Return to the Press page

LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 24, 2012

A uTouch architecture introduction

LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 17, 2012

Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich

Highlights from the PostgreSQL 9.2 beta

Printable page

Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

Commentary: Where UnitedLinux got it wrong (NewsForge)

[Posted June 2, 2002 by corbet]

NewsForge points out a problem with the UnitedLinux "no free binaries" policy. "No, many of the people downloading software from FTP sites are developers. They are the software providers -- the true software vendors, if you will -- who make the code which is UnitedLinux. By cutting off your development people, you are launching into dangerous territory. Alienating the Open Source community is a dumb move for most companies to make. But alienating them, and then expecting them to cooperate with your desire to sell their software, is profoundly foolish." The solution, they say, is to name the FTPable binary distribution "Hackers Linux."

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Jun 3, 2002 0:36 UTC (Mon) by erat (guest, #21) [Link]

Funny, last time I checked the free software and open source movements (as well as licenses like the GPL) were about keeping the source code open/free. If you can get the sources, you can build the binaries.

It's not always easy to compile sources

Posted Jun 3, 2002 1:57 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

It's not always easy to compile sources. Even projects using Autoconf and Automake are often created by hand instead of "make distcheck" - this often means that the timestamps are wrong and "make" will try to rebuild something that requires special tools or tools of a certain version.

Many projects take a lot of time to compile. Once I decided to try all MIDI editors listed on Freshmeat.net. It took one evening to try 4 or 5 projects. Most of them didn't compile cleanly.

Other projects require to select features before compilation. Linux kernel is an example. If you compile it with the default .config, your hardware is not likely to be supported.

Finally, most distributions patch software a little bit. If my users report that my application doesn't compile on, say, SuSE, and I cannot get their glibc to see if they patched the headers, then most likely I'll not bother bying that distribution. Any if that user fails to find the reason why my program doesn't compile, then it won't compile on that distribution. And most importantly, downloading the pristine glibc sources is not going to help.

It's not always easy to compile sources

Posted Jun 3, 2002 13:41 UTC (Mon) by erat (guest, #21) [Link]

You're forgetting a few things:

1) UnitedLinux is a cohesive system, not a random set of RPM packages cobbled together from different sources on the Internet. Unless UnitedLinux is produced in a completely broken manner, the base libraries and utilities that are included in UL will be used to build UL. If you're compiling UL sources on a UL based system you should be fine (it is not unreasonable to expect developers to compile UL sources on a UL based system. Take any Red Hat or SuSE or OpenLinux SRPM and try to build it on another distro and you'll see that this expectation is common).

2) UnitedLinux isn't really a distro; it's a base that will be used to produce distros. The UL binaries will be coming from distros that will be build on top of UL (i.e. the next versions of SuSE, OpenLinux, Connectiva, Turbolinux, and whatever other Linux companies adopt UL as its base). So, binaries will be available.

3) The article was about developers needing binaries. Even developers coming from other UNIX type environments (in my experience) seem capable of compiling Linux software. I run various flavors of Linux and *BSD, and it's rare that I have to do anything to sources to get them to compile. More often than not if there is a problem it's with a library that I have on my system, not the source code.

I think the Newsforge article was written to produce controversy and drama around UL. The general Linux media knows that anything they write that could be negative for a Linux company (some find themselves as targets more than others) will more likely than not create a fire storm. I guess that's why I try to ignore the bulk of Linux media outlets (LWN being one of the only exceptions).

Commentary: Where UnitedLinux got it wrong (NewsForge)

Posted Jun 3, 2002 13:57 UTC (Mon) by AAP (guest, #721) [Link]

Compiling a whole OS from scratch is slow. Especially on older machines. Only a few hard core types would mess with that.

Commentary: Where UnitedLinux got it wrong (NewsForge)

Posted Jun 3, 2002 14:49 UTC (Mon) by erat (guest, #21) [Link]

As I've mentioned elsewhere in this exchange, UnitedLinux binaries will be available in the form of upcoming versions of SuSE, OpenLinux, Turbolinux, Connectiva, and I'm guessing a few others. There should be no need to compile an entire OS from scratch. Come on...

Commentary: Where UnitedLinux got it wrong (NewsForge)

Posted Jun 3, 2002 0:36 UTC (Mon) by DeletedUser416 ((unknown), #416) [Link]

How is this a problem? If they're distributing the source, someone else can easily build the binaries and distribute them. I don't see any prohibition against that. In any event, I doubt these four companies will wind up being the sole distributors of UnitedLinux anyway, just the maintainers. You can be sure other enterprising souls are going to take the sources and build their own distributions off of them. I do have to admit, though, it does seem strange - if they know other parties can distribute binary versions, why don't they just do it themselves?

Commentary: Where UnitedLinux got it wrong (NewsForge)

Posted Jun 3, 2002 9:57 UTC (Mon) by haraldt (guest, #961) [Link]

I don't see the need to use another name entirely.

First, none of the Linux vendors are going to sell the package as "UnitedLinux". It's "Powered by UnitedLinux".
Second, these people most probably want to include proprietary packages, which has to be removed anyway. Where such a tool is essential for installation or use, developers should most surely be able to deal with an open source replacement.
If UnitedLinux decides to use a proprietary partition manager, the downloadable version can use fdisk or cfdisk instead.
If UnitedLinux wants a proprietary backup tool, don't you think developers can do with, or even prefer, something else?

So perhaps a name like "United Linux - Developers edition" (or perhaps even "hackers edition")?
For non-hackers / non-developers, this reads "under development", not to be used in production. Perhaps is _should_ be a little under development, like Openoffice.org is for Staroffice and Mozilla is for Netscape.

I think this could work.
Ransom Love can be a fool as much as he wants, if he doesn't get this thing to work, he's an even bigger fool for not listening.

Ransom Love = UnitedLinux?

Posted Jun 3, 2002 13:48 UTC (Mon) by erat (guest, #21) [Link]

Excuse me, but exactly when did Ransom Love become equal to UnitedLinux?

The UL effort is being championed so far by 4 commercial Linux companies, each with an equal interest and more or less equal amounts of dedicated effort. Ransom is only one voice in the UL effort.

If Ransom has spoken about UL and in the processed ticked you off, you must remember that Ransom is speaking for ALL of UL, not just himself. If you dislike something that he says, get mad at the message, not the messenger.

Ransom Love = UnitedLinux?

Posted Jun 3, 2002 15:51 UTC (Mon) by haraldt (guest, #961) [Link]

No no.
Who said I was mad at someone here? I agree I could have left that part out, it's not relevant. But also too late right now, as you can't edit your posts once entered.
All I said: Ransom Love and Caldera stand as the most conservative here, by traditional proprietary business means. Listening to other opinions is of importance here, as dragging too much Caldera mindset into UnitedLinux can easily turn out to be a hindrance to their whole effort.

In hindsight, I hope we can strive for the same quality here as in lwn itself.

Commentary: Where UnitedLinux got it wrong (NewsForge)

Posted Jun 3, 2002 15:07 UTC (Mon) by PME (guest, #1045) [Link]

I think it is a great idea to not supply the binaries free-of-charge! Anyone the is a real developer is compiling code every day, and this is no problem. In fact, a real hacker is optimizing for his/her system, and isn't interested in the binaries. The clueless masses are giving M$ millions every day. It would be really good if the Linux community was seeing a good size chunk of this money! I say, promote COPYLEFT SOURCE, and COPYRIGHT BINARIES!!! It's the best of both worlds: source for hackers/developers, and non-free binaries for the masses!

Posted Jun 3, 2002 19:47 UTC (Mon) by edmundo (guest, #616) [Link]

How is this possible? The GPL allows you to redistribute binaries, provided you provide source, and whoever gave you the binaries must also give you the source. See paragraph 3 of the GPL. I think Ransome Love's original comment about binaries not being free must just mean that the complete set of binaries is not free, presumably because some of the included programs are not free. Either that or he has discovered some cunning new legal loophole.

Maybe I'm missing somehting...

Posted Jun 3, 2002 20:26 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

But the piece seems to be suggesting that developers will complain because the *binaries* aren't provided:

If you assume that the people downloading the software binaries from the FTP site are merely customers, then the solution makes sense. However, that is not the case.
No, many of the people downloading software from FTP sites are developers. They are the software providers -- the true software vendors, if you will -- who make the code which is UnitedLinux. By cutting off your development people, you are launching into dangerous territory. Alienating the Open Source community is a dumb move for most companies to make. But alienating them, and then expecting them to cooperate with your desire to sell their software, is profoundly foolish.

And so not providing *binaries* is going to alienate *developers* and *not* annoy direct customers? Either the writer is very confused... or I am. I'm going to bet on him.

But hell, maybe it is just me.

So many things are just me.

Maybe I'm missing somehting...

Posted Jun 3, 2002 21:59 UTC (Mon) by erat (guest, #21) [Link]

No, I think you hit the nail on the head. The Newsforge article is a long reach of an attempt to squeeze drama out of the UnitedLinux project. The argument made in the article is so desperate and weak that I find it laughable. It's not entirely inconsistent with other "reporting" that I've encountered from that site. (At first I was surprised that so many folks were saying "yeah, right on!" after reading it, but then I considered the crowds on some "other" Linux news outlets and wasn't all that surprised anymore...)

I'm sure there will be things about the UnitedLinux effort that will put people off (including me), but this ain't one of 'em...

Hey, at least it's entertaining.

Maybe I'm missing somehting...

Posted Jun 4, 2002 14:42 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

I'm going to draw Robin Miller's attention to this and see what he thinks of it. I've talked to him at some length in the past, and he strikes me as not at all nuts...