From: Feizhou feizhou@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