Two years ago, when Rick Carey was chief technology architect at Merrill Lynch, he was crazy about Linux and especially about Red Hat, the leading Linux distributor. At the time, he was leading the charge to migrate all of the computer systems at Merrill to Linux. But these days, things have changed. Elsewhere, Internetnews has a brief interview with Red Hat’s CEO.
Red Hat Linux Loyalists Leery
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Rick Carey says …”Most open source is imitation,” Carey says. “Linux is an imitation of an operating system. If these [Linux] companies are going to create a price point that is significant enough that they are approaching the same pricing model as the innovation premium, why pay a premium for imitation when I can pay a premium and get innovation?”…
And i think this one of the valid points!
—
Tiger
“Most open source is imitation,” Carey says. “Linux is an imitation of an operating system. If these [Linux] companies are going to create a price point that is significant enough that they are approaching the same pricing model as the innovation premium, why pay a premium for imitation when I can pay a premium and get innovation?”
Okay so linux doesn’t innovate.
Although dozens of Linux distributions exist, switching from one to the other could become more difficult as companies like Red Hat and its rival, SuSE, attempt to differentiate their Linux distributions by developing new features.
“That’s what makes me cautious,” Carey says. “There’s a risk there. I have the right to switch, but it could be costly.”
So now they are innovative again. YaY!
I’m just curious what this emotional man expects, to have his farm of multi-processor machines run for free? sorry but people who write software for those high end machines have spent years in college and expect to be paid. I’m not sure if he noticed but the 2.6 kernel improvements make it atleast as good as any propriatry UNIX or Windows machines on servers. Its not just something college students and hobbiests write for on weekends, paid fulltime professionals are writing your software now mr. Carey.
I’m not sure if he noticed but the 2.6 kernel improvements make it atleast as good as any propriatry UNIX or Windows machines on servers.
Well, I’d say as good as Windows perhaps, but you’d be seriously stretching the truth to say that it’s comparible to all of the various UNIX variants. I’d give Linux a few more years before I’d seriously argue that it’s a capable replacement for all proprietary UNIXes.
That said, given the choice between the two now (as in both Linux and UN*X are capable of doing what I needed them to do), I’d choose Linux, just because I prefer open source software.
To each their own.
Hi
People think that Redhat is just bundling random stuff and asking money for it.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7288
The above link explains the real situation very much. If you dont want support from them
check out
whiteboxlinux.org
caos.org
taolinux.org
all of the above are redhat enterprise clones without support.
If you dont want that
slackware.org
debian.org
gentoo.org
are volunteer distros with a very active community of users.
regards
Jess
Hi
Thats true. Linux wont replace all of the unix like operating systems out there. It needs more capabalities technically but there are others things to consider. Instead of relying of one costly machine with a proprietary system it can actually be cheaper to replae it with two or three redundant commodity stuff
regards
Jess
Instead of relying of one costly machine with a proprietary system it can actually be cheaper to replae it with two or three redundant commodity stuff
Yeah, IMO that’s the way to go. I’ll never be able to afford the really high end stuff myself, but I’m getting quite handy at clustering. It’s great for most generic bioinformatics applications.
Hi
I wouldnt say that.
1) Linux does have some innovations like selinux now. nobody would call it a mere clone anymore
2) You are not paying for Linux. You are paying for Redhat Enterprise Edition for their support. I have posted alternatives for people who dont want any support from Redhat
Jess
Linux does have some innovations like selinux now.
I am not going to claim that Linux isn’t innovating here (and it’s one of the few things that I truely like about the Linux kernel) but SELinux is largely a port of earlier work done by the NSA and the Secure Computing Corporation.
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/info/
Hi
Selinux was originally designed for a research operating system called flask and hence the name flask architecture but the practical implementation is Linux.
Rusell who designed it claims that they choose Linux because they want many people to adopt it. Retaining it within a research OS as a proof of concept thing wouldnt be a good idea.
Its also relevant here that Rusell did all of his volunteer work on debian and is now employed on contract by Redhat for a complete integration of selinux within fedora core 2. The kernel code comes with a sample policy. The hard work has gone into fedora core 2. I am using a devel tree of fedora core and it still has some bugs but it has come out much better than fedora core 1 test releases considering the amount of work done
regards
Jess
Hi
The OS is called fluke. the architecture is flask
On free software and Innovation. Here we go again
You want to hear about innovation? Ok,let’s talk innovation.
Find me a proprietary application that can do what Plone does. http://www.plone.org
Along these lines,find me something as feature-full as the Zope web application server.
Find me a program made by Microsoft that has robust support for the IMAP email protocol. I can list many FLOSS programs here that do
Find me a web server that is as good as Apache or an FTP server that is as good as VSFTP or ProFTP.
Find me a sound server/sound architecture as robust and feature-full as ALSA.
Why is it that Apple uses CUPS? Because it rocks and yes it is open source and it is the best printing system around.
How many file formats does Windows support out of the box?
Find me a clustering solution that is as advanced and as featurefull as those available on Linux? Moreover, find me a piece of proprietary software that matches what a distribution such as ClusterKnoppix offers by allowing you to create a cluster in minutes without having to load any software to the machines themselves?
Find me a faxing system as versatile and robust as Hylafax?
I could go on and on and on.
But all of the above misses the true point of free software, which is that we are enriching humanity by making the tools of tomorrow available to everyone. Our true innovation is at the social level. We remove all boundaries and allow anyone to contribute to the betterment of society. We just ask that if you want to build on our efforts, you share your own and that you play nice.
Some response to the actual article:
“Linux is an imitation of an operating system. If these [Linux] companies are going to create a price point that is significant enough that they are approaching the same pricing model as the innovation premium, why pay a premium for imitation when I can pay a premium and get innovation?”
What is the imitation? Pay for a premium for inovation? I dont remember too many commercial OS that will do 64 processors (SMP). Wasnt it SGI that put Linux on something like over 100 processors?
“The vendors are changing, the licensing models are changing,” Carey says. “The companies doing these Linux distributions are trying to make money by taking away the freedom of Linux. I don’t mean free as in cost. I mean free as in free speech. If you make me pay more for ten users than for three users, you’re taking away some of my freedom. From the consumer perspective, that’s not why we went into this. It was freedom of choice.”
And why are vendors prices changing? Perhaps there is some new competition on the block. If you note, serveral companies are doing subscription based services. Wasnt it Red Hat that started doing that. The author balks about paying for a premium for inovation but not paying per server or per processor. You can still download the source and build your own ISO. Red Hat still makes the source available. Dont get me wrong, I am not RH fan. Perhaps checking out something like White Box Linux or ChAos Linux.
Beier says Red Hat may have raised its prices too soon. Today most customers can still migrate away from Red Hat without too much pain. “Another couple of years and migration away from Red Hat might have been quite painful indeed. Now, everybody is stepping back and saying, ‘Whoa!’ and realizing how close they came.”
Raised prices too soon and Whoa!!! Can you say that about any other commercial OS. How many people are paying for commercial OS’ and facing vendor lock in. Well I guess since there is apparently only one Linux distro (RH) you must dump the lot of them.
Linux has become more like a prostit*te with 100s of pimps like redhat, novell etc.
As an open source developer, i feel sad for this. There is so much confusion and so many distribution, no body is thinking about the future of linux and everyone is just trying to grab some profit from linux while they can.
Redhat wants to be Microsoft whoa..then i guess i will stick to Microsoft rather than Redhat any day. Couldn’t redhat be happy with what it have and try to keep it true to open source to not try to become big and just be big enough in size to support linux and draw the salaries of its employees. Couldn’t redhat be a non-profit org?
I think Linux need a non-profit redhat like company whose sole purpose is to help linux rather than selling it for profit and become greedy.
He said Linux, does not innovate, not open source; and to be honest is is right for the most part.
Well put.
Sounds very articulate, but is unsubstantiated garbage none the less. I have yet to read a post here that shows linux has done anything that no other kernel was capable of before linux had such functionality native.
Find me a web server that is as good as Apache
Sun ONE Web Server v6.1?
But all of the above misses the true point of free software, which is that we are enriching humanity by making the tools of tomorrow available to everyone. Our true innovation is at the social level. We remove all boundaries and allow anyone to contribute to the betterment of society. We just ask that if you want to build on our efforts, you share your own and that you play nice.
I think this is the type of stuff that truly scares many people. I know it scares me. It tells me that OSS is more than just software, it includes an ideology, almost to the extent of a religion. It’s fine in and of itself, but when it gets brought into the corporate IT world, I get a little concerned. And I think it’s evident in these comments by Rick Carey. He’s astounded that he’s going to have to “pay” to keep his big iron rolling. Ummmmmm???
