Re:Where does the name red hat comes from?
on
Ask Robert Young
·
· Score: 2
It was Mark Ewing's (co-founder of RedHat) lacrosse cap
Loosening the golden ring from Microsoft's grasp
on
Ask Robert Young
·
· Score: 3
This is the same question I asked Doug Miller of Microsoft:
When Compaq (later followed by others) loosened
the GoldenRing from IBM's grasp by reverse engineering theirproprietary bios,
theOpen Hardware PC platform revolution was ignited.Motherboards, memory,
adapter cards, etc... could be made byanybody; hardwareinnovation increased
at a rapid pace, and prices plummeted.
That left only two proprietary pieces atop the
Open HardwarePC: the Intel CPU and the Microsoft OS.
Intel's been losing ground, especially with clone
maker AMD(but, AMD still has to pay Intel royalties for every cloneprocessor).
The OS, though, has proven tough to emulate.
Not only doesit reach the pinnacle of complexity (where chaos kicks in),but
any emulatormust chase Microsoft's tail: the emulation will be worthlesscome
Microsoft's next OS patch (i.e. the DRDOS settlement).
In Judge Jackson's findings in the Microsoft Antitrust case, he concluded
that Linux is not positioned to overtake Windows, because it isn't Windows
compatible.People won't switch because
of the training costs and potential for incompatibility with their existing
data.
Personally, I believe Open Source is a software revolution, just on a
different tangent from the average user. In order to win over the average
user: they don't just need a great desktop, they need full Windows compatibility.
How will Open Source lure the average user from Windows?
The model around Linux is truly bizarre. How
much do RedHat or Calderareally make from selling their distributions? It
seems not very much. Soin order for them to survive they rely on selling
proprietary software,support, services, books, tee shirts, penguins etc.
Not a veryrevolutionary business, but in the end they must sell something
if theywant to survive.
In general, Microsoft is touting the position that Linux companies will
not survive much longer.
Doug: We definitely take Linux very seriously....But looking
at Linux technically, there is no real revolution here. Linux looks and
feels like UNIX and isn't any better than a commercial version of UNIX....Linux is "free" and you can get the source. Again, I don't see
a major revolution here. The BSD operating system has been free for more
than 20 years...
So, there's no revolution here (times two), and Linux is as bad as every
other Unix!
If they really believed this, then why would they take Linux seriuosly?
Read between the lines: We take Linux seriously, so we've come up with
this FUD.
There are a lot of areas where Open Source is not a revolution.
For example, Linux uses assignment statements throughout the kernel code...
there's no revolution there;)
In the end, it all comes down to solving customers' problems and
there is nothing revolutionary about that.
How Open Source accomplishes this is revolutionary.
>All that crap about standards and other companies extending them is
pure bullshit.
I actually agree with Mr. Miller on this point.
"Unix consortiums" are comprised of vendors saying they desire a standard,
while simultaneously thinking how they will subvert the standard to their
benefit. They smile and shake with one hand, while using the other
hand to shove the knife in.
Microsoft likes to refer to this as "The Balkanization of Unix".
It all boils down to: their bottom-lines are at stake, and in the current
software paradigm, the victor is the vendor who can best lock their customers
into their proprietary software.
The "proprietary lock-in" means, in order to change software, customers are
going to go through an expensive learning curve (and all learning looks threatening
from the uneducated side), and the prospect that existing data might not
convert correctly (marketing hype), an incalculable loss.
Microsoft does the "proprietary lock-in" best: they can integrate their applications
with the OS using unexposed API's. No applications vendor can compete
with MS on the MS OS. They just chase MS's tail until they go bankrupt.
Microsoft's high level of integration is a two edged sword: when the application
goes berserk, it takes the OS down with it.
But, the Unix vendors play this game too. Just not as well.
Open Source, without the profit motive on the individual components and with
intense peer review, creates standards that are robust and can easily be
complied with (you can see the source).
If the applications vendors (and the customers) would move to Open Source
based distributions, then the paradigm would shift and they could compete
on the merits of their product, not the fear they can instill in customers.
>It is absolutely necessary that Linux be built on one graphical environment?
Of course not. That's the beauty of competition. And for Open
Source, it means they can legally steal each other's code if one of them
does something really well.
Open source is the only way to bring about competition in software.
The training curve is expensive. That's the "proprietary lock-in" at work.
If automobiles were this way, you'd have to completely relearn how to drive on a completely different road system if you wanted to switch from Ford to Chevy.
>"any emulator must chase [the thing they're emulating]'s tail" ? WHOA, STOP THE PRESSES!!"
You may have missed the point...
Open Source has the potential to revolutionize the PC as Open hardware did... but not being a Windows emulation is holding it back, and, as you admit, there will probably never be a good Windows emulation. The question was: can the revolution occur anyway? It was not "emulations suck".
Sorry for ranting about moderation. I don't like moderation whiners any more than you do, but I think the moderation behavior here was a cheap trick.
The moderator moderated down an "interview question" post after it had fallen off of the/. front page... since the moderation maxes out at five, such behavior becomes a way to manipulate the/. community decision. Had this moderator marked the post as "overrated" while it was still in the main view, then other's might have thought to moderate the post back up. Having waited a few days for his attack, that moderator's decision becomes final, and the question won't get asked to the fellow being interviewed. A cheap trick, in this situation.
If it were a normal slashdot article (not the questions for a future interview), moderating down a post a few days later would have been meaningless.
I do respect your right to voice your opinion and moderate it down further;)
I wrote a really scathing question for MS exec Doug Miller that got moderated up to 5, then, after it had disappeared from the/. front page, Bill/Taco knocked it down a point.
My brother, who works as a SysAdmin at a hospital, says they used to pay for 200 licences
of Word, covering the number of copies of Word being served by their Citrix
servers at any one time. Microsoft recently changed the license agreement (which
it can do), and now they have to buy over 1000 licences, to cover each terminal
that might run Word. Furthermore, Microsoft has informed the hospital
that in a few years the license will change again: they will need a license
for every employee that might use Word on a terminal.
(I submitted this InternetWeek story yesterday morning and it was rejected. How come it's accepted a day late?)
As you say in your autobiography, you too were a victim of bullies in school, yet you didn't commit suicide. While being bullied was depressing, and you probably thought of suicide, you were never depressed enough to commit suicide.
We've come to realize that mental illness, including depression, is genetic, not environmental, and we have a large number of drugs that can help... but not for kids.
There will be a "Frontline" on PBS this month that will detail kids being given these drugs that have only been tested on adults.
I'm not sure what "Frontline" will say, but I'm sure it will be thought provoking.
My feeling is, I don't care how untested the drug is, if your kid is clinically depressed, get the drugs.
I wish you were right. It would be great if an Intel clone maker could get out from under Intel's IP grip (wait... Transmeta does an emulation that's supposed to do just that).
Anyway, I believe Intel's got parts of their x86 instruction set patented -- if you implement those instructions, you pay Intel.
You are correct that the old license agreement ended last year, and AMD is not currently paying Intel. The problem is: they have not yet negotiated a new agreement:
"
Our current patent license agreement with Intel expired at
the end of 2000. We are currently negotiating a new agreement with Intel
but there can be no assurance that a new agreement will be successfully negotiated.
The lack of a patent cross-license with Intel could lead to expensive and
time- consuming litigation the outcomes of which could have a material effect
on our business."
I would think someone in charge of "interoperability" at Microsoft would be akin to the guy at the NRA whose job it is to promote new gun control legislation.
Software has traditionally been a 1-player game: the "proprietary lock-in" (using proprietary formats, protocols, and standards to assure incompatibility) captures customers in the vendors grasp. It's not just Microsoft's game, the Unix vendors play too (not as well). Once a customer is hooked, they have to stay with that vendor; switching software risks loosing old data, and requires a steep/expensive learning curve. As if once you bought a Ford, you'd always have to buy a Ford (or have to completely relearn how to drive on a totally new road system). Open Source has the promise to allow true competition in software, not allowing any vendors' proprietary protocols, standards, or formats (at least with the foundation of the distribution).
This "interoperability" could be an attempt to show the Justice Department that Microsoft is committed to competition.
Then again, it could a ruse to throw the Justice Department off your trail.
When I think of other "interoperability" attempts at Microsoft (i.e. Posix and Streams compliance), it was really a bait-and-switch tactic: Microsoft produced half-baked software in order to lure unix-based customers with the promise of NT compatibility. Once the customers were committed, they found that the "compatibility" was nonexistent, and they had to hurriedly switch to Microsoft proprietary API's in order to cover their poor decision to switch to Microsoft.
So, are you:
making Microsoft look like it promotes competition, or,
When Compaq (later followed by others) loosened the Golden Ring from IBM's grasp by reverse engineering their proprietary bios, the Open Hardware PC platform revolution was ignited. Motherboards, memory, adapter cards, etc... could be made by anybody; hardware innovation increased at a rapid pace, and prices plummeted.
That left only two proprietary pieces atop the Open Hardware PC: the Intel CPU and the Microsoft OS.
Intel's been loosing ground, especially with clone maker AMD (but, AMD still has to pay Intel royalties for every clone processor).
The OS, though, has proven tough to emulate. Not only does it reach the pinnacle of complexity (where chaos kicks in), but any emulator must chase Microsoft's tail: the emulation will be worthless come Microsoft's next OS patch (i.e. the DRDOS settlement).
Ballmer has recently stated that he thinks Linux is Microsoft's biggest potential competitor.
Could Open Source be a revolution similar to the PC Open Hardware
revolution of the early 80's, bringing true competition and innovation to PC software, or is Ballmer's statement just a ruse?
>"True, that doesn't include setting up every imaginable now-defunct company's mysterious hardware"
I absolutely agree with you. Most users install Linux an an old machine to try it out, and then complain that the installation of Linux is a nightmare.
It's not, it's just a warped view. Linux typically gets installed on old equipment starting with another OS installed, while Windows comes pre-installed or upgraded on a machine already running Windows.
I can install Linux quickly on x86 machines that would never install Windows (for example, my laptop has neither a floppy drive nor a CD -- but I was able to install Linux).
I've got a machine (currently catching dust) that my brother-in-law wants to give to his brother once I install Windows on it -- but I can't find a DOS based CDROM driver for this old machine so I can start the installation. I could have this thing running as an xterminal in my house in under five minutes.
But, my point is, Linux gets a bad rap that's not justifiable -- Windows is harder to install, and, as the article points out, is getting worse.
Slashdot Mirror
He'll say:
On the advice of counsel, I cannot comment on pending litigation.
At least you were able to vent.
I was dismayed to see you and Mark step aside and let the new-hires (or new-acquires?) take control of the company.
What have been the good and bad effects of the new management?
Please proceed with this wonderful idea...
Utah's crown for "cold fusion capitol of the world" could move to Hawaii!
>You blew it when you claimed that Compaq reverse engineered the IBM Bios
See part II of "Triumph ofthe Nerds" for an accurate history... search the transcript for "Compaq".
It was Mark Ewing's (co-founder of RedHat) lacrosse cap
This is the same question I asked Doug Miller of Microsoft:
When Compaq (later followed by others) loosened the GoldenRing from IBM's grasp by reverse engineering theirproprietary bios, theOpen Hardware PC platform revolution was ignited.Motherboards, memory, adapter cards, etc... could be made byanybody; hardwareinnovation increased at a rapid pace, and prices plummeted.
That left only two proprietary pieces atop the Open HardwarePC: the Intel CPU and the Microsoft OS.
Intel's been losing ground, especially with clone maker AMD(but, AMD still has to pay Intel royalties for every cloneprocessor).
The OS, though, has proven tough to emulate. Not only doesit reach the pinnacle of complexity (where chaos kicks in),but any emulatormust chase Microsoft's tail: the emulation will be worthlesscome Microsoft's next OS patch (i.e. the DRDOS settlement).
In Judge Jackson's findings in the Microsoft Antitrust case, he concluded that Linux is not positioned to overtake Windows, because it isn't Windows compatible.People won't switch because of the training costs and potential for incompatibility with their existing data.
Personally, I believe Open Source is a software revolution, just on a different tangent from the average user. In order to win over the average user: they don't just need a great desktop, they need full Windows compatibility.
How will Open Source lure the average user from Windows?
The model around Linux is truly bizarre. How much do RedHat or Calderareally make from selling their distributions? It seems not very much. Soin order for them to survive they rely on selling proprietary software,support, services, books, tee shirts, penguins etc. Not a veryrevolutionary business, but in the end they must sell something if theywant to survive.
In general, Microsoft is touting the position that Linux companies will not survive much longer.
Any rebuttal?
So, there's no revolution here (times two), and Linux is as bad as every other Unix!
If they really believed this, then why would they take Linux seriuosly?
Read between the lines: We take Linux seriously, so we've come up with this FUD.
There are a lot of areas where Open Source is not a revolution. For example, Linux uses assignment statements throughout the kernel code... there's no revolution there ;)
In the end, it all comes down to solving customers' problems and there is nothing revolutionary about that.
How Open Source accomplishes this is revolutionary.
Thanks, Doug, for insight into MS's FUD!
>All that crap about standards and other companies extending them is pure bullshit.
I actually agree with Mr. Miller on this point.
"Unix consortiums" are comprised of vendors saying they desire a standard, while simultaneously thinking how they will subvert the standard to their benefit. They smile and shake with one hand, while using the other hand to shove the knife in.
Microsoft likes to refer to this as "The Balkanization of Unix".
It all boils down to: their bottom-lines are at stake, and in the current software paradigm, the victor is the vendor who can best lock their customers into their proprietary software.
The "proprietary lock-in" means, in order to change software, customers are going to go through an expensive learning curve (and all learning looks threatening from the uneducated side), and the prospect that existing data might not convert correctly (marketing hype), an incalculable loss.
Microsoft does the "proprietary lock-in" best: they can integrate their applications with the OS using unexposed API's. No applications vendor can compete with MS on the MS OS. They just chase MS's tail until they go bankrupt. Microsoft's high level of integration is a two edged sword: when the application goes berserk, it takes the OS down with it.
But, the Unix vendors play this game too. Just not as well.
Open Source, without the profit motive on the individual components and with intense peer review, creates standards that are robust and can easily be complied with (you can see the source).
If the applications vendors (and the customers) would move to Open Source based distributions, then the paradigm would shift and they could compete on the merits of their product, not the fear they can instill in customers.
>It is absolutely necessary that Linux be built on one graphical environment?
Of course not. That's the beauty of competition. And for Open Source, it means they can legally steal each other's code if one of them does something really well.
Open source is the only way to bring about competition in software.
>IBM actually published the info about their bios. Since when is reading a book reverse engineering?
See part II of "Triumph ofthe Nerds" for an accurate history... search the transcript for "Compaq".
>"...if I had another person constantly looking over my shoulder, it would drive me insane.
This used to be referred to as a micro-managing boss!
The training curve is expensive. That's the "proprietary lock-in" at work.
If automobiles were this way, you'd have to completely relearn how to drive on a completely different road system if you wanted to switch from Ford to Chevy.
>"any emulator must chase [the thing they're emulating]'s tail" ? WHOA, STOP THE PRESSES!!"
/. front page... since the moderation maxes out at five, such behavior becomes a way to manipulate the /. community decision. Had this moderator marked the post as "overrated" while it was still in the main view, then other's might have thought to moderate the post back up. Having waited a few days for his attack, that moderator's decision becomes final, and the question won't get asked to the fellow being interviewed. A cheap trick, in this situation.
;)
You may have missed the point...
Open Source has the potential to revolutionize the PC as Open hardware did... but not being a Windows emulation is holding it back, and, as you admit, there will probably never be a good Windows emulation. The question was: can the revolution occur anyway? It was not "emulations suck".
Sorry for ranting about moderation. I don't like moderation whiners any more than you do, but I think the moderation behavior here was a cheap trick.
The moderator moderated down an "interview question" post after it had fallen off of the
If it were a normal slashdot article (not the questions for a future interview), moderating down a post a few days later would have been meaningless.
I do respect your right to voice your opinion and moderate it down further
"it's clear to me that CmdrTaco == Bill Gates"
/. front page, Bill/Taco knocked it down a point.
That explains a lot.
I wrote a really scathing question for MS exec Doug Miller that got moderated up to 5, then,
after it had disappeared from the
My brother, who works as a SysAdmin at a hospital, says they used to pay for 200 licences of Word, covering the number of copies of Word being served by their Citrix servers at any one time. Microsoft recently changed the license agreement (which it can do), and now they have to buy over 1000 licences, to cover each terminal that might run Word. Furthermore, Microsoft has informed the hospital that in a few years the license will change again: they will need a license for every employee that might use Word on a terminal.
(I submitted this InternetWeek story yesterday morning and it was rejected. How come it's accepted a day late?)
Who's the ass that goes around moderating these as "overrated" after they've dropped off from /. visibility!
/.?
/. front page?
Does Microsoft have some shills at
Doesn't this coward moderator have the balls to do this while it's still on the
Jon,
As you say in your autobiography, you too were a victim of bullies in school, yet you didn't commit suicide. While being bullied was depressing, and you probably thought of suicide, you were never depressed enough to commit suicide.
We've come to realize that mental illness, including depression, is genetic, not environmental, and we have a large number of drugs that can help... but not for kids.
There will be a "Frontline" on PBS this month that will detail kids being given these drugs that have only been tested on adults.
I'm not sure what "Frontline" will say, but I'm sure it will be thought provoking.
My feeling is, I don't care how untested the drug is, if your kid is clinically depressed, get the drugs.
I always thought that the litmus test for responsibility and free speech was exemplified by "yelling fire in a crowded theater".
You're not physically harming anyone, or telling people to trample one another, yet you are responsible for the consequences.
These people have done the same, yet they are not held responsible?
Anyway, I believe Intel's got parts of their x86 instruction set patented -- if you implement those instructions, you pay Intel.
You are correct that the old license agreement ended last year, and AMD is not currently paying Intel. The problem is: they have not yet negotiated a new agreement:
source
The subject was supposed to be:
"Loosening the Golden Ring from Microsoft's fist?"
English is not my native language, but it's the only language I know.
I would think someone in charge of "interoperability" at Microsoft would be akin to the guy at the NRA whose job it is to promote new gun control legislation.
Software has traditionally been a 1-player game: the "proprietary lock-in" (using proprietary formats, protocols, and standards to assure incompatibility) captures customers in the vendors grasp. It's not just Microsoft's game, the Unix vendors play too (not as well). Once a customer is hooked, they have to stay with that vendor; switching software risks loosing old data, and requires a steep/expensive learning curve. As if once you bought a Ford, you'd always have to buy a Ford (or have to completely relearn how to drive on a totally new road system). Open Source has the promise to allow true competition in software, not allowing any vendors' proprietary protocols, standards, or formats (at least with the foundation of the distribution).
This "interoperability" could be an attempt to show the Justice Department that Microsoft is committed to competition.
Then again, it could a ruse to throw the Justice Department off your trail.
When I think of other "interoperability" attempts at Microsoft (i.e. Posix and Streams compliance), it was really a bait-and-switch tactic: Microsoft produced half-baked software in order to lure unix-based customers with the promise of NT compatibility. Once the customers were committed, they found that the "compatibility" was nonexistent, and they had to hurriedly switch to Microsoft proprietary API's in order to cover their poor decision to switch to Microsoft.
So, are you:
making Microsoft look like it promotes competition, or,
part of the bait-and-switch team?
When Compaq (later followed by others) loosened the Golden Ring from IBM's grasp by reverse engineering their proprietary bios, the Open Hardware PC platform revolution was ignited. Motherboards, memory, adapter cards, etc... could be made by anybody; hardware innovation increased at a rapid pace, and prices plummeted.
That left only two proprietary pieces atop the Open Hardware PC: the Intel CPU and the Microsoft OS.
Intel's been loosing ground, especially with clone maker AMD (but, AMD still has to pay Intel royalties for every clone processor).
The OS, though, has proven tough to emulate. Not only does it reach the pinnacle of complexity (where chaos kicks in), but any emulator must chase Microsoft's tail: the emulation will be worthless come Microsoft's next OS patch (i.e. the DRDOS settlement).
Ballmer has recently stated that he thinks Linux is Microsoft's biggest potential competitor.
Could Open Source be a revolution similar to the PC Open Hardware
revolution of the early 80's, bringing true competition and innovation to PC software, or is Ballmer's statement just a ruse?
>"True, that doesn't include setting up every imaginable now-defunct company's mysterious hardware"
I absolutely agree with you. Most users install Linux an an old machine to try it out, and then complain that the installation of Linux is a nightmare.
It's not, it's just a warped view. Linux typically gets installed on old equipment starting with another OS installed, while Windows comes pre-installed or upgraded on a machine already running Windows.
I can install Linux quickly on x86 machines that would never install Windows (for example, my laptop has neither a floppy drive nor a CD -- but I was able to install Linux).
I've got a machine (currently catching dust) that my brother-in-law wants to give to his brother once I install Windows on it -- but I can't find a DOS based CDROM driver for this old machine so I can start the installation. I could have this thing running as an xterminal in my house in under five minutes.
But, my point is, Linux gets a bad rap that's not justifiable -- Windows is harder to install, and, as the article points out, is getting worse.
The moderation on slashdot is worse than merely people choosing not to moderate.
The moderation system is corrupted through moderating by viewpoint rather than content.