Shuttleworth promotes FUD to kill off competitors
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cjcox Aug 06, 2007 6:17 PM EDT |
I think that subject is more accurate. Anybody got some duct tape? Anyone else tired of Mark's constant attempts to divide the Linux community , I mean promote the ONLY community that matters... Ubuntu!! |
| devnet Aug 07, 2007 7:49 AM EDT |
I find this amusing...mainly because you can't fracture the open source community by messing with businesses. Linux does not = business Open Source does not = business If you threaten businesses and extort them or do your nastiest to take them out...Linux still exists and is developed. If you try to kill off Linux in any way, shape, or form...linux will win...it doesn't die because the GPL allows it to propagate itself. When one person or place drops the torch, someone else picks it up. It's a cycle. It's in progress. It won't go away. Mark was a bit far off base on this article. Microsoft hasn't fractured anything except peoples faith in Linux vendors. The community is still intact and it's operating under normal parameters. Shame on you Mark for spewing FUD. |
| tuxchick Aug 07, 2007 8:56 AM EDT |
How is he dividing the community? I think you read a different article, because this one is about Microsoft's "partnerships" with Linux vendors that are designed to fracture the community. Shuttleworth didn't make Novell, Linspire, or Xandros enter into deals with the borg. |
| Abe Aug 07, 2007 9:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:The community is still intact and it's operating under normal parameters. Shame on you Mark for spewing FUD. Dave, I agree with you to a certain extent, Shuttleworth should have said "MS is trying to fracture the community" instead of "fracturing the community". The fact is, MS did succeed only to fracture the outfits that didn't belong in the community in the first place any way. The remaining of what Shuttleworth said was all good. On the other had though, what is better than what he said, are the individual postings to the article. I think that Mark either didn't mean what he said in that regard, or just still underestimates the strength and resilience of FOSS community. Let's not make what he didn't mean come true. |
| jezuch Aug 07, 2007 4:25 PM EDT |
Well, even if those fracturing tactics are successfull, it's nothing. Some people go ballistic about those deals etc. - those may get fractured, divided, whatever. But there's also a large part of community that says "who cares?". Even if Microsoft succeeds, this "core" will remain intact. The community will be a bit smaller, but that doesn't matter... So a piece of advice for you: ignorance is bliss :) |
| hkwint Aug 07, 2007 4:37 PM EDT |
Well, surprisingly I have a rather different view on the issue: Fracturing the Linux-community is almost the most stupid thing for Microsoft to do. They have one enemy now, but after dividing it in pro-Microsoft-IP (Novell/Xandros,Linspire) and the rest, it seems Microsoft has two enemies. You see, there will be a group of companies respecting Microsofts IP, and there will be a group not doing so. This divergence is good, just as divergence in Linux is a good thing in general. It's what the evolution theory states, and no matter if you believe in humans as a result of evolution or not, the strongest survive. If Microsoft creates two enemies out of one, and the two enemies diverge, one of the two will be the strongest, and actually becomes stronger than its predecessor. This wouldn't have happened if the Linux community only converged. In the hypothetical case Linux isn't distributable anymore because of infringement on Microsoft's IP, Linux will still exist because Novell and Xandros are immune to those IP-infringement. Because this is not going to happen in a world where gravity exists ('Truth happens!), I said it's hypothetical. Microsoft, as one of the most converging companies known to man, is the best example and prove. You see, a while ago there was the renewal-inclined .NET camp (all MS software should be rewritten in .NET), and the camp that would like to keep on supporting old technologies keep VB6 alive, and give priority to fixing problems in existing technologies instead of making whole new technologies. The latter is also the camp of the Microsoft programmers fixing bugs in 3d party application by making patches in Windows. For example, a bug in the non-MS game SimCity was fixed (patched) in Windows by people of MS, so people could still play SimCity (now, nobody remembers open source developers ever do that, so we should praise those people!) If Microsoft was open source, it would definitely have forked at that moment. However, it's a converging company with bosses commanding the direction of convergence; so finally the renewal-inclined people made the 'oldies' shut up. Everybody knows what happened thereafter, VB6 support stopped - in favour of .NET, and customers were angry about that. Also, the plan to rewrite Windows in .NET failed - and finally led to Vista. As an intermezzo: it is the way science works. For example, you had two views of the world in the medieval time: The Earth-centric view, and the Sun-centric view. In the time the Catholic Church was the boss, it wouldn't let divergence happen, and people were convicted for not agreeing with the churches 'scientific' views. However, in a diverging world, those two views (a kind of 'fork') would both exist next to each other, and someone could test them both, find out one sucked and reject that, and the best would prevail. Remember OpenBSD is the result of a fork because people disagreed and had arguments. But this mechanism is disabled if there's some boss withholding forking (of ideas and opinions), like MS-management, the pope, the president or whatever telling the 'truth'. Main point is: divergence is good for Linux, convergence isn't. Linus deciding CK-patches are not going to be a choice in the mainline kernel is an example of convergence. Linspire and SabayonLinux offering every proprietary patent encumbered technology out of the box (though Sabayon does that for free) and gNewSense are divergence in (GNU/)Linux distributions. Let's assume, nobody knows at this moment what's the best weapon ('weapons' as means to an end) against Microsoft at this time: Linspire-like stuff (as ESR assumes) or gNewSense (like RMS probably assumes, though his goal isn't world domination like ESR's goal is). Then, no matter what the two camps argue, one of the two weapons will be the best. It would be possible that best weapon wouldn't have existed if there were never arguments within Linux, or all arguments were resolved. In my opinion, it's the same as GPLv2 against v3: It's a good thing they both end up in Linux distributions, since the divergence enables for the best protection against 'proprietarizing' FLOSS (the latter word is used to prevent open/free/gratis discussions). Therefore, contrary to popular believe, in my opinion Novell and Shuttleworth are doing the Linux community a service. (Hey, this would be a nice blog to spark some discussions, wouldn't it?) |
| tuxchick Aug 07, 2007 5:07 PM EDT |
I'm still wondering about "Shuttleworth promotes FUD to kill off competitors." Not seeing anything to support that. |
| Abe Aug 07, 2007 5:52 PM EDT |
Quoting:Therefore, contrary to popular believe, in my opinion Novell and Shuttleworth are doing the Linux community a service. hkwint, How many beers have you had today? Or should I say Schnapps? I need at least as many to even understand what you are talking about. :) |
| tracyanne Aug 07, 2007 6:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'm still wondering about "Shuttleworth promotes FUD to kill off competitors." Not seeing anything to support that. Me neither. |
| dinotrac Aug 07, 2007 6:15 PM EDT |
>>I'm still wondering about "Shuttleworth promotes FUD to kill off competitors." Not seeing >>anything to support that.
> Me neither. Whew!! I thought it was just me having a senior moment. |
| techiem2 Aug 07, 2007 6:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:Whew!! I thought it was just me having a senior moment. naah. Just an extinction moment. ;) /me ducks |
| dinotrac Aug 07, 2007 6:39 PM EDT |
>Just an extinction moment. ;) Hey, shouldn't you be taking it easy while that new kidney is in its break-in period? |
| tuxchick Aug 07, 2007 6:43 PM EDT |
OMG that was techiem's kidney?? Oh dear... /me hides the steak-and-kidney pie |
| dinotrac Aug 08, 2007 1:48 AM EDT |
>/me hides the steak-and-kidney pie TC - This is a side of you we haven't seen before. I think I like it. I won't let you get near me with cutlery... |
| techiem2 Aug 08, 2007 4:57 AM EDT |
hahaha I think you got one of my orginals..that's not gonna make a very good pie... |
| dinotrac Aug 08, 2007 5:26 AM EDT |
>.that's not gonna make a very good pie From what I hear from usually unreliable sources, neither is TC. |
| tuxchick Aug 08, 2007 9:18 AM EDT |
Nice to see you up and kicking, techiem2. :) Want some pie? |
| devnet Aug 08, 2007 9:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:I think you read a different article, because this one is about Microsoft's "partnerships" with Linux vendors that are designed to fracture the community. Shuttleworth didn't make Novell, Linspire, or Xandros enter into deals with the borg. The community is not a Linux Vendor. Microsoft has nothing to do with the community unless they directly threaten it. How is this doing anything to...say, the PCLinuxOS Community (I use this as an example because I'm most actively involved in this community right now). It doesn't do anything to me or the community. We keep on keeping on like we always do...unfractured, unfettered, and productive. If it doesn't do anything...then why is Mark saying it does? Perhaps to frighten people into some kind of action? Perhaps to confuse or befuddle people and their perceptions? A call to arms based on false pretenses? There is not a good reason...so, shame on Mark for trying to make people think there is. Perhaps some of you think Mark isn't saying these things on purpose (delightful when you read into the mindset of an individual by guessing). When you inadvertently spread FUD are you still spreading FUD? That's the real question here. Now I'm not saying the entire article is all full of crap...there are sprinkled toppings of good things throughout. I'm saying that the title is alarmist and isn't based on fact and that Mark isn't making sense when equating the community with Linux vendors. From his perspective I guess he might consider Linux Vendors to be the epitome of community...but I sure as hell don't and I KNOW that I'm not alone. |
| tuxchick Aug 08, 2007 10:06 AM EDT |
wow devnet, you did read a totally different article. |
| Abe Aug 08, 2007 10:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:wow devnet, you did read a totally different article. nah, Devnet read the same article alright. In my opinion, he read a little more than necessary. I too got the same feeling and I chose to give Shuttleworth the benefit of the doubt for all the good things he said in the same article. Devnet chose not to be as forgiving. Suttleworth could be all sincere, we can't know for sure, but time will tell. On the other hand, don't forget that he is a very clever guy too. Remember the fiasco when Novell signed the famous agreement with MS, Suttleworth garbed the chance to invite all OpenSuse developers to his camp. I believe that is the sort of thing that Devnet is talking about. I think. |
| tuxchick Aug 08, 2007 12:15 PM EDT |
I'm not any big fan of Mark Shuttleworth- I just don't believe that the level of thought-policing that devnet seems to imply is necessary, and I'm very bored with people shrieking "FUD!" every time they read something they don't like. And what's not to like in this article? This part, maybe?Quoting: "That's extortion and we should call it what it is," he said. "To say, as [Microsoft CEO Steve] Ballmer did, that there is undisclosed balance sheet liability, that's just extortion and we should refuse to get drawn into that game. Or maybe this: Quoting: "I think it's obvious at this stage that really what Microsoft is doing is trying to unsettle the marketplace. It isn't working and has not had the slightest impact on those companies that refuse to be drawn into that line of discussion with Microsoft. If anything, there is plenty of evidence to show that the companies who have been drawn into that have paid a significant price," he said. Mmkay. I'm trying to read anti-FOSS FUD into that, but I can't. Like it or not, the FOSS community includes the commercial vendors. It's not a unified community by any definition, more like a cat herd, and this article is not FUD, and it certainly isn't going to drive trusting innocents into the arms of Redmond. |
| dinotrac Aug 08, 2007 12:59 PM EDT |
TC - Methinks devnet has the thinking cap screwed on a little too tight. Coming and going are getting criss-crossed. You are absolutely correct. The Linux community may not be a commercial vendor, but commercial vendors are definitely part of the community -- and, judging from the time and money they put into it, a very important part of the community that we all should be grateful for. Let's face it - volunteer workers tend to scratch an itch. They work on what interests them. Problem is, non-technical users and developers don't always itch in the same place. If Linux is to be a satisfying and capable desktop option for many non-technical users, somebody's going to have get paid to do a little work that might not otherwise excite them. That's where commercial vendors excel. They have money and they pay people. |
| devnet Aug 08, 2007 1:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:commercial vendors are definitely part of the community I disagree. The community can only be there to serve the community or it ceases to be community. Commercial vendors are there to serve the shareholders of their company. Commercial interests are placed above that of the community. With this being 100% always the case, one cannot argue that commercial vendors are part of the community...maybe, contribute to the community...but not part of it. |
| azerthoth Aug 08, 2007 2:03 PM EDT |
I'm curious devnet, were I to rephrase that to "Only through altruism can one be part of the community" would that accuratly depict what you are saying? Thats what I'm understanding you to say as I read it. |
| dinotrac Aug 08, 2007 6:06 PM EDT |
azerthoth - By devnet's apparent beliefs, there isn't much of a community. Who really qualifies? Not Andrew Morton or Jeremy Allison. They are paid by Google to do their free software work. That means they have to satisfy stockholders, etc,etc. Not Linus Torvalds. He works for the Linux Foundation, a group funded by folks like Red Hat, Novell, IBM and many, many more. Alan Cox? Oops! Red Hat. Well -- nobody can quibble with Richard Stallman, right? Of course, he did invite scads of corporate lawyers to help with GPLV3 -- and we know that commercial interests can't be part of the community, so, if he courted non-members to help write the GPL, doesn't that make his community membership a little shaky? I'm thinking that, when you get right down to it, the community limited to a few fanbois who wrote A REALLY NEAT start to a GREAT IDEA as a computer science project, GPL'd it, put it up on Sourceforge and waited for the accolades to come rolling in. |
| Abe Aug 08, 2007 7:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:By devnet's apparent beliefs, there isn't much of a community.Dino, I think you are putting too much into it. Devnet wasn't talking about individuals working for commercial companies, he was strictly talking about the companies as entities. Commercial companies invest their money to make money. That is their primary object when they participate and support FOSS. The individuals you listed are contributing their time and talent because they believe in the mission. It is not the same and there is a big difference to be considered. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2007 2:29 AM EDT |
>he was strictly talking about the companies as entities.
I'm sorry., but the distinction is meaningless in this context. Companies do what the individuals who comprise them do. Companies can do things individuals can't -- like muster resources to pay Linus, Alan, Jeremy, etc. Devnet is all wet on this one. |
| tuxchick Aug 09, 2007 8:31 AM EDT |
devnet, I think you're falling into the trap of seeing this giant division between "money" and "more noble motivations." That's a false distinction. Why would any rational person base their actions solely on altruism? That's nuts. People should not do anything unless they get some kind of reward out of it. There are many rewards beyond paychecks, and for the large majority of people, money is not a big motivator. They'll work at jobs to earn money because they have to, but they'll invest their serious time and talent in activities that do not have paychecks, but are actually more rewarding than getting money. But it sounds like you would dismiss the value of their contributions if they do dare to get paid to do what they enjoy. You speak of commercial Linux vendors as thought they were demons or something, instead of real people, with real feelings, who are worthy of goodwill. Building bridges, rather than putting up walls around exclusive little cliques, is the true spirit of FOSS. Branding entire classes of people as icky corporate droids and saying they are not truly part of the FOSS community is bigotry, don't you think? It's a copout to say "teh evil corporation as an impersonal entity that is OK for us to scorn or hate or exclude." Those are people in there, not abstractions. Maybe I'm not understanding you, because honestly I'm having a hard time following your reasoning, but that's what it sounds like. |
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!