Red Hat has been given market share for free by the linux solutions providers (LSPs). While the LSPs have not paid Red Hat directly, the indirect effect is that now there are thousands of more Red Hat systems out there than other distros.
In one particular case, I'm aware of an LSP that has installed RHL on over 1000 of their customers's servers. They could have chosen SuSE, Debian, or Mandrake, and probably would have if they would have known about this change at Red Hat.
Up to this point, Red Hat has indirectly benefitted by gaining market share, and has directly benefitted by RHN subscriptions.
After this point, they will directly benefit around $349000/year for RHEL ES subscriptions from this one LSP alone. And you don't think the LSP deserves at least a commission check and a thank you for this, you must not beleive in fair enterprise.
How do you intend to recompense the many small, independent Linux solutions providers which you have now put in a terrible position?
These are the companies that for years have been informing their clients that Red Hat is the best; placing Red Hat Linux servers in their clients locations, providing installation and integration services, and then the follow-up technical support.
Now, their clients are hooked on Red Hat and are being forced to upgrade to a version whose technical support offerings/requirements effectively cut the Linux solutions providers off at the knees.
There are many other businesses who have that kind of ruthless reputation (SCO, Microsoft, etc). Does Red Hat plan on helping those who have helped them, or do they seek a similar reputation?
There is a small independent Linux company out there which guarentees they will apply security patches to your system within 48 hours.
This isn't an automated service, their techs actually login remotely, backup config files, install the patches, and test everything. It looks like it is priced for businesses.
My company uses these guys because we've had problems with up2date and similar automatic patching software in the past. We've lost configs, had apache and other daemons not restart, and have had lost log files as a result. But since this company has been patching our systems, our patches are always applied on time and our services have not been interrupted for more than a few minutes at the most.
The death of the ad hoc development style, or the saving grace? Nothing you mentioned seems like a big deal to me.
The setup will take time and money, sure. But it really isn't a big deal for anyone familiar with the process. I've setup similar things in the past, worked with the attorneys to get everything legal, etc. Like I said, I'm here waiting and wanting to help.
A few extra steps for each programmer to do isn't a big deal at all. I can see it now - right before you submit code, you login to a website and click here to accept the "Terms of Code Submission" that you can view in a tiny pop-up window. Included in the terms is what the lawyers figured out to make the submission safe for Linux - "I own this code, I didn't steal it, I didn't borrow it, and if I did, I am liable, blah blah blah". Done.
This step would take an extra few minutes for each programmer so they review the terms of their code submission. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if that is 100% the way to go, but I imagine that something similar would be fine. I mean, I purchase thousand dollar plus items on the Internet all the time with a click of a button. Why couldnt this be setup in a similar fashion? Any real lawyers out there ready to comment?
I bet most programmers wouldnt even read the "TOCS". I mean, everyone reads the "EULA" right? I'm sure something could be created that works for the overwhelming majority of code contributors. The maintenence of this system wouldn't be too big of a deal either. Its all about building a system, and a system for maintaining it.
This is what I can donate (Im pretty sure I wont be taken seriously, but I am dead serious): I can donate webspace (100GB on a 45 mbps DS-3, running RH9.0), time (as many hours as needed), money for attorneys fees (up to five thousand US dollars), and energy (all that I have) if the community is willing to help implement a system like this.
I cant do it myself, but I want to help Has anyone started a project to get this going? Can someone point me in the direction of how I can help?
If nothing exists so far....wow...time to register a new domain name.. done
Listen close. IP law exists. You don't want it to, but it does. Probably because you don't have any that could make you millions of dollars if you had it.
You want the system to change, awesome - start making change happen. But don't ignore the systems that exist today, because only through those systems can change take place. Having fantasies about a complete overhaul in IP law are great, but the reality of today is what we live in. Deal with it, or move to Mars, or shut up.
Mcbride is totally correct in stating that Linux (and all open source projects) needs to overhaul the way in which code is accepted.
Its not hard to change the process in order to completely avoid this in the future. In fact, its trivial. But the blatant refusal of the community to even consider this is dissapointing and reflects a lack of professionalism and due diligence which every engineer should have inherent in their soul. I will happily donate my time, energy, and money into helping to change the development process to make this work.
We don't want "stolen" or "borrowed" code in Linux. First of all, its probably not as good as we could make it anyways. Second of all, it opens up a door for money hungry, nearing bankruptcy companies to start sueing people.
Shut the door forever, and poor ten feet of reinforced concrete over it, or be prepared to fight this battle. Linus, ESR, I hope you're paying attention here. Because it is very clear that SCO will not be the last company to do this; and if IP protection is not considered, and implemented as part of the standard development process, we'll be fighting this battle until it is. And unfortunately, we might not win. Or we might win, and just loose all our credibility and positive momentum in the process (meaning we lose).
You think I'm wrong? Great. The first stage in change is denial, then resistance. The open source community must accept the reality of IP law of today, or we will fade into obscurity. This means we must change, and change quickly and efficiently. I'm tired of waiting for people to realize that if Linux wants to be in the game, it must play by the rules. Not the rules that it wants, but the rules that it must follow.
And stop complaining, flaming, and wasting each others time. The world is good! Linux is good! Taking a few brain cycles to stop this shit from happening forever is well worth the investment.
My company has hired a small independent Linux technical support provider to help with this.. They have a service where they create patches and updates for RH 6.2-8.0 when new security vulnerabilities are out. They test them, package them as RPM, and distribute. So when 12/31/2003 comes around, you don't have to upgrade to 9.0 if it isn't feasible.
Its kind of expensive and may not work for everyone, but its worth a look:
In this economy when the "big" Linux players are worried about the "big" issues, I prefer working with a smaller company like these guys because they work harder to make their mark.
I was in a situation once where "upper" management gave orders to lay off four members of my team. I didn't think it was fair, reasonable, or a good idea for the company and I let them know about it. I fought for three days to keep my staff. Ultimately, I was able to work out an arrangement where two people were put into an "early-retiremeny" program, and only one person had to be laid off.
Contrary to popular beleif, having the responsibility of firing or laying someone off is a huge burden. Let me just say, that after this all went down I spent many hours helping this individual find a new job on my personal time. Not because I had to, because I felt obligated to help him out because of how many times he had helped me out at work in the past.
You see, the employee-manager relationship is just like any human relationship. Employees who do the minimum amount will receive the minimum amount of payment, respect, favors, and growth opportunities. Employees who do everything they can, and actually care about the quality of their work, will receive the maximum amount of payment, respect, favors, and growth opportunities.
The end result? I was promoted because I stuck to what I beleived in and wouldn't accept the status quo. My team saw the end result of my actions and worked much harder and had more synergy than ever afterwards, leading to very prosperous times.
I will not hire employees now that have the "Im going to do the minimum amount of work" attitude. We only hire winners. At-leasters and losers can go on welfare or unemployment for all I care.
Slashdot Mirror
"SCO will remain on course to require customers to license infringing Linux implementations as a condition of further use." 8/7/2003
Red Hat has been given market share for free by the linux solutions providers (LSPs). While the LSPs have not paid Red Hat directly, the indirect effect is that now there are thousands of more Red Hat systems out there than other distros.
In one particular case, I'm aware of an LSP that has installed RHL on over 1000 of their customers's servers. They could have chosen SuSE, Debian, or Mandrake, and probably would have if they would have known about this change at Red Hat.
Up to this point, Red Hat has indirectly benefitted by gaining market share, and has directly benefitted by RHN subscriptions.
After this point, they will directly benefit around $349000/year for RHEL ES subscriptions from this one LSP alone. And you don't think the LSP deserves at least a commission check and a thank you for this, you must not beleive in fair enterprise.
Mr. Szulik,
How do you intend to recompense the many small, independent Linux solutions providers which you have now put in a terrible position?
These are the companies that for years have been informing their clients that Red Hat is the best; placing Red Hat Linux servers in their clients locations, providing installation and integration services, and then the follow-up technical support.
Now, their clients are hooked on Red Hat and are being forced to upgrade to a version whose technical support offerings/requirements effectively cut the Linux solutions providers off at the knees.
There are many other businesses who have that kind of ruthless reputation (SCO, Microsoft, etc). Does Red Hat plan on helping those who have helped them, or do they seek a similar reputation?
Cheers.
There is a small independent Linux company out there which guarentees they will apply security patches to your system within 48 hours.
This isn't an automated service, their techs actually login remotely, backup config files, install the patches, and test everything.
It looks like it is priced for businesses.
My company uses these guys because we've had problems with up2date and similar automatic patching software in the past. We've lost configs, had apache and other daemons not restart, and have had lost log files as a result. But since this company has been patching our systems, our patches are always applied on time and our services have not been interrupted for more than a few minutes at the most.
The death of the ad hoc development style, or the saving grace? Nothing you mentioned seems like a big deal to me.
The setup will take time and money, sure. But it really isn't a big deal for anyone familiar with the process. I've setup similar things in the past, worked with the attorneys to get everything legal, etc. Like I said, I'm here waiting and wanting to help.
A few extra steps for each programmer to do isn't a big deal at all. I can see it now - right before you submit code, you login to a website and click here to accept the "Terms of Code Submission" that you can view in a tiny pop-up window. Included in the terms is what the lawyers figured out to make the submission safe for Linux - "I own this code, I didn't steal it, I didn't borrow it, and if I did, I am liable, blah blah blah". Done.
This step would take an extra few minutes for each programmer so they review the terms of their code submission. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if that is 100% the way to go, but I imagine that something similar would be fine. I mean, I purchase thousand dollar plus items on the Internet all the time with a click of a button. Why couldnt this be setup in a similar fashion? Any real lawyers out there ready to comment?
I bet most programmers wouldnt even read the "TOCS". I mean, everyone reads the "EULA" right? I'm sure something could be created that works for the overwhelming majority of code contributors. The maintenence of this system wouldn't be too big of a deal either. Its all about building a system, and a system for maintaining it.
This is what I can donate (Im pretty sure I wont be taken seriously, but I am dead serious): I can donate webspace (100GB on a 45 mbps DS-3, running RH9.0), time (as many hours as needed), money for attorneys fees (up to five thousand US dollars), and energy (all that I have) if the community is willing to help implement a system like this.
I cant do it myself, but I want to help Has anyone started a project to get this going? Can someone point me in the direction of how I can help?
If nothing exists so far....wow...time to register a new domain name.. done
http://opensourceforever.com
Listen close. IP law exists. You don't want it to, but it does. Probably because you don't have any that could make you millions of dollars if you had it.
You want the system to change, awesome - start making change happen. But don't ignore the systems that exist today, because only through those systems can change take place. Having fantasies about a complete overhaul in IP law are great, but the reality of today is what we live in. Deal with it, or move to Mars, or shut up.
Mcbride is totally correct in stating that Linux (and all open source projects) needs to overhaul the way in which code is accepted.
Its not hard to change the process in order to completely avoid this in the future. In fact, its trivial. But the blatant refusal of the community to even consider this is dissapointing and reflects a lack of professionalism and due diligence which every engineer should have inherent in their soul. I will happily donate my time, energy, and money into helping to change the development process to make this work.
We don't want "stolen" or "borrowed" code in Linux. First of all, its probably not as good as we could make it anyways. Second of all, it opens up a door for money hungry, nearing bankruptcy companies to start sueing people.
Shut the door forever, and poor ten feet of reinforced concrete over it, or be prepared to fight this battle. Linus, ESR, I hope you're paying attention here. Because it is very clear that SCO will not be the last company to do this; and if IP protection is not considered, and implemented as part of the standard development process, we'll be fighting this battle until it is. And unfortunately, we might not win. Or we might win, and just loose all our credibility and positive momentum in the process (meaning we lose).
You think I'm wrong? Great. The first stage in change is denial, then resistance. The open source community must accept the reality of IP law of today, or we will fade into obscurity. This means we must change, and change quickly and efficiently. I'm tired of waiting for people to realize that if Linux wants to be in the game, it must play by the rules. Not the rules that it wants, but the rules that it must follow.
And stop complaining, flaming, and wasting each others time. The world is good! Linux is good! Taking a few brain cycles to stop this shit from happening forever is well worth the investment.
My company has hired a small independent Linux technical support provider to help with this.. They have a service where they create patches and updates for RH 6.2-8.0 when new security vulnerabilities are out. They test them, package them as RPM, and distribute. So when 12/31/2003 comes around, you don't have to upgrade to 9.0 if it isn't feasible.
Its kind of expensive and may not work for everyone, but its worth a look:
http://www.pantek.com/linux.php?subsect=rhupdates
In this economy when the "big" Linux players are worried about the "big" issues, I prefer working with a smaller company like these guys because they work harder to make their mark.
I was in a situation once where "upper" management gave orders to lay off four members of my team. I didn't think it was fair, reasonable, or a good idea for the company and I let them know about it. I fought for three days to keep my staff. Ultimately, I was able to work out an arrangement where two people were put into an "early-retiremeny" program, and only one person had to be laid off. Contrary to popular beleif, having the responsibility of firing or laying someone off is a huge burden. Let me just say, that after this all went down I spent many hours helping this individual find a new job on my personal time. Not because I had to, because I felt obligated to help him out because of how many times he had helped me out at work in the past. You see, the employee-manager relationship is just like any human relationship. Employees who do the minimum amount will receive the minimum amount of payment, respect, favors, and growth opportunities. Employees who do everything they can, and actually care about the quality of their work, will receive the maximum amount of payment, respect, favors, and growth opportunities. The end result? I was promoted because I stuck to what I beleived in and wouldn't accept the status quo. My team saw the end result of my actions and worked much harder and had more synergy than ever afterwards, leading to very prosperous times. I will not hire employees now that have the "Im going to do the minimum amount of work" attitude. We only hire winners. At-leasters and losers can go on welfare or unemployment for all I care.