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 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).
Only if the questions are coming from *developers*. Developers
will work, for free, only on things that interest them, and thats
perfectly fine. Alas, hacking the kernel is fun, but hacking a
Wordperfect 8 or MS Word clone is apparently not, otherwise we
would have gotten 'GNU PerfectWord' years ago.
>
> [snip]
>
> I don't think the problem is with one distribution dominating the
> market, it is with what I consider to be unethical behaviour (marketing
> practices and poorly written software). If RH dominates, fine, if they
> use that domination to take advantage of users... the users will start
> looking for something else. With the boom in the internet this sorta
> thing will be self regulating.
Well .... Ok, there would be a major backlash against RH for any
funny business on their part. Remember though that new folk are
coming to Linux every day. Many of these folks aren't as ardent
about OSS as we would like them to be.
What I'm referring to here is what I foresee as a 'split' in the
Linux community. On one side will be us, the OSS believers, the
developers (programmers willing to spend free time coding software
for the rest of us), the folk who will put up with anything to
avoid assisting MS's monopoly. On the other side will be the
Linux commercial interests, RH and similar, the commercial app
makers, and many of the more recent incoming folk who will not, at
least initially, be put off by a RH dominated Linux world.
Sure the users will start looking for something else, but with a
monopoly, can they find it? If they can find the [commercial]
apps they want on RH, will they even bother to educate themselves
about alternatives? You could say we don't *need* these kind of
folk, but without them, Linux can't build a large enough userbase
that can attract commercial interests.
>
> [snip]
>
> I like variety and do not see a problem with it,
> unless the deck gets stacked in favour of one distribution over the
> others.
I love variety too, which is precisely why I don't want to see
the deck all stacked up in favor of RH.
>
> The big difference between then and now is that the hardware is more
> capable, it can handle having to carry multiple versions of the same
> libs or kernel without a significant cost penalty. So until RH moves
> towards depending on `non-replaceble by the OSS community' software, I
> think your fears are, at least, premature..
I sincerely hope you are right here, i.e. my fears being
premature. For those who might be reading this thread, I have
*no* evidence that RH has 'turned rogue' on us. They continue to
live up to their promises ... so far. One good thing to monitor
is the "Linux Standard Base" project,
http://www.linuxbase.org/index.html, a project supported by both
Debian and, for now, Red Hat.
>
> later,
>
> Bruce
--
Ed C.
Reply to: