This article is broken
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Dec 02, 2008 11:15 PM EDT |
Maybe I need more coffee, but this struck me as an odd, disjointed article. He praises the Microsoft/Novell deal:Quoting: It lets Novell provide important software that complements the core, or kernel, of the operating system and enables interoperability between Windows and Linux. The same people who correctly called the deal a shakedown also noted that interoperability is never a problem with FOSS code, it's Microsoft that made foiling interoperability the foundation of their business. They're still playing games with interoperability and their newfound love of the penguin, because real interoperability would not be limited to Novell, but open to all. They've simply created another kind of lock-in. He also says weird things about the Linux kernel, like Quoting: Red Hat...has also found ways to add value beyond supporting the Linux kernel. It adds substantial layers of software on top of the kernel...in order to provide additional value to its customers. If Red Hat relied on supporting the Linux kernel, it would go out of business simply because the code is so sound." Um, WTF? Like duh. Nobody uses just an operating system kernel, not even the tiniest embedded developer. It's like saying "Toyota adds value by bundling several combustion units into a powerful, efficient engine and then wrapping that in a multitude of customer-friendly accessories." And then the final kicker: Quoting: ...it doesn't really matter if the final product is available via subscription, delivered as a service over the Web, or licensed under the General Public License that governs free software. It does matter. Exhibit A: Google, which has built their empire on FOSS code, but is a miser when it comes to giving anything back to the community that made it possible. Which is something that those zealot fanatic idealists at the FSF predicted long ago would happen, that software as a service would provide a GPL dodge. I guess it's good he's the ex-CEO of OSDL. |
| tuxchick Dec 02, 2008 11:24 PM EDT |
I forgot the other bit: OSS is not a business model, it's a development model. And I think he omits any mention of "Free Software" on purpose, because OSS as defined by the OSI is more tolerant of bad proprietary habits. |
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!