Carla gets it right
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Jun 05, 2012 8:42 AM EDT |
Quoting:Some call Fedora a testbed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, a characterization that the nice RH folks don't always agree with. Regardless of what you call it, new features appear first in Fedora, get pummeled by users, and then work their way into RHEL. It's a great way to get an early look and start testing new goodies.Of course it's a test bed for RHEL. Carla gets it 100% right in this case. The folks at the Fedora Project want to stress their community ties and make their distro seem as non-corporate as possible to fit into the ethos popular in the Linux community. That doesn't change the fact that Fedora users are testing things for Red Hat. That isn't a bad thing and I have no problem with it. Of course, not everything in Fedora ends up in RHEL and not everything in Fedora is aimed at the enterprise. I'll grant that. Having said that, RHEL and add-on software and services related to that software (support, consulting, training, etc...) are what make money for Red Hat, the company, who in turn funds Fedora. I've never understood why that should be problematic to some in the Linux community. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 05, 2012 9:54 AM EDT |
> I've never understood why that should be problematic to some in the Linux community. Some people just don't like the idea of "money", "profit motive", "business". Just look at the reaction a person has to the word "deregulation". I agree with you that RedHat utilizes Fedora as a testbed, and that's a fair trade (I think) for creating and supporting Fedora in the first place. One of the indications of success for a distribution is the activity of its sponsor. "Release early, release often" also signals that the developer is actively interested in the project. The death-knell for a F/OSS project is usually something like "Gee, that hasn't been updated in 6 months." |
| ComputerBob Jun 05, 2012 10:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:The death-knell for a F/OSS project is usually something like "Gee, that hasn't been updated in 6 months."Which explains why Debian Stable died many years ago. ;) /sarcasm (for those who wouldn't otherwise know) |
| caitlyn Jun 05, 2012 12:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:Just look at the reaction a person has to the word "deregulation".Considering the havoc deregulation has caused to the U.S. economy the reaction to that word is justified. Hey, if you can post a TOS violation then so can I, right? |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 05, 2012 12:39 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, I didn't. I was talking about RedHat, Fedora, and why people seem to react badly to that situation. If nothing else, your reaction to anything you perceive as different from your own position on monetary matters demonstrates exactly the phenomenon to which I was referring. I expressed no opinion, other than on the perceptions of connection between RedHat and Fedora. Had I said, "Just look at the reaction a person has to the word "tuberculosis"", would you have concluded I was making a medical judgement? |
| caitlyn Jun 05, 2012 12:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:Had I said, "Just look at the reaction a person has to the word "tuberculosis"", would you have concluded I was making a medical judgement?Of course not. However, you have a long history of shoehorning in your economic/political ideology into discussions all the time. To claim you weren't doing it here, well... OK, it would be uncharacteristic behavior for you. You're a smart guy, Bob. You choose your words carefully. Please pardon me if I don't give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. |
| skelband Jun 05, 2012 1:06 PM EDT |
Do some people really have a reaction to profit and making money? What do these people eat? Isn't that what business is all about? RedHat seems to me to be a great example on how business works best. The software is principally the bait, or the means rather than the end, which many seem not to be able to grasp. The real business value is in providing time and services to people that want it, not selling shrink-wrapped vapourware. This translates very well to the entertainment industry. Films are what bring people into cinemas, CDs are what bring people to concerts, writers are what bring people to ....erm... web adverts. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 05, 2012 1:19 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, Thank you for the complement. I appreciate it. And yes, I did choose my words carefully. I don't always, which sadly has lead to a few of our disagreements. What I wanted to do, in the use of the word "deregulation", was to find a word that would embody the same emotional conflagration which is the root of the previously cited conflict that is sometimes assumed to exist between the profit motive and socially beneficial actions. I tried very hard only to refer to the idea, not to judge it. My opinion is that this assumption of conflict, not RedHat's actions, is the germ which leads to such doubts about RedHat's motivations. Another opinion: much better for everyone interested would be to look at what RedHat actually does, over time, rather than assume any particular motivation. While I do not use RedHat or Fedora myself, it seems that people who do are doing quite well with it. Certainly RedHat is benefiting from having such a large pool of voluntary testers who accept the occasional oops. :^) |
| caitlyn Jun 05, 2012 2:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:RedHat seems to me to be a great example on how business works best. The software is principally the bait, or the means rather than the end, which many seem not to be able to grasp. The real business value is in providing time and services to people that want it, not selling shrink-wrapped vapourware.I agree with you, skelband. Red Hat provides services. The software costs nothing at all. The fact that CentOS, Scientific Linux and PUIAS Linux can remove the Red Hat trademark and offer the exact same software at no cost proves that nicely. There are some people in the FOSS community who have an anti-capitalist animus without any doubt and that colors some perceptions. (In fairness, there are come with an anti-socialist animus as well :) Quoting:Certainly RedHat is benefiting from having such a large pool of voluntary testers who accept the occasional oops. :^)Without a doubt. That, in turn, benefits the entire Linux community since Red Hat can deliver a rock solid, stable produce to enterprise customers. Those customers completely annihilate the old FUD that Linux is only for hobbyists and propeller heads, though that still gets repeated now and again. The general perception of Linux has changed completely in recent years as a result. I'll also point out, as skelband did, that corporate use of Linux provides the bulk of the funds to pay FOSS developers decent salaries and to allow them to focus primarily on improving the software. |
| jdixon Jun 05, 2012 10:11 PM EDT |
> That doesn't change the fact that Fedora users are testing things for Red Hat. That isn't a bad thing and I have no problem with it. Not as long as the people realize they are doing it and agree to it, no. Of course, the fact that I personally am not willing to be an unpaid employee of Red Hat is one of the reasons I don't use Fedora. > Considering the havoc deregulation has caused to the U.S. economy the reaction to that word is justified. I suppose you support a government agency "regulating" what goes into FOSS then? Or perhaps a board composed of employees of the most prominent software companies? > ...you have a long history of shoehorning in your economic/political ideology into discussions all the time. Pot, meet kettle. |
| caitlyn Jun 05, 2012 10:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:Pot, meet kettle.When it got ridiculous before I responded in kind until I could get management to act. Consider this a beginning of a repeat performance. Quoting: I suppose you support a government agency "regulating" what goes into FOSS then? Or perhaps a board composed of employees of the most prominent software companies?Of course not. You're comparing apples and bricks. |
| jdixon Jun 05, 2012 11:11 PM EDT |
> You're comparing apples and bricks. I was discussing the regulation of an industry. What were you discussing with your comment? Or is one industry magically immune to the concerns which apply to others? |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2012 10:22 AM EDT |
Quoting:I was discussing the regulation of an industry. What were you discussing with your comment? Or is one industry magically immune to the concerns which apply to others?Regulation of industries that provide essential services or can have a negative impact on the economy as a whole makes sense. Regulating industries where there is significant competition and the free market works well does not. Enforcing anti-trust laws on Microsoft would be an example of sensible regulation of the software industry. What you propose makes no sense whatsoever. If I go any further I will definitely be in TOS violation land. I may be there already. |
| jdixon Jun 06, 2012 10:35 AM EDT |
> Regulation of industries that provide essential services or can have a negative impact on the economy as a whole makes sense. Software can't have a negative impact on the economy as a whole? > What you propose makes no sense whatsoever. I haven't proposed anything. You made a blanket statement against deregulation of industries. I reasonably inferred from that statement that you supported regulation of industries, to reasonably include the sottware industry, and thus FOSS. Or did you want me to "give you the benefit of the doubt on this one", and assume that you didn't intend it as a blanket statement? If so, perhaps you should do likewise. I see little reason to be charitable to those who aren't. |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2012 10:38 AM EDT |
You really want to get into an ideological/philosophical debate, don't you? Sorry, TOS violation if I take your bait. As a general rule we need more regulation in the U.S., not less. You know full well that is NOT an endorsement of all regulations no matter what they are. Don't treat me like an idiot and I promise not to treat you that way. |
| jdixon Jun 06, 2012 11:56 AM EDT |
> You really want to get into an ideological/philosophical debate, don't you? No. I want you to apply the same standards to others statements you do to your own. All I did was apply the same standard to your statement that you did to Bob's. I would have thought that would have been obvious by now. However, I should point out that philosophical debates are not outside the TOS. :) > As a general rule we need more regulation in the U.S., not less. We could probably have a reasonable discussion about that, as I think we agree about more than you suspect in this area. It's only the scope of the powers involved and the nitty gritty details that would create disagreement. However, going into details would definitely violate the TOS, so this isn't the place. > Don't treat me like an idiot and I promise not to treat you that way. Oh, I haven't been treating you like an idiot. I normally ignore idiots, expect for their most egregious statements. It's a measure of my respect for your intelligence that we're having this conversation, |
| skelband Jun 06, 2012 11:56 AM EDT |
> As a general rule we need more regulation in the U.S., not less. Regulation, as a general concept, is not a good thing. Those in power (and in the context of this board I really mean proprietary software companies) are too ready to impose regulation and restriction for no other reason than they can. Moreover, regulation is expensive because it has to be enforced. If it didn't, then there would be no need for it. It is one of the reasons why taxation and the cost of government is spiraling. (There you go, now I'm guilty of TOS violation, didn't want to feel left out now). It's also one of the main reasons that we, here, are strong supporters of Free Software, to slough off the shackles of control and regulation. To give us our hard-won freedom back. We shouldn't be so ready to give it up..... |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2012 11:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:We could probably have a reasonable discussion about that, as I think we agree about more than you suspect in this area. It's only the scope of the powers involved and the nitty gritty details that would create disagreement. However, going into details would definitely violate the TOS, so this isn't the place.You may well be right about this, jdixon. As you correctly point out we have both been dancing at the edge of the TOS and I don't think either of us want to blatantly cross that line in a deliberate way. Quoting:It's also one of the main reasons that we, here, are strong supporters of Free Software, to slough off the shackles of control and regulation.Speak for yourself. I have absolutely never thought of that as a reason to use Free Software. Not a once. |
| jdixon Jun 06, 2012 12:03 PM EDT |
> Regulation, as a general concept, is not a good thing. I understand what you're saying skelband, but that probably overstates the case. Clear and enforceable regulations are what make a marketplace (and to a certain extent, even a civil society) possible. Overly broad, unclear, or poorly written regulations, on the other hand... I think everyone here can agree to that, as a philosophical ideal. :) As I noted, it's the proper scope of government power and the details we'd disagree on. What industries should be regulated, the type of regulation to be used, etc. These are all political matters, and thus cross the TOS line. |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2012 12:06 PM EDT |
Thinking about skelband's last comment some more, I realized we were throwing two very different concepts into the broad term "regulation." My statement about the need for regulation referred to regulation by the government only, and only in a democratic society where people have some redress against such regulation if they feel it is unjust. What skelband seems to be referring to, other than his reference to taxation, is regulation imposed by proprietary software companies. I do NOT believe in regulation of the general public by private entities at all. Normally we could ignore restrictions placed on us by private companies when there is competition. In other words, if we are free to choose another product those restrictions do not effectively become regulations. When there is a de facto monopoly, such as Microsoft now enjoys on desktop computing in business space and in most of consumer space, then those restrictions become a form of regulation on the general public by private industry. That is something I strongly oppose. I also expect that is where we can find some broad consensus. |
| skelband Jun 06, 2012 12:32 PM EDT |
@jdixon: I'm not against regulations per se. Anti-monopolistic regulation, trademark regulation, etc these are all pre-requisites to a free market. A free market works best where there is a balance between supplier and consumer and in a micro economy that exists fine without help. Regulation such as copyright and patent (and make no mistake, they are market intervention) bring their own problems which we need to regulate around. If you try to fight the will of the market in general though, expect a protracted and expensive battle which is exactly what we see in the courts endlessly at the moment. What I see is that the Internet and global economy is reasserting the will and power of the free market against regulation. It is a battle that you just can't win. There just isn't enough court time or money to win it in the world. And it's such a waste of time. I just think that we should be very slow to regulate unless there is no other choice, and that regulation should be removed when it no longer serves a purpose. I think these days, people in positions of power are too quick and too ready to intervene. It is a slippery slope and an expensive one at that, and often either achieves something entirely different from that intended or is at best ineffective. As someone said above, law in most western countries is by consent. We consent to be ruled by laws because the alternative is anarchy. If a law does not have general approval or is not seen to be just or reasonable, then it is ignored and the law becomes toothless. |
| skelband Jun 06, 2012 12:39 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: I see no fundamental difference between regulation and restriction via law or EULA. Both are intended to restrict freedom and in many cases I judge those restrictions to be unreasonable. >I have absolutely never thought of that as a reason to use Free Software. Then I suspect that you are in a very small minority here and quite possibly why you end up in so many heated discussions with others. Your basic philosophy entirely different to mine. That might be because I am English and you are American. In the UK, we are used to fighting for our rights and against oppression from all sorts of organisations (including companies, see "Treasure Island Britain": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip-off_Britain) and in the US that freedom is a base given. When you have to fight for rights and freedoms, one is less eager to give them away, particularly on behalf of others. Believe me, it's a lot easier advocating regulation for others than it is for yourself. |
| JaseP Jun 06, 2012 1:06 PM EDT |
Vendor lock-in is virtually nonexistent with FOSS. Forced upgrade marketing is virtually nonexistent with FOSS. Expensive customization is relatively nonexistent with FOSS. Upgrade expenses are limited with FOSS. Security issues, like virus infections, malware and hacking attacks are seriously limited with FOSS (more so the two former). ... Those are some of the avoidance reasons,... Benefits? Configuration flexibility, low cost, better trained IT specialists (generally speaking), fewer IT staff required for upkeep, uptime stability, file format flexibility (more partitioning schemes supported), faster code execution, easier lockdown of work stations, Prolonged useful life of hardware, interface choice, software package choice (generally 4-5 software packages to choose from that do the same thing), frequent updates, scalability, multiple networking options, tighter control over processes, painless upgrades (through partitioning options and careful package selection). I've left tons of things out... By the way,... Caitlyn is in an isolated minority of Americans if she wants MORE regulations in her life. Most Americans have an attitude that the Gov't should stay out of our business (personal and commercial business-wise). There is generally only a call for regulations when somebody perceives that a harm has been committed against them. The cry, "there should be a law," is uttered only when people are feeling victimized on this side of the pond. Usually, they get over it before something is done in the legislature. |
| skelband Jun 06, 2012 4:20 PM EDT |
I honestly believe that some people genuinely feel that the free market is something that should be consistent and predictable and therefore when unexpected things happen, then it is those "wicked" corporate masters pulling strings and making the whole thing fall around our ears. Markets are highly chaotic complex systems. They are neither predictable nor stable as a natural property and expecting it to be so is like looking up into the sky and expecting the weather to be moderately "nice" all the time. Trying to impose order on a market is like expecting to be able to control the weather: futile and you're likely to expend an enormous amount of time and energy before you realise that it's impossible, or at least extremely impractical. You might even find that an awful lot of plant life, that relies on that natural variation, suffers as a result of that regulation. The best we can do (like the weather) is try and predict trends and we've demonstrated over and over that we are pretty bad at doing even that. [Sorry, end of cheesy weather metaphors] |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 06, 2012 5:08 PM EDT |
I am going to try to make this as "non-denominational" as I can. The core problem with govt regulation is what is called "regulatory capture", where the regulating agency, trying to get "experts", ends up being populated by the vested interests in the field that they're supposed to be regulating. Timothy Geitner and his predecessor both being Goldman Sacs executives, for example. |
| JaseP Jun 06, 2012 6:50 PM EDT |
There's a more general problem,... Gov't legislatures (regardless of political leanings) are tasked with making laws,... So, they essentially are "in the business" of adding to existing legislation. Unless a particular representative or group of representatives decides to review old laws, with the aim to repeal them, what you get is an increase in the shear number of laws on the books. I personally wouldn't mind having a representative who saw it as their sole mission to block all new legislation. The fact of the matter is that existing legislation is rarely applied where it was intended to work. That is most true of hot bed issues, like child pornography, environmental regulations, Internet freedom (SOPA & PIPA's failures to pass didn't stop the Kim Dotcom prosecution). How about enforcing the laws we have before making new ones?!?! |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2012 6:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:Caitlyn is in an isolated minority of Americans if she wants MORE regulations in her life.I think you'll find that the regulations I support have majority support according to polls. You couldn't be more wrong. |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2012 6:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:The core problem with govt regulation is what is called "regulatory capture", where the regulating agency, trying to get "experts", ends up being populated by the vested interests in the field that they're supposed to be regulating.Here we agree completely. Polls show that most Americans want the financial sector to be reregulated to prevent a repeat of 2008. However, nobody want that regulation to be designed by people from that sector for the sole benefit of that sector. |
| montezuma Jun 06, 2012 6:56 PM EDT |
TOS violation Bob. |
| JaseP Jun 06, 2012 6:56 PM EDT |
I have issues with polls. Most are created with an agenda, and make for self fulfilling prophecy. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 06, 2012 7:23 PM EDT |
I could talk about politics all day, but I gave it up for Lent and never went back. |
| BernardSwiss Jun 06, 2012 7:27 PM EDT |
I did that once -- and once was enough. Now I've given up Lent, instead. |
| JaseP Jun 06, 2012 7:29 PM EDT |
I gave up both... |
| montezuma Jun 06, 2012 7:34 PM EDT |
Well I talk about politics all day. Just not on LXer. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 06, 2012 9:28 PM EDT |
Sorry, Monte, but I think by definition any discussion where Caitlin and I can shake hands and agree cannot have been a "political" discussion. :^) |
| gus3 Jun 06, 2012 9:40 PM EDT |
I Lent a lot to LXer. Now I want it back, with interest. |
| BernardSwiss Jun 06, 2012 10:41 PM EDT |
Quoting: Sorry, Monte, but I think by definition any discussion where Caitlin and I can shake hands and agree cannot have been a "political" discussion. :^) That's pretty funny]! But I can't decide whether you deserve a cheer, or a raspberry... |
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!