Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet)
vnunet interviews Bruce Perens about UserLinux and other topics.
"Why are some of the Linux and open source developers upset with the way their systems are being marketed? Because they have no say about it. And even if they have the opportunity, they don't know how to use it.
In the UserLinux case we address that not by whining, but by creating a viable alternative."
(Log in to post comments)
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 9:22 UTC (Wed) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] OpenOffice is not enough, an open source alternative to Outlook that works on Windows is needed too.
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 15:53 UTC (Wed) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link] An evolution port is missing... Never took off.
Free Software Groupware on Windows Posted Sep 9, 2004 1:49 UTC (Thu) by ber (subscriber, #2142) [Link] KDE's Kontact might get there earlier! There is already a useful port of KMail from the KDE-Cygwin project. At the KDE-World Summit a native KOrganizer and and KAddressbook (important parts of Kontakt) were demonstrated during the Coding Marathon on wednesday.
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 10:17 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] This is in the typical kind of office where 80 per cent of the people use an office suite, web browser, email and not very much else.It's the "not very much else" part that is tricky. I have a friend who wants to move his business off Windows and onto Linux, but he uses Intuit Quickbooks, and right now there aren't any viable alternatives. Larger offices (with an IT staff) will probably make the move first, since they have the resources to provide alternatives to some of the apps from ISVs that people typically use. On the other hand, promoting Open Office will help dry up MSFT's revenue stream. :-)
A little bit else Posted Sep 8, 2004 11:17 UTC (Wed) by stephen_pollei (guest, #23348) [Link] For one group I'm seriously thinking of helping to migrate that little something else is http://www.frontrange.com/goldmine/ . Which is some CRM stuff that they use to keep track of contacts. They use that a lot and seem pretty stuck to it.
A little bit else Posted Sep 8, 2004 15:17 UTC (Wed) by nlee (guest, #730) [Link] There are three good CRMs I've found that run on Linux. Two of them are OSS and the other is free for 5 users. SugarCRM and XRMS are LAMP based. DarkHorse CRM is Java based.
I have a breif discussion about them here: http://stateless.geek.nz/archives/2004/08/15/more-crm-sof...
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 15:11 UTC (Wed) by nlee (guest, #730) [Link] Depend on the level that they used Quickbooks, http://www.sql-ledger.org is becoming quite a solid product.
Since its written in Perl and SQL, you can get any half decent Perl coder to add extensions. Plus its pretty easy to access information with Crystal Reports or similar (Datavision).
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 16:32 UTC (Wed) by British (guest, #19768) [Link] Quickbooks will run under wine.
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 9, 2004 14:09 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Quickbooks will run under wine.I thought about that, but Intuit won't support it running under Wine, which means I'd end providing the support.
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 11:31 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Mmmhh.. Lots of unsubstantiated claims, a tone that is rather disdainful at times, stabbing at a number of companies and products.Quite disappointing. I would have expected better, Bruce, this is not exactly the approach that will attract a lot of people to Linux and Open Source, IMHO.
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 16:04 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] A lot of folks in the IT world only speak what marketing communications puts in their mouths. You can expect more plain talk from me, and when I think there's a problem that needs fixing, you can expect me to lay it at the doors of the people who could fix it. I'll talk about it in front of the rest of the community too, so that maybe someone there will solve the problem.Sun Microsystems, unfortunately, has botched OpenOffice promotion. They purchased StarDivision as a strategic product intended to undermine Microsoft's Office ecosystem, and then Sun got into financial trouble and management decreed that all products had to be money-makers, there could not be any more "strategic" products within Sun. That seems like strategic suicide to me. Sun has not had much success in building an outside developer community for a product that is about as important as the Linux kernel - in part because they disregarded advice about the right way to handle copyright assignment from developers that I gave them just before OpenOffice went Free. There are very few developers outside Sun. These are serious problems and need to be addressed. I'm not about to shut up about them. Regarding RH and SuSE, I had talk with HSBC, the huge international bank, a few years ago, after RH went to its Enterprise Linux marketing. HSBC had at that time decided to place a Linux migration on the back burner, because they felt that now, Linux is as expensive as Windows. Ignoring the complaints of big potential customers is not a good way to promote Linux. Sorry if you don't like my style. Bruce
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 18:17 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] A lot of folks in the IT world only speak what marketing communications puts in their mouths. You can expect more plain talk from me, and when I think there's a problem that needs fixing, you can expect me to lay it at the doors of the people who could fix it. I'll talk about it in front of the rest of the community too, so that maybe someone there will solve the problem. There's nothing wrong with plain talk. I'm all for that. ;-)
Regarding RH and SuSE, I had talk with HSBC, the huge international bank, a few years ago, after RH went to its Enterprise Linux marketing. HSBC had at that time decided to place a Linux migration on the back burner, because they felt that now, Linux is as expensive as Windows. Ignoring the complaints of big potential customers is not a good way to promote Linux. In the interview you explicitly relate the success of Linux to the Open Source development process. I couldn't agree with you more. RedHat has managed to build a business on top of that process, while at the same time supporting it in a way that, I think, has yet to be rivalled. So, by bluntly dismissing their rather succesful business model, instead of pointing out possible flaws in the Big Plan, you are running the risk of being suspected of promoting your own business at the cost of your competitors. Which doesn't contribute anything to widespread adoption of Linux, or Open Source in general. The HSBC example is of course a quite weak one, for one because of an inconsistency that creeps up everywhere in the interview too: apparently RedHat is just not aiming for early adopters, so why would you or potential customers hold this against them? You realise of course that the two kinds of support you are (or seem to be) talking about are completely different beasts, each with their own organisational and financial requirements. You also seem to suggest that HSBC was in for a big migration. I am curious as to what exactly they had in mind regarding support, since it is highly unusual for huge companies to not entertain long term support contracts. When they said "Linux is as expensive as Windows", I hope and trust you said: "I'm very sorry, but you seem to miss the point. RedHat might be expensive, but Linux is not. Not in beer, nor in freedom." (I am just taking RedHat as an example here, of course. You can substitute any Linux vendor you like, although I do think that RedHat is ahead of others in some respects. I am not associated with them in any way -- in fact, I work for a top 10 global financial player and am involved in Unix management.)
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 19:03 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] RedHat has managed to build a business on top of that process, while at the same time supporting it in a way that, I think, has yet to be rivalled.I am not convinced that the Red Hat model has long-term viability. The economics of Open Source work very worst for distribution creators, a fact that has become extremely clear to Red Hat. Thus, they have had to revert to a "bondage" model in which suport is bound to a subscription per seat and draconian things happen if you violate the subscription terms, for example, by putting the software on more systems than you've subscribed for or divulging support data to the general community. Of course, that sort of bondage flies in the face of all of the examples we claim for Open Source - it really makes a lie of it unless you can provide a viable alternative to Red Hat. I feel the Red Hat model will eventually fail because 1) everybody knows the software can be had for zero cost elsewhere, and once those sources have the necessary support, they'll go there and 2) the model decouples the service rendered (support) from what is being paid for (a software seat) in a way that simply cries out for a competitor to set it right Even Red Hat acknowledges this, or they would not have attempted to create a poor copy of Debian called Fedora. Fedora is supposed to be "Free Enough" but the certification and support is still with the virtually-proprietary Enterprise Server product and the governance of Fedora is firmly under RH management's direction. I don't believe that the customer has to settle for "Free Enough" in order to get excellent enterprise support. I propose to reform the support model. We shall do this by acknowledging that the software is not a profit center for anyone, and by giving away the supported and fully certified version of the software at a zero per-seat cost. We will develop that software in the public interest, within a democratic organization (Debian) that has already been established as a legal non-profit. Then, we will provide an organization of independent commercial support providers who compete with each other in providing service or differentiate from each other by specializing in a field or region, while cooperating on the overall system that makes all of their individual businesses possible. I submit that the economic benefit of competition and cooperation in the right places is of sufficient benefit to the customer that business shall be drawn from other distributions. The drive to differentiate among service providers will result in our eventually covering all bases of customer, large and small, many different vertical markets, etc. while the collaborative center in Debian will keep all of this together technologically. An ambitious vision, yes. Time will tell. Meanwhile I know where to start, which is not with the biggest customers. Sure, I told HSBC what the real score was, but I didn't have a boxed product with ready support to go with that tale. Now, I will have that. Thanks Bruce
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 19:05 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Of course, that sort of bondage flies in the face of all of the examples we claim for Open SourceOops. advantages, not examples.
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 20:41 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] First of all: had you put it a bit more like this in the interview, I probably wouldn't have posted my original remarks at all. I'd also like to mention that I do appreciate your efforts in the promotion of Open Source. ;-)However.
... a subscription per seat and draconian things happen if you violate the subscription terms, for example, by putting the software on more systems than you've subscribed for ... If this is not a misinterpretation of the actual subscription license, then somebody had better sue RedHat now. Without knowing the actual text, I suppose the last bit should read something like: "by allowing more systems to benefit from the subscription than you have paid for". Which would be perfectly legal, of course.
I feel the Red Hat model will eventually fail because 1) everybody knows the software can be had for zero cost elsewhere, and once those sources have the necessary support, they'll go there and 2) the model decouples the service rendered (support) from what is being paid for (a software seat) in a way that simply cries out for a competitor to set it right Both points are common practice, and no vendor seems to be suffering from it. The conclusion in 1) is too easy: of course there will be some form of competition, but RedHat will not automatically lose customers. 2) is just the unit of IT support, if you like; although one might argue about its usefulness, the number of seats (or CPUs) is nothing more than a way to quantise an amount of support.
Fedora is supposed to be "Free Enough" but the certification and support is still with the virtually-proprietary Enterprise Server product and the governance of Fedora is firmly under RH management's direction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Fedora is a testbed for RedHat's Enterprise products -- it has community support, it has no certification. Its goals are stated clearly on the Fedora webpage. Sure, one might argue that RedHat envisioned and promised a bigger, more active role for its community than currently is the case, but this is exactly why Open Source will win in the end: you can always pick up the pieces and make a better product; you don't have to whine about it. RedHat's involvement in Fedora is not fundamentally different than things are in the Debian or SuSE development processes. There is no evil plan, you might call it quality control if you like. Besides, I very much appreciate RedHat's clear stance on the GPL and the philosophy of Open Source (resulting in the most GPL conforming major distribution), whereas the Debian solution is a half-hearted attempt to ignore the problem of non-free software by putting it just outside of the main tree where it is still distributed. (Boy, am I going to be flamed for that. ;-) In other words, your description of "Free Enough" doesn't accurately describe RedHat's adherence to the GPL. Nor does it make any sense (it is in fact misleading) to switch from a description of Fedora to a product that requires "excellent enterprise support". As for your plans with Debian (what happened to UserLinux?): I sincerely wish you good luck and I am looking forward to seeing how things will unravel. Your project is ambitious, if not IMHO naive on the independency front, but sympathetic none the less!
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 22:41 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] First of all: had you put it a bit more like this in the interview, I probably wouldn't have posted my original remarks at all.I did talk with the reporter for two solid hours. I don't control which bits get in the article, but conflict makes for an exciting story and those bits are most likely to get in. I'd also like to mention that I do appreciate your efforts in the promotion of Open Source. ;-) Thanks! Without knowing the actual text, I suppose the last bit should read something like: "by allowing more systems to benefit from the subscription than you have paid for". Which would be perfectly legal, of course. Using more than one attorney, various non-profit and commercial entities have determined that the RH enterprise business model is within the letter but not the spirit of the GPL. Whereas the Debian solution is a half-hearted attempt to ignore the problem of non-free software by putting it just outside of the main tree where it is still distributed. I do support splitting non-free off of the Debian organization into its own entity. RH avoids the problem of having to deal with non-free software by not attempting to put everything in one repository. The non-free stuff exists, it's just elsewhere. But that introduces all sorts of dependency hell and we don't want to go there. Nor does it make any sense (it is in fact misleading) to switch from a description of Fedora to a product that requires "excellent enterprise support". I think Fedora was intended as "you make the distribution for us, enthusiasts, and we'll let you have the non-certified version for free and keep the certified one for ourselves". It didn't get as much willing outside participation as they wanted, which is right. As for your plans with Debian (what happened to UserLinux?) UserLinux is Debian with support and certification added. The stuff that belongs in a non-profit is in Debian. Which is pretty much all development. Support is outside in an organization of commercial providers. Thanks Bruce
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 23:54 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] The non-free stuff exists, it's just elsewhere. Now you're pulling my leg, right?! ;-)
I think Fedora was intended as "you make the distribution for us, enthusiasts, and we'll let you have the non-certified version for free and keep the certified one for ourselves". It didn't get as much willing outside participation as they wanted, which is right. I really don't want to come across as a RedHat zealot -- but why the funny angle? To me, taken at face value, it sounds like such a great and innovative idea: a true cooperation between the community and a company, together creating a unique win-win situation. Like I said, the objectives are quite clear. Now, I am as cynical as the next guy, but I like a fair share of realism as well. Everybody has an agenda, and I am glad that Fedora's is out in the open. Of course you can always make it sound bad like you do here, it's just so easy. If you first suggest that your Joe Home User OS really should be certified (against what?!) and then complain that it isn't, and that you are in fact dealing with an inferior product, you are making up your own rules and you always win. So, cut the crap and give us the real stuff. ;-)
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 9, 2004 1:26 UTC (Thu) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] > sounds like such a great and innovative ideaGreat, maybe. Innovative, no: ALT Linux was two years into this model before RH and SuSE started scratching their heads in a visible manner. The commercial firm (ALT Linux Ltd) produces the distributions (which are also published on FTP and widely mirrored) based on its public unstable tree, ALT Linux Sisyphus, which is considered as a product of ALT Linux Team (some 20% being fulltimers in commercial firms who benefit from the development directly and some 80% volunteers). ALT Linux Ltd is providing the infrastructure, QA (mostly) and publishing (until recently; now professional publishers got in). Partners and community also do maintain packages, create additional infrastrusture and resources, and provide specialized and public support. So far so good -- I believe it's somewhere in between of RH/SuSE/Mdk, Debian and Owl which is quite unique. Weak points being currently low level of manageability using GUI tools (the framework is being revamped) and lacking PR/marketing, strong points being considerable security out-of-box [*], most packages being readily available for immediate use right after installation with apt-get, and very nice community to communicate within. [*] from the last talk security advisory (translate.ru'ed): "In ALT Linux distributions, talk service is off by default, remote users don't have access to it, and local unprivileged users can't form UDP packets of such special form needed for DoS attack; nevertheless we recommend talk server users to update the package with the fixed version". Last glibc troubles also enjoyed "fixed 3 years ago" status statement. Go figure :-)
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 9, 2004 2:03 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Great, maybe. Innovative, no: ALT Linux was two years into this model before RH and SuSE started scratching their heads in a visible manner. Damn! ;-) I humbly bow to ALT Linux, of whom I must admit I had never heard before. Cheers for the pointer, mate. It's a weak defense, but I was really only thinking of the major distributions, although I am aware that there is a vast number of unique Linux distributions, each of them with their own merits, as well as Linux companies that are developing business models that hopefully serve them well. Don't you just love Open Source? ;-)
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 9, 2004 4:26 UTC (Thu) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] > of whom I must admit I had never heard before Heck, that's what I'm regarding as "weak publicity" :-) btw: the pointer, DistroWatch, LWN, 2.4 beta5 (seems like release's on the way to the publisher) [skip: sure] Yeah, and I hope that business model patches will get at least as agile between companies as software patches are to get the overall result better yet. :-) [err... even though the latter aren't nearly as agile as could be] > Don't you just love Open Source? ;-) Exactly. :-) --
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 15, 2004 1:51 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] ALT Linux, of whom I must admit I had never heard before No wonder: ALT Linux is really big in Russian-speaking countries (here in Minsk it is second only to Debian), but has zero marketing outside of Russia.
ALT Linux Posted Sep 15, 2004 1:41 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] ALT Linux was two years into this model before RH and SuSE started scratching their heads in a visible manner. There is significant difference, though. In Fedora's case, most of the work is done by Red Hat, while company tries to present it as a community project. In ALT's case, most of the development is done by the community, while company tries to present the product as its own achievement. Ironically, ALT Linux has only recently run into the same problem with this model as Red Hat: a product that is developed by a community, but controlled by a single commercial entity. It took two years and an unpleasant trademark controversy for community to notice the conflict inherent in such situation. Exactly the problem UserLinux is attempting to solve. Last glibc troubles also enjoyed "fixed 3 years ago" status statement. Not a fact to be proud of, actually. This particular fix (IIRC borrowed from OWL) received a well-deserved bashing from LWN: keeping important fixes to yourself and not propagating them upstream where they belong is not considered a good practice in the FLOSS world.
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 14, 2004 15:13 UTC (Tue) by zenaan (guest, #3778) [Link] > I really don't want to come across as a RedHat zealot... > [Fedora] sounds like such a great and innovative idea: a true cooperation between the community and a company, together creating a unique win-win situation
Seriously, I can't stop smiling over that one.
Well, if you aren't in some way related to Red Hat, I ... don't know what to say to be honest. You _are not_ as cynical as the next guy in your writing, you're a Red Hat zealot. And your suffusively harsh email ends with a smiley, as though that somehow makes your attack all alright. Go away, shill, for a shill you are!
Bruce's point: Red Hat is using lock-in tactics that go against the community spirit.
If this isn't obvious to you, you are willfully blind, painfully ignorant, or simply marketing Red Hat (which is what I believe and is so bluntly obvious, Red Hat should get better marketing reps in my mind). No point posting a disagreement to this, as I'm sure we'll agree to disagree based on your consistent <cough>marketing</cough> message.
The UserLinux project is Debian. It is a Custom Debian Distribution:
It is also a community of service and support providers, and a marketing organization for these providers.
_This_ is how to do service and support, in a manner consistent with community spirit.
It's about a Free Market with actual competition - competition between service and support providers, while sharing the cost of certification, development of the base distribution/ testing, as well as marketing.
This is the most logical venture I have ever seen.
Bemused
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 14, 2004 15:21 UTC (Tue) by zenaan (guest, #3778) [Link] >> 2) the model decouples the service rendered (support) from what is being paid for (a software seat) in a way that simply cries out for a competitor to set it right
> Both points are common practice, and no vendor seems to be suffering from it.
This is a classic example of the beliefs you belie: your perspective is of the Vendor (Red Hat in your personal case), not the customer.
And this is the very point the Bruce and the UserLinux project are addressing. Red Hat is structured to maximize benefit to Red Hat.
Bruce didn't disagree with you where you say "no vendor seems to be suffering from it" - of course Red Hat doesn't suffer (yet) from this model, because it has no serious competition _from a different model_.
Suse, Xandros, or any other.
UserLinux.com is the real competition here. Red Hat is yet to feel its effects. Red Hat may have to alter its business model in line with this new model, just as Proprietary software has in very large ways given way to Open Source and Free Software.
Sincerely
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 21:08 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Even Red Hat acknowledges this, or they would not have attempted to create a poor copy of Debian called Fedora.
I'm not sure why you think Fedora is a copy of Debian, poor or not. Debian is a collection of over 12,000 packages, Fedora is not. Debian is a true voluneer project, Fedora is not. Fedora is release often, Debian is not. And so on and so forth.
I'm guessing you are referring to the "development model", but not even that is the same. Outside contributors get more chance, but Red Hat does most of the heavy lifting. No doubt about that at all. In all honesty to Red Hat, they had the courage to introduce some really interesting stuff into their disto, way ahead of other folks. For example, NTPL support (without this threading on Linux - read Java containers - really sucked), O(1) scheduler for 2.4 kernels, exec-shield to minimise danger of buffer overflows etc. In essence, they are attempting to assert themselves as an "engineering force" when it comes to Linux. So far, it seems to have worked.
Don't get me wrong, RHEL will never run on any of my systems for a very simple reason - it is too expensive. But, I give Red Hat credit when credit is due. They have done a lot for open source. Whether they are doing a good thing for their own business is their own problem, IMHO.
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 8, 2004 22:49 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I'm not sure why you think Fedora is a copy of Debian, poor or not.It may not have worked out that way, but when it was introduced, Fedora was very clearly aimed to attract the sort of community that already existed for Debian. I think it was also intended to increase the number of packages in a single repository that would install on RHEL. And we want to help Debian get to annual releases. Debian actually releases more often, though, if you count "sid". Having run sid for years and years, I have always been impressed that something that is updated every day can be so solid. I do not discount that RH has contributed a lot of good Free Software and has done an interesting job with keeping 2.4 viable for business people. I am sort of concerned that now that Linus is not going to make stable kernels, the RH way of handling 2.4 might be the only way to do stable kernels. I would prefer to see more collective stability engineering take place. Bruce
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 9, 2004 1:32 UTC (Thu) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] > but when it was introduced, Fedora waswhich one? ;-)
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 9, 2004 1:54 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Is "sid" actually "released", in the sense Fedora is? My understanding is that sid is "always in flux", which is not the case for Fedora. With Fedora, you get milestone releases and then a set of updates for that particular release. Then, later on, Fedora Legacy (this is pure volunteer bit) takes over and makes sure security issues are fixed for the next year and a half or so.
