Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
SolidIce and the SPICE protocol?
Posted Sep 5, 2008 11:55 UTC (Fri) by Lovechild (guest, #3592)
Red Hat have always played nice with us, showing a true understanding for Free Software and the way the community works, it would be a major surprise if they suddenly stopped.
Posted Sep 5, 2008 13:09 UTC (Fri) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588)
Please STOP with it already. We have become quite aware that you aren't a fan of canonical or ubuntu by any means and get it. You realize that Fedora uses upstart, developed by a Canonical employee, right? You realize that Canonical developers have upstream commit access to system-config-printer because they submitted a ton of bug fixes, right? You realize that you make yourself (and fedora) look childish by acting the way you are. You might also point out you are a longtime and respected Fedora community member before trolling. That might, just perhaps, make you look better... NOT.
Please stop being childish. You can email me from my website if you'd like to continue this privately.
Posted Sep 5, 2008 16:35 UTC (Fri) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
Are Canonical's Lauchpad and Landscape any less important to discuss in the context of a wider linux community compared to RedHat's newly acquired SolidICE or recently opened Spacewalk? Both Red Hat and Canonical are corporate entities which are essentially looking to make money from a services model support linux distribution. I think its perfectly reasonable to contrast how each of those companies are handling the access to the codebases behind the products and services they provide.
In fact, I think LWN should do an entire editorial series on the future of openness as applied to web services in general. This is a very important topic, especially if the "Online Desktop" concept gains traction and we as end-users are making heavier and heavier use of services in the cloud and less use of client-side code. Whose out there championing the cause of open web services and who isn't?
Maybe you aren't aware of this but Canonical != Ubuntu. The Ubuntu community doesn't control the Launchpad codebase...Canonical does. The Ubuntu community doesn't control the Landscape codebase.. Canonical does. I have concerns about Canonical as a corporate entity and the decisions being made at that level. Not it engineers, not the wider volunteer Ubuntu community.
If you want to hold upstart up as an example of how things should be done. Then great. It is a great example. Launchpad should be as open as Upstart so that non-canonical employed people can contribute to Launchpad and make it better...just as people are doing now with upstart and dbus integration in upstart 0.5. Considering that Launchpad is meant to be a tool by which Ubuntu developers can work more closely with upstream projects..you'd think it would be in everyone's best interest so that those upstream project could contribute back to Launchpad to optimize the workflow to help those upstream project developers.
I've made absolutely no claim that individuals who work for Canonical don't understand how this should work. But I'm not sure Canonical's management team gets it. Why Upstart but not Launchpad? Why isn't Launchpad open to the same community innovation that upstart is? Maybe its because Canonical's management team isn't actually convinced that the open source model is profitable and they see Launchpad as 'important'..and Upstart as ultimately unimportant. Who knows... Canonical is a privately held company so there is no transparency with regard to its business model.
If people want to question Red Hat's commitment to giving back to the open source ecosystem, then I expect then to hold up each and every other corporate entity in the community to the same scrutiny....Canonical included. Fair's fair.
-jef"Wow you mispelled my last name"spaleta
Posted Sep 8, 2008 17:26 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
FFS. Do you have any idea how many closed source products Redhat has obtained via purchasing then turned around and open sourced them?
A few off the top of my head:
Redhat purchases Sistina. Now we have completely _Free_software_ cluster aware file system and clustering suite from Redhat.
Redhat purchases 'Netscape Enterprise Suite' products from AOL; namely Netscape Directory Services and Netscape Certificate Management System. Now we have completely _Free_software_ from Redhat in the form of Fedora Directory System (LDAP system that trounces OpenLDAP in many respects), Redhat Certificate Management System, and projects like FreeIPA. (which now means that Linux in the enterprise is starting to have a rival Active Directory)
Redhat purchases Jboss, and in response the Jboss becomes completely _Free_software_ moving away from their custom 'open source' license to things like GPL, LGPL, Apache, etc.
And Redhat spent a great deal of time, money, and effort, creating viable compiling Java implimentation and porting many applications over to it, which is probably one of the main reasons why Java is now moving towards Open Source/Free software.
etc etc etc.
Over and over again Redhat has a _proven_ track record of being willing to spend _millions_ of dollars purchasing significant corporations and open sourcing the software under Free software licenses. They have shown nothing but commitment towards Free and Open Source software that drives their support-based business model.
There is no doubt in my mind that whatever software related to SPICE that Redhat feels there is a need or a purpose for, they will open source. These sort of things are difficult as SPICE or other related software may have copyright owned by third parties or have have patent issues, but I have decent faith, built from historical evidence, that Redhat will open source what they can and not build anything for their customers that depends on closed source software.
This 'Oh what about in the context of Launchpad' hand waving is complete crap. It is utterly unrelated and as far as I can tell is just a excuse for you to tie in a favorite subject that you like to harp on.
It has _nothing_ to do with Redhat and it has _nothing_ to do with this article.
Posted Sep 12, 2008 6:21 UTC (Fri) by buchanmilne (guest, #42315)
Fedora Directory System (LDAP system that trounces OpenLDAP in many respects).
Posted Sep 11, 2008 0:43 UTC (Thu) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588)
I've just seen you post very critical posts about Ubuntu in more than one
article on lwn. I don't need to prove to you what you know you are doing.
Ubuntu being successful == fedora being successful because it == Linux /
open source being successful.
While I agree 100% about launchpad being open source, mark shuttleworth
said it will be open source by next year's oscon.
I guess I'm just tired to seeing free software / open source guys flame
eachother. There is no point, we aren't your "enemies". Ubuntu Hardy took
the xrandr gtk patch and the xrandr based display capplet from fedora while
fedora took upstart from ubuntu. Everyone wins when we stop bickering and
start working together. That is all.
Jeff "dyslexia spelled spaleta wrong" Schroeder
Posted Sep 11, 2008 7:32 UTC (Thu) by Lovechild (guest, #3592)
In that sense I think it's entirely fair game to compare the track record of Canonical with the track record of Red Hat (or Novell for that matter, just to hit the big 3 distro vendors). Sadly it looks rather poor, I wish it didn't since Linux would be better as a whole if it wasn't the case.
Excuse some of us for critising Canonical based on what they do and not what they say. It does not mean we want to gleefully watch Ubuntu burn, but we do want their parent company to play nice with the other children. Especially given their highly vocal CEO's multiple statements on the record as to the virtues of open development and proposals as to how the rest of us should work.
Posted Sep 11, 2008 21:02 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
"N.B. - the roadmap has to be approved yet and some further detail
added to it but we're thinking about this seriously."
Now maybe you read the phrase 'thinking about it seriously' as meaning 'firm commitment to a specific timeline and roadmap' but I'm not sure the Ubuntu community members who have so far commented on that bugreport do.
The problem isn't Ubuntu as a community. The problem is Canonical and its desire to centrally control how the Ubuntu contributor community is allowed to grow and interact through the control of Launchpad.
The problems with just Lauchpad's Rosetta translation component makes a pretty good read as an impetus as to why the Ubuntu community needs to see Launchpad opened up so that the Ubuntu community can dig in and adapt the tool that Canonical has created to better serve the Ubuntu community's desire to work better with upstream projects.
Active, dedicated Ubuntu community members have been calling for open access to a critical piece of the infrastructure which they rely on to do they work they are doing. They have been doing that for far longer than I have been talking about it. I don't really care whose motivations you find compelling. Nor do I care if I'm cast as "the enemy" what matter is Launchpad as it stands right now is an impediment towards closer collaboration between the Ubuntu contributors and the upstream projects.
That is unlikely to change until Launchpad is open for community collaboration so that the Ubuntu community can adapt it to better meet the community's needs...regardless of what Canonical needs Launchpad to be as a profit center. If Canonical isn't going to respond to years of internal Ubuntu community pressure to open up Launchpad. Then perhaps they'll respond to external pressure by having an external party..perhaps even lwn...taking the time to compare and contrast exactly how dedicated to community and the open software ecosystem Canonical really is.
-jef"...next up Canonical's self-serving double standard with regard to Ubuntu's trademark when it comes to the Netbook remix"spaleta
Posted Sep 11, 2008 21:12 UTC (Thu) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588)
I agree with you completely. THis is kind of OT for this article though. Care to take a bet on how long before the SPICE protocol is fully documented with non-emcumbered OSS code out? I'd give it 2 years.
Posted Sep 11, 2008 21:44 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
I think the the Netscape Directory codebase took longer than that to fully open..but that was much more than a protocal definition. That directory codebase release had to be staged, the gui admin tools came later because they essentially had to be written and couldn't be opened.
Advanced Message Queuing Protocol isn't a good example either because it was a from the ground up specification that Red Hat has been working on with partners.
The closest previous example maybe when Red Hat purchased Sistina in 2003 and then subsequently open sourced their GFS implementation about a year later. I wouldn't expect it to be faster than how long it took to get GFS opened.
But it really comes down to what the legal particulars of the codebase in question.
Of course none of that historical comparison should keep anyone from prodding Red Hat to do it as fast as possible.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds