Re: RedHat = MS-Linux???
>If you go to >the Third World and find 100 people who have never tasted ketchup before, >you find out two things: one is that people don't actually like tomato >ketchup, the other is that they dislike all ketchups equally. I vastly prefer catsup, it's so much better than the so-called ketchup. ___ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux???
>If you go to >the Third World and find 100 people who have never tasted ketchup before, >you find out two things: one is that people don't actually like tomato >ketchup, the other is that they dislike all ketchups equally. I vastly prefer catsup, it's so much better than the so-called ketchup. ___ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
John Hasler wrote: > > Ed C. writes: > > If a compromise is not possible, then an 'install-rc' tool *accepted by > > all dists* would be the only other choice, and it would essentially have > > to know the details about every dist that conforms to the LSB. Writing > > (and maintaining) the thing could be real hairy. > > The idea is that each distribution would provide its own install-rc. The > interface would be standard, but the implementation would be entirely up to > the distribution. Ok, I see this. Everyones install-rc would be called by the system's RPM manager to handle packages needing to modify the init system, for adding a daemon as an example. The install-rc interface to the user/package manager scripts would work in a manner specified by the LSB. > > Even if the LSB isn't interested, I think it would be useful to extend > update-rc to hide more of the details of the init system. -- Ed C.
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
[I've made some big cuts. If I cut out anything you think I should have addressed then feel free to bring it up again.] On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote: > Bruce Sass wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote: > > > <...> Anybody with > > > better knowledge like to speak up here? > > > > ditto that question. > > > > Filesystem differences are trivial, that is what "ln" is for, right? > > For the issue of a software package that needs to get a daemon > running at bootup, I don't think the problem is trivial. The > layout and use of the /etc/init.d and /etc/rc*.d dirs is (I've > read) far from compatible between RH and Deb. It is those kinds of differences that make Debian superior to RH (or so I've read ;) ). <...> > > i386 RH and i386 Debian are compatible. > > I installed a pine 4.04 .rpm, using _RPM_, on my Debian system. > > It worked just fine. Once I told dpkg about it (by modifying the dpkg > > DB entry for the pine 3.96 .deb) you couldn't tell it was an alien > > unless you looked at the location of the config files. > > > Now imagine a situation where a lib or program is only available > as an RPM, which has other programs that depend on its config > files and/or their location. Programs that hard code file locations are poorly written . OSS programs that do so will be replaced by versions that do not. Non-OSS programs that do that will not be widely accepted in the Linux world because they cause too many problems. This is just one more issue I see as self regulating. Remember, this is the UNIX world, not the MS "one" world (although you'd never know it by looking at some of the programs out there). > Are there not several .debs that > have an install script that needs to look at or modify another > packages config stuff? At the very least, .deb scripts would have > to know about the multiple locations of config files and possibly > even different syntax for config files. Is this problem solvable? > Sure, with a quite of bit of hacking. Can you always get enough > programmers/developers to work on this kind of problem every time > RH decides to change something to a non-standard method? Even if > the answer here is yes also, Deb will always be a step behind, > which might be exactly where other distros (RH) would want us to > be. This is a problem, environment variables are the solution. A program that is so closely tied to another that it needs to parse the config files itself will probably have synchronous releases (and perhaps even close coordination between them). Dpkg is a special case, either it needs to know the gory details about every package installable, or leave the config stuff up to the program it is installing (which is what it does). Trying to force programmers to use a specific format for config files will not work, identifying what needs to be exported so that the software can coexist with other tools on the system will. The real problem is not the multitude of config methods and file formats around, it is a lack of understanding on the programmers part with respect to the UNIX philosophy. > Please keep in mind, though, that my main concern beyond > technical incompatibilities is a situation where RH is so > dominant, app makers simply decide not to even support other > distros. <...> This is not an issue because a properly written UNIX/Linux program will fit into any UNIX/Linux system with only minor tweaking. > > > Also, if RH tries using > > > proprietary libs on their system, its entirely possible for a > > > group of Debian hackers to bang heads and come up with GPL clone > > > of those libs, but this, to me, would be a bad signal anyway, as > > > it would in essence suggest that Debian is becoming a clone of RH > > > out of necessity. > > > > The way I see it... > > If you could take any package and install it on any system, and it works > > without tweaking stuff, then those systems are clones of each other on a > > very basic level. > > In the case of *applications*, whats wrong with compatibility at > a 'very basic level'? System and utility packages can be > different for different distros, but for apps the whole idea of > LSB is to allow app packages be usable on different dists. Nothing, unless you think that your way is better than the other ways. <...> > > Until, of course, OSS hits the mainstream in a big way, and OSS > > developers can make money/fame off of gamers. > > OSS will be a power to be reckoned with in the commercial world, > but, despite being a supporter, I'm not sure if OSS can hit the > *mainstream* in a 'big way'. The biggest problem is something you > said above, "the commercial world has never held much interest for > me". I suspect most programmers in the OSS feel the same, and > thus will not push OSS hard into the mainstream basically because > of a lack of interest. If OSS goes mainstream it will be because the
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
Ed C. writes: > If a compromise is not possible, then an 'install-rc' tool *accepted by > all dists* would be the only other choice, and it would essentially have > to know the details about every dist that conforms to the LSB. Writing > (and maintaining) the thing could be real hairy. The idea is that each distribution would provide its own install-rc. The interface would be standard, but the implementation would be entirely up to the distribution. Even if the LSB isn't interested, I think it would be useful to extend update-rc to hide more of the details of the init system. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
John Hasler wrote: > > Ed Cogburn writes: > > For the issue of a software package that needs to get a daemon running at > > bootup, I don't think the problem is trivial. The layout and use of the > > /etc/init.d and /etc/rc*.d dirs is (I've read) far from compatible > > between RH and Deb. > > How about an install-rc tool? It would be essentially a generalization of > update-rc.d. You would pass it a script and some parameters and it would > install the script appropriately for the distribution. A) I'll remind everyone that, as I said earlier, I have no recent experience with RH, specifically no understanding of RH's bootup (init) sequence, and how it differs from Deb's init.d/rc*.d setup. Having said that ... If agreeing to a compromise between RH and Deb and other dists is possible, then the same system should be used. Note that the LSB says: "Scripts used as part of the package install and uninstall may only use commands and interfaces that are specified by the LSB". So the LSB will define what system to use here. If a compromise is not possible, then an 'install-rc' tool *accepted by all dists* would be the only other choice, and it would essentially have to know the details about every dist that conforms to the LSB. Writing (and maintaining) the thing could be real hairy. Another bit of news: RPM is still listed as the package management tool for the LSB, which makes me wonder why we continue to develop dpkg. I wonder if the developers intend to support both? Or has Debian not officially accepted this decision? -- Ed C.
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
Ed Cogburn writes: > For the issue of a software package that needs to get a daemon running at > bootup, I don't think the problem is trivial. The layout and use of the > /etc/init.d and /etc/rc*.d dirs is (I've read) far from compatible > between RH and Deb. How about an install-rc tool? It would be essentially a generalization of update-rc.d. You would pass it a script and some parameters and it would install the script appropriately for the distribution. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
Bruce Sass wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote: > > > [snip] > > > I don't want > > to see RH disappear any more than I want to see Debian disappear. > > I want to see enough cooperation between distros that allows app > > makers to write software that will work on most distros without > > major effort on the app maker's part. I'd like to see healthy > > competition between the distros, but not at the expense of > > application compatibility. > > I suspect that we have a difference of opinion about what a "major > effort" is and when compatibility is broken. In my mind a computer is a > tool, not an appliance. Either you learn how to use the tool and make it > do what you want, or you complain to the developers until they do it for > you. On compatibility, you're right. My major problem is a general lack of knowledge about other distro types. I used RH for a very little while a *long* time ago, and have used no other distro. I have to depend on what others have said. The tool/appliance issue is much more difficult. One the one hand understand the need to learn about some thing before being able to use that thing effectively, yet I know very smart people who will not do something like learning Linux if it requires a significant learning curve. They just want to get something done, and basically they are satisfied with the point-n-click interface of Win and the apps that are important to them. I guess I can empathize with both sides. > > <...> > > There are differences between RH and Deb, primarily in the > > directory tree layout, and especially in places like /etc./ and > > /var/ (I think). Its not clear to me what the percentage of RH > > packages that can't be easily converted would be. Anybody with > > better knowledge like to speak up here? > > ditto that question. > > Filesystem differences are trivial, that is what "ln" is for, right? For the issue of a software package that needs to get a daemon running at bootup, I don't think the problem is trivial. The layout and use of the /etc/init.d and /etc/rc*.d dirs is (I've read) far from compatible between RH and Deb. > > > I don't think we need to invent a 'patent' issue to effect that > > kind of fragmentation. > > I was just trying to rationalize how a piece of software could be > unavailable and not reproducible by the OSS community. I didn't invent > a patent issue, it just seems to be the only thing to prevent the > creation of an OSS version of any piece of software. If the objective is an RH clone, and you can find a critical mass of developers willing to hack away, then there wouldn't be too much of a problem. RH would have to go to extraordinary means to keep the OSS people from duplicating anything that RH does. The objective of the LSB though is not to establish one Linux distro with the same identical dir structure and system maintenance tools and look-n-feel, the objective is to allow apps to be loadable on otherwise different distros that adhere to an underlying common base structure. > > > As the 'Heinz ketchup' manifesto talked > > about, its brand name recognition and user perception that matters > > in a commercial market. All it takes is a user perception that RH > > is the only distro that matters, and we'll end up seeing companies > > releasing software meant for RH, and not bothering to support any > > distro that isn't RH compatible. > > But what would make the software incompatible. > Whose yardstick. > i386 RH and i386 Debian are compatible. > I installed a pine 4.04 .rpm, using _RPM_, on my Debian system. > It worked just fine. Once I told dpkg about it (by modifying the dpkg > DB entry for the pine 3.96 .deb) you couldn't tell it was an alien > unless you looked at the location of the config files. Now imagine a situation where a lib or program is only available as an RPM, which has other programs that depend on its config files and/or their location. Are there not several .debs that have an install script that needs to look at or modify another packages config stuff? At the very least, .deb scripts would have to know about the multiple locations of config files and possibly even different syntax for config files. Is this problem solvable? Sure, with a quite of bit of hacking. Can you always get enough programmers/developers to work on this kind of problem every time RH decides to change something to a non-standard method? Even if the answer here is yes also, Deb will always be a step behind, which might be exactly where other distros (RH) would want us to be. Please keep in mind, though, that my main concern beyond technical incompatibilities is a situation where RH is so dominant, app makers simply decide not to even support other distros. I know most Deb users probably aren't concerned with what happens on the commercial side of Linux market, but a few o
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote: > Bruce Sass wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > So the scenario is that some proprietary, closed source, program is what > > you want, and that it has been built with RH in mind. To be forced into > > dual booting RH to run it would mean that the software relies on a > > specific kernel version (poorly programmed or incompatibilities between > > kernel versions, neither of which is related to the > > commercial-proprietary / free-OSS issue), one that your Debian system > > isn't running; anything else could be handled by having the correct > > libraries on the system. The only stumbling block I can see is if RH > > starts using proprietary libs, and the software you want depends on > > them. Ok, there would be a delay until the OSS community comes up with > > replacements. The only reason I can think of that would result in > > "software that we can't get from the OSS community", would be patents > > associated with libs only distributed with (lets keep picking on) RH. > > So... > > First, this isn't meant to be a pick-on-RH rant. RH just happens > to be the overwhelmingly dominant distro out there. Which is why I don't mind `picking' on them for this discussion. Maybe a smiley would have helped. > I don't want > to see RH disappear any more than I want to see Debian disappear. > I want to see enough cooperation between distros that allows app > makers to write software that will work on most distros without > major effort on the app maker's part. I'd like to see healthy > competition between the distros, but not at the expense of > application compatibility. I suspect that we have a difference of opinion about what a "major effort" is and when compatibility is broken. In my mind a computer is a tool, not an appliance. Either you learn how to use the tool and make it do what you want, or you complain to the developers until they do it for you. <...> > There are differences between RH and Deb, primarily in the > directory tree layout, and especially in places like /etc./ and > /var/ (I think). Its not clear to me what the percentage of RH > packages that can't be easily converted would be. Anybody with > better knowledge like to speak up here? ditto that question. Filesystem differences are trivial, that is what "ln" is for, right? > I don't think we need to invent a 'patent' issue to effect that > kind of fragmentation. I was just trying to rationalize how a piece of software could be unavailable and not reproducible by the OSS community. I didn't invent a patent issue, it just seems to be the only thing to prevent the creation of an OSS version of any piece of software. > As the 'Heinz ketchup' manifesto talked > about, its brand name recognition and user perception that matters > in a commercial market. All it takes is a user perception that RH > is the only distro that matters, and we'll end up seeing companies > releasing software meant for RH, and not bothering to support any > distro that isn't RH compatible. But what would make the software incompatible. Whose yardstick. i386 RH and i386 Debian are compatible. I installed a pine 4.04 .rpm, using _RPM_, on my Debian system. It worked just fine. Once I told dpkg about it (by modifying the dpkg DB entry for the pine 3.96 .deb) you couldn't tell it was an alien unless you looked at the location of the config files. I could not do that if I had an i386 MS system, because MS and Linux are incompatible. (I'm not being obtuse, just pointing out that incompatibility is a result of an arbitrary definition in some cases.) > Now granted, some software *can* be gotten to by Debian users > with alien, but not everything. All software is limited by the imagination of the programmer. > Also, if RH tries using > proprietary libs on their system, its entirely possible for a > group of Debian hackers to bang heads and come up with GPL clone > of those libs, but this, to me, would be a bad signal anyway, as > it would in essence suggest that Debian is becoming a clone of RH > out of necessity. The way I see it... If you could take any package and install it on any system, and it works without tweaking stuff, then those systems are clones of each other on a very basic level. > Its the *perception* of Linux by folks > *outside* the OSS community that matters, for my concerns. <...> I've never been hampered by what others think. :) ;) :O I hear you, it is just that the commercial world has never held much interest for me and I don't get worked up about it or its failings. > OSS can work, I see that in things like the kernel, GIMP, and > even Debian itself. OSS doesn't work everywhere though, because > the successful examples of opensource have to appeal to > significant number of developers for the critical threshold of > user/developer support to be reached. What would the kernel look > like today if Linus was still working on it alone? > For me, I want acc
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
After writing the previous post I found this: http://www8.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014092,00.html Notice the "reservations" from Red Hat. -- Ed C.
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
Bruce Sass wrote: > > [snip] > > So the scenario is that some proprietary, closed source, program is what > you want, and that it has been built with RH in mind. To be forced into > dual booting RH to run it would mean that the software relies on a > specific kernel version (poorly programmed or incompatibilities between > kernel versions, neither of which is related to the > commercial-proprietary / free-OSS issue), one that your Debian system > isn't running; anything else could be handled by having the correct > libraries on the system. The only stumbling block I can see is if RH > starts using proprietary libs, and the software you want depends on > them. Ok, there would be a delay until the OSS community comes up with > replacements. The only reason I can think of that would result in > "software that we can't get from the OSS community", would be patents > associated with libs only distributed with (lets keep picking on) RH. > So... First, this isn't meant to be a pick-on-RH rant. RH just happens to be the overwhelmingly dominant distro out there. I don't want to see RH disappear any more than I want to see Debian disappear. I want to see enough cooperation between distros that allows app makers to write software that will work on most distros without major effort on the app maker's part. I'd like to see healthy competition between the distros, but not at the expense of application compatibility. Linux has a relatively small user base. Linux can't expand much beyond the OSS community if the kind of fragmentation that occurred between commercial Unices over the last 1.5 decades or so, is allowed to happen in the Linux market. There are differences between RH and Deb, primarily in the directory tree layout, and especially in places like /etc./ and /var/ (I think). Its not clear to me what the percentage of RH packages that can't be easily converted would be. Anybody with better knowledge like to speak up here? I don't think we need to invent a 'patent' issue to effect that kind of fragmentation. As the 'Heinz ketchup' manifesto talked about, its brand name recognition and user perception that matters in a commercial market. All it takes is a user perception that RH is the only distro that matters, and we'll end up seeing companies releasing software meant for RH, and not bothering to support any distro that isn't RH compatible. Now granted, some software *can* be gotten to by Debian users with alien, but not everything. Also, if RH tries using proprietary libs on their system, its entirely possible for a group of Debian hackers to bang heads and come up with GPL clone of those libs, but this, to me, would be a bad signal anyway, as it would in essence suggest that Debian is becoming a clone of RH out of necessity. Its the *perception* of Linux by folks *outside* the OSS community that matters, for my concerns. I'm not saying that Debian would die because of this, because it won't. Nor will Debian suffer from a RH monopoly on the commercial side of the Linux market, it will simply be made *irrevelent* *outside* the OSS village. The OSS community will continue on, with its members avoiding the use of non-opensource software, regardless of what happens on the commercial side of the Linux market. Unfortunately, I do care about the commercial side too. OSS can work, I see that in things like the kernel, GIMP, and even Debian itself. OSS doesn't work everywhere though, because the successful examples of opensource have to appeal to significant number of developers for the critical threshold of user/developer support to be reached. What would the kernel look like today if Linus was still working on it alone? For me, I want access to the commercial side, even if I end up using an OSS equivalent (like AbiWord over Wordperfect). The single most obvious shortcoming of OSS is the absence of sophisticated gaming software, something that OSS may never be able to overcome due to an overall lack of developer interest. > > [snip] > > ...you don't trust RH and assume that what you want would be patented. I don't trust anyone with unchecked power, and as far as the commercial side of the Linux market is concerned, RH already has it. > > [snip] > > > Some folks have chosen to use the commercial OSS sound drivers > > instead of the ones that come with the kernel source, although in > > general I'll agree with you that a majority of Linux users have a > > strong preference for opensource stuff. But, what do we do for > > software that has no opensource equivalent (yet)? > > wait awhile Ok, :-) how long should I wait for a good equivalent of Wordperfect 8? How about a Railroad Tycoon II clone? > > > How many > > questions do you remember from debian-user and elsewhere that want > > to know if there is an opensource word processor that can read and > > write MS Word files? There are several commercial ver
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > > The issue is not that the Linux kernel would still be available
> > > as open-source, the problem is what happens when 85-95% of app
> > > developers are writing their software only for RH. The 'open
> > > source' community would not be terribly affected, and would
> > > certainly continue support of Debian and others, but if RH can
> > > wrap up the commercial side of the Linux phenomenon, Debian will
> > > never go much farther than it is now.
> >
> > If the "'open source' community would not be terribly affected",
> > why should the growth ("go much farther") of Debian be affected?
>
> Maybe I should have said "Debian will not grow any more than, and
> not beyond, the open source community.
Ya, that is a possibility.
> For some, this may not be
> an issue, as the opensource community has developed all of the
> kind of software that they need. I strongly suspect Linux's
> current popularity is primarily coming from its capabilities in
> the server OS market. For the rest of us, we don't want to be
> dual-booting with Win 2010, a decade from now. We hope for enough
> popularity of Linux to produce commercial software that we can't
> get from the OSS community.
Hmmm, I think you mean proprietary,
since OSS and commercial are not mutually exclusive.
> Just as importantly, I want to be
> able to do the above with Debian, and not be forced to switch to
> RH just to get access to commercial software that only supports RH
> (or whoever dominates the Linux distro market a decade from now).
> Dual-booting with Win is bad, dual-booting with RH to run the
> commercial stuff not available to Debian will be just as bad.
So the scenario is that some proprietary, closed source, program is what
you want, and that it has been built with RH in mind. To be forced into
dual booting RH to run it would mean that the software relies on a
specific kernel version (poorly programmed or incompatibilities between
kernel versions, neither of which is related to the
commercial-proprietary / free-OSS issue), one that your Debian system
isn't running; anything else could be handled by having the correct
libraries on the system. The only stumbling block I can see is if RH
starts using proprietary libs, and the software you want depends on
them. Ok, there would be a delay until the OSS community comes up with
replacements. The only reason I can think of that would result in
"software that we can't get from the OSS community", would be patents
associated with libs only distributed with (lets keep picking on) RH.
So...
> > As long as RH remains OSS, the worst that can happen is that developers
> > have to translate everything from RH into Debian. The fact that RH is
> > commercial doesn't enter into the equation.
>
> Yes, as long as RH remains committed to working with and for the
> larger Linux community . . . . now read the "Heinz ketchup"
> article referred to earlier in this newsgroup. RH wants a
> dominant brand name; when they get it what will they do with it?
...you don't trust RH and assume that what you want would be patented.
> > Are you saying that Linux users will take a commercial product over a
> > free one, just because it is commercial?
>
> Some folks have chosen to use the commercial OSS sound drivers
> instead of the ones that come with the kernel source, although in
> general I'll agree with you that a majority of Linux users have a
> strong preference for opensource stuff. But, what do we do for
> software that has no opensource equivalent (yet)?
wait awhile
> How many
> questions do you remember from debian-user and elsewhere that want
> to know if there is an opensource word processor that can read and
> write MS Word files? There are several commercial versions.
The questions indicate that there is a demand, which should result in
more developer interest in providing support for MS Word documents
(i.e., a shorter while to wait).
> > There is the commercial world and the free world; the free world has
> > been growing in spite of the commercial world, adding one more
> > commercially supported OS will not change that. In fact, since the free
> > world gets most of its users from the commercial world... an increase in
> > the number of commercial Linux users should result in more converts to
> > free Linux distributions.
>
> Basically I agree here, but what I'm concerned about is what
> happens *within* the Linux community when one distro comes to
> dominate all. Also keep in mind, that an increasing percentage of
> new converts to Linux have a rather ambivalent attitude toward
> OSS. These folks are *used* to a market dominated by one OS; they
> won't have a problem with a RH dominated Linux community unless
> they are also (hopefully) OSS converts as well as Linux converts.
I don't think the problem is with one distribution dominating the
ma
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
Bruce Sass wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > The issue is not that the Linux kernel would still be available
> > as open-source, the problem is what happens when 85-95% of app
> > developers are writing their software only for RH. The 'open
> > source' community would not be terribly affected, and would
> > certainly continue support of Debian and others, but if RH can
> > wrap up the commercial side of the Linux phenomenon, Debian will
> > never go much farther than it is now.
>
> If the "'open source' community would not be terribly affected",
> why should the growth ("go much farther") of Debian be affected?
Maybe I should have said "Debian will not grow any more than, and
not beyond, the open source community. For some, this may not be
an issue, as the opensource community has developed all of the
kind of software that they need. I strongly suspect Linux's
current popularity is primarily coming from its capabilities in
the server OS market. For the rest of us, we don't want to be
dual-booting with Win 2010, a decade from now. We hope for enough
popularity of Linux to produce commercial software that we can't
get from the OSS community. Just as importantly, I want to be
able to do the above with Debian, and not be forced to switch to
RH just to get access to commercial software that only supports RH
(or whoever dominates the Linux distro market a decade from now).
Dual-booting with Win is bad, dual-booting with RH to run the
commercial stuff not available to Debian will be just as bad.
> As long as RH remains OSS, the worst that can happen is that developers
> have to translate everything from RH into Debian. The fact that RH is
> commercial doesn't enter into the equation.
Yes, as long as RH remains committed to working with and for the
larger Linux community . . . . now read the "Heinz ketchup"
article referred to earlier in this newsgroup. RH wants a
dominant brand name; when they get it what will they do with it?
> Are you saying that Linux users will take a commercial product over a
> free one, just because it is commercial?
Some folks have chosen to use the commercial OSS sound drivers
instead of the ones that come with the kernel source, although in
general I'll agree with you that a majority of Linux users have a
strong preference for opensource stuff. But, what do we do for
software that has no opensource equivalent (yet)? How many
questions do you remember from debian-user and elsewhere that want
to know if there is an opensource word processor that can read and
write MS Word files? There are several commercial versions.
> There is the commercial world and the free world; the free world has
> been growing in spite of the commercial world, adding one more
> commercially supported OS will not change that. In fact, since the free
> world gets most of its users from the commercial world... an increase in
> the number of commercial Linux users should result in more converts to
> free Linux distributions.
Basically I agree here, but what I'm concerned about is what
happens *within* the Linux community when one distro comes to
dominate all. Also keep in mind, that an increasing percentage of
new converts to Linux have a rather ambivalent attitude toward
OSS. These folks are *used* to a market dominated by one OS; they
won't have a problem with a RH dominated Linux community unless
they are also (hopefully) OSS converts as well as Linux converts.
>
> Consider this:
> Did the arrival of a commercial Unix stagnate the free unix
> distributions (in any way), or did the commercial Unix increase the size
> of the unix user base (some of whom switched to the free products
> when they realized that unix was ok)?
I'm not an expert on the history of Unix, so ...
I'm not aware of any truly free Unices early on (we now have the
*BSDs as true, and free, descendants). Most of Unix's history has
been a long running battle between commercial Unices that had no
need nor desire to put together a 'standard' for Unices, allowing
app makers to write software which could run on all the Unices
without major effort on their part. Lets also note that much of
the time and resources of these Unices were spent concentrating on
each other, and not on growing the user base. Until the arrival
of Linux and the free *BSDs, the Unix community was deeply
fragmented. This is precisely what I fear will happen within the
Linux community, and at this point, its RH which is in the
dominant position, so if there is to be fragmentation it will
likely be RH that starts it.
See ya,
--
Ed C.
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> The issue is not that the Linux kernel would still be available
> as open-source, the problem is what happens when 85-95% of app
> developers are writing their software only for RH. The 'open
> source' community would not be terribly affected, and would
> certainly continue support of Debian and others, but if RH can
> wrap up the commercial side of the Linux phenomenon, Debian will
> never go much farther than it is now.
If the "'open source' community would not be terribly affected",
why should the growth ("go much farther") of Debian be affected?
As long as RH remains OSS, the worst that can happen is that developers
have to translate everything from RH into Debian. The fact that RH is
commercial doesn't enter into the equation.
Are you saying that Linux users will take a commercial product over a
free one, just because it is commercial?
There is the commercial world and the free world; the free world has
been growing in spite of the commercial world, adding one more
commercially supported OS will not change that. In fact, since the free
world gets most of its users from the commercial world... an increase in
the number of commercial Linux users should result in more converts to
free Linux distributions.
Consider this:
Did the arrival of a commercial Unix stagnate the free unix
distributions (in any way), or did the commercial Unix increase the size
of the unix user base (some of whom switched to the free products
when they realized that unix was ok)?
later,
Bruce
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
King Lee wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, eric Farris wrote: > > A point that should be brought up here, i think, is what the user stands > > to gain from a MS-ish distribution of Linux. A MS-Linux distro would be > > (1) overpriced, (2) underpowered, (3) buggy, and (4) popular. RH, from > > my explorations, fits this definition. > > > > So RH gets to "become the definition of Linux," so what? unlike the > > > > No problem with me provided that third party non-free software, > i.e., Oracle, Infomax, etc are easily ported to Debian, FBSD, > NetBSD, Slackware, etc. In the short term, this may not be too much of a problem. The long term view, however, of a market dominated by 'MS-Linux' will be much grimmer. At some point, RH would make it harder and harder for app developers to support more than one distro. The issue is not that the Linux kernel would still be available as open-source, the problem is what happens when 85-95% of app developers are writing their software only for RH. The 'open source' community would not be terribly affected, and would certainly continue support of Debian and others, but if RH can wrap up the commercial side of the Linux phenomenon, Debian will never go much farther than it is now. > > Different distros offer different adminstrative tools, and different > packages. Distros offering different administrative tools is a good > thing IMHO; the tools for newbies should be different than > for the guru. However, if I want to run Oracle, > I do not want to have to switch to RH. > > If third party software vendors (that do not provide source) > had a tree (like teTeX) and have envionmental variables point to parts > of tree, it seems that any distro can easily include the software > in a packge. Is it that simple? If so, are the vendors doing this? > > King Lee > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null -- Ed C.
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux???
Joey Hess wrote: > > George Bonser wrote: > > Yes, Red Hat is well on the way to becoming Microsoft-like Linux. They > > screech their shrill cries of "But everything we do is open source" but > > when you look at it you also find that it is also incompatable with every > > other distro and would take so much trouble to modify as to being just as > > easy to completely rewrite it ... the right way. > > > > I tried porting the Red Hat GUI printer management stuff to Debian once > > but gave up once I realized that it was going to take more than a couple > > of hours and involve modifying several files. That was about a year ago, I > > am not sure if they have cleaned it up since then. > > I can't see this as anything but redhat bashing. I happen to maintain the > package of rpm for debian (since I maintain alien, which uses rpm). I > haven't considered rpm expecially difficult to "port" (definitly a misnomer) > to debian. > > Looking at the debianized source of rpm, I do notice I've modifed some 10 or > 20 files. Thinking back, this did take more than a couple of hours. But > compared to many other things I've debianized, it was cake. > > I'm not interested in participating in yet another redhat flame war. I'm > speaking up only to say that I think the fact you base this posting on are > flawed. The facts may not be here yet, although the 'Heinz ketchup' remark is revealing, but that doesn't mean they won't happen in short order. I don't trust RH because they are RH, but because they have such dominant position in the Linux market that they are on the verge of a de facto monopoly. The monopoly status will occur when Linux application makers decide they can't afford to make different packages for the different distros and just settle on RH as the default (doesn't this sound familiar?). This is why a basic standard for Linux distros is so important. -- Ed C.
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, eric Farris wrote: > A point that should be brought up here, i think, is what the user stands > to gain from a MS-ish distribution of Linux. A MS-Linux distro would be > (1) overpriced, (2) underpowered, (3) buggy, and (4) popular. RH, from > my explorations, fits this definition. > > So RH gets to "become the definition of Linux," so what? unlike the No problem with me provided that third party non-free software, i.e., Oracle, Infomax, etc are easily ported to Debian, FBSD, NetBSD, Slackware, etc. Different distros offer different adminstrative tools, and different packages. Distros offering different administrative tools is a good thing IMHO; the tools for newbies should be different than for the guru. However, if I want to run Oracle, I do not want to have to switch to RH. If third party software vendors (that do not provide source) had a tree (like teTeX) and have envionmental variables point to parts of tree, it seems that any distro can easily include the software in a packge. Is it that simple? If so, are the vendors doing this? King Lee
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
eric Farris wrote: > > So RH gets to "become the definition of Linux," so what? unlike the > current state of affairs with Windows, Linux is open, meaning, (and > here's where Debian comes in) it can be improved. If RH becomes the > definition of Linux, it will be Linux-lite. If Debian can somehow > position themselves as "we're RH compatible, but our stuff works" it > would be a Very Good Thing. The danger that I see is one that George brought up, although I didn't exactly read this into the Ketchup article. If people and companies start developing apps that somehow only work for RH, that would be bad. If companies and individuals only supply rpm files files directly, that's not a big deal, because we'd always have a designated packager for Debian to ensure that it was properly Debianized. Has RH actually refused to use the LFSSTD? What is it about RH that an app wouldn't be able to run on all Linux distros? -- ...RickM...
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux
A point that should be brought up here, i think, is what the user stands to gain from a MS-ish distribution of Linux. A MS-Linux distro would be (1) overpriced, (2) underpowered, (3) buggy, and (4) popular. RH, from my explorations, fits this definition. So RH gets to "become the definition of Linux," so what? unlike the current state of affairs with Windows, Linux is open, meaning, (and here's where Debian comes in) it can be improved. If RH becomes the definition of Linux, it will be Linux-lite. If Debian can somehow position themselves as "we're RH compatible, but our stuff works" it would be a Very Good Thing. The Very Best Thing, imhbio, is that this scenario never occur. I can't help but think that if GeoWorks had continued with their remarkable Ensemble product several years ago, we'd have a fine Windows competitor today. But what was missing in that world (and what we have in ours) is the guaranteed openness of the core software. I'm not suggesting Debian and SuSE and the others merely bow to the RH gods, but i think there is a fine place for Debian and the other distros in a RH-led world, especially if RH becomes MS. As we are seeing, there is a place for competition on the MS-led world. Why would this be any different? -- eric Farris [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.bigfoot.com/~eafarris Microcomputer Support Specialist Academic Computing Frostburg State University www.frostburg.edu Wealth is not acquired by taking the most from others, but by giving the most away.
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux???
George Bonser wrote: > Yes, Red Hat is well on the way to becoming Microsoft-like Linux. They > screech their shrill cries of "But everything we do is open source" but > when you look at it you also find that it is also incompatable with every > other distro and would take so much trouble to modify as to being just as > easy to completely rewrite it ... the right way. > > I tried porting the Red Hat GUI printer management stuff to Debian once > but gave up once I realized that it was going to take more than a couple > of hours and involve modifying several files. That was about a year ago, I > am not sure if they have cleaned it up since then. I can't see this as anything but redhat bashing. I happen to maintain the package of rpm for debian (since I maintain alien, which uses rpm). I haven't considered rpm expecially difficult to "port" (definitly a misnomer) to debian. Looking at the debianized source of rpm, I do notice I've modifed some 10 or 20 files. Thinking back, this did take more than a couple of hours. But compared to many other things I've debianized, it was cake. I'm not interested in participating in yet another redhat flame war. I'm speaking up only to say that I think the fact you base this posting on are flawed. -- see shy jo
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux???
On 28-Mar-99 Guido A.J. Stevens wrote: > George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I wish I could find that "Heinz Ketchup" article again. It was Red >> Hat's president saying that their #1 mission is to make Linux=Red >> Hat. If you send someone out to get Linux, he wants to be 99% sure >> they are going to come back with a Red Hat box. > > http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/04-03/young.html A fascinating article. Somewhat mischievously, I extract the following from it: "Heinz has 80% of the ketchup market because they have been able to define the taste of ketchup in the mind of ketchup consumers. Now the Heinz Ketchup brand is so effective that as consumers we think that ketchup that will not come out of the bottle is somehow better than ketchup that pours easily! This was Red Hat's opportunity ... to help define, in the minds of our customers, what an operating system can be." One feels that the parallel with Heinz should not be taken too literally. Ted. E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 28-Mar-99 Time: 15:45:30 -- XFMail --
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux???
George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wish I could find that "Heinz Ketchup" article again. It was Red Hat's > president saying that their #1 mission is to make Linux=Red Hat. If you > send someone out to get Linux, he wants to be 99% sure they are going to > come back with a Red Hat box. http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/04-03/young.html :*CU# -- ***Guido A.J. Stevens ***mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]*** ***Net Facilities Group***tel:+31.43.3618933*** ***http://www.nfg.nl ***fax:+31.43.3560502*** PGP fingerprint E3 56 AA 30 44 EE 9E E9 CA 52 C5 B8 66 2F 77 21
Re: RedHat = MS-Linux???
>When a company issues a new product touting Red Hat Linux support, rest >assured that it is designed to sell more copies of Red Hat and may not >install on any other distro cleanly. It strikes me that the Red Hat strategy may be to get Linux software released for their platform and not others. The RPM format facilitates this. Eventually they would control GNU/Linux, because "if it doesn't run on Red Hat, it's broken." OTOH, Red Hat does pay the salary for a number of developers releasing software used by the entire LInux community. The compelling advantage of GNU/Linux is the freedom: to use it, customize it, and control your own computer. Red Hat control would remove that advantage. -- --- Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
RedHat = MS-Linux???
I've been toying with Linux for about 3 years now. I do not have it mastered, but I haven't given up either. Part of me is delighted with the current regognition of Linux (RedHat), but the other part fears that some entity such as Microsoft will somehow crawl out of the woodwork and take over. What are your views on this? Eventually I would like to be running Debian exclusively. I will admit though that I am learning on RedHat. Just curious.. Don
