Walking in a Minefield
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| penguinist Nov 04, 2015 11:33 AM EDT |
Be careful Red Hat. Remember Nokia? They also had some nice Linux products a year or two ago. History doesn't change that fast my Red Hat friends. Stay alert as you meander through this minefield. |
| tuppp Nov 04, 2015 4:30 PM EDT |
Seems similar to when Italy joined the Axis powers. Let's not forget that Red Hat proliferates and controls systemd while using opensource.com as a front for their corporate propaganda. Wonder if RH CEO Jim Whitehurst will start including Microsoft anecdotes in his fluff leadership articles. Keep those Red Hat/Fedora stories coming, bob! |
| 750 Nov 04, 2015 4:44 PM EDT |
Reductio in two? "Impressive". |
| tuppp Nov 04, 2015 7:28 PM EDT |
That's not "reductio," that's just a simple analogy. |
| linux4567 Nov 05, 2015 8:07 AM EDT |
Redhat lost me when they agreed to support MS secure/crippled boot a few years ago. Since then they have been gradually but steadily become more and more evil. I guess it's inevitable once a corporation reaches the 1 billion turnover mark. |
| jdixon Nov 05, 2015 9:17 AM EDT |
> Since then they have been gradually but steadily become more and more evil. Something which seems to have coincided with their bringing in a CEO from an outside business with no open source background. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 06, 2015 12:46 AM EDT |
>Something which seems to have coincided with their bringing in a CEO from an outside business with no open source background. The CEO has plenty of personal experience with Linux. http://opensource.com/life/15/9/jim-whitehurst-linux-story |
| jdixon Nov 06, 2015 9:01 AM EDT |
> The CEO has plenty of personal experience with Linux. I have plenty of personal experience with Linux. That doesn't mean I'd be a good CEO for Red Hat. His job experience was with Delta. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 06, 2015 9:36 AM EDT |
You earlier said "no open source background". I was pointing out that isn't true. "His job experience was with Delta" Sure and Bob Young owned a book store and had no idea what open source software was. |
| jdixon Nov 06, 2015 11:22 AM EDT |
> Sure and Bob Young owned a book store and had no idea what open source software was. Bob Young demonstrated over the years that he "got" open source, and even in his case it took a while. Whitehurst doesn't have that rack record yet. I'll give him the benefit of a doubt when he does, not before. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 06, 2015 1:52 PM EDT |
So now that you have agreed that it doesn't matter what business they were in before as long as they get open source, let's talk about track record after they became CEO. Bob young was CEO from 1994 to 1999 with very limited time as a public company. Jim is CEO from 2007 to 2015+. The time period is comparable and you have enough of a public record to compare them if you wanted to and go beyond benefit of doubt. |
| jdixon Nov 06, 2015 3:48 PM EDT |
> So now that you have agreed that it doesn't matter what business they were in before as long as they get open source, Where did I agree to that? > Jim is CEO from 2007 to 2015+. The time period is comparable and you have enough of a public record to compare them if you wanted to and go beyond benefit of doubt. Hmm. You're correct that the time period is comparable. Very well, in that case the actions the company has taken since he took over show quite clearly that he in fact doesn't get open source, and doesn't deserve any benefit of a doubt. Thanks for correcting me on that matter. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 06, 2015 6:52 PM EDT |
>Where did I agree to that? That was my understanding from your response. If not, do you have a problem with Bob Young having no history with open source before Red Hat? > Very well, in that case the actions the company has taken since he took over show quite clearly that he in fact doesn't get open source What actions would those be? |
| jdixon Nov 06, 2015 7:46 PM EDT |
> If not, do you have a problem with Bob Young having no history with open source before Red Hat? What part of "Bob Young demonstrated over the years that he "got" open source, and even in his case it took a while." escaped you? > What actions would those be? Too many look up and list here with the limited amount of time I have. Systemd and signing a patent agreement with Microsoft would be near the top of the list though. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 06, 2015 8:08 PM EDT |
