Could Hurt Novell, Help Red Hat
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dcparris Nov 27, 2006 11:02 AM EDT |
It's one thing when the developers and individual users consider jumping ship. It's quite another when universities begin announcing their exit strategy. Incidentally, this could serve to further solidify Red Hat's position as _the_ Linux company. I wonder how many people considered that as a consequence of the deal? |
| tuxchick Nov 27, 2006 11:19 AM EDT |
The pundits and analysts have been citing the deal as the Doom of Red Hat. (Cue thunder effects, scary chorus) It would be interesting indeed if the effect were the opposite. While I've never been a huge fan of Red Hat the distribution, Red Hat the company is admirable. They are a true FOSS company. No weaseling, no yesbuts. I've never understood the whiners who call them the Microsoft of Linux- just plain old trolls, I suppose. |
| dcparris Nov 27, 2006 12:49 PM EDT |
I'm curious, TC - Why does RMS consider them to be, um, not-so-pure? Or do they include non-free software (drivers, etc.) in the mix somewhere? |
| jdixon Nov 27, 2006 1:00 PM EDT |
> I'm curious, TC - Why does RMS consider them to be, um, not-so-pure? In the recent public issue of LWN, there was this quote from RMS: We can certainly go through the [Fedora packaging] guidelines. We have not yet done so, but we know of one problem in the current policy: it says that packages can be included which qualify as open source but not as free software. In other words, not all packages need to meet the definition of free software. Does that answer your question? Editted for clarity. |
| dcparris Nov 27, 2006 1:34 PM EDT |
Thanks, jdixon. I didn't get a chance to read that article yet. I have now, though. |
| dinotrac Nov 28, 2006 9:40 AM EDT |
>it says that packages can be included which qualify as open source but not as free software. Does anybody happen to know what that software might be or is RMS just being crotchedy? |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 28, 2006 12:53 PM EDT |
>Does anybody happen to know what that software might be or is RMS just being crotchedy? The way I read it, it doesn't specify that such software is in the distro, but that "packages can be included which qualify..." I read it as a policy disagreement, not necessarily one based on the fact of what's in the distro. |
| tuxchick Nov 28, 2006 1:11 PM EDT |
[valley girl voice] Whatever. Maybe RMS can code a tool to count how many angels can dance on the head of a capacitor. I think what Red Hat has accomplished without compromising FOSS values is pretty amazing. They give away their core product, which has spawned a host of perfectly legal clones (CentOS, Pie Box, and so forth). They do not charge for software licenses, which all by itself is contrary to industry practices. They have contributed significantly to Linux development and distribution. And they are successful and growing. So there. :) |
| dcparris Nov 28, 2006 2:04 PM EDT |
We have to bear in mind that the FSF does not recognize all of the licenses approved by the OSI. Getting agreement between the two "accrediting" agencies would be fantastic, but highly unlikely. I would not expect RMS to call something Free if he doesn't see it as Free. Call it what you will, but whatever you call it will depend on your viewpoint. :-) |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 28, 2006 3:30 PM EDT |
>I think what Red Hat has accomplished without compromising FOSS values is pretty amazing. I'd be more apt (not a dig at Debian!) to use CentOS for my daily needs if it were a little more up-to-date. There are contrib packages that bring it up to speed (such as for MySQL 5), but still, sometimes I want something and it's not there, and I prefer to have everything in a central repo. I much prefer it to other distros, although PCLOS is Red Hatish enough. I think Red Hat is great, and I find service management, etc, to be easier there than in other distros. Probably just personal preference. |
| jimf Nov 28, 2006 4:03 PM EDT |
> Probably just personal preference It is, believe me, it is :D |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 28, 2006 4:36 PM EDT |
>It is, believe me, it is :D Yes, and the more choices, the better! |
| dinotrac Nov 28, 2006 8:01 PM EDT |
Well, all those folks who want to dump Novell had best stay away from Red Hat, too.
Check out pledge iii in their Open Source Assurance Program and tell me how it differs from the deal worked out by Microsoft and Novell. In truth, the Red Hat program is more encompassing. They are preparted to secure anybody's patent rights whereas Novell has not promised to secure patent rights to anything. |
| jdixon Nov 29, 2006 2:45 AM EDT |
> In truth, the Red Hat program is more encompassing. They are preparted to secure anybody's patent rights... Actually, Dino, I think that's the essential difference that would make Red Hat's OSA pass but not Novell's agreement. Novell's agreement only applies to their customers, not any Linux user, making in non-distributable. Redhat's applies to any Linux user. Oh, and I dropped Red Hat when they dropped their over the counter OS. Fedora is not supported by Red Hat. Why would I want to provide free support to Red Hat by supporting it when they won't support me in return? I used to keep a running Red Hat box at work and try to help users with problems on free-linux support (which died some time ago, unfortuantely, and Linux Questions isn't really a suitable replacement). No more. I do still own Red Hat stock though. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 3:25 AM EDT |
>Novell's agreement only applies to their customers, not any Linux user, making in non-distributable. Redhat's applies to any Linux user. Continuing my ongoing Kay Kyser kick: That's right, you're wrong. Look again, Kimosabe. Red Hat's program applies only to their customers -- ie those people paying a subscription to Red Hat, and only while they are paying their subscription. |
| jdixon Nov 29, 2006 7:40 AM EDT |
Dino: Touche. However, I took you at your word and did not check the original source: > They are preparted to secure anybody's patent rights whereas Novell has not promised to secure patent rights to anything. You didn't say only Red Hat's customers. I should be able to accept the given conditions for the purpose of the discussion, shouldn't I? :) Also, though it's probably not a determining legal factor, note that Red Hat is not paying anyone for their promise, so there's not even the appearance that it's a license, unlike Novell. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 8:12 AM EDT |
jdixon - I can see the source of your confusion: >They are preparted to secure anybody's patent rights In my mind, there was a "not just Microsoft's" in that sentence. I blame you for not reading my mind. Couldn't be my fault, right? |
| jdixon Nov 29, 2006 8:50 AM EDT |
> Couldn't be my fault, right? No, I totally my fault. I know better than to not check the source. I was just short on time and lazy. :( |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 12:26 PM EDT |
>Also, though it's probably not a determining legal factor, note that Red Hat is not paying anyone for their promise, I'll bet they are paying somebody, but an insurance company, not Microsoft. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!