Re: Time to make a stand. (Was: Re: IBM 390)
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Jor-el wrote:
Okay, I have to admit, I ended up a bit less clear than I had hoped to be
last night. So here goes take two. I need more sleep and less stress. ;P
Ah well, that's how it is with a multi-million dollar startup. }:)
> Phillip,
> Let me make it clear at the outset that you will not be getting
> any confidential information from me. I do not believe that two wrongs
> make a right, and anyway, in this case, I dont see any problem in IBM's
> behaviour. Richard Stallman might argue that IBM is morally wrong to not
> open the source code, but this is a moral issue - not a legal one.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I can not only understand, but gladly
accept this as fact. Personally, I would *never* divulge proprietary
information that could hurt my employer severely. But I will gladly
divulge proprietary information, in any form that I can, that I do not
believe will harm my employer.
The only problem I have with IBM's behavior is that they are saying one
thing, and doing another. That's just not good business practices. Ask
anyone at Unicent Telecom. They will tell you that we are building a
nationwide network that is for the most part ATM and OC3 based. And that
is precisely what we are doing. I have reason to believe that if Cisco had
a 'customer of the year,' we would be it. It's not every company that can
go into panic mode because 53 *more* Ciscos were somehow lost in shipping.
Not once in a million years would I advocate or demand the release of the
source code for DB2, AIX, OS/390, OS/400, or any other IBM commercial
product. They have developed these from *nothingness* from day one, for
the most part, and it is their right to not distribute the source.
However, not distributing information about hardware to developers, so
that they can gain more support, which is what they WILL gain with *real*
support from the Linux community, is just plain stupid.
BTW; my offer for information on Cisco AS-series and Ascent MAX series
CDR/Radius information still stands. ;)
> That being said, there is information that is more readily
> accessible to me which is non-confidential. This, I am more than willing
> to share, but let us take that discussion off this list.
*nods* Agreed. And I truly appreciate it, as do the others who can use it,
I'm sure. When I have tried to work with IBM in the past, I have been
given the runaround, and even told flat out, no. "Go away. You'll get
nothing from us." They're not an easy company to work with. Thankfully, I
can say in all sincerity and honesty that Motorola has to be my absolute
favorite big corporation at this point. I've spoken with several people
there, and MCG is very supportive of Linux.
> I dont believe that IBM is anti-linux. IBM is a big corporation
> that is so big that quite often its left hand doesnt know / understand
> what its right hand does. If you do see isolated incidents that go against
> the Linux community, you must remember that that is just what they are :
> isolated incidents. Like all other big corporations, IBM is still trying
> to grasp the business model of free software. Sometimes it succeeds, and
> sometimes it fails. I think that ascribing intentions to these successes
> and failures is a meaningless excercise.
I don't believe they're anti-Linux. I only said that they're only using
Linux as a marketing tool. Which is exactly what they are doing. Never
*once* have I truly seen IBM go against *any* open source community. I
seem to recall one instance where a developer reverse engineered something
of IBM's, and IBM simply said "nice work." No lawsuit. No cease and desist
order. They simply let it pass. Which is fine by me. As I said; I'll do
what I plan to, with or without IBM behind me.
> For example, there are IBM'ers who are actively arguing for
> opening up IBM intellectual property where they see it as doing more harm
> than good. An example was the token-ring card specifications. There were
> no drivers for the PCI token-ring cards from IBM. This is because IBM
> considered the token-ring interface as proprietary and would not
> release the programming specs. There were a lot of IBM'ers who went to
> great lengths to get the specs released to a driver writer.
> I also know of atleast one IBM'er who is an active debian package
> maintainer.
Honestly, I can't support this entirely. IBM is being stupid by closing
specs to PC hardware; they only stand to gain more support as a hardware
manufacturer and vendor by allowing more operating systems to support
their hardware. But things like that are things that they have developed
from the ground up, and paid for a lot of research and testing on. It's
their right to keep it closed.
The inverse goes for GPL-licensed software and such. I don't believe any
company has the right to take GPL'd software, put it in the box, and sell
it at a profit, giving nothing to the authors.
It's a double-edged sword.
> I believe that free software equates to better software (that is
> why I am on this list!). The business world may recognize this too, but
> until they have a strategy in place for making money off of free software,
> they wont play the free software game. IBM is still trying to find the
> right strategies, and I dont think they can be faulted for that.
I couldn't agree more. But free software only comes when the information
required to develop it is available. Note; not necessarily free. Now that
I'm employed (yay. It was payday today. New car this weekend.), I might be
willing to pay a *small* licensing fee for the rights to proprietary
information on the P2SC and Power2 processors. But only if I maintain the
rights to distribute the source code. I'll strip it of all comments, no
complaints. But if I can't distribute the source, forget it.
If you want to be reguarded as well supported, you have to share your
information. IBM needs to take a hint from Mylex; they are *the* authority
on multiple-operating system and multiple-architecture support. Not only
do they *GIVE* information to developers that request it, they assist
them. I honestly cannot name a single Mylex PCI card that is *NOT*
supported in over a *DOZEN* operating systems, excepting only the
DAC960 series.
So, what it boils down to is; these companies only stand to *GAIN* from
sharing information. And we gain as well; in stature, in precedence, in
prestige, and most importantly, in knowlege.
I think we'll have a hard time finding people who disagree with that.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Phillip R. Jaenke | "Not all wisdom comes from without; |
| Head of Unix Systems | much wisdom can only come from |
| Unicent Telecom | within. Only you can teach yourself |
| prj@nls.net (RISCy@IRC) | some of the most important lessons |
+-------------------------+ of life." --Takes-Many-Roads, |
Project Head | Silent Strider Theurge |
The Linux RS/6000 Project +--------------------------------------+
-PESTER ME!- PJaenke@unicent.com / 800.319.9250 x4268 -PESTER ME!-
Reply to: