Re: UserLinux white paper
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:24:09AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: | This is the Proprietary software model, with artificial, government | imposed (via copyright laws) monopolies, resulting in customer lock-in | and price maximization. | | I dont see a monopol, at least no government imposed. I believe that when Zenaan was saying was the copyright laws /are/ a government-supported monopoly on distributing a particular creative work (in this case, a piece of proprietary software). Cameron.
Re: UserLinux white paper
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:36:18PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: How many financials implementations are ultimately needed - really only one, perhaps customized for vertical markets. A healthy market requires competition. And different companies have very different needs. The IT Infrastructure is indeed the only last field where Enterprises can differ, today. This is the Proprietary software model, with artificial, government imposed (via copyright laws) monopolies, resulting in customer lock-in and price maximization. I dont see a monopol, at least no government imposed. This is not a properly free market economy. The monopolies are artificially imposed, not natural. Well, I dont think it is correct to asume that Free Software can be the model for all Software Business. Someone has to pay for the work needed, after all. And somebody has to get payed, which is more important! (Yes I known, Free is Free as in free speach). Free Software is one possible business model, as long as it is not priceless. Customer lock-ins are more uncommon with Free Software (however, even if you have the source code to your FI, you wont change your software rovider easyly). Free Software clearly and evidently redifines *within the current (legal, financial) system* the way to a Free Market Economy. Hmm.. the above sentence looks good, I wonder what it means? We will see profits of some ISVs fall, we will see others disappear altogether. We will see new organisations take hold in this new free market - predominantly services-based organizations. It does not look that way, if you look on the current market, but I might be wrong. Looking at the figures of a typical ISV, most of them (unless they manage to do a large share if OEM business) earn more than 50% of their money by services. It is already the case, that service is the main focus in the business. You do not sell software, you solve problems. (You sell solutions, like Ted put it) Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. ) [EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD [EMAIL PROTECTED] +497257930613 BE5-RIPE (OO) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
Re: UserLinux white paper
Theodore Ts'o wrote: Why does Group 1 really care about running under Linux, as opposed to some other OS? Is it really about price sensitivity? If so, it's surprising because to the extent that they pay $50,000 for Oracle, or $1,000,000+ for SAP R/3, why should they care about the cost of $1500 for the RedHat or SuSE enterprise version of the distro? Most business is in the SME (small-and-medium-sized enterprise) category. Certainly they make up the majority of customers for Enterprise Linux. These companies aren't the ones spending $1M for SAP, and a good many of them are not $50K database customers. You seem to be focusing only on the very high end. Group 1 does extensive internal development. They have no off-the-shelf solution, although they integrate proprietary applications into their process. I think their major complaint is that they can't get the attention they want from their vendor, because the vendor has larger markets with less sophisticated needs to pursue. Indeed, I have not met many SMEs that were able to get along without doing some of their own development or integration. At HP I spent a lot of time talking with financial companies - and these range from giants like HSBC, merely large companies like Merril Lynch and Fidelity, to small businesses - invariably did care about their platform as well as their solution software. So why don't [the ISPs] just use Debian instead? Well, it seems that many businesses in their category make what I'd call "covert use" of Debian. To get them out of the closet, we need to develop a brand that their customers will respect. Even if the details of that brand are pretty irrelevant to the customers actual use. I will also note that ISP's are generally not generally regarded as "enterprise" customers. Most of the business to be had is in the SMEs, and ISPs definitely fit that category. Business who get together can also negotiate better discounts from today's distribution vendors. It's already the case that very few people actually pay list price for commercial distributions Yes. Group 1 told me what they were paying. It was a substantial discount, but still way too much. Thanks Bruce
[CUSTOM] Re: UserLinux white paper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2003-12-03 05:08, Theodore Ts'o wrote: To the extent that they are self-supporting, they become economically irrelevant to a commerical distribution or to a support provider of UserLinux. The best that you will get out of these customers are bug reports, and maybe you can get some of them to become Debian Developers and work on Debian packages on company time. So why don't they just use Debian instead? A CDD _is_ Debian, the only difference is that the default setup is customized for a certain purpose/situation out-of-the-box. Ideally all changes necessary to Debian to support that out-of-the-box situation are merged back into Debian ASAP, not merging back changes only increases the workload for the CDD, which thus has no incentive to keep changes to outside of debian if it is feasible to merge them back in. - - A CDD focusses on providing support for a certain target group/situation within Debian, as such we'll work within Debian as much as possible. We might have to experiment with things/ways of doing stuff not currently possible in Debian, but the intention is always to get things back into standard Debian, thus improving the whole distribution. - -- Cheers, cobaco 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/zcc35ihPJ4ZiSrsRAtZhAJ9/dJY/Ma//WVtlG74j/iSYf0SC/ACeOc5G +jij9d+cxzAUXNFpztOVeos= =DU8n -END PGP SIGNATURE-
OOPS!: Re: UserLinux white paper
That's userlinux.com . I don't have the .org, some domain squatter has that. Thanks Bruce On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:04:31PM +, bruce wrote: I did a first pass at the UserLinux white paper, it's at http://userlinux.org/white_paper.html. I think I'll sleep for a while. Thanks Bruce -- -- Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-526-1165 Perens LLC / 1563 Solano Ave. / PMB 349 / Berkeley CA 94707 / USA
Re: UserLinux white paper
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:04:31PM +, bruce wrote: I did a first pass at the UserLinux white paper, it's at http://userlinux.org/white_paper.html. I think I'll sleep for a while. This is an interesting white paper, but I think it's missing something rather important in its discussion of the business model. And I say this as I currently sit at a customer site in Atlanta working a critical situation, while wearing a suit (but not a tie, so the flow of blood to the brain has not been impeded :-). The important thing to remember here is that customers don't buy operating systems, they purchase solutions. And at the moment, many of the solutions require the use of proprietary third party applications: applications like SAP, or Oracle Financies, or Ariba. The next logical question then is why will an ISV support a particular distribution or OS provider? The answer in practice is that they will only support an OS/Distribution when they are reasonably certain that when they need help fixing some problem, they can get help from the distribution. Very often, in these situations, the ISV doesn't necessarily pay money to the OS/Distribution provider. In some cases, where the ISV is highly desired by the customers, the OS/Distribution provider actually has to **pay** **money** to the ISV, and establish a competency center in Waldorf, Germany staffed with some number of engineers before said ISV will actually deign to port their application to that particular OS and support that particular OS. These sorts of situations really do happen! Even in situations where the ISV is so highly desired that it would be a severe competitive disadvantage for a particular OS vendor of that particular enterprise resource planning application was not available on that OS, in many cases the ISV's can at the very minimum require that the OS vendor to provide free support. I recently visited one ISV where at their height of popularity, IBM had a team of three or four people devoted towards keeping that ISV happy, and this was necessary in order assure that the ISV would continue to support AIX. This particular ISV drove enough business in hardware, software, and professional services sales to IBM that it was worth IBM's while to devote a team of people for that particular ISV (and this ISV was not even one of the most highly strategic ISV's --- some ISV's might have an order of magnitude more people!). If some vendor such as Sequent had chosen not to devote that kind of support to that particular ISV, that particular vendor might have chosen not support PTX, and then Sequent would get locked out of certain customers that might have chosen to use this particular financial application. (I use Sequent here only because I didn't want to use the name of a currently active company; but the example applies just as equally to SGI/Irix or HP/HPUX or Sun/Solaris.) So the problem then with the UserLinux distribution concept is how do you fund required investments which are necessary for that particular distribution to succeed? $1 million USD might pay for the necessary engineering costs, but it will not pay for the ISV engagement resources necessary to provide free hand-holding support to ISV's that are used to getting that kind of support, and who are used to companies coming to them on bended knee in order to convince that ISV to port their application to Soliars, to AIX, to HPUX. But if one of the goals is to get an endorsement from application vendors, UserLinux will have to provide a comperable level of support as what Sun might give that particular ISV in order to support Solaris, for example. However, if you have multiple competing body shops that are making a small-but-manageable amount of profit to provide end-user customer support, how do you fund the freebie support to the ISV's? (And even worse, what about the some of the more strategic, more desireable ISV's that in some cases require free hardware or even seven figure cash payments before they will entertain supporting UserLinux?) It's an interesting problem but understanding some of these constraints might allow folks to understand why the commercial Linux distributions charge so much for their enterprise Linux products. - Ted
Re: UserLinux white paper
Ted, The problem you mention manifests itself this way. A number of shops will standardize on the Linux that Oracle endorses. 99% of the systems upon which that Linux runs do not host Oracle, but they don't want to have to know two systems. And thus they end up paying so much for Linux that there is not much incentive for them to roll out more Linux systems. How to resolve this is easier to understand in the context of some of the industry groups I'm working with at the moment. Group 1 is a large and complicated industry. They are major customers for a number of proprietary application providers. Their business is complicated enough that it is not possible for them to purchase a solution, they must integrate it under the direction of their IS department, using both internal and external resources. They have the economic power to compel their application providers to support the platform of their choice, it is the application provider who must come to them upon bended knee. Group 2 are ISPs. They do not in general ask for much added value over the Open Source contents of the system, and they are generally self-supporting. They are more interested in quality and cost than ISV support. I don't deny that many businesses do have to come to their vendor on bended knee to get support for a new platform. It's important, however, to realize that this does indicate a problem in the customer's relationship with the vendor. Either there's only one solution, or the customer has allowed himself to enter a lock-in situation. The latter is much more likely. So, our problem is how to rebalance the vendor-customer relationship for our purposes. Probably the most useful tool is the industry group organization, where a number of similar businesses get together to steer their participation in userlinux, and the group involves their vendors from a position of strength, together, rather than one of weakness, apart. Customer group 1 is confident that this will work for them. Where the customer is unable to muster the motivation to actively participate in something like a userlinux industry group and is unable to get their vendor to support a low-cost platform, they will of course have to suffer the consequence of increased cost. In some cases, this will be an acceptable trade-off for the customer. Thanks Bruce Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:04:31PM +, bruce wrote: I did a first pass at the UserLinux white paper, it's at http://userlinux.org/white_paper.html. I think I'll sleep for a while. This is an interesting white paper, but I think it's missing something rather important in its discussion of the business model. And I say this as I currently sit at a customer site in Atlanta working a critical situation, while wearing a suit (but not a tie, so the flow of blood to the brain has not been impeded :-). The important thing to remember here is that customers don't buy operating systems, they purchase solutions. And at the moment, many of the solutions require the use of proprietary third party applications: applications like SAP, or Oracle Financies, or Ariba. The next logical question then is why will an ISV support a particular distribution or OS provider? The answer in practice is that they will only support an OS/Distribution when they are reasonably certain that when they need help fixing some problem, they can get help from the distribution. Very often, in these situations, the ISV doesn't necessarily pay money to the OS/Distribution provider. In some cases, where the ISV is highly desired by the customers, the OS/Distribution provider actually has to **pay** **money** to the ISV, and establish a competency center in Waldorf, Germany staffed with some number of engineers before said ISV will actually deign to port their application to that particular OS and support that particular OS. These sorts of situations really do happen! Even in situations where the ISV is so highly desired that it would be a severe competitive disadvantage for a particular OS vendor of that particular enterprise resource planning application was not available on that OS, in many cases the ISV's can at the very minimum require that the OS vendor to provide free support. I recently visited one ISV where at their height of popularity, IBM had a team of three or four people devoted towards keeping that ISV happy, and this was necessary in order assure that the ISV would continue to support AIX. This particular ISV drove enough business in hardware, software, and professional services sales to IBM that it was worth IBM's while to devote a team of people for that particular ISV (and this ISV was not even one of the most highly strategic ISV's --- some ISV's might have an order of magnitude more people!). If some vendor such as Sequent had chosen not to devote that kind of support to that particular ISV, that particular vendor might have chosen not support PTX,
Re: UserLinux white paper
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:52:47PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: So, our problem is how to rebalance the vendor-customer relationship for our purposes. Probably the most useful tool is the industry group organization, where a number of similar businesses get together to steer their participation in userlinux, and the group involves their vendors from a position of strength, together, rather than one of weakness, apart. Customer group 1 is confident that this will work for them. May I suggest that there is still a role for some sort of ISV support on behalf of UserLinux. I have been asked by several of my clients: what is this Free Software or Open Source thing and how can I benefit? What holds them back is experience with the target system and a fear of the unknown. Their perception, while overstated, is still important. So, to the end of bringing ISVs to appreciate UserLinux perhaps there is a place for a laboratory. The difference between a laboratory and the common, custom ISV/OS Vendor relationship is that the lab is an open resource. It provides an environment of hardware, software, and expert support that guides them, teaches them, to work with the system. The lab is free to any who can show up, provided that adequate funding is available. Or, ISV can be enrolled to support the lab given that they see value in it. I've seen this model work well on several levels. Not only is there a realistic feeling of support, but there the inter-ISV relationships that appear when developers meet at the lab. I believe that for many, the physical presence of such a laboratory is an important factor in their believe that the system, UserLinux in this case, is a real entity. Cheers.
Re: UserLinux white paper
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:52:47PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: So, our problem is how to rebalance the vendor-customer relationship for our purposes. Probably the most useful tool is the industry group organization, where a number of similar businesses get together to steer their participation in userlinux, and the group involves their vendors from a position of strength, together, rather than one of weakness, apart. Customer group 1 is confident that this will work for them. Speaking as a ISV, I would be glad if customers are actually can agree on one platform. We are often forced to officially support a platform for one or two customers only. And of course this is more expensive then one or two customers are willing to pay. Therefore it is not something like industry group vs. ISV but it is something more along the line of industry group for economy of scales The above may give you also the possibility to reword the reasoning for industry support in a way, that it is not offensive to ISVs. I am not sure this is the right place here, Bruce, do you have another list to discuss your plans? Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. ) [EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD [EMAIL PROTECTED] +497257930613 BE5-RIPE (OO) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
Re: UserLinux white paper
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:52:47PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: I don't deny that many businesses do have to come to their vendor on bended knee to get support for a new platform. It's important, however, to realize that this does indicate a problem in the customer's relationship with the vendor. Either there's only one solution, or the customer has allowed himself to enter a lock-in situation. The latter is much more likely. Most end-customers don't bother going to their vendor on bended knee to get support for a new platform. That assumes that most customers want to run machines with a particular OS, and that's simply not true. Customers do not purchase operating systems/distributions; they purchase solutions. So instead, businesses deside that they want to run SAP, or Oracle Financials, or Ariba, or Peoplesoft, and then they decide which hardware and OS they want to use that will support their desired application of choice. This is why traditionally computer vendors have to go to ISV's on bended knee. Once a customer has decided to adopt Peoplesoft, or Ariba, if Debian or UserLinux or SuSE is not supported, then those hardware/software/distribution platforms that do not support the chosen business application will simply be out of luck. Group 1 is a large and complicated industry. They are major customers for a number of proprietary application providers. Their business is complicated enough that it is not possible for them to purchase a solution, they must integrate it under the direction of their IS department, using both internal and external resources. They have the economic power to compel their application providers to support the platform of their choice, it is the application provider who must come to them upon bended knee. Why does Group 1 really care about running under Linux, as opposed to some other OS? Is it really about price sensitivity? If so, it's surprising because to the extent that they pay $50,000 for Oracle, or $1,000,000+ for SAP R/3, why should they care about the cost of $1500 for the RedHat or SuSE enterprise version of the distro? Group 2 are ISPs. They do not in general ask for much added value over the Open Source contents of the system, and they are generally self-supporting. They are more interested in quality and cost than ISV support. To the extent that they are self-supporting, they become economically irrelevant to a commerical distribution or to a support provider of UserLinux. The best that you will get out of these customers are bug reports, and maybe you can get some of them to become Debian Developers and work on Debian packages on company time. So why don't they just use Debian instead? I will also note that ISP's are generally not generally regarded as enterprise customers. So perhaps you are using a somewhat different definition of enterprise than what is traditionally used. So, our problem is how to rebalance the vendor-customer relationship for our purposes. Probably the most useful tool is the industry group organization, where a number of similar businesses get together to steer their participation in userlinux, and the group involves their vendors from a position of strength, together, rather than one of weakness, apart. Customer group 1 is confident that this will work for them. Business who get together can also negotiate better discounts from today's distribution vendors. It's already the case that very few people actually pay list price for commercial distributions - Ted
Re: UserLinux white paper
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 15:08, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:52:47PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: I don't deny that many businesses do have to come to their vendor on bended knee to get support for a new platform. It's important, however, to realize that this does indicate a problem in the customer's relationship with the vendor. Either there's only one solution, or the customer has allowed himself to enter a lock-in situation. The latter is much more likely. Most end-customers don't bother going to their vendor on bended knee to get support for a new platform. That assumes that most customers want to run machines with a particular OS, and that's simply not true. Customers do not purchase operating systems/distributions; they purchase solutions. This is perhaps why Bruce is focussing on the industry groups - the consortium, which puts the needs (cost, reliability) of the customers as a whole, first, where a single customer would not bother/ do so. Yes solutions will be needed, and that's where the industry body, with enough members and more importantly funds, can either negotiate with ISVs or sponsor a developement project, whichever is most appropriate for their members. In some cases if it doesn't exist, creating an industry group might be called for. So instead, businesses deside that they want to run SAP, or Oracle Financials, or Ariba, or Peoplesoft, and then they decide which hardware and OS they want to use that will support their desired application of choice. This is why traditionally computer vendors have to go to ISV's on bended knee. Once a customer has decided to adopt Peoplesoft, or Ariba, if Debian or UserLinux or SuSE is not supported, then those hardware/software/distribution platforms that do not support the chosen business application will simply be out of luck. I am thinking long term that change is possible and indeed quite likely. Could be wrong of course, but Bruce has a project in train that will kick the ball rolling on a financial level, for at least one industry body. Group 1 is a large and complicated industry. They are major customers for a number of proprietary application providers. Their business is complicated enough that it is not possible for them to purchase a solution, they must integrate it under the direction of their IS department, using both internal and external resources. They have the economic power to compel their application providers to support the platform of their choice, it is the application provider who must come to them upon bended knee. Why does Group 1 really care about running under Linux, as opposed to some other OS? Is it really about price sensitivity? If so, it's surprising because to the extent that they pay $50,000 for Oracle, or $1,000,000+ for SAP R/3, why should they care about the cost of $1500 for the RedHat or SuSE enterprise version of the distro? They probably don't care about the underlying OS. The math the Bruce pointed out showed that the desktops at the end of this project will have their shiny new OS at about $20 per seat. Does anyone have the German govt. Linux per-desk deployment costs on hand or memory? The point must surely be to find a group where a specific need can be met, by delivering noticeable benefits [cost, manageability, freedom, interoperability, stability] that that group cares about. Group 2 are ISPs. They do not in general ask for much added value over the Open Source contents of the system, and they are generally self-supporting. They are more interested in quality and cost than ISV support. To the extent that they are self-supporting, they become economically irrelevant to a commerical distribution or to a support provider of UserLinux. The best that you will get out of these customers are bug reports, and maybe you can get some of them to become Debian Developers and work on Debian packages on company time. So why don't they just use Debian instead? At the low technical level, there won't be 'much' difference between Debian Enterprise/ User Linux and Debian proper. They will be the same pool of packages, the same packaging policies, etc. The goal is to build on the Debian foundation, and integrate improvements back into it. We are already seeing the FAI/knoppix/debix live cd distributions now in the process of merging back into Debian. It might take two years to finish every last step (famous last words), but the point is there's no conflict here... I will also note that ISP's are generally not generally regarded as enterprise customers. So perhaps you are using a somewhat different definition of enterprise than what is traditionally used. Whatever the differnces, where there is overlap it makes sense to work together on common technical (and organisational) goals. So, our problem is how to rebalance the vendor-customer relationship for our purposes. Probably the most useful tool is
Re: UserLinux white paper
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 11:12, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:04:31PM +, bruce wrote: I did a first pass at the UserLinux white paper, it's at http://userlinux.org/white_paper.html. I think I'll sleep for a while. The next logical question then is why will an ISV support a particular distribution or OS provider? The answer in practice is that they will Some ISV business models may not be sustainable within this new Free Market paradigm. How many financials implementations are ultimately needed - really only one, perhaps customized for vertical markets. Take A companies x B CPUs x C client access licenses, multiply it all out, and at some point you begin to realize that somewhere there is a whole lot of profit being made. This is the Proprietary software model, with artificial, government imposed (via copyright laws) monopolies, resulting in customer lock-in and price maximization. This is not a properly free market economy. The monopolies are artificially imposed, not natural. Free Software clearly and evidently redifines *within the current (legal, financial) system* the way to a Free Market Economy. We will see profits of some ISVs fall, we will see others disappear altogether. We will see new organisations take hold in this new free market - predominantly services-based organizations. Competition between service providers - much closer to a true free market economy. Production efficiency and therefore effective total public/ community wealth is maximized. What more could you possibly want? where the ISV is highly desired by the customers, the OS/Distribution provider actually has to **pay** **money** to the ISV, and establish a competency center in Waldorf, Germany staffed with some number of engineers before said ISV will actually deign to port their application to that particular OS and support that particular OS. These sorts of situations really do happen! see above Even in situations where the ISV is so highly desired that it would be a severe competitive disadvantage for a particular OS vendor of that particular enterprise resource planning application was not available on that OS, in many cases the ISV's can at the very minimum require that the OS vendor to provide free support. You are arguing too much in the theoretical - tell us who this so highly desired ISV is, then we can debate it. ... If some vendor such as Sequent had chosen not to devote that kind of support to that particular ISV, that particular vendor might have chosen not support PTX, and then Sequent would get locked out of certain customers that might have chosen to use this particular financial application. One stone at a time. We are not Sequent, a hardware supplier. We do not depend on these clients to continue our good work and our success. We are simply extending into new markets. There is no imperative - it is in fact almost a duty, and is certainly a generous thing for our community to do. Once clients start to realise the practical benefits that come with software freedom, there will be no stopping the tide. The benefits to customers (pick a metric -maximization) will eventually become self evident. Today it is perhaps difficult to see - that is because we are within an artificially distorted market place. In our new model, there's little more that sequent has to do than support a port of Debian to their hardware platform (running under Debian GNU/Linux of course) and then mostly all that's required is rebuilding for the architecture - *for every ISV out there* (that supports Debian GNU/Linux) (I know, I'm simplifying a little here, but you get the picture). Perhaps someone can dig up Linus' famous Linux will never be cross platform quote. So the problem then with the UserLinux distribution concept is how do you fund required investments which are necessary for that particular distribution to succeed? $1 million USD might pay for the necessary Bruce has worked a project plan for a US $1M investment/ development project. Previous to this, the stereo-typical comment might have been how will we raise funds for even $100,000 of development. Miracles I tell you, miracles! :) ... It's an interesting problem but understanding some of these constraints might allow folks to understand why the commercial Linux distributions charge so much for their enterprise Linux products. Crap. Commercial linux distros are about maximizing profit. They can, will and do do everything they can to maximize profits (including per-seat licenses - keeping the customer almost as far from one of the key benefits of free software as you can imagine). User Linux/ Debian Enterprise on the other hand is Debian. It is about principles - something higher than mere profit. And I still say *make as much monetary profit as you possibly can* (while sticking to the principles of freedom). These two concepts are not mutually exclusive. regards zen -- Debian Enterprise: A
