|
 |
[ The opinions expressed by authors on Linux Today are their own. They speak only for themselves and not for Linux Today. ] -lt ed Contributed by Linux Today reader Dale Merrick. In response to Andover News' latest column, The Charity Case for Red Hat: Your article titled "The Charity Case for Red Hat" has a large number of inaccurate statements. The one that stands out in my mind the most is where you stated the Red Hat was losing $130 million a year. If you read their IPO filling it states $130,000, not $130 million in loses. RH might be losing money, but they aren't losing the amount you state. Take note that by profession I am a consultant. I do networking, Windows programming, Unix network management, Linux installs, etc. I used to believe that MS was the way to go. However their past performance has shown me that that isn't the case. I was introduced to Linux by a friend of mine and I was sold. The stability that it provides is stellar. The speed is amazing (compared to Windows on the same machine). The amount of choice I have for apps, window managers, etc. is absolutely wonderful. MS doesn't give me alot of choice. I have to use what they say or I don't have anything to use. But that's not why I'm writing you. Another statement that troubles me is your opinion that Linux will fragment. Perhaps that is true to a degree, but that applies to any operating system including Microsoft. They have Win 95, 98, NT 4.0, and soon NT 2000. Each does essentially the same thing so why are there 4 different versions. Windows 98 was nothing more than a service release of Windows 95. It added no new functionality to Windows 95. Sure there were some new under the hood items for programmers, but being a Windows programmer I've yet to have a need them. I've yet to come across the need for two monitors (98 and 2000 feature). Each release of Windows has introduced numerous bugs. Granted 98 fixed alot of 95 problems, but it brought along it's own set of bugs. Then that brings me to MS responsiveness in bug fixes. MS hasn't always been the fastest on bug fixes. I can tell you that the Linux and BSD communities have a turn around time of about 8 hours on bug fixes. There are several distributions of Linux. There's Red Hat, Calerda, SuSE, Mandrake (uses RH as it's base), TurboLinux and quite a few others. What's different about each of these distributions? The kernel (Linux) is the same. The core apps (LS, CHMOD, etc.) are the same. The main differences between each of these distributions are: (1) the number and type of extra applications included, and (2) the target audience. Some of these companies provide support (for pay) while other don't. You should understand that Linux is a kernel and only a kernel. It isn't the programs that comes with it. LS (Linux version of the dir command) is a separate application. Linux is nothing but the kernel that Linus creates. The Linux kernel doesn't do anything other than manage memory, processes, IO, etc. The Linux kernel doesn't manage the display system, the sound system, etc. Granted you can compile sound support into the kernel, but it isn't required for the kernel to operate. Since Linus didn't create the sound subsystem that can be compiled into the kernel that indicates that the sound system ISN'T Linux. Stating the if RH fixed Linux it wouldn't be Linux anymore indicates to me that you haven't read the license that comes with Linux. While I'm not a license expert by any means the license under which Linux (all distributions) is distributed prevents any company from making it proprietary. Any changes they make to existing code must be public. Now if RH writes code from scratch they have a choice of making it use the same license as Linux or picking their own. Pressure from the Linux community will ensure that they use the same license as Linux. RH's attempt to improve the look and feel won't "change" Linux either since the GUI system of Linux ISN'T an integrated part of the kernel. The X windows system is a separate application all-together. RH has attempted to change the look and feel of Linux. It's called GNOME. Another group has created KDE. It has a look and feel similar (but not quite the same as) Windows. Then there is BlackBox, Ice, WindowMaker, and a host of others. You could say that is fragmentation. I suppose that depends on your opinion of Linux in the first place. Some would call it fragmentation while others would call it choice. I believe that it is choice. Look at the home page for each window manager you find that each one had some special goal that the author(s) wished to achieve. I believe that all of them did that. As for who owns the source code. No one and every one. If RH were to step on the toes of the Linux community they would still have access to all the Linux source code, but very few people was download/buy their distribution. The same applies to any Linux distribution regardless of whether they had filed an IPO. IBM has given away a fair amount of source code already. Oracle and Sun, I don't know if they have or not. To the same degree I don't really care. I know that those companies are out to make money and possibly hit MS once or twice in the processes. I eventually hope to make money in Linux. Not by selling my programs but by providing services. Linux essentially turns this industry into a service industry. Services provide a long term income while an outright sell is a one-time deal. That's why MS does the upgrade bit so often. MS ensures you'll upgrade by making their popular apps (Office) use the latest and greatest OS features. Then if you upgrade Office you have to upgrade your OS. Sure you don't have to upgrade Office, but if they release some new feature that everyone in your industry starts to use peer pressure basically forces you to upgrade. Besides, the business culture has been trained to upgrade when new releases come out. Keep in mind that there are exceptions to that rule. The company I'm contracting with at the moment still has customers running MS-DOS. VA doesn't produce a Linux distribution. They sell hardware and provide other services, but they are not producing a distribution of Linux. MS could use Linux in an embedded application. So could every other company in the world. That doesn't mean that MS would own Linux. If they made any changes to Linux the license under which Linux is distributed would require them to make the changes public. Besides, there isn't much of a chance that MS will use Linux in any product for a few reasons: (1) It would mean MS acknowledges Linux as a serious product, (2) it would take share away from CE and the embeddable version of NT, and (3) why would they use another OS for a project when they believe their OS to be superior. If MS were to adapted Linux and I didn't like their changes I simply wouldn't use their distribution. I use SuSE, or RH, or Slackware, etc. Let them adapt, adopt, or whatever they want to call it. It has to compete with the other distributions. If it offers something then it will be used, if it doesn't then it will die.
Dale Merrick  
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| All times are recorded in UTC. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. Powered by Linux, Apache and PHP |
