgetting that probably ~90% of those kids will NEVER use a computer for anything other than e-mail and web surfing.... but when trying to teach kids PRACTICAL skills, then Windows, MSO, and IE are what they should be learning.
So, uh, Mozilla and IE are so different that learning one provides no benefit to a person needing to learn the other?
My wife currently uses an NT box at home; her machine is getting old and unreliable, and because she's sick of hearing me always complain about how I hate fixing her machine, she wants to move to Linux. She reads mail, does some web browsing, and word processing.
Last week, she took a three-day course that we're just starting to run on desktop Linux use. By the end of the course she was certain that Linux could do everything that she needs it to do. To use your logic, she should be having a hell of a time making such a move. But she's not.
Likewise, I don't think people using Linux for these kinds of tasks will find themselves at that much of a disadvantage should they find themselves faced with a Windows box.
Red Hat had better be prepared for a LOT of seemingly mundane support issues to come flooding through their doors. It would also behoove them to actually get in touch with LUGs in the area to see how they can assist with the training/support/etc of these 2 mil. RH boxes.
I like your idea about getting the LUGs involved; I'll make sure that the people coordinating this inside the company hear about it.
Do you think RedHat is going to pass-up the chance to write all that off on their taxes? They would also have tens of thousands of kids that would be forced to use RedHat's OS. RedHat is a company, they are doing this for themselves, and no one else. Plus, what if the schools don't want Linux? Those boxes will be worthless.
Sure, if there's a write-off, I'm sure our accountants will take it. Last I heard that wasn't illegal or unethical.
And don't forget, whether Red Hat Linux is your preferred distribution or not, it is Linux. Surely getting more people to learn and use Linux isn't a bad thing, is it? Yes, if it's Red Hat Linux in all those schools, it certainly doesn't hurt us, but keep in mind that the effort to migrate from Red Hat Linux to (for instance) Debian is a lot less than the effort to move to a completely different operating system. I don't see an MS-style lock-in here...
Yes, as a company we have our own interests in mind, but those interests do not preclude trying to help others. I look at this as a "win-win-win" situation; it doesn't hurt Red Hat, it helps promote the use of free software, and it gets schools badly-needed hardware and software.
RedHat could be up to something...but it wouldn't really be unprecedented.
...
My point is, RedHat COULD pull an Apple computer here, and make money off getting people hooked on them as kids, and while they are being altruistic now, RedHat has shareholders - and eventually the shareholders will not be so altruistic.
I'm torn as to how to respond to your post -- on the one hand, it's a sequence of events that has played out in the past, with other companies.
However, let's be upfront; you're doing a lot of speculation here. And without much checking of the facts. For instance, you might want to check our investor FAQ; this shows that the number of shares held by people outside the company is a small percentage of the company's total shares. There'll be no shareholder-led revolt anytime soon.
As to "pulling a VA Software", I know the executive team, and over and above the fact that they are committed to open source, they're simply smarter than to follow that particular path...
Despite how nice everyone thinks RedHat is, they are still a company. They want to make money. RedHat isn't dong this for the children any more than MS is.
The first two points of yours that I've quoted are certainly true. However, after seeing the efforts made -- at all levels of the company -- to help make technology available to the poorer schools in the US, I can tell you that your last statement is false. We've had the OS:N: section on our website for some time now, and have helped the k12ltsp project in both exposure (at a recent educational show in NC), and in technology (helping to package the k12ltsp software so that it'll install cleanly and easily on Red Hat Linux).
The k12ltsp project is especially cool, because it makes it relatively easy to set up a group of diskless workstations for student use; since we're talking about Linux, those workstations don't have to be high-end machines, making it possible to do more with less (always a favorite approach with under-funded school systems).
So sure, our suggested approach to Microsoft's settlement certainly wouldn't hurt us, but if you think it's a completely self-serving action, you're missing a large part of the story...
Hmm, I wonder if Red Hat could use volunteers for this? I'd do it...
Really? How many people would be interested in volunteering for something like this? I can look into arranging something if there's sufficient interest...
That they would turn and embrace the community in spite of some of the community's resentments towards them (to me) demonstrates a remarkable (and sensible) dedication to principle.
Well, we've developed a thick skin over the years...:-)
But our core principles have not changed. Back when Matthew Szulik first came on board, I was present in a meeting about company values. We were all kind of nervous to see whether our new boss "got it". One of the values people came up with was "no matter how big we get, we never lose our soul". When that one was read, Matthew just looked up, smiled a little smile, and gave a nod in agreement. Don't worry -- the people in charge here get it...
Of course, we've grown very rapidly. And we're finding that being a bigger company means you can't be as nimble as when the entire company could go out to lunch in two cars.
So if we screw up, please let us know -- we want to do the right thing while still making a living...
* The Red Hat way - Selling totally open systems with support and (shock!) manuals etc. Adding something to a fundamentally free product.
...
Red Hat does not depend on a massive in house development effort to produce its product (unlike sistena).
Well, I can think of some developers around here that would have an issue with that statement...:-) Seriously, I think the real difference is that our development effort, while just as massive, is spread out over a much larger "area". you know, a little work done on lots of software, versus a lot of work done on a little bit of software...
So I don't think it's necessarily about the development effort expended, but whether the source is in fact open or not. At least that's what I'm betting my future ability to make mortgage payments on...;-)
I believe Xconfigurator in RedHat 5.2 was closed and you were not allowed to distribute it at the time. Or at least that's what it told me when I installed it a few years back.
I think you're talking about Metro-X, which was a commercial X implementation that we used to bundle with Red Hat Linux. Xconfigurator was part XFree86 code and part Red Hat code, and therefore bore dual copyrights. It also had this statement in the source (which *was* available):
/* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a *//* copy of this software and associated documentation files (the \"Software\"),*//* to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation*//* the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,*//* and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the*//* Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:*//* The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in*//* all copies or substantial portions of the Software.*/
The only way you can profit from open source without having to use a closed-source business model is to sell support and service contracts for the software.
Well, there's also the convenience factor (never underestimate the bandwidth of a set of CDs in a FedEx truck), and the "tangible object" factor (printed docs). At least for some people these factors also have a bearing on the matter.
But your basic point is well-taken -- a great deal of our business model revolves around service and support. However, I would contend that giving away support is a bad idea no matter what the heritage of the software -- I recall hearing that support costs represent the largest expense we have in producing a boxed set; giving away that kind of value is just bad business, imho.
That said, there's also a place for community-provided support; if it fulfills your needs, that's great. That's one of the reasons why we have mailing lists (the other being that it gives our developers a view into how our customers are doing with our products).
Way back about 20 years ago when I was entering the World of Work(tm) I worked at a university, in their data center. A prof was doing research on the state of bridges in Connecticut (there had been a recent high-profile bridge failure in the state).
Anyway, he got a data tape from either the state or federal government (I don't recall which) of a bunch of bridge-related information. It was my job to pull the data from the tape, and do some initial checking to make sure we read the data correctly. In order to make sure everything looked OK, the tape came with a record definition, showing each field in the record, its size, and the type of data it contained.
The interesting thing was that two fields were listed in the record definition, but were zero'ed out on the tape -- the latitude and longitude of each bridge. It turned out that the agency responsible for the data would not release that one datum; the concern was that the data could be militarily significant in time of war.
So making data harder to find in the name of homeland security is nothing all that new...
"LinuxDevices Mentions a product called the STBMX1030, which meets all of these requirements, and much much more. But it seems as though the company that makes them, Allwell, has stopped making them."
Really? I went to http://www.gctglobal.com/ and sent mail to them, asking for a price on a sample STB1030N. Got a quick response with a price, said "I want it", and have one due to be delivered COD tomorrow...
But I do notice that GCT-Allwell's website has changed slightly in the last couple days, so maybe some changes are afoot...
Well (he said, not trying to sound too much like a curmudgeon), it was a different world back then. Tape was about as good as it got for moving data around.
I remember using the VAXstation 100 (aka VS100) mentioned in the announcement. Of course, I was using it in corporate America, so we didn't have X on it -- it had UIS, which was DEC's GUI prior to the X-based DECwindows.
It's a tribute to these folks that X is still chugging along after all these years...
Well, the '5mx won't run Linux from day one, as it uses a slightly different "system chip" than the CL-PS7110 present in the Series 5. But it's pretty close, so I imagine you'll see Linux running on the '5mx eventually...
Slashdot Mirror
If you read some of his books on photography, you quickly realize that this guy would have been drooling over the kinds of image manipulation possible today.
It's obvious that he wanted to be able to do all this stuff, but due to the technology available to him, he could only do it in the camera/darkroom...
That was a pretty cagey move -- if she says 'yes', you have a quarter of a million people that will wish you well.
:-)
On the other hand, if she says 'no', you have a quarter of a million people to buy you drinks, and say that she wasn't good enough for you anyway...
Seriously -- best of luck to both of you!
Well, I guess it's a matter of great minds thinking alike. :-) I know Bob, and he was using this analogy when I first met him back in the '95-'96 timeframe...
EdI've written a book, and several editions of a good-sized manual in LaTeX, and migrated that manual over to DocBook/SGML, and have found that working with DocBook is *much* better.
There are the initial learning curve issues, and you've got to find a writing tool that you like to use (I personally swear by Emacs' psgml-mode, but that's just me), but it is *so* much better than writing LaTeX.
Now don't get me wrong -- I've used LaTeX to typeset some *beautiful* output; it's great at that. However, in an environment where you can live with output that's 80% as good as LaTeX (with the lack of flexibility that missing 20% implies) and you want to do it in 10% of the time it takes to get the LaTeX "just right", something like DocBook just can't be beat...
Sigh. I wish people would do their homework instead of thinking out loud...
From www.x.org:
X Window System is a trademark of The Open Group
So the name of the technology is not "X Windows", and the trademark is "X Window System", so there's no conflict/overlap...
Ed
Why is that? Last I checked, our distribution is based on much the same software as every other distro... :-)
EdWell, from what I've seen of some non-profits, I don't know that I'd consider them lily-white, either. :-)
Be that as it may, anyone that isn't a Red Hat employee can't have the same viewpoint that someone in my position has. I'm a minute's walk away from the bulk of our Linux development team. Our CEO,Matthew Szulik, is right there, too, in a cube between the guy heading up the installer team, and the person that works on our printing-related stuff. He's approachable, and is genuinely interested in doing the right thing, no matter what the situation.
Sure, Red Hat exists to make money. But that doesn't mean we have to become morally bankrupt to do so. I have the advantage of seeing the people in charge, day in and day out, working hard to ensure that our company does the right thing. So what I'm doing here is to try to show people that don't work at Meridian Parkway (or any of our other offices) what's going on inside Red Hat (and to help those inside know what's going on outside -- it's a two-way street, after all)...
Ed
So, uh, Mozilla and IE are so different that learning one provides no benefit to a person needing to learn the other?
My wife currently uses an NT box at home; her machine is getting old and unreliable, and because she's sick of hearing me always complain about how I hate fixing her machine, she wants to move to Linux. She reads mail, does some web browsing, and word processing.
Last week, she took a three-day course that we're just starting to run on desktop Linux use. By the end of the course she was certain that Linux could do everything that she needs it to do. To use your logic, she should be having a hell of a time making such a move. But she's not.
Likewise, I don't think people using Linux for these kinds of tasks will find themselves at that much of a disadvantage should they find themselves faced with a Windows box.
But here's hoping that they never have to...
Ed
Ed
And don't forget, whether Red Hat Linux is your preferred distribution or not, it is Linux. Surely getting more people to learn and use Linux isn't a bad thing, is it? Yes, if it's Red Hat Linux in all those schools, it certainly doesn't hurt us, but keep in mind that the effort to migrate from Red Hat Linux to (for instance) Debian is a lot less than the effort to move to a completely different operating system. I don't see an MS-style lock-in here...
Yes, as a company we have our own interests in mind, but those interests do not preclude trying to help others. I look at this as a "win-win-win" situation; it doesn't hurt Red Hat, it helps promote the use of free software, and it gets schools badly-needed hardware and software.
Ed
I'm torn as to how to respond to your post -- on the one hand, it's a sequence of events that has played out in the past, with other companies.
However, let's be upfront; you're doing a lot of speculation here. And without much checking of the facts. For instance, you might want to check our investor FAQ; this shows that the number of shares held by people outside the company is a small percentage of the company's total shares. There'll be no shareholder-led revolt anytime soon.
As to "pulling a VA Software", I know the executive team, and over and above the fact that they are committed to open source, they're simply smarter than to follow that particular path...
Ed
The k12ltsp project is especially cool, because it makes it relatively easy to set up a group of diskless workstations for student use; since we're talking about Linux, those workstations don't have to be high-end machines, making it possible to do more with less (always a favorite approach with under-funded school systems).
So sure, our suggested approach to Microsoft's settlement certainly wouldn't hurt us, but if you think it's a completely self-serving action, you're missing a large part of the story...
Ed
Really? How many people would be interested in volunteering for something like this? I can look into arranging something if there's sufficient interest...
Ed
Well, we've developed a thick skin over the years...
But our core principles have not changed. Back when Matthew Szulik first came on board, I was present in a meeting about company values. We were all kind of nervous to see whether our new boss "got it". One of the values people came up with was "no matter how big we get, we never lose our soul". When that one was read, Matthew just looked up, smiled a little smile, and gave a nod in agreement. Don't worry -- the people in charge here get it...
Of course, we've grown very rapidly. And we're finding that being a bigger company means you can't be as nimble as when the entire company could go out to lunch in two cars.
So if we screw up, please let us know -- we want to do the right thing while still making a living...
Ed
So I don't think it's necessarily about the development effort expended, but whether the source is in fact open or not. At least that's what I'm betting my future ability to make mortgage payments on... ;-)
Ed
Well, there's also the convenience factor (never underestimate the bandwidth of a set of CDs in a FedEx truck), and the "tangible object" factor (printed docs). At least for some people these factors also have a bearing on the matter.
But your basic point is well-taken -- a great deal of our business model revolves around service and support. However, I would contend that giving away support is a bad idea no matter what the heritage of the software -- I recall hearing that support costs represent the largest expense we have in producing a boxed set; giving away that kind of value is just bad business, imho.
That said, there's also a place for community-provided support; if it fulfills your needs, that's great. That's one of the reasons why we have mailing lists (the other being that it gives our developers a view into how our customers are doing with our products).
Ed
What "part-open/part-closed thing" are you talking about?
Ed
Way back about 20 years ago when I was entering the World of Work(tm) I worked at a university, in their data center. A prof was doing research on the state of bridges in Connecticut (there had been a recent high-profile bridge failure in the state).
Anyway, he got a data tape from either the state or federal government (I don't recall which) of a bunch of bridge-related information. It was my job to pull the data from the tape, and do some initial checking to make sure we read the data correctly. In order to make sure everything looked OK, the tape came with a record definition, showing each field in the record, its size, and the type of data it contained.
The interesting thing was that two fields were listed in the record definition, but were zero'ed out on the tape -- the latitude and longitude of each bridge. It turned out that the agency responsible for the data would not release that one datum; the concern was that the data could be militarily significant in time of war.
So making data harder to find in the name of homeland security is nothing all that new...
Ed
Try http://www.kursksalvage.com/ for more info and pictures...
Ed
"LinuxDevices Mentions a product called the STBMX1030, which meets all of these requirements, and much much more. But it seems as though the company that makes them, Allwell, has stopped making them."
Really? I went to http://www.gctglobal.com/ and sent mail to them, asking for a price on a sample STB1030N. Got a quick response with a price, said "I want it", and have one due to be delivered COD tomorrow...
But I do notice that GCT-Allwell's website has changed slightly in the last couple days, so maybe some changes are afoot...
Ed
Well (he said, not trying to sound too much like a curmudgeon), it was a different world back then. Tape was about as good as it got for moving data around.
I remember using the VAXstation 100 (aka VS100) mentioned in the announcement. Of course, I was using it in corporate America, so we didn't have X on it -- it had UIS, which was DEC's GUI prior to the X-based DECwindows.
It's a tribute to these folks that X is still chugging along after all these years...
Well, the '5mx won't run Linux from day one, as it uses a slightly different "system chip" than the CL-PS7110 present in the Series 5. But it's pretty close, so I imagine you'll see Linux running on the '5mx eventually...
Ed