[ 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
dmerrick@pictorial.com (contract location)
unstable@spis.net (home e-mail)