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 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.
Until, of course, OSS hits the mainstream in a big way, and OSS
developers can make money/fame off of gamers.
> > ...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.
At least we have one thing in common. :)
> > > 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?
Until OSS hits the mainstream in a big way.
> > > 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.
They also work on things that will bring them recognition.
They don't appear to work on stuff that could ostracize them with the
rest of the OSS developer community, which appears to have been the GNU
community (for the most part)... but that will change as OSS hits the
mainstream and money becomes a factor.
> > 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?
MS has pretty close to a monopoly, and Linux is an alternative that many
are finding. Why should that mechanism change if Linux becomes
dominated by one distribution? An alternative to MS means a non-MS
compatible OS, only because MS is not OSS; an alternative to RH could
easily include a different flavour of Linux because Linux is OSS, the
compatibility issue then disappears (except for a few special cases).
> If they can find the [commercial]
> apps they want on RH, will they even bother to educate themselves
> about alternatives?
The MS world has more apps than Linux, why are people looking for
alternatives now?
<...>
> > 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.
But you want to see apps that install and run on any Linux system
without tweaking, right. In what area of the OS do you want to see
variety... in distribution name only?
Variety means differences, that means incompatibilities.
At least with Linux the incompatibilities are relatively minor.
later,
Bruce
Reply to: