| |||||||||||||
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet)Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet)Posted Sep 9, 2004 2:41 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #14462)In reply to: Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) by BrucePerens Parent article: Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) 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!
(Log in to post comments)
Bruce Perens: the Linux colonel talks (vnunet) Posted Sep 9, 2004 4:41 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #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 9, 2004 5:54 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #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 7:26 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 8:03 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #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 10:26 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 7:51 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 7:41 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 21:13 UTC (Tue) by zenaan (subscriber, #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 21:21 UTC (Tue) by zenaan (subscriber, #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
|
|||||||||||||