Just one example as to who actually does the work on Fedora. A few days back I bumped into a strange memory leak in PostgreSQL libraries shipped with FC2. Posted a bug on Red Hat's Bugzilla for FC2. In the matter of hours, a Red Hat employee got on it and spent several hours attempting to duplicate the problem on his setup (admittedly with no success) and we left it off where I have to give it a try on an unspoilt FC2 machine (my suggestion) to verify that it isn't my own box that's causing the issue. So, this person at Red Hat actually provided several hours of unpaid support for me. I know that one cannot count on those things, but it nevertheless happens. It is Red Hat that make the majority of Fedora going, there is no doubt about that at all. Of course, other people help, but even if that help wasn't there, Fedora would still be released, IMHO. Possibly with more bugs, but released all the same.
The value of Fedora is in the delivery of the snapshots of a selection of state-of-the-art free software. Maybe not that great for production quality servers, but just fine for making sure you get a reasonably recent cut of binaries that will get timely updates when you need them. So far, Fedora has been relatively easy to keep upgraded, with minor issues related to software choice changes.
As for the stable kernel, I don't see how Red Hat's "stability" (or better, "backporting and enhancement") work cannot be incorporated into other distros. They only need to choose to do it, that's all. The problem is that Red Hat traditionally push it a little bit harder, mostly because they have clients that want to run Linux as a replacement for the big iron. Not to everyone's liking, but there is nothing stopping anyone from doing the same thing with Red Hat's code. There are absolutely no secrets there. In essence, this seems to be a political more than a technical issue.
I have to admit, I was sceptical about Fedora in the beginning, but it turned out better than expected, IMHO.
Stable kernels Posted Sep 9, 2004 6:50 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] "I am sort of concerned that now that Linus is not going to make stable kernels, the RH way of handling 2.4 might be the only way to do stable kernels. I would prefer to see more collective stability engineering take place." Wow, Bruce, you understand things rather differently than I do. The whole point of the new kernel development model is to allow the distributors to stop backporting tons of stuff into older kernels, and to cut way back on the huge piles of distributor kernel patches in general. We are trying to get away from the "RH way". Linus very much intends to release stable kernels; it's just that the way to get there has changed. The "don't allow substantive changes for a year" approach doesn't work very well. It's better to get the patches into the mainline and get them used. The result has been a lot more functionality in the hands of the users more quickly, and some quite stable kernels. 2.6.8.1 has not been the best example, but 2.6.7 was quite solid, and 2.6.9 should be as well.
Stable kernels Posted Sep 9, 2004 9:21 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Jon,Maybe you should publish an article about this, because I don't understand what is going on with stable kernels, and if I don't get it, probably a lot of other people don't either. I agree that 2.6.8 is solid, I am running it on my net-facing systems, including the system at Serverbeach for which I don't have a remote console. But I don't see yet how Linus is going to have his cake and eat it. Bruce
Stable kernels Posted Sep 11, 2004 19:35 UTC (Sat) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Jon, of course, has already written an excellent article about the new kernel development process. I was too lazy to look it up before, but now, with the new, shiny Kernel Index, it took me two seconds. ;-)
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 9, 2004 8:10 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] Hi
I think Userlinux is a valid and needed alternative. I appreciate your efforts on that but I am not pleased with it as a largely reactionary effort. It would be helpful to stop pinpointing Redhat's efforts as not viable and just do your own thing.
Even when I am not using redhat/fedora I appreciate their commitment towards Free software and I wish them luck in their enterprise focus
regards
Linux == Redhat in US? Posted Sep 9, 2004 0:24 UTC (Thu) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] > "I'm very sorry, but you seem to miss the point. RedHat might be expensive,> but Linux is not. Not in beer, nor in freedom."
Errr... I believe in US Linux and RedHat are largely synonyms for "corporate minds".
Another question is that "beer" and "freedom" don't hold as arguments too: "TCO" (as fuzzy as it is) and "strategic independence" may do.
Just my EUR.02
Linux == Redhat in US? Posted Sep 9, 2004 1:31 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] > "I'm very sorry, but you seem to miss the point. RedHat might be expensive, I meant that there is a clear distinction between Linux and Open Source on the one hand, and products and services like RedHat's on the other hand, and that this is one of the points that Linux advocates should bring forth when dealing with people and companies who don't know the difference. I'm quite sure people in the US know that Linux != RedHat. ;-)
Linux == Redhat in US? Posted Sep 9, 2004 8:50 UTC (Thu) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] > I'm quite sure people in the US know that Linux != RedHat. ;-)
Well, no, they don't. Especiallly not in corporate IT departments and the like where their ONLY introduction to Linux is Red Hat. There may be clueful people around, but the vast majority think RedHat == Linux.
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 9, 2004 4:39 UTC (Thu) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link] "advice about the right way to handle copyright assignment from developers that I gave them just before OpenOffice went Free"
Bruce, I've heard various stances on that issue. Could you elaborate more on what is the right way to do such a thing from your point of view?
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 9, 2004 9:29 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Sun wants copyright assignment so that they can "defend the entire product".They once had a plan to spin off OO to a non-profit foundation, but eventually, they say, they found that they could not divorce themselves from its liability that way, and thus decided not to spin it off. I have trouble accepting their reason. My advice to Danise years ago was that if you accept copyright assignment, the fear among developers is that you will go private with their changes tomorrow. So, it is necessary, in order to win their trust, to covenant with the developer that as long as you distribute software containing his assigned work, that you shall make a copy of that work available to the public under an Open Source license with source code. Bruce
Title Posted Sep 8, 2004 19:06 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Did anyone else find the title funny? I am tempted to don a white suit and cane and call myself Colonel Perens.
Title Posted Sep 9, 2004 4:47 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] .. And maybe sell some "open source" recipe chicken? LOL!Duncan (who /did/ do a double-take on the title <g>)
Title Posted Sep 9, 2004 8:32 UTC (Thu) by doodaddy (guest, #10649) [Link] Except the "other" colonel claims to have a secret recipe that you will never have. And this is part of the appeal for most people.
You are claiming the opposite (of a secret) as the appeal of Open Source. Maybe you need a black suit, ironically?
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 9, 2004 12:49 UTC (Thu) by doodaddy (guest, #10649) [Link] I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that I think Mr. Perens is on the right track. Despite what I hear to the contrary, I think a "main" linux distribution and a "main" desktop are extremely important for major linux acceptance. Just like Mr. Perens points out that support contracts for various fringe markets is good, I think tweaks off the main code and desktop branches would be the best way for some companies to provide competitive advantage.
When Turbo Tax finally writes a Linux version, they aren't going to create both Gnome and KDE versions so that they can get cool drag and drop and system tray icons. And they aren't going to create Red Hat and SUSE RPMs and Debian packages. (And if this problem has already cleared up then, see, I try to follow the events and, if I can't keep up, then corps aren't going to either.)
I just joined a company who is *losing* Unix support even though they started on Unix 20 years ago. They are down to Sun and Windows. Last year, they wrote their first Windows-only component using COM. You would think they would rejoice at Linux after all these years of maintaining the Unix branch. There is a bigger trend towards Windows now than most imagine. Old Unix shops are trying to be late adopters but Windows-trained young-uns are showing up and getting their way, I guess. Government contracts are demanding Windows now.
When I asked when they were going to do a Linux port, the cavalier answer was that they wouldn't be able to decide which distribution their vendors would use. Ouch. But true.
So to the point of my post, LSB isn't satisfying enough for me. The temptation for Red Hat or SUSE to lock-in customers as much as possible is too great. Shops don't want to keep different RPMs for different dists. And don't pretend that competition like Gnome vs KDE is all good. This is the wrong kind of competition and it just throws off the users and developers and doubles the efforts required even for Open Source.
I think a "main" distribution and a "main" desktop are very important, and I have high hopes for UserLinux.
The end.
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 9, 2004 14:00 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Listen, I really hate to have to be blunt again, but your post is really full of nonsense. I'll just sum it up.
Sorry for being so forward.
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 9, 2004 16:20 UTC (Thu) by doodaddy (guest, #10649) [Link] # How does your "main" Linux distribution relate to the "tweaks [...] that provide competitive advantage"?
The "main" Linux distribution would provide *less* choice and a uniform file structure.
1) Less choice means that there would be one desktop, for instance. Linux has pretty much chosen one thread library, one order-preserving network protocol (TCP), one rule for SIGCHILD on sub-program termination, and one graphics lib (X). A desktop should be no different. If the "wrong" choice is made, that can be replaced over time. Is Gnome harder to program than KDE? Maybe, but tough titty. Just like C, Gnome is prickly but fully open-source. As a programmer I'd rather work with a harder tool than have to code to TWO tools!
2) Unless something has changed, Red Hat has a different directory structure with files in different places than other dists. I believe this is why the LSB got started. I don't think it was a complete accident that RH "improved on a standard" as Microsoft euphemistically calls such practices. You might think that creating multiple releases with multiple file structures is no big deal, but it's unnecessary and shops won't bother. This would eventually mean Red Hat would lead and your average small business would assume they need RH because they don't want to figure out which of 3 or 4 downloads to get from their favorite tax program. It's all so unnecessary. I don't think the average development shop is gung-ho to re-configure for all these cases either. I'm at my 5th workplace and I have yet to see a company that was stocked with enough QA and SCM folks. That's just a way of life.
So, once the basics are firmly established, a particular distribution that branches off and customized for "real-time" or "palm top" or "fully loaded" won't be so bad because most of the distribution is shared (including app installation) and dists that attempt to vary too much will be avoided by customers. A major "main" dist upgrade will surely be merged into the boutique dists. (Notice that right now, each dist has several of these boutique variations for itself.)
# What do you imagine the support contracts will look like?
I don't care, personally. But as Mr. Perens is trying to establish, the contract choices *will be* endless. Right now, your contract choice is to tie in RHs contract with RHs dist or SUSE's contract with SUSE's dist. Why should these be paired? It's a form of lock-in. Using a car analogy, the last place I go for auto repair is the dealer. I don't need a fox guarding a hen house. (But Lord knows the dealer tries hard to lock us all in.)
# How did you measure the "bigger trend towards Windows"?
I really should have put an "In my opinion" on that. Sorry.
I have been disturbed over the last four years with a "trend" I see. For example, at the last place, we had Linux for Apache and PHP. We dealt with three external vendors during my tenure. One was to get an IVR upgrade, but as of that year, they had dropped UNIX options and the new IVR was Windows 2000 Server only. (Not a trend yet.) Next, a marketing guy had snuck around and used an ISV to create a web site to communicate with customers. When he was found out (and fired), we had to bring it in house. Unfortunately it was ASP on IIS so we had to convert it. Next, we had to deal with a business by simply providing a URL to their site. However we wanted to do it securely by sending an encrypted credit card number, but to no avail. They used Cold Fusion (on Windows). (Close to a trend now.) Now I'm at a new shop which has it's roots in Unix. We have our own cross-platform toolkit, but last year an entire new app was written for Windows only including some toolkit components that won't be supported on UNIX. I just finished a meeting where a new daemon we'll need to write can be Windows only. This is because the new project is only going to run on Windows anyway. I won't bother with the job before last, but the stories are similar. Meanwhile, my ex-girlfriend and my brother work in "Windows only" shops on *systems* that would be better on Linux. My other job offer this time was a Windows only shop even though they were doing lots of component and *system* level work. (By "system," I mean that they need to manipulate files, search for strings, check directories periodically (cron), and write batch files. Things I consider obvious on UNIX. I wouldn't be so hard on a shop that writes office applications.)
So I call it a trend because it should be getting easier for me to push Linux, but it seems to be getting harder.
# Where did you come up with the idea that "Government contracts are demanding Windows now"?
Again, I should say I don't have stats, but my current job involves a good proportion of government work and they are the major pushers of a Windows based distributed computing environment. (Again, DCE is mostly a UNIX thing for now. There is a limited port of Condor for Windows which I will be using.)
# What idiots do you work with that would let the choice of a particular distribution stand in the way of porting an application?
Huh, what? Well maybe you know the intricacies of RPM databases and directory structures, plus other potential unknown nuances, but these guys don't want to get a thesis in it. There are probably a million lines of code across 900 "sub-projects" written over 20 years, including cross-platform toolkits, error-reporting subsystems, modes of operation, inter-process communication... Considering the relatively vile state of source control, their hands are too full to start exploring the options. Besides, just because we say it *should* work on Mandrake doesn't mean the customer will be impressed. We have to *support* it. I believe those with power but not time to explore (most places, wouldn't you think?) are waiting for the Linux push based on THE Linux distribution.
# Why shouldn't we pretend that competition (some would call it choice) between KDE and Gnome is good?
Are PNG and GIF a good idea? I don't think so. One should win, probably PNG due to rights issues (though they are now resolved). At least, PNG probably kept the GIF owners from extracting licensing cash. But now having both is just more trouble, more libraries to parse and for no benefit. On the other hand, JPG and GIF make sense. They don't "compete" as much as have separate niches – JPG does lossy and extreme compression, best for natural scenes or pictures that just need to be recognized; and GIF does loss-less but less compact compression but retains the image perfectly.
So here we are with two desktops which are matching up as Windows-like, full-featured, desktop environments, like PNG and GIF and for the same reasons. (One has proprietary base code and has moved farther and farther to free due to the competition.) In the meantime, if half the desktops in the world get Gnome and half get KDE, programming shops will have to code two system trays, two drag and drop systems, two COM-like component engines... Sorry, it's not only obnoxious, it just won't happen! You are fooling yourself to think it will. And while you are fooling yourself, application after application is *not* being ported to Linux because it's too much trouble and shops would rather wait to "see what the customer wants."
On the other hand, if we had one heavy desktop, like Gnome and one light desktop that didn't have all those features, that would be reasonable, I think. People with the light desktop would be counting on X-level drag and drop and no real frills. For instance, maybe a cheap (little memory, slow processor, lame graphics card) library terminal for browsing only. Just an idea, but probably not a great one, but I hope I made my point.
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 9, 2004 17:42 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Repeat after me: "I will lay off the drugs. I will lay off the drugs."And at least please get your facts straight.
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 9, 2004 20:34 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Huh, what? Well maybe you know the intricacies of RPM databases and directory structures, plus other potential unknown nuances, but these guys don't want to get a thesis in it.
RPM packages are extremely easy to build. There is a single file, called a spec file, which defines how things are going to be done. Nobody has to get a thesis on any directory structures or databases - various RH distros are very FHS compliant. Also, one can make choices *inside* this spec file to follow minor, distro dependent differences in order to create the RPMS. The spec file can be stored inside a vanilla tarball, which can be turned into binary/source RPMS with a single command. In fact, if designed properly, your build farm running target distros can build new versions of RPMS automatically from this vanilla tarball. Who knows, one may even find companies that do a similar thing and share the build farm resources with them...
If the software that you are building is not open source, then you'll have to do all those minor tweaks yourself, once only. If it is open source, others interested in using it on their favourite RPM based distro can do that for you, thus saving you the effort.
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 10, 2004 15:22 UTC (Fri) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] Better yet: if you can get the build system under apt, you can use tools to prepare a chrooted build environment, build the package inside it, and have your build and install dependencies linted with build being *repeatable*.
In ALT Linux, there are two such tools -- sandman client/server system (which does far more than that, including integration with VC software, bugtracker and ProjectView but executes package installs as root and thus the access must be controlled to avoid compromise) and hasher tool (which is more self-comtained and is designed with high security in mind).
They are both used for different purposes and they're *published* -- contrary to e.g. RH and SuSE build systems.
I do know that sandman was used with RH7.x plus a few more packages (apt among them).
sandman Posted Sep 13, 2004 18:47 UTC (Mon) by koide (guest, #22687) [Link] It reads like a great tool, but is it ALT Linux dependant, or just apt dependant?
On a related issue, why does ALT Linux get so little attention? It looks like a great alternative.
sandman Posted Sep 15, 2004 1:53 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] It reads like a great tool, but is it ALT Linux dependant, or just apt dependant? Just APT-dependent, but it also needs a correctly formed package repository. ALT Linux Sisyphus happens to be such suitable repository, but, with varying amount of effort, virtually any RPM-based distro can be adopted for use with Sandman. Sandman was originally developed by Sergey Bolshakov for Optifacio and SaM Solutions to facilitate repeatable builds of a Network Attached Storage system, which is a small (think ~100 MB iso) subset of Sisyphus. ALT Linux didn't manage to adapt it to their whole distribution, so they resorted to a more limited solution, Hasher, which only builds individual packages, much like Debian's pbuilder. Sandman's complexity is one of the reasons why Optifacio offers Sandman-based distribution building as a service: it takes an insider knowledge to set it up. Right now Sergey is re-implementing Sandman to take care of its most fundamental flaw: limited package repository versioning. A team in SaM Solutions is working on a more ambitious build system, which, in addition to proper version control, will add support for arbitrary package formats (Debian, BSD ports, etc.) and plug-and-play build servers. On a related issue, why does ALT Linux get so little attention? It looks like a great alternative. It appears they have no incentive to go international. Besides, outside of Russia, where, as I've already said, ALT Linux has zero marketing, this same niche is nicely filled by Debian, which is bigger, better, and known world-wide. Disclaimer: I am a DD.
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 15, 2004 1:53 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] In ALT Linux, there are two such tools -- sandman (...) Typical example of the problem with the ALT Linux business model. Even if it were unintentional, this sentence sounds as if the company is claiming credit to something that it had very little to do with (as in "the company providing network infrastructure for a community project that produced a package repository that is used as a basis for an independent product by another company that actually developed the tool for its customer who agreed to contribute it to the community"). No wonder the customer now requests a "vendor-neutral solution".
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 12, 2004 23:19 UTC (Sun) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] you guys must be deliberatly trying to misunderstand the problem
the problem is with companies that are not writing open source code, they are not writing infrastructure catagory programs, theya re writing programs for specific tasks and want to continue doing so.
they are willing to support 'Linux' but are not willing to support 20 different flavors of 'Linux'. while we all know that 90% or more of things will work just fine with no effort across all the different flavors, that's not good enough, they have to KNOW that their software will work and they don't want to have to run it through QA 20 times to prove that it will work (and when you have redhat doing non-standard stuff it's very easy to get software that requires non-trivial changes between distros)
if there was a good standard that would let the software function everywhere then this issue could fade away, unfortunantly the LSB takes so long to standardise and covers so little that in practice it's not good enough (I buy software from a company that currently supports 4+ distros and they ignore the LSB becouse it wouldn't help them at all, their management couldn't be sure that someone didn't accidently use a non LSB piece so they still wuld have to test it on every distro)
the problem of commercial software only working on some distros IS a real limitation right now. and now that you can't get a supported OS to run the software on without substantial per-seat licenses it makes it harder to get linux into new places
and once a company buys into the 'enterprise distro' they tend to want to run it everywhere becouse it is expensive in terms of support people to run multiple distros
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 13, 2004 4:42 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] The problem does not seem to exist when it comes to porting apps to proprietary Unix systems, so I fail to see why the Linux case would be exceptionally difficult.I agree that the LSB has not (yet) brought us the standards base we were hoping for. Smart software vendors that want to make their software run on Linux platforms will want to take a good, hard look at their own configuration methods and probably make use of, for instance, autoconf. Just like they would in other cases, by the way. Could you hand me the list of "20 different flavours", or were you just trying to make the problem look bigger than it is?
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 13, 2004 18:31 UTC (Mon) by koide (guest, #22687) [Link] Because each Linux flavor is comparable to a single proprietary Unix (AFAIK there're no different flavors of solaris, hp/ux, etc.). So supporting Linux is supporting each different distro, and there're certainly more than 20.Thinking on widely used ones you might get to 5 or 6 instead of 20, but the problem is still far from trivial for not trivial systems, especially when you're focused on users which won't be happy compiling each part of the system. A good approach for this issue might be to install in a specific, non standard location while LSB is LNSB, such as Sun's jre (/usr/java), though this doesn't solve library naming issues, so you end up with duplicate libraries (see OpenEV or FGS). You might ask, why not use RPM/apt/whatever? Because then the maintenance cost is huge (updating each part of the system, and tracking each distro specific change, which happens in between versions of the same distro). You can use your package format of choice once you've built the tree in an independant way, of course, but that's against the spirit of packages, I'd say.
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 14, 2004 2:05 UTC (Tue) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] each distro is different enough to be a seperate flavor, and frequently each release of a distro is enough different from previous releases to count as a seperate flavor. with commercial Unix vendors there is less variation between different releases then there is between different linux distro releases (so binaries compiled for Solaris 2.6 still work on Solaris 10, but try to take a binary compiled for RedHat 7 and make it work on Fedora Core2)
it's the same problem as supporting multiple Unix vendors and the software companies don't support all variations on Unix, they support a small handful of them, and in Linux they only support a small handful as well (mostly RedHat releases historicly)
One problem that Linux has along these lines is that it changes faster then the competeing OS's do. that makes the newer linux systems far better, but it makes it harder for the software vendor (even if they only support a single distro)
LSB Not Enough Posted Sep 9, 2004 22:26 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] take a look at http://freedesktop.org/
|
|||||||||||