We are happy that you agree that customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable, and we heartily agree with that sentence of your letter. The others don't seem to make as much sense, but we find the dialogue refreshing.
However, we have to sadly decline taking business model advice from a company that seems to have squandered all its money (that it made off a Linux IPO, I might add, since there's a nice bit of irony there), and now seems to play the US legal system as a lottery. We in the Open Source group continue to believe in technology as a way of driving customer interest and demand.
Also, we find your references to a negotiating table somewhat confusing, since there doesn't seem to be anything to negotiate about. SCO has yet to show any infringing IP in the Open Source domain, but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.
All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with.
Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission,
I personnally would *not* recommend Cyrus for his case. Although I am a very satisfied Cyrus user, this guy will go nut trying to configure it.
Cyrus is nice because of all the bleeding-edge stuff it support (like ACL, Murder, etc) that other don't, but it's a real bitch to configure right. Especially, as been noted, the authentication part (which is very flexible, however).
Also, virtual domain support in Cyrus is currently in beta (not in production release), which is a pretty major setback of you need it.
For its shear simplicity, I would recommend running UW-imapd on RedHat. It work out-of-the-box, no configuration required. Beside, maybe, replacing the self-signed SSL certificate if you plan on using IMAPS and configuring xinetd to start it automatically. Just make sure you stay up-to-date with security advisory as the UW network stuff have been plagued by a lot of remote root in the past decade (not surprising, the code is a fscking mess...).
eugene ts wong : if you decide to go with Cyrus anyway, you can hire me. I am not cheap, but I am affordable. (and I feel like a hooker now hehe:)
"Managing IMAP" Cyrus discussion was based on the 1.5.x serie, which is long outdated (Cyrus is currently in the 2.1.x stable serie). As far as Cyrus is concerned, this book is outdated. And the example scripts where in TCL... yuck !
Slackware. Rock solid, as Pat doesn't include anything he hasn't tested. (With the exception of security fixes, Slackware packages are typically 1-2 months behind the bleeding edge, to allow for testing.) If there is software you need that Slackware doesn't include, you can compile it and test it your self (see above), safe in the knowledge that everything else is OK.
---
Yeah, because a package tested for one or two months by a team of, what, three person is guaranteed to be rock-solid. They certainly can figure out all the corner-case and interaction to come out with a 100% bug-free distro !
This flame is not directed at Slackware in particuliar (which a fine distro by me), but toward your braindead sweeping assumption. Somebody else debunked your stupid compiler argument already so I won't touch this.
Re:Does anyone else think it would be funny...
on
Slashdot Google Bombers?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Before you hurt that guy, have you considered the posibility that this muirhead troll is impersonnating somebody else ? That the site linked belong to an innocent bystander ? That this email addy is not his, but someone else ?
Well, for starters, have you entirely written off the consumer market?
Granted. I personnally don't think it is an interesting market anyway. If you plan on doing money selling software to the consumer market, you are in for a rough ride considering how the market is saturated.
However, I am sure it is possible to adapt the model to fit the consumer market. I don't have access to Transgaming financial report, but they seem to be doing ok selling a service to the consumer market while contributing all their work to OSS. More example could probably be found.
Your company may indeed benefit by selling services based on work originally done by other developers. IMHO, those developers made a mistake by choosing to give away their work so that your company can profit from it.
Why ?
Most of the change I make to OSS goes back into it, ripe for my competitor to use. I contribute back to OSS for pragmatic reason (forward compatibility, maintainability) but the result is the same : people can make use of my work, for free. I use other people's work, for free. Everybody benefit; that's how OSS have been doing for the past few decades.
I think you don't get the corporate culture. You may give away your work with good spirit, but when a publicly-traded multi-national corporation like IBM gives away work, it's as a result of a complex set of business decisions.
In the case of IBM, it's most likely part of a larger anti-Microsoft startegy.
If you believe that IBM is sharing code from some sort of sense of civic good will, you're mistaken...
This is irrevelant. The result is the same : I have access, for free, to code contributed by a big corporation. Wether they opened it by goodwill or a complex set of business decisions, I don't care.
As I see it, when coders are giving their work away for free for professional use by international companies, they are being had.
And if the little coder use code Open-Sourced by large corporation, is he "having" them ?
I think you don't get the gift culture. IBM use the little coder's code, the little coder use IBM code, everybody is happy about it ! That's the point of open-Source : sharing. It goes both way.
Charing for support is one of the popular ideas abouthow to make money from free software, but have you ever actually tried it?
Yes. That is how I am currently earning a living. My employer is a Linux integrator. Since mark-up on selling CSS is so ridiculously low, there is no point in generating profit for another business (the software manufacturer); you are better to work toward grabing a bigger chunk of the customer's money by selling service instead of license. In case you wonder, my employer is doing quite well : we are profitable, doubled the staff this year (we have lots of work) and I recently received a bonus.
The fact is, most support is of the getting-started variety. Do you expect those people to pay for support *before* they have their software working? Or do you help them get set up for free, after which they have little need for support?
Yes, a big chunk of the support is getting-started (actually, installation/customization). Yes, I expect customer to pay for installtion and customization and, yes, they do. If they would buy some shrink-wraped software, they would have to pay beforehand anyway (and probably pay somebody for the installation/customization too if it is anything non-trivial). You sell them a solution, they buy it. Is there more to it ?
And if somebody writes to ask: "hey, quick question" Do you reply, sorry, but that'll be $5 first.
Yes. Actually, you sell them a support contract. Some are incident-based, other are time-based ("hour bank"). I think time-based is preferable for both party, as it let the customer ask many little question for cheap, protect the integrator from nightmarish problem that pay only for an incident (it happen) and eliminiate fight over what constitute a single incident vs. many smaller one.
What exactly is so unusual about this business model ?
Obviously a troll, but let's bait for advocacy purpose
They want everything you can throw at them for free, but are unwilling to pay (even modest amounts) for support or customization.
False. I am earning a living supporting, customizing and integrating OSS. It's exactly the same thing as if we where selling CSS, except we don't charge for license (and often are able to charge more for service because of that). If your client are that cheap, write them off and concentrate your sales effort on better client.
If you have made this concept work, then please, for the love of Mike, explain to the rest of how you did it.
Business 101 :
Find client with a need that can be fulfilled with OSS (pretty much anything you can think of... firewall/gateway, mail server, fax server, custom application, etc).
From the article: '...the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.'
This guy need to recognize that OSS are driven by their community needs, not the needs of some abstract average user.
In particular he argues that the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on, and that they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any applications they might want to use."
Instead, they should be forced to use whatever was deemed correct by... ?
The nice thing about OSS is that you can make it whatever you want. If a Linux distributor believe having a choice of DE hurt his potential market, he can solve the problem by bundling a single one with his distro. Case closed.
First, is TFM is good, there is no excuse for not RTFM *before* asking question. Sometime, TFM is confusing; say so in your question and you will see people attitude change.
Turn the table around : most Linux user are genuinely helpful (or at least try to be). A lot of newbies are not necessarily so nice : they come in some Linux forum, bitch about how hard/ugly/broken it is, hold the whole Linux user base responsible for this, proceed to ask questions but can't be bothered to describe their problems in a clear and complete fashion and whine about how hard the solutions suggested are. This is notwithstanding the fact that his questions are being answered frequently and could be resolved with minimal searching.
I was frequenting a peer-support Linux forum recently. I rarely need help, but I figure a good way to advocate Linux would be to help make newbie's experience better. Although some user where nice and grateful for the help given, most where not particularly fun to help out (although not necessarly as excessive as describe in the previous paragraph). After a few months, I lost interest in this forum and got back to more "1337" forum where discussions were interesting and challenging.
Good newbie usually get good help from most Linux users.
You should use up2date to install software bundled with RedHat. For third-party rpms, you could try apt4rpm but you will still have to find a good repository (I suggest you have a look at freshrpms.net).
Well, the fat guy in penguin shirt biggest annoyance is probably hearing another newbie asking the same question that had been answered three time today, so it's a draw.
Slashdot Mirror
You should have a description on your project on www.rongage.org, or a README in your FTP at the very least.
You can reach me by email at : eg at linuxquebec dot com. Good luck with your IMAP server installation !
Just the Torvald's letter ... hilarious !
---
Dear Darl,
Thank you so much for your letter.
We are happy that you agree that customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable, and we heartily agree with that sentence of your letter. The others don't seem to make as much sense, but we find the dialogue refreshing.
However, we have to sadly decline taking business model advice from a company that seems to have squandered all its money (that it made off a Linux IPO, I might add, since there's a nice bit of irony there), and now seems to play the US legal system as a lottery. We in the Open Source group continue to believe in technology as a way of driving customer interest and demand.
Also, we find your references to a negotiating table somewhat confusing, since there doesn't seem to be anything to negotiate about. SCO has yet to show any infringing IP in the Open Source domain, but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.
All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with.
Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission,
Yours truly,
Linus Torvalds
I personnally would *not* recommend Cyrus for his case. Although I am a very satisfied Cyrus user, this guy will go nut trying to configure it.
...).
:)
;-)
Cyrus is nice because of all the bleeding-edge stuff it support (like ACL, Murder, etc) that other don't, but it's a real bitch to configure right. Especially, as been noted, the authentication part (which is very flexible, however).
Also, virtual domain support in Cyrus is currently in beta (not in production release), which is a pretty major setback of you need it.
For its shear simplicity, I would recommend running UW-imapd on RedHat. It work out-of-the-box, no configuration required. Beside, maybe, replacing the self-signed SSL certificate if you plan on using IMAPS and configuring xinetd to start it automatically. Just make sure you stay up-to-date with security advisory as the UW network stuff have been plagued by a lot of remote root in the past decade (not surprising, the code is a fscking mess
eugene ts wong : if you decide to go with Cyrus anyway, you can hire me. I am not cheap, but I am affordable. (and I feel like a hooker now hehe
BTW T-Ranger, I met you in info-cyrus
"Managing IMAP" Cyrus discussion was based on the 1.5.x serie, which is long outdated (Cyrus is currently in the 2.1.x stable serie). As far as Cyrus is concerned, this book is outdated. And the example scripts where in TCL ... yuck !
For an explanation of IMAP, it is fine though.
What distibution do you recommend for this
Slackware. Rock solid, as Pat doesn't include anything he hasn't tested. (With the exception of security fixes, Slackware packages are typically 1-2 months behind the bleeding edge, to allow for testing.) If there is software you need that Slackware doesn't include, you can compile it and test it your self (see above), safe in the knowledge that everything else is OK.
---
Yeah, because a package tested for one or two months by a team of, what, three person is guaranteed to be rock-solid. They certainly can figure out all the corner-case and interaction to come out with a 100% bug-free distro !
This flame is not directed at Slackware in particuliar (which a fine distro by me), but toward your braindead sweeping assumption. Somebody else debunked your stupid compiler argument already so I won't touch this.
Before you hurt that guy, have you considered the posibility that this muirhead troll is impersonnating somebody else ? That the site linked belong to an innocent bystander ? That this email addy is not his, but someone else ?
And how much of the money you make goes into the hands of the original developer? After all, your bug fix doesn't put food on their table.
No, but they are welcome to do just as I do and use my work (or, more precisely, our collective work) to earn a living.
Well, for starters, have you entirely written off the consumer market?
Granted. I personnally don't think it is an interesting market anyway. If you plan on doing money selling software to the consumer market, you are in for a rough ride considering how the market is saturated.
However, I am sure it is possible to adapt the model to fit the consumer market. I don't have access to Transgaming financial report, but they seem to be doing ok selling a service to the consumer market while contributing all their work to OSS. More example could probably be found.
Your company may indeed benefit by selling services based on work originally done by other developers. IMHO, those developers made a mistake by choosing to give away their work so that your company can profit from it.
Why ?
Most of the change I make to OSS goes back into it, ripe for my competitor to use. I contribute back to OSS for pragmatic reason (forward compatibility, maintainability) but the result is the same : people can make use of my work, for free. I use other people's work, for free. Everybody benefit; that's how OSS have been doing for the past few decades.
I think you don't get the corporate culture. You may give away your work with good spirit, but when a publicly-traded multi-national corporation like IBM gives away work, it's as a result of a complex set of business decisions.
In the case of IBM, it's most likely part of a larger anti-Microsoft startegy.
If you believe that IBM is sharing code from some sort of sense of civic good will, you're mistaken...
This is irrevelant. The result is the same : I have access, for free, to code contributed by a big corporation. Wether they opened it by goodwill or a complex set of business decisions, I don't care.
As I see it, when coders are giving their work away for free for professional use by international companies, they are being had.
And if the little coder use code Open-Sourced by large corporation, is he "having" them ?
I think you don't get the gift culture. IBM use the little coder's code, the little coder use IBM code, everybody is happy about it ! That's the point of open-Source : sharing. It goes both way.
Charing for support is one of the popular ideas abouthow to make money from free software, but have you ever actually tried it?
Yes. That is how I am currently earning a living. My employer is a Linux integrator. Since mark-up on selling CSS is so ridiculously low, there is no point in generating profit for another business (the software manufacturer); you are better to work toward grabing a bigger chunk of the customer's money by selling service instead of license. In case you wonder, my employer is doing quite well : we are profitable, doubled the staff this year (we have lots of work) and I recently received a bonus.
The fact is, most support is of the getting-started variety. Do you expect those people to pay for support *before* they have their software working? Or do you help them get set up for free, after which they have little need for support?
Yes, a big chunk of the support is getting-started (actually, installation/customization). Yes, I expect customer to pay for installtion and customization and, yes, they do. If they would buy some shrink-wraped software, they would have to pay beforehand anyway (and probably pay somebody for the installation/customization too if it is anything non-trivial). You sell them a solution, they buy it. Is there more to it ?
And if somebody writes to ask: "hey, quick question" Do you reply, sorry, but that'll be $5 first.
Yes. Actually, you sell them a support contract. Some are incident-based, other are time-based ("hour bank"). I think time-based is preferable for both party, as it let the customer ask many little question for cheap, protect the integrator from nightmarish problem that pay only for an incident (it happen) and eliminiate fight over what constitute a single incident vs. many smaller one.
What exactly is so unusual about this business model ?
Obviously a troll, but let's bait for advocacy purpose
They want everything you can throw at them for free, but are unwilling to pay (even modest amounts) for support or customization.
False. I am earning a living supporting, customizing and integrating OSS. It's exactly the same thing as if we where selling CSS, except we don't charge for license (and often are able to charge more for service because of that). If your client are that cheap, write them off and concentrate your sales effort on better client.
If you have made this concept work, then please, for the love of Mike, explain to the rest of how you did it.
Business 101 :
... film at 11.
From the article: '...the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.'
This guy need to recognize that OSS are driven by their community needs, not the needs of some abstract average user.
In particular he argues that the choice of desktop between KDE, Gnome, IceWM etc, is not one that a former windows user, even a fairly technically competent one, is going to able to make an informed choice on, and that they should not be forced to make that choice in order to get good use out of any applications they might want to use."
Instead, they should be forced to use whatever was deemed correct by ... ?
The nice thing about OSS is that you can make it whatever you want. If a Linux distributor believe having a choice of DE hurt his potential market, he can solve the problem by bundling a single one with his distro. Case closed.
My question was not mooded up enough to be sent to Georgy, but I wuold love to know :
Where does she get the money for this camplaign ? Personnal saving ? Friends and parents ? Others ?
Download this security update.
Where's the Linux version ?
Who is funding your campaign ?
Why can't rpm figure out the next arg is a file (not a package with an illegal package name ending in .rpm) and assume the -p flag?
Hopefully not ! I don't want my software doing assumption about what I want to achieve, I want it to do exactly what it is being told.
First, is TFM is good, there is no excuse for not RTFM *before* asking question. Sometime, TFM is confusing; say so in your question and you will see people attitude change.
Turn the table around : most Linux user are genuinely helpful (or at least try to be). A lot of newbies are not necessarily so nice : they come in some Linux forum, bitch about how hard/ugly/broken it is, hold the whole Linux user base responsible for this, proceed to ask questions but can't be bothered to describe their problems in a clear and complete fashion and whine about how hard the solutions suggested are. This is notwithstanding the fact that his questions are being answered frequently and could be resolved with minimal searching.
I was frequenting a peer-support Linux forum recently. I rarely need help, but I figure a good way to advocate Linux would be to help make newbie's experience better. Although some user where nice and grateful for the help given, most where not particularly fun to help out (although not necessarly as excessive as describe in the previous paragraph). After a few months, I lost interest in this forum and got back to more "1337" forum where discussions were interesting and challenging.
Good newbie usually get good help from most Linux users.
You should use up2date to install software bundled with RedHat. For third-party rpms, you could try apt4rpm but you will still have to find a good repository (I suggest you have a look at freshrpms.net).
Well, the fat guy in penguin shirt biggest annoyance is probably hearing another newbie asking the same question that had been answered three time today, so it's a draw.
Please do your part and download the kernel source rpm from SCO ftp linked in the article.
... film at 11.
darkstar login