Re: Debian and Redhat - are most linux users missing the point?
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > In other words, the value is the process and not the content.
>
>
> What do mean by content here? The software?
>
> I'm saying the 'process' has been positively influenced by the
> 'politics' (the Social Contract is perhaps a good example of the
> 'politics' of Debian).
And I think the process has been influenced more by the simple fact that
they have a lot of developers spread all over the world and that FORCED
them to develop strict standards if they were to produce anything at all.
I see the benefits coming more out of the distributed development
environment than out of any free software issues.
The principles used in Debian's development could be applied by any
commercial development project where they might have individual developers
world-wide collaborating on a large end product. Commercial is not bad.
What is bad is not allowing the user to contribute to the development
process. People pay $5,000.00 to FSF for a complete GNU package. (follow
the "ordering" link at the FSF home page).
Remember that commercial companies contribute to Debian. Commercial
companies that use free software often feed improvements back into the
community. Industry is not bad, it is how we provide our children with a
better life than we had. For an individual, using a free software package
that has fewer features or does not work as well as a commercial product
is a viable option. For a business that needs to provide a particular
service, the options are to either find something that DOES provide the
feature or create it. The option to do without does not exist for them
because it spells death.
A decision might go like this:
Hmmm, X-ware has released their product for Linux, we want to get it.
Oh-oh, they only support it under Red Hat. We are running Debian. Lets run
some numbers.
Cost of Debian $ 0.00
Cost of X-ware $1499.00
Cost of Red Hat $50.00
Ok, will X-ware install on Debian if I use alien or something? Yes but it
is going to take some fiddling with it to get everything in the right
places. How much is that going to cost? If it takes a $30.00/hr person
two hours ... that is $60.00
Ok, now about support. They will not support us if we install on Debian so
we are going to have to try to support it internally. Do we have anyone
that knows X-ware well enough to support it, how much do they make, and
how much time is THAT going to take.
So you see ... unless Debian can be looked at by the ISV's as a viable
platform, they are simply going to pick the most popular platorm and
support it. Red Hat is targeting the enterprise market. They are trying to
make the IT management feel comfortable that the software vendor will
support them, and the OS vendor will support them. The problem that
Debian has is "no visible means of support". You are on your own to
support it and THAT costs money. In the eye of the businessman, Debian can
be more expensive to own than Red Hat. That opens up a business
opportunity for someone to provide "Enterprise Debian" that brings the
ISV's into the loop with equal status to any of the other package
developers. Debian can not do this for political reasons and is probably
why "Official Debian" will never be the #1 Linux distribution. Debian, as
it exists now, has only the technical superiority issue on its side when
competing in the enterprise. That is often not enough when cost of
ownership is a major issue. Debian is free but a business could look at it
as expensive to own.
Reply to: