From: Feizhou <feizhou(a)graffiti.net>
> I still remember the FIRST Linux GUI installer for a Linux distro. It
> came on the Caldera Openlinux 2.2. It worked. It was really nice.
Actually, the first distro with a GUI installer was Yggdrasil, circa 1993.
It installed on 8MB of RAM using X and Athena/FVWM.
> The Novell guys that were behind Caldera deserve plenty of respect for
> what they have done.
Despite what someone else said, I was (and still am somewhat) of a
major skeptic of Novell. Novell new it had to get off of its DOS Protected
Mode Interface (DPMI) OS approach, and seriously considered Linux.
But instead of going Linux 10 years earlier than they did, they bought
UNIX(R) from AT&T USL. That's when Ray Noorda, basically the man
who made Novell who they are, broken off and founded Caldera.
Novell never worked much with Caldera, and withheld pretty much all
their core technologies. Ironic because had Novell not, they would be
in a far stronger position on Linux than they are today. We might not
even be talking about Red Hat. But, once again, this is all just fluff.
What really matters is the GPL donations. Novell has pleasantly
surprised me because they have basically GPL'd everything SuSE had
not, as well as even a few of their technologies. Now they still have
their core technologies that they will never GPL -- just like Sun, etc...
and are no where near Red Hat's 100% GPL-centric focus. But unlike
Red Hat, I have to say they are the first PC-centric software developer
that "gets it" and whenever these "debates" go on with Microsoft and
Open Source companies -- Novell always puts their arguments in terms
that traditional Microsoft consumers can understand.
And Novell seems to understand how to treat the distribution channel,
especially system integrators, better than Red Hat too. As I've always
said on other lists, it's like a replay of Apple-IBM-Microsoft. Apple
thought IBM was their enemy, and partnered with Microsoft only to be
blindsided. Same deal here. Sun thinks Red Hat is their enemy, and
they have partnered with Novell. Novell not only has them on the OS
front, but they offer a GPL implementation of .NET too (which
essentially is based on Java 1.1 code -- although .NET 2.0 is now
modernized with the Microsoft relicense).
> I think, today's SCO bashing should really go to the current owner of
> SCO and to IBM. IBM for what they did and the guy who put McBride in
> place to do the stock game.
I don't defend SCO's lobbying and Linux IP "smokescreen." They are a
company who is fighting our right to digital assembly, and they are now
an abomination.
But had it not been for the rabid response by the Linux community not
to stop and recognize the original March 2003 filing was about Monterey
-- something even Linus, ESR and many other people themselves explicitly
called a "contract dispute" in countless media interviews -- SCO wouln't
have been able to put up this Linux IP "smokescreen."
So many people had made SCO v. IBM into SCO v. Linux -- calling for
the end of the lawsuit and whatnot -- well before SCO even introduced
the Linux IP issue. We gave them the avenue to take.
IBM is no better than SCO. But I will admit that in the transcripts I have
read, IBM's lawyers are doing a great job of using the GPL, and making
the judge aware of what it entails. The judge is really good, and isn't
giving SCO anything on the Linux IP front.
But unfortunately for IBM, the judge has granted several SCO motions
that have everything to do with Monterey, and any Monterey code that
competes with Linux. Because that's what this is about, Monterey,
the withholding of Monterey/IA-64 (UnixWare 8) and the Non-Compete.
And if it does make it to a jury trial in Utah, I don't see how any juror
won't see this as a patent and capital giant screwing over a smaller
company because it could. Especially since Caldera-SCO's strategy was
no different than IBM's, and the whole reason for the contract was to
protect Caldera-SCO against what IBM did. Even if IBM found a loophole,
I still see Caldera-SCO winning some counts on IBM not maintaining
the contract "in good faith" well before they broke it.
And that's what worries me most. When Caldera-SCO wins on some
Monterey counts, the media will translate that into SCO proving their
IP is in Linux, largely because lots of the rabid Linux world will be
screaming "why? how?" because they just don't know what the case
is all about. They never have.
Which is my point. Not that SCO is good / IBM is bad. But there are
contract disputes and corporate strategies at work here -- they always
have been -- and you can't side with one company and demonize another
without realizing all the details that brought it to this. Especially the
valuable lesson that even the most pro-Linux, pro-GPL company can
still be competitor #1 to IBM, and IBM will destroy them.
> I really don't understand why some people get so uptight about it. I
> look after over 30 machines and I have had no problems moving on to
> Fedora Core 1 and Fedora Core 2. In fact, I like their Fedora project
> more than their RHL line.
>From what I saw, once the execs "took the shakles off" the RHL developers
as they no longer considered RHL a "product" anymore once it became FC,
there was a lot of "clean-up" in FC. The big one was inter-dependency
hell that had built up over the years. And there were other security
changes (this is before SELinux) that were just sound -- especially getting
rid of SUID root on a lot of things.
Unfortunately, I see DAG's points on the lack of consideration of multi-
version aware SPEC files. They explain a lot of issues I'm seeing in Fedora
Core releases. And if the quality of FC slides, then it will affect RHEL as
well. Which is why I'm either hopeful Red Hat realizes this, or maybe
Novell-SuSE's version 10 strategy will offer what we've been used to in
the RHL/RHEL space.
> I personally don't have a problem with the Red Hat business decision ...
> but I understand why some people do.
I think people forget that the strategy was set the moment SuSE introduced
SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES). Red Hat introduced RHEL years before
the Fedora Core project was even announced, and that included cutting
updates to 1 year, discouraging certification on RHL in favor of RHEL (which
most vendors wanted anyway -- a product good for 5+ years, with an 18
month cycle instead of 6 month), etc... Fedora(TM) was just a trademark
issue -- something only Red Hat, of all vendors, had because they were
the only company that had allowed people to distribute major modifications
with their trademark.
Even Sun had to license SuSE(R), and continued to abuse Red Hat(R) for
years without a license until their SuSE-based Java Desktop came out.
Why? Because Sun had legal ground to stand on claiming Red Hat never
enforced their trademark.
> That lifetime support you are looking at is far less than 2 years I can
> assure you.
It all depends.
What I see people complaining about on Red Hat is typically two things:
1) Free 3-4 years of updates
2) A "brand name" that the boss will allow in the company
#1 should have never happened, and why Red Hat maintained 3-4 years of
updates for 6-7 simultaneous revisions is beyond me. *NO* other commercial
distributor has even come close, and even SuSE rarely makes its 2 year
promises on SL.
#2 is probably the real complaint most people have, and it goes back to
the trademark. With RHL, you used to be able to install Red Hat Linux and
because your boss though Red Hat was the Microsoft of Linux, he thought it
was well supported. Now that's more difficult to do with "Fedora" as the
boss reads in the IT media that it's cutting edge and unstable.
> CentOS offers the free and the long lifetime. I personally don't care
> too much since the advantages on newer Fedora Cores outweigh a
> 'supported' but static distro. However, others may not see it that way
> and so it is good that CentOS is here.
I think the CentOS project is a great endeavor.
And I like many aspects of the Fedora Project, and Fedora Core itself.
I have some increasing concerns though, but they aren't because Red Hat
is "greedy," "listening to its stockholders," etc...
Hell, there is a reason why Red Hat allowed major GPL projects to buy
stock before the IPO -- because it wanted sharedholders who understand
their GPL-centric model.
> At the same time, I find it offensive when people starting saying 'Dead
> Rat' just because the RHL line was pulled and they forget all the work
> that Redhat puts into the Linux kernel, gcc, glibc and a host of others
> that are at the core of any Linux distribution.
Which is why people like yourself and myself are not popular.
We ask people to stop and appreciate the CentOS project without
resorting to demonizing Red Hat (or Caldera-SCO, or anyone else).
That's not popular with the majority, rabid Linux community.
They want to make it about Microsoft, Red Hat, SCO or whomever else.
They want to interject this "hate" -- and that's what it is -- on a regular
basis.
We're in the minority because we don't stoop to that level.
In fact, I'm sure I'm very much hated because I'm the jerk who takes the
time to try to explain things. In reality, I just give these people an excuse
to say I'm "OT" -- but as I said, you can't chastize me without realizing
all of the OT, snide and other non-technical comments we see regularly.
I just have to use Linus and many others as examples, they stay focused
on the source. They keep IBM from getting patents in the kernel, they
question donations from other companies as well -- giving real refutement
to arguments like those from SCO -- and keep our GPL focused on what
it needs to be. And that's not petty comments on whomever we hate today.
I'm sure I'm going to piss a lot of people off with this next comment, but
it's what I'm seeing more and more. As an opinionated American who believes
strongly in capitalism (largely because we Americans are too individualistic
for government mandated socialism to work), I am regularly reminded on
how sometimes just an American company can be so demonized.
I used to think maybe I was just paranoid, but after Utah-based Novell
bought Germany-owned SuSE, I started seeing a lot of the anti-Red Hat
comments start to be made of SuSE as well. Ironic because the first thing
Novell started doing was GPL'ing all sorts of SuSE -- and they are even
releasing the first, feature-complete, 100% redistributable ISOs as of 9.2.
But before, SuSE was called a "good" company, despite their non-GPL
focus at times, and I always thought it was ironic that they were not held
to the same standard as Red Hat.
But in reality, I have noticed in the software industry -- being that Linux
is a global effort -- I have repeatedly seen American companies held to a
higher standard, and many of their charity simply discarded. At the same
time, companies like IBM can play "Quiz Show" type games with marketing
and money, and suddenly people are fooled into thinking they are charitable.
On pure dollar amounts, IBM doens't compare to Red Hat, HP or even Sun
on actual GPL or even GPL compatible donations. And the reality is that
only GPL or GPL compatible software is the thing that remains, no matter
what changes.
People tend to not understand that there is a major difference between
choosing to work together in a public commons and government-mandated
public organization. There is -- and it's massive. A public commons in a
capitalistic society is a good thing. We choose to work together and we
benefit from our efforts, which we make freely. Even Red Hat does this,
as well as HP, Sun and, to a lesser extent, even IBM. But the one thing
I repeatedly see is people blaming Microsoft for their problems -- which
mirrors the other "absolute blames" I continually see for all sorts of things.
The reality is that you can't mandate Linux or otherwise force people.
People must be allowed to choose Microsoft if they wish, or anything else.
The concept of "we know better than you" scares me to death. And it's
the attitude I see used against companies regularly, especially against
American companies. I believe strongly in public commons, as long as
people choose to do so freely.
And Red Hat has continually been the only commercial Linux company that
has a 100% GPL focus. And they aren't some social-idealistic company
in a socialistic economy -- but an American company in a capitalistic
economy that believes strongly in never betraying the public trust.
They understand Stallman's "moral delima" -- ironically another American.
And some of us are just too busy to play the "blame game."
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