I sense a condescending attitude from many OSS fans onto corporations that sell software, which is so easily labeled with that dirty word: “proprietary”. But what is the big evil with corporations like Red Hat trying to make money on software? I’m a software engineer by trade. I studied hard for four years and got my degree. I like my career choice. It puts bread on the table. From my viewpoint, the quoted comments above come off as well-veiled arrogance. It is my personal conviction that society has benefitted greatly, probably even more so, from so-called “proprietary” (or profit-driven) software.
Mr. Carey is showing concern over a reality about Linux that has been just waiting to rise to the top for some time now. Linux benefitted from being picked up by corporations seeking to monetize it. Within due time, it will become so corporate that, in the IT world at least, it will be playing in the same ballpark with all the other big OSes — license fees, support fees, and all the like. No more “it’s so much cheaper than proprietary UNIX” to fall back on. Or no more appeals to avoiding “vendor lock-in”.
Is Linux something true in the IT world, able to withstand the test of corporate pressures? Or is it all just a fad?
It’s a good OS, I believe. Some parts of its foundation are built on shaky ground though, IMO.
John
Couldn’t redhat be happy with what it have and try to keep it true to open source to not try to become big and just be big enough in size to support linux and draw the salaries of its employees. Couldn’t redhat be a non-profit org?
I think Linux need a non-profit redhat like company whose sole purpose is to help linux rather than selling it for profit and become greedy.
Redhat is a corporation. It is profit-driven. Without profits, it goes under. They make decisions designed to increase the value of the corporation to its shareholders and employees. That’s capitalism.
Have I missed something? When did we completely abandon the capitalistic system? I understand that there exists some pretty wacky aberrations (Microsoft), but overall I still think it’s the best, most realistic approach out there.
When did making money become a sin? Was there an eleventh commandment that I missed learning about in school or something?
It’s rather ironic because Linux has grown in popularity mostly out of a necessity in recent years for corporations to cut back on IT spending, especially due to economic factors and market conditions. They’ve adopted Linux as a means of cutting costs, and increasing profits, and getting that all-important increase in shareholder value. In other words, they’ve done it for completely “capitalistic” means. Yet they’re doing it with an operating system built on a philosophy that doesn’t even embrace — and sometimes chides IMO — profit-driven goals. Weird.
John
Hi
“Yet they’re doing it with an operating system built on a philosophy that doesn’t even embrace — and sometimes chides IMO — profit-driven goals. Weird. ”
You cannot derive that from a single poster
FSF is usually the organisation people blame.Lets see what the GPL says regarding this
“When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.”
and then
“You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.”
so its clearly build on a capitalistic foundation. calling it anything other than that is a outright lie
regards
Jess
“I think this is the type of stuff that truly scares many people. I know it scares me. It tells me that OSS is more than just software, it includes an ideology, almost to the extent of a religion. It’s fine in and of itself, but when it gets brought into the corporate IT world.”
Well see, that’s just it. Linux wasn’t initially created to give the corporates a cheap alternative from Windows and Solaris, etc. Yes, there’s an ideology, and if it scares people they needn’t use it. OSS needn’t make any apologies for its outlook. Linux has benefited from corporate backing, but even without it, it would go on just as BSD does.
“It is my personal conviction that society has benefitted greatly, probably even more so, from so-called “proprietary” (or profit-driven) software.”
Ah, see here’s where the ideology comes in. An awful lot of proprietary software is just plain overpriced. I mean, some of its really ridiculous. And so this one beatnik, hippy (communist?)dude decided to make free software. Sounds good to me. Thank you, RMS. And in the long run, as we are starting to see Linux begin to spread across the world, it will most definitely be OSS that is of greater benefit to the people of the world. How can something that promotes cooperation and sharing be less beneficial than an entity who’s only purpose is to make money and certainly hasn’t any concern for the welfare of people ie. the corporations.
From the corporate viewpoint, the OSS attitude may look like arrogance, but actually it’s just plain common sense.
” Yet they’re doing it with an operating system built on a philosophy that doesn’t even embrace — and sometimes chides IMO — profit-driven goals. Weird.”
Well, at least on the desktop, it’s going to be either that or they can embrace an OS that is (and will be even more so in the future) the epitome of vendor lock in, put out by a corporation that most definitely has profit driven goals, even at the expense of repeated anti-trust violations and other questionable tactics.
“They’ve adopted Linux as a means of cutting costs, and increasing profits, and getting that all-important increase in shareholder value.”
And with this communist OS, they seem to be doing alright, ideology not withstanding. Funny how that works out.. I suppose if Merrill Lynch can’t afford Red Hat they could switch to another open source option, FreeBSD.
I ran red hat for a couple of years, then in Feb of 2003 I switched my servers all to Gentoo and have loved every minute of it.
There is absolutely no reason to run Red Hat on a server for a database, web server etc. You can do it all with Gentoo, or others with the 2.6 kernel.
Red Hat support is also pathetic, I called them once and they refused to support me because the TCP/IP problem I was having seemed to complex.
Gentoo has incredible docs and a great online community for support.
Don’t waste money on Red Hat, unless you want to make them rich. Your better off donating a quarter of the cost of red hat to a project like Gentoo.
Ok… tell me why we are paying the same price for a Linux OS as Windows and Solaris, when Microsoft and Sun have developed the vast majority of their technology themselves and spend billions on R&D. The sad thing is that most kernel hackers work away for free and Redhat is doing such minor work (in the grand scheme of things) and they are trying to make a killing. No thanks.
Thats true. Linux wont replace all of the unix like operating systems out there. It needs more capabalities technically but there are others things to consider. Instead of relying of one costly machine with a proprietary system it can actually be cheaper to replae it with two or three redundant commodity stuff
Maybe you can answer this question. How is Solaris running on an x86 server going to be any more expensive than the same server running an enterprise branded Linux from Red Hat or SuSE?
Yes, commodity hardware IS pressuring the likes of SUN, BUT, with that being said, if one pays a premium for hardware but cheaper for the software that runs ontop of the hardware, wouldn’t you end up with a machine costing roughly the same amount?
Solaris 10 x86 will be the make-or-break for the likes of SUN. HP-UX is struggling to make ground in the “energetic Itanium Market” (yes, that is sarcasm, hence the quotations). If they can properly market their x86 Opteron server with Solaris 10, then they will be profitable. The fact is, they’ve got one last chance, after that, they’ll need to do something radical to turn their fortune.
You make it sound like all they do is tarball code written by hippies and stick a pricetag on it.
1/5 of thier income is spent on R&D, have 600 employees and are hiring 200 more. Do you think everyone just plays quake all day over there?
“There is absolutely no reason to run Red Hat on a server for a database, web server etc. You can do it all with Gentoo, or others with the 2.6 kernel. ”
Yeah, sure. Gentoo has some nice stuff, but you’re an idiot if you use it production servers. It’s not guaranteed to be stable, nor is it very easy to administrate (compared to RHN) if you’ve got multiple servers.[1]
Debian is a far better option.
-Erwos
[1]I know someone will object, so at least realize that RHN is not the same thing as up2date.
The sad thing is that most kernel hackers work away for free and Redhat is doing such minor work (in the grand scheme of things) and they are trying to make a killing. No thanks.
I call BS. The truth is that most prominent kernel hackers are paid employees for someone. RedHat employs quite a number of hackers for all major FOSS projects. RH is not some fly-by-night company, they’ve been around for a decade now and are the premiere name in Linux-land.
Its quite remarkable, IMHO, that everytime RedHat introduces a new product or service, something no other company is doing at the time, they get slammed. It never fails.
Look at gcc-2.96, which RH *had* to provide so that they could supply the necessary code to their Itanium customers. Sure, making a fork of gcc wasn’t the most elegant solution, but it was necessary to provide new and innovative product to their customers. And those would be the paying customers, whose money helped benefit everyone. Also, all of the changes and improvements that RH followed through on providing made it back to the gcc code.
Next, look at Bluecurve, where they tried to provide a seemless interface between disparate windowing systems. That was a very innovative idea in Linux-land. Having such a system (non-trivially) is still something posters to this site greatly desire. Sure, Bluecurve is imperfect, but as a first-off implimentation I’d say it was successful and gave a really unique feature to RedHat. Again, that code is perfectly free and open for anyone to impliment themselves.
Finally, RedHat, as a business, could not continue offering RedHat Linux with *support*. They also received very, very little in the way of revenue to support the continued developement and marketing of that product, especially as a new version comes out every 6 months or so.
So people, use your heads. You don’t have to be a RH fanboy, but you do have to realize two things:
a.) They are a business and will make decisions based on good business sense.
b.) They are very well ingrained in the FOSS world and are exemplary as community members (remember, companies are also part of the community).
when Microsoft and Sun have developed the vast majority of their technology themselves
Sun, yes Micro$oft no.
Remember. good artists copy great artists steal!
What is the use of Redhat involvement in FOSS when to use their distribution and enjoy the support of those FOSS tools you have to pay big sum of money. If i have to pay 100$ for windows vs 100$ for linux, i will any day go to Windows. I guess i hate Redhat anyways since they stopped their workstation distro. Loser capitalist. I wish for collapse of that damn cheap money minded trash people who love to make money on other people’s hard work. Honestly tell me how many developers do they employ as compared to how much software they sell in one linux distribution. They are a lamer company.
I will stress again, we really really need a no-profit organization for Linux. Gentoo can become one, why not just make that much money which is required to pay good money to the developers and marketing etc. We can do this instead of making profits to raise share price, putting money in CEO’s pocket etc etc.
Wolf, not to be too insulting, but how old are you?
to use their distribution . . . you have to pay big sum of money.
False! There have been listed here and on Slashdot at least four different community-driven binary compilations of RHEL. The software (the GPL/FOSS, software) is absolutely free for you and everyone else in the world to download. Of course, if you want it all nicely compiled and integrated for your ease-of-use, then you will may have to pay someone.
Its perfectly fine if you don’t want to pay, but you’ll not get those binaries from RedHat. Again, the community around RedHat has risen quite nicely to fill that gap.
I guess i hate Redhat anyways since they stopped their workstation distro.
Fedora is the spritual successor to RedHat Linux 9. Its that simple. They didn’t stop it, they unleashed it so that they don’t have to be constrained by support licenses on a product that gets a new release every 6 months and a new major release every year or two. It was an impossible, unsustainable situation. Something had to give, so RedHat offered to open the distro to the entire RedHat community instead of simply killing it forever.
Also, notice, as I alluded above, that there has grown a very nice “cottage community” to offer support for all flavors of RedHat from RHL 7.2 to the RHEL products. This includes other companies offering support for RH legacy products, namely Progeny. You will *NEVER* find that kind of community involovement with proprietary products.
Honestly tell me how many developers do they employ as compared to how much software they sell in one linux distribution. They are a lamer company.
Last I heard it was around 600 people, many outside the USA. I wouldn’t suspect Alan Cox would work for a lamer company. Also, they gifted Linus Torvalds with a nice hefty chunk of stock. He was able to sell it an buy a house and car in Silicon Valley. I’d say that’s a helluva “Thank You!” for a “lamer company”.
I wish for collapse of that damn cheap money minded trash people who love to make money on other people’s hard work.
And yet your idea is to take someone else’s hard work for free and complain when they need money to keep producing. Then, you keep complaining when they continue to offer that product, sans some conveniences.
So which is more “damn cheap minded trash people”: those who produce and ask for money, or those who do not produce and complain when they have to pay.
Also, remember that Linux would *NOT* by any means be where it is today without RedHat. They are the face of Linux in the USA. They are one of the gold standards for Linux distributions, something they won by being very, very good and producing quality products.
I will stress again, we really really need a no-profit organization for Linux.
OSDL? Debian? FSF? freedesktop.org? Oh, and Gentoo is a corporation, and I’m pretty sure its for-profit.
What is wrong with profit as long as you’re a good member of the FOSS community? I’d say a company like Google is a pretty decent company. I’d rank RedHat nearly as high. They contribute more than their fare share back to the FOSS community and take their licks when they screw up.
There is a very, very healthy market for Linux in all its forms. RedHat cannot supply products to meet all demands, so someone else must do it. I’d say that makes them pretty realistic and not greedy.
So Wolf, and really everyone else here who’s not thinking above the 8th grade level, take a break and look at the big pictures. RH has to make money to produce products and pay employees. They couldn’t make money given how much they were losing in support of RHL. They now supply RHEL and provide much support to Fedora. If those things don’t meet your needs, there’s a whole slew of options, both community and commercial.
>Last I heard it was around 600 people, many outside the USA.
They all are paid, right?
>I wouldn’t suspect Alan Cox would work for a lamer company. Also, they gifted Linus Torvalds with a nice hefty chunk of stock. He was able to sell it an buy a house and car in Silicon Valley.
How about other 598 developers? How much they were paid? Can they afford to buy a car and a house in USA for what they are paid?
What about thousands of unpaid contributors? Can “thank you” help them to bring food on their table and can free copy of code they contributed to allows them to pay utility bills?
If you had to study Lenin and Marx like some people did, you would learn that capitalism keeps workers working using very simple principle: it bribes the best and brightest of workers.
Capitalism creates an elite from very tiny number of workers. This elite is very well paid and gets a respect (fake respect, but nevertheless) from capitalists.
As for the rest of workers, they are paid very little and those who complain are taken care of by capitalist propaganda pointing to rich working elite. You can be the next Alan Cox one day, they say, just work harder.
OSS fits to that model nicely, OSS is in no way “commies/hippies.” With OSS, contributors are expected to be working for free (or for non-monetary recognition like their name in readme file), small part of them is empolyed for very modest wages, and very tiny part of them can afford a house in Silicon Valley, a nice car and non-empty savings account.
It is capitalism, all right. The way Marx and Lenin described it.
Test: if software development were unionized, could OSS be possible in USA?
If answer is “no, not likely”- then it is capitalism who wins in “Fredom of Software” game. Unions, for all their deficiencies, could smell the capitalist rat way before anyone else.
OSNews should not link to such disgracefull cheap shots at the OSS perpertrated by Dan Lyons and his SCO friends.
It may get you hits but its not worth it.
i don’t know about that. This guys claim that he can pay a little more for the innovator (MS) as opposed to the copy (linux) is somewhat silly.
MS does not innovate, never have. They wait and copy the innovators, who are generally smaller companies. By this guy’s logic, he should be putting Apple computers all over the place, which i am sure is not going to happen.
Do you work for Redhat? If not, then you are beyond hope and for sure not someone who will keep a healthy OSS community with their lust and greed. Profits are not bad, Lust and greed to grow is bad. A non-profit org sounds more in sync with the GPL and Free software mission, because then it will be a truly community project for the community, and everyone will benefit from it including developers who put their brain and their hard work into it and will make sure that no company can misuse their hardwork.
By the way OoSync, telling someone that he is 8th grader or questions like how old are you are just a way to put down others and make them look as if you are superior and i dont buy such cheap arguments.So why don’t you look in the mirror and first try to realize what you are.
– Wolf
“What is the imitation? Pay for a premium for inovation? I dont remember too many commercial OS that will do 64 processors (SMP). Wasnt it SGI that put Linux on something like over 100 processors? ”
1) That’s not an innovation
2) SMP support in linux is mostly courtecy of IBM, there was support prior to their involvement but it sucked, big time
3) OS/2 SMP scales to 64 cpus’ and has done so for 10 years, hardly a novel feature, it’s also still more efficient, ie you gain more with each processor that you do with linux or windows, but both of those are getting there, the problem with Win SMP is the cost, to high for small companies/ speed gain per processor
Do you work for Redhat?
No.
If not, then you are beyond hope and for sure not someone who will keep a healthy OSS community with their lust and greed.
So now I’m a lost case? Beyond all hopes of being a member of the happy FOSS community? I’m quite glad that your judgement of me is worth the exactly the same as my opinion of you: not much seeing as we’re both most likely just small fries in the scope of things.
Profits are not bad, Lust and greed to grow is bad.
We can agree on this, though I don’t believe responsible growth is bad. Where we may disagree is in whether RedHat (and FOSS companies, in general) are greedy or irresponsible. I think SCO is both. I think RedHat is very responsible, though with their experience there are blemishes. My judgement of them as a company is that they really, genuinely attempt the best thing for the community-at-large.
I thought some more about their current situation and realized that RedHat’s end-of-lifing RHL has actually grown the Linux market. There are close to a dozen new community products geared to support RedHat legacy products or recompile and distribute the RHEL products. Considering RedHat encourages this (remember, they made their decisions with explicit knowledge of the GPL and all of its consequences), I’d hardly call them greedy.
They have a role to play in Linux-land, as do the NPOs such as Debian, OSDL, and the like. It takes all kinds to make things work and the FOSS world is extremely adept at filling in needs among their community. RedHat (and any other FOSS company) will either continue to supply good products and remain responsible community members, or the community will abandon them and their products will suffer.
As for my little insults: I apologize. I did “fly off the handle” a bit, though I do know quite well who I am.
I will admit to not studying such topics as deeply as some, but a few comments (off-topic for this discussion, unfortunately), may serve to sum up my position on such matters.
First, ideologies such as socialism/Marxism and capitolism are the ideals to which certain economic systems aspire. In reality, things work much differently. There is *no* such thing as a truly capitolist society. In the USA the governemnt places many restrictions and regulations on economic activity to make it “fair”. Of course, as the definition of “fair” is subjective, the target tends to move around depending on who’s in power and the current desires/needs of the populace.
Second, most of the socialist “utopias” thoughout modern history have failed miserably in providing freedom for all. The simple facts of life are that there is never enough for everyone to be rich. I’ve never believed I could be rich, but I do aspire to live a better life than that of my predecessors.
Capitalism creates an elite from very tiny number of workers. This elite is very well paid and gets a respect (fake respect, but nevertheless) from capitalists.
As for the rest of workers, they are paid very little and those who complain are taken care of by capitalist propaganda pointing to rich working elite.
I seem to remember watching several early Soviet-era “entertainment” programs where this was a prodominant theme. To say such a thing as corruption is strictly a feature of a captiolist economic system is blindness. Corruption exists
in all forms of government, social structure, and economic system. Its roots are at the very roots of life: survival. It doesn’t make it right or that we should be blind to it, but its foolish to say any system is immune to it.
They all are paid, right?
Yes, my assertion was 600 *paid* employees.
You can be the next Alan Cox one day, they say, just work harder.
Ask Marcelo, the current maintainer of Linux 2.4. He got the job at the age of 18 by being dependable and reasonable as well as talented. From what I’ve seen, in the FOSS (as is true in most social structures) those who show aptitude to manage or take responsibility will be given such a position soon or later, usually sooner. Nothing is truly special about Alan Cox except he was in the right place at the right time and had the knowledge, skill, and desire to do what he’s done. Just read the accounts on the mailing lists for many FOSS projects and see where someone says, “I started because I wanted widget XYZ-foo to work, and now I maintain a major subsystem”.
OSS is in no way “commies/hippies.”
Agreed. I’d never suggest otherwise, with the rare exceptions of individuals who make this their stated goals.
With OSS, contributors are expected to be working for free (or for non-monetary recognition like their name in readme file)
False. I don’t think anyone reasonably expects a contributor to work for free. Of course, under the licenses that are prevalent, I do not have to pay if it is provied for no cost. This is the problem some people (not me, for the record) with RedHat’s stance. RH is now saying they will only provide the “spiffy, shiny, all-frills-included” products for monetary compensation. If you don’t need those things, either you can use the alternatives RH supplies, or can use those of their competitors. In essence, RH has stated they will not give you the premium services (remember, 99% of the product is free and FREE) pro gratis.
small part of them is empolyed for very modest wages, and very tiny part of them can afford a house in Silicon Valley, a nice car and non-empty savings account.
Well, RH HQ is in North Carolina, a relatively cheap place to live, though the particular location may be higher than average. Of course, they have employees who collaborate from all corners of the globe; many such places should be less expensive in which to live than the USA. Of course, I claim no personal knowledge of the economic status of RH’s run-of-the-mill employee, but I believe RH to be an honorable company and these employees are fairly compensated. If you have explicit evidence otherwise, I would like to know in order to revise my belief.
Unions, for all their deficiencies, could smell the capitalist rat way before anyone else.
Actually, many unions (the Teamsters, for example) were bastions of corruption in America. Others are the paragons of worker’s rights. I have for several years been very impressed with the UFW: United Farm Workers, a predominantly hispanic union based in California.
There remains much to be done world-wide to assure worker’s rights, but socialist versus capitolist arguements really don’t lead to solutions. If they did, the Chinese and Vietnamese workers would be looked quite differently than they are today.
PS — I realized I mispelled capitalist as capitolist. Sorry.
My first exposure to Linux is Debian but 2 weeks later I switch to RedHat version 6.0 since during that time I felt Debian was too challanging. However, since the last few years, partly due to the changes in RedHat strategy, I switch back to Debian.
To those new to those that consider the RedHat pricing is the factor to retreat, please consider may other distribution which sometime a lot cheaper than distro like SuSE or RedHat but not necessarily inferior. Maybe some distro did have most of the latest software but from my experience, the lag in some distribution such as Debian doesn’t stop it from becoming a cheap, stable and usable platform.
I run my own internet server, my office database server with webbase client interface (which my subordinate inputting data from Windows PC), my office desktop computer (which I’m typing now), data entry workstation and even my development laptop all using Debian distro. Personally I felt Debian run faster than the version of RedHat or Fedora that I ever tried.
It is by no means against RedHat or others but I would like to highlight about choice that we had in Linux…
Wolf,
I did find something interesting while perusing RHs site:
http://www.redhat.com/opensourcenow/
That may not be the all-encompassing organization you desire, but I’d say its a positive development.
Hello, I am an ex former-Yugoslavia guy.
Anyway, I thought your comment was 100% correct and spot-on.
Also, notice OoSync’s pathetic attempt at a rebuttal. Rebuttal? He didn’t even touch the main point you made: that RedHat utilizes the OSS model to abuse people’s work for their profit.
Of course, that’s 100% legal, as abuse usually is.
However, my greatest gripe with RedHat’s subscription model is that RedHat has TERRIBLE documentation, practically forcing you to use their support (which is laughable, too, but if you don’t try it, you don’t know that).
With Sun, it’s different, because their documentation is so complete (comprehensive), well-organized, easily browsable and available, that almost anyone can maintain/support Solaris, even as old versions of solaris as SunOS 2.6!!!!! We’re talking of an OS released in 1997.
Point is, Solaris has not leaft anyone dry – you can use the documentation to fix problems. RedHat, in contrast, has such pitiful documentation and is removed so quickly, that you either pay through your nose for support or you really have no recourse.
In fact, even Microsoft is better at user documentation than RedHat, with the difference that most of RedHat can be found in source form, so if you’re a genius or are a software powerhouse that can afford to throw dozens of developers at some old and badly documented code, you are better off.
He didn’t even touch the main point you made: that RedHat utilizes the OSS model to abuse people’s work for their profit.
Well, neither of you have made any direct assertion to that effect. You’ve implied that his may be the case, but have provided no direct, confirmable evidence. In terms of personal opinions: I don’t think RedHat “abuses people’s work for their profit.” That is an opinion, one that I haven’t seen contradicted. I feel that I’ve provided at least preliminary evidence to suggest RH is quite responsible and not abusive in its relationship to the FOSS community.
Please make a direct counter arguement if you have contrary evidence, as I really would like to know such cases. I like RedHat, but I keep an eye open for abuse of the FOSS community.
Russian Guy had an excellent post to which I don’t need to add anything, except what I wrote: abuse of labor is usually performed within the frame of law, and so RedHat is 100% legit.
To his excellent point your rebuttal looks bleak and insignificant, because you have not adressed his main point in any way. You’re expressing an opinion, which is worthless, because you do admit (you didn’t need to, your cognitive dissonance was too evident anyway) to like RedHat. Not that an opinion would be a very useful argument anyway, but a biased opinion is even much, much worse.
So your long post, written in a better english than Russian Guy’s, amounts to nothing more than a cardboard cutlery: blunt, disposable and useless. Don’t fool yourself thinking that it convinced anyone – except those that are already biased anyway (remember; cognitive dissonance at work!). So why would I provide a counter-argument, when there’s no argument on your part to counter? You might have just said “OK Russian Guy, I have no arguments but I think your main point is wrong.”. Phhh..
Sorry for the occasional misspellings. I’m not an english-speaking person either, or lived in any english-speaking country.
abuse of labor is usually performed within the frame of law, and so RedHat is 100% legit.
I thought the major point was that RedHat does its business in an inethical manner. Ethics and legalities are separate concepts in this case. Neither of us are arguing legalities.
I have seen nothing inethical in RedHat’s conduct as a for-profit company or as a member of the FOSS. RedHat holds a lot of influence in the FOSS world, and my experience and understanding is that they have done so ethically and in good faith.
You are correct that I am upfront about my bias. I am also upfront in that that bias is based upon observation and evidence. I am serious when I ask for evidence to contradict my bias. I respect RedHat as a company, but that respect is contingent on the company remaining ethical. In other words, I am not so unbiased that I can’t change my mind.
So why would I provide a counter-argument, when there’s no argument on your part to counter?
Perhaps I was not clear. The major disagreement I have with the post in question is that I don’t believe RedHat to be inethical because they are a for-profit company in a capitalist economy. That appeared to be the main point by Russian Guy. That is also his opinion, as he has not provided evidence to assert it as anything else.
Now, he did question the specifics of one of my previous posts, namely the economic condition of RedHat’s employees. I asserted that everything I know about RedHat and its actions with prominent employees and FOSS luminaries (particularly, Linux Torvalds) that RedHat *should* provide fair compensation to their employees. I will accept direct evidence to the contrary.
So, let me ask again: is there any direct evidence to consider RedHat inethical as a company or as a member of the FOSS community? It may be that our disagreement is over personal philosophies about the nature of ethics or economics.
Sorry for the occasional misspellings. I’m not an english-speaking person either, or lived in any english-speaking country.
In all fairness, I find many non-native English speakers and writers to be better versed in the English language than my peers who are native to the language. I deal with many people from Asia and Eastern Europe and such things don’t bother me. I’d say you’re doing quite well.