Elektroschock:
That articulates your concerns much more clearly. Thanks. I don't expect to change your opinion, but perhaps I can provide insight into how and why Novell operates the way it does. I speak here from my personal perspective, and not as a cannonical voice.
* Friedman presented the 3d Desktop, Novell developed it in a closed manner.
If I understand it correctly, Xgl/Compiz was originally being developed in open source. David Reveman, the maintainer of Xgl and Compiz, has reported to me that he had few if any significant contributors. When Nat Friedman hired him into Novell, asking him to him focus on getting it working well enough for our enterprise desktop, Reveman brought his work in-house so that he could get it to a proof-of-concept state. If I remember correctly, the project went dark for about 3 or 4 months. In January of 2006, Novell released the much improved code back into open source, allowing community contributions on a very stable codebase ever since.
On the code's re-release, it was quickly snatched up by other distributions, such as Gentoo and Ubuntu.
* They gave Gnome an artifical competitive advantage
Reveman needed to prove the code on something. Maybe he prefers to use GNOME? Also, he was working on the code for a product that would concentrate on GNOME functionality (SLED10, which is not GNOME exclusive, but its features certainly emphasize GNOME.)
- Xgl itself favors niether GNOME nor KDE. It's an X server.
- Compiz stores settings in Gconf. That shows GNOME bias. However, Compiz works well under KDE.
- The window-decorator that ships with Compiz is a GNOME component (gnome-window-decorator). It works under KDE, but dresses KDE windows so that they look GNOME-tainted. There is a thread on a decorator for KDE here.
* They did it as a Novell showcase.
Yes, Novell did do that. Since that time, many adherents of distros like Ubuntu and Gentoo have come up to me at various regional Linux shows I go to, and told me that they really love what Novell has done with Xgl/Compiz. Without the hooplah, would anyone give Novell any credit for bootstrapping the project?
At Socal Linux Expo last year, I listened extensively to Aaron Seigo (Trolltech employee and KDE visionary) give me his analysis about Novell's behavior on this episode, as well as the Hula announcement. (Aaron shares some of your views on how Novell conducts itself on things like this.) I learned a lot from Aaron, and I hope to be able to go to aKademy and catch up with him there.
Having heard Aaron out, I crossexamined some of the principles within Novell about the Xgl announcement. I'm inclined to think that Novell's approach on this may not have been ideal, but also that a few people drastically overstate its negative repercussions relative to the number of contributions that were submitted before (and while) Xgl development briefly went in-house.
Finally, is it really so reprehensible that Novell--a publicly-held, for-profit corporation--wants to show off cool stuff that we produce? Like open source developers, companies that work in open source thrive in part on showing their technological prowess. The effects that Compiz makes possible have given a huge boost to desktop Linux and the potential of open source software, for which fair recognition should be attributed.
Yes, we start some of our projects in-house. Yes, we take opportunities to make headlines when we can. Would it be better for Novell to quietly announce unbaked ideas without usable code on which people can start hacking?
My colleague Richard Guenther from the GCC team has requested a correction.
I said: "Novell employees the team that maintains GCC, which is a 100% upstream contribution the GNU toolchain, and yields zero competitive advantage to Novell."
My mistake was that Novell does not house the actual GCC maintainers. It should read: "Novell employees a teams to contribute to GCC, which is an upstream contribution the GNU toolchain and yields little competitive advantage to Novell."
--Ted
I have had a couple conversations that have expressed a similar reasons for not liking Friedman, but contorting facts in order to express your concerns about Friedman is inappropriate.
"Novell presented a new menu for Gnome. It is really ugly..."
It's also optional.
"Friedman wanted to advance the show and the worst case is that XGL survives and we will have AIGLX and XGL in parallel....Be sure Novell will standardise on XGL..."
Your claim is incorrect. In fact, I recently interviewed Friedman at LinuxWorld in San Francisco, where he actually commented in the interview that Xgl is not the term we use because we may well switch over to AIGLX. Compiz is where all the cool stuff is, which is why SLED10 uses the name "Desktop Effects."
"What's wrong with this picture?"
Maybe you're looking through dirty lenses?:)
SLED10 is far from proprietary. I posted an update on my blog about this mischaracterization. I'm hoping that you will be willing to read it and reconsider.
Thanks for your input on my post, and the "right way to go" props.
Regarding the updater, indeed that was the piece in question. Patches have been put out, and it's performing well now. But negative publicity on it continues. >sigh
Not sure about the change on the Xgl keybinding. If you use the mouse wheel to zoom in, then you only need to hold the "super" key in order to pan about. Probably you already know that.:)
Several people have commented on SLED being proprietary. Amid this firebranding, I ask you to consider some details about SLED, SUSE, and Novell.
1. Open Source
SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop was developed in open source. It includes a couple pieces of proprietary software from partner companies, such as the Macromedia Flash plugin for Firefox, RealPlayer, and Adobe Reader. It includes no proprietary kernel modules. Andreas Jaeger recently posted on SUSE's policy here. Novell includes a couple proprietary packages developed at Novell on the SLED10 media, but they do not install by default, and are all related to integrating with enterprise infrastructural services (already-deployed Novell enterprise systems).
2. Free Software, but Not Free Updates
SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop is fully functional free software. It does not require any kind of license key. However, Novell hopes to make revenue on the software update service, as well as enterprise support, consulting, training, and other services. The activation keys activate the update service for one year. (Clever winners of the 50 1-year activations that we are giving away might extend that a bit by using the 60 day eval before they use their activation code.)
2. Free Updates? Yes, for openSUSE.
Novell also underwrites another desktop distribution openSUSE, which includes a lot more packages than SLED. Anyone can download it and use it. However, SLED today has some features that were (thankfully) not included in openSUSE 10.1, the current version. (In fact, we had a major screw up with a including a not-ready component in openSUSE, causing a mess that we are still trying to clean up in the SUSE community.) The feature delta with SLED, as well as the extensive extra polishing that SLED received before shipping--have prompted many people in the community to expressed their desire to use SLED. They like what Novell has created and packaged--an amazingly well-assembled desktop system, and they would rather not wait for many of the features and design elements to appear in openSUSE 10.2.
3. Novell Contributes...a Lot
Please give Novell some credit for driving many of the great Linux features that have shown up not only on SUSE Linux, but many other distributions. Novell hired David Reveman to complete his work on Xgl & Compiz, which are now available on Ubuntu, Gentoo and other distros. Novell hired Aaron Bockover to create Banshee on the Helix framework so that we could have legal mp3 on Linux. Novell bought Ximian and continues to enable them to create things like the new main menu for GNOME (Jimmy Krehl's "slab"), and solid desktop search well ahead of Microsoft Vista (which still may not ship with that feature). A major reason why plug and play devices like USB drives, mp3 players and cameras just work today is Robert Love's project Utopia. SUSE engineers today are pushing upstream Linux kernel code that has been and still is greatly extending battery life. Maybe these examples are still too self-interested? Novell employees the team that maintains GCC, which is a 100% upstream contribution the GNU toolchain, and yields zero competitive advantage to Novell. Novell CTO Jeff Jaffe has stated the reason: you can't just take, you gotta give back. That's why Novell is participating and contributing.
Novell is part way through a cultural change that I think is nothing short of astounding. Say what you want about our marketing missing the mark. But if you believe that we are too proprietary, or that we do not actively engaged enough in open source, then tell us why you think so. Otherwise, is it really justified to berate Novell for being proprietary just because we have offered 50 update activation keys on an awareness campaign?
Please refer people to this comment if you see accusations of SLED being proprietary.
-- Ted Haeger
(You can find me at http://reverendted.wordpress.com./
Slashdot Mirror
Novell Open Audio plans to release an audio interview with Jim Zemlin about the merger at http://www.novell.com/feeds/openaudio/?p=127. --Ted Haeger
Elektroschock:
That articulates your concerns much more clearly. Thanks. I don't expect to change your opinion, but perhaps I can provide insight into how and why Novell operates the way it does. I speak here from my personal perspective, and not as a cannonical voice.
* Friedman presented the 3d Desktop, Novell developed it in a closed manner.
If I understand it correctly, Xgl/Compiz was originally being developed in open source. David Reveman, the maintainer of Xgl and Compiz, has reported to me that he had few if any significant contributors. When Nat Friedman hired him into Novell, asking him to him focus on getting it working well enough for our enterprise desktop, Reveman brought his work in-house so that he could get it to a proof-of-concept state. If I remember correctly, the project went dark for about 3 or 4 months. In January of 2006, Novell released the much improved code back into open source, allowing community contributions on a very stable codebase ever since.
On the code's re-release, it was quickly snatched up by other distributions, such as Gentoo and Ubuntu.
* They gave Gnome an artifical competitive advantage
Reveman needed to prove the code on something. Maybe he prefers to use GNOME? Also, he was working on the code for a product that would concentrate on GNOME functionality (SLED10, which is not GNOME exclusive, but its features certainly emphasize GNOME.)
- Xgl itself favors niether GNOME nor KDE. It's an X server.
- Compiz stores settings in Gconf. That shows GNOME bias. However, Compiz works well under KDE.
- The window-decorator that ships with Compiz is a GNOME component (gnome-window-decorator). It works under KDE, but dresses KDE windows so that they look GNOME-tainted. There is a thread on a decorator for KDE here.
* They did it as a Novell showcase.
Yes, Novell did do that. Since that time, many adherents of distros like Ubuntu and Gentoo have come up to me at various regional Linux shows I go to, and told me that they really love what Novell has done with Xgl/Compiz. Without the hooplah, would anyone give Novell any credit for bootstrapping the project?
At Socal Linux Expo last year, I listened extensively to Aaron Seigo (Trolltech employee and KDE visionary) give me his analysis about Novell's behavior on this episode, as well as the Hula announcement. (Aaron shares some of your views on how Novell conducts itself on things like this.) I learned a lot from Aaron, and I hope to be able to go to aKademy and catch up with him there.
Having heard Aaron out, I crossexamined some of the principles within Novell about the Xgl announcement. I'm inclined to think that Novell's approach on this may not have been ideal, but also that a few people drastically overstate its negative repercussions relative to the number of contributions that were submitted before (and while) Xgl development briefly went in-house.
Finally, is it really so reprehensible that Novell--a publicly-held, for-profit corporation--wants to show off cool stuff that we produce? Like open source developers, companies that work in open source thrive in part on showing their technological prowess. The effects that Compiz makes possible have given a huge boost to desktop Linux and the potential of open source software, for which fair recognition should be attributed.
Yes, we start some of our projects in-house. Yes, we take opportunities to make headlines when we can. Would it be better for Novell to quietly announce unbaked ideas without usable code on which people can start hacking?
My colleague Richard Guenther from the GCC team has requested a correction. I said: "Novell employees the team that maintains GCC, which is a 100% upstream contribution the GNU toolchain, and yields zero competitive advantage to Novell." My mistake was that Novell does not house the actual GCC maintainers. It should read: "Novell employees a teams to contribute to GCC, which is an upstream contribution the GNU toolchain and yields little competitive advantage to Novell." --Ted
I have had a couple conversations that have expressed a similar reasons for not liking Friedman, but contorting facts in order to express your concerns about Friedman is inappropriate.
"Novell presented a new menu for Gnome. It is really ugly..."
It's also optional.
"Friedman wanted to advance the show and the worst case is that XGL survives and we will have AIGLX and XGL in parallel....Be sure Novell will standardise on XGL..."
Your claim is incorrect. In fact, I recently interviewed Friedman at LinuxWorld in San Francisco, where he actually commented in the interview that Xgl is not the term we use because we may well switch over to AIGLX. Compiz is where all the cool stuff is, which is why SLED10 uses the name "Desktop Effects."
"What's wrong with this picture?" :)
Maybe you're looking through dirty lenses?
SLED10 is far from proprietary. I posted an update on my blog about this mischaracterization. I'm hoping that you will be willing to read it and reconsider.
Thanks for your input on my post, and the "right way to go" props.
:)
Regarding the updater, indeed that was the piece in question. Patches have been put out, and it's performing well now. But negative publicity on it continues. >sigh
Not sure about the change on the Xgl keybinding. If you use the mouse wheel to zoom in, then you only need to hold the "super" key in order to pan about. Probably you already know that.
Again, thanks.
--Ted
http://reverendted.wordpress.com
Several people have commented on SLED being proprietary. Amid this firebranding, I ask you to consider some details about SLED, SUSE, and Novell. 1. Open Source SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop was developed in open source. It includes a couple pieces of proprietary software from partner companies, such as the Macromedia Flash plugin for Firefox, RealPlayer, and Adobe Reader. It includes no proprietary kernel modules. Andreas Jaeger recently posted on SUSE's policy here. Novell includes a couple proprietary packages developed at Novell on the SLED10 media, but they do not install by default, and are all related to integrating with enterprise infrastructural services (already-deployed Novell enterprise systems). 2. Free Software, but Not Free Updates SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop is fully functional free software. It does not require any kind of license key. However, Novell hopes to make revenue on the software update service, as well as enterprise support, consulting, training, and other services. The activation keys activate the update service for one year. (Clever winners of the 50 1-year activations that we are giving away might extend that a bit by using the 60 day eval before they use their activation code.) 2. Free Updates? Yes, for openSUSE. Novell also underwrites another desktop distribution openSUSE, which includes a lot more packages than SLED. Anyone can download it and use it. However, SLED today has some features that were (thankfully) not included in openSUSE 10.1, the current version. (In fact, we had a major screw up with a including a not-ready component in openSUSE, causing a mess that we are still trying to clean up in the SUSE community.) The feature delta with SLED, as well as the extensive extra polishing that SLED received before shipping--have prompted many people in the community to expressed their desire to use SLED. They like what Novell has created and packaged--an amazingly well-assembled desktop system, and they would rather not wait for many of the features and design elements to appear in openSUSE 10.2. 3. Novell Contributes...a Lot Please give Novell some credit for driving many of the great Linux features that have shown up not only on SUSE Linux, but many other distributions. Novell hired David Reveman to complete his work on Xgl & Compiz, which are now available on Ubuntu, Gentoo and other distros. Novell hired Aaron Bockover to create Banshee on the Helix framework so that we could have legal mp3 on Linux. Novell bought Ximian and continues to enable them to create things like the new main menu for GNOME (Jimmy Krehl's "slab"), and solid desktop search well ahead of Microsoft Vista (which still may not ship with that feature). A major reason why plug and play devices like USB drives, mp3 players and cameras just work today is Robert Love's project Utopia. SUSE engineers today are pushing upstream Linux kernel code that has been and still is greatly extending battery life. Maybe these examples are still too self-interested? Novell employees the team that maintains GCC, which is a 100% upstream contribution the GNU toolchain, and yields zero competitive advantage to Novell. Novell CTO Jeff Jaffe has stated the reason: you can't just take, you gotta give back. That's why Novell is participating and contributing. Novell is part way through a cultural change that I think is nothing short of astounding. Say what you want about our marketing missing the mark. But if you believe that we are too proprietary, or that we do not actively engaged enough in open source, then tell us why you think so. Otherwise, is it really justified to berate Novell for being proprietary just because we have offered 50 update activation keys on an awareness campaign? Please refer people to this comment if you see accusations of SLED being proprietary. -- Ted Haeger (You can find me at http://reverendted.wordpress.com./