On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 01:59:28AM -0400, khepri wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:26:58PM -0400, Khepri wrote:
> >>John Pugh wrote:
> >>
> >>"Given UNIX’s popularity for server workloads, Linux is a full
> >>participant in this marketplace. Linux has a following among UNIX
> >>aficionados and within the server community."
> >>
> >>Am I the only one scratching my head on this one?
> >
> >Maybe. It makes sense to me.
>
> It's been a couple of days and now that I read it again it doesn't seem
> as foreign (if that's the word)
>
> I guess it because at this point I tend to see Unix and Linux and two
> different and separate things...so it kinda threw me when he equates
> Unix and Linux
I tend to think of UNIX as being "those things that are so proprietary
they actually pay for the use of the name", Unix as being "those things
that share substantial quantities of old-school BSD codebase, including
both the *BSDs and the UNIXes", and unix as being "everything that
quacks like a unix", to include Linux. I tend to have to translate from
others' haphazard use of capitalization to my own reasonably systematic
way of handling it, though.
In the case of the new CTO, it looks to me like his use of UNIX in the
above-quoted passage would translate to "unix" in Chad-speak.
>
> Ah, I see...profitiblity through supporting an open source solution
> rather than creating and marketing the open source solution....a fine
> line isn't it?....Creating a distro from scratch and maketing it and
> supporting it, even coding for it...doesn't seem all that different
> other than the "open sourceness" of it in relation to what Netscape was
> trying to achieve...
Well . . . no corporation really creates an open source solution. They
do one of three things:
1. They pick up an open source package and sell it as a solution.
2. They create a closed source solution, then eventually open-source
it.
3. They sponsor the creation of an open source project by the
community. The resulting package may then be subject to number 1.
>
> >The impression I get
> >is of a statement that companies like Novell and the growing corpus of
> >free/open source software can enjoy a symbiotic, mutually beneficial
> >relationship.
>
> True. Isn't that the model IBM is using or is it a new development in
> the community at large and Novell has simply not stated anything to that
> effect to this date...(I'm thinking of the contributing and supporting
> of code to different projects)
Sorta, yeah. There are some differences in how Novell and IBM are
supporting open source software and integrating it into "value-added
solutions", but there's a lot of similarity in the relationship with the
open source community.
>
> True...the Lucent background turned me off a bit....disappointment I
> guess that here's this great and up-coming company supporting Linux and
> they chose him to bring in...OTOH I really don't know anything about the
> guy!....Kinda of a guilt by association thing....
I'm not a fan of Lucent either. You've got to realize, though, that
companies like Novell and Red Hat are largely made up of people who see
open source software as an opportunity to profit, and as an efficiency
booster, not as being important for any other (philosophical) reasons.
As such, it's entirely possible to trasition fairly seamlessly from
Lucent (or even Microsoft) to a corporation that has a more symbiotic
relationship with open source software. If you really want someone that
groks Free Software, you need to look at foundation members (FSF, OSI,
Wikimedia Foundation, Debian, et cetera), and not OSS-allied
corporations like RH and Novell.
>
> >If that's the case, I think I agree, but then I think the
> >entire Novell enterprise comes off like the little brother that
> >desperately wants to fit in with the older kids in the already
> >established FLOSS social circles, so I'm not terribly surprised.
>
> There you go, that was a great analogy that somewhat expresses what I
> was picking up on from him in the article! Hmmm, you think it may be the
> whole company though?....hmmmmm
I've had some dealings with Novell representatives, both work-related
and as a member of NCLUG. I've also been reading the press releases
from time to time. Out of all of that, the "little brother" analogy is
the one that keeps recurring for me.
>
> >He's
> >got something like Linux Newbie Syndrome, perhaps -- all the enthusiasm
> >and good intentions without the mature understanding of what he's really
> >sunk his teeth into, yet. It'll come, as long as we give him the time
> >and help the Linux Newbie when he needs it, how he can best be helped,
> >by showing him how to help himself.
>
> The Way of Linux...sounds like a book.
Ssshhh, don't tell anyone. I'm planning to write that book. It'll go
on your shelf next to The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
>
> >Hm. I think I strayed from the main point. I'm not sure whether I ever
> >got where I was originally going. Hopefully I said something useful in
> >there.
>
> Certainly! Thanks!
Quite welcome. Ah aimz ta pleeze.
The Microsoft Open Source Lab should definitely hire my ass if they want
to really understand what's going on with open source software. They
could do far worse for getting in-depth and timely analyses of why and
how open source software development and user communities work -- and,
in fact, they often have done far worse. The fools.
Maybe I should give 'em a resume. I'd be happy to take home six figures
for the privilege of telling Microsoft where it's going wrong, right up
to the point where they fire me for refusing to toe the party line and
sugarcoat the truth.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:59:04 EDT