>What part of "Bob Young demonstrated over the years that he "got" open source, and even in his case it took a while." escaped you? The part on why that doesn't apply to the current CEO. >Too many look up and list here with the limited amount of time I have. We can't really discuss unspecified details but let's just consider the two specific examples below: >Systemd and signing a patent agreement with Microsoft would be near the top of the list though. systemd was started as a personal project. Why do you believe the CEO is responsible for it and why do you think supporting a free and open source project implies that the CEO doesn't get open source?. Also, why is agreeing not to sue each other a bad thing? |
| jdixon Nov 06, 2015 8:28 PM EDT |
> The part on why that doesn't apply to the current CEO. OK. I can't help you then. > We will have to discount anything not specified then The royal we? Be may guest. The others here know the history. > Why do you believe the CEO is responsible for it It's a Red Hat project now. > Also, why is agreeing not to sue each other a bad thing? Because you can't trust Microsoft to keep their word, or the courts to enforce the agreement. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 06, 2015 8:39 PM EDT |
>OK. I can't help you then. Wasn't looking for any help but ok. >The royal we? Be may guest. The others here know the history. Maybe. >It's a Red Hat project now. And? Open source company is supporting an open source project. >Because you can't trust Microsoft to keep their word, or the courts to enforce the agreement. Even if you fundamentally believe that courts won't enforce a legal agreement, we are no worse than the situation without one. |
| jdixon Nov 07, 2015 2:30 AM EDT |
> Wasn't looking for any help but ok. Then why did you ask? > ...we are no worse than the situation without one. Having any relationship with a proven liar and thief is worse than not having one. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 07, 2015 9:45 AM EDT |
> Then why did you ask? Where did I ask you to help me? >Having any relationship with a proven liar and thief is worse than not having one This isn't a personal relationship. It is a legal contract between two organizations. FYI, it is not the first time either. |
| jdixon Nov 07, 2015 11:24 AM EDT |
> Where did I ask you to help me? You asked a question. I answered. You apparently didn't understand the answer. To which my response was "I can't help you then." > It is a legal contract between two organizations. FYI, it is not the first time either. Oh, I agree that it's not the first time Microsoft has signed an agreement they have no intention of honoring. They have a long history of that. Again, if you don't understand why signing contracts with people you can't trust isn't a good idea, I can't help you. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 07, 2015 1:13 PM EDT |
>You apparently didn't understand the answer Your answer was that you don't have time to provide details. Either way, I broadly understand your perspective. I just don't agree with it. >Oh, I agree that it's not the first time Microsoft has signed an agreement ... That wasn't my point. I was noting that this isn't the first time Red Hat and MS have signed contracts with each other. Legal agreements are not based on trust. On the contrary, if you trust the other party completely, you wouldn't need a contract in the first place. |
| jdixon Nov 07, 2015 2:38 PM EDT |
> Your answer was that you don't have time to provide details Those were two completely different answers. > That wasn't my point. I didn't think it was. I do think it should have been. > Legal agreements are not based on trust. As a general rule, yes, they are. But I don't see any point in arguing the matter with you. Others can research the matter and decide for themselves. > ...if you trust the other party completely, you wouldn't need a contract in the first place. Handshake agreements, if witnessed or verified by both parties under oath, are considered binding contracts in most jurisdictions. Getty Oil found that out the hard way. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract for some details. Contracts merely spell out the agreements in detail so there's less chance of disagreement about the nature of what was agreed to in the future and so that any disagreements that do occur can be more readily arbitrated by an outside authority. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 07, 2015 9:20 PM EDT |
>Those were two completely different answers. They are very much connected. The whole point of my question was a comparison between Bob Young and the current CEO. >Contracts merely spell out the agreements in detail so there's less chance of disagreement about the nature of what was agreed to in the future and so that any disagreements that do occur can be more readily arbitrated by an outside authority. Yet you claimed earlier that outside authority such as a court won't enforce a actual written legal agreement with Microsoft. If you are relying on a third party to arbitrate and enforce the agreement, you are not dependent on trust but legal authority and the power of spelling out clearly what has been agreed to. |
| jdixon Nov 08, 2015 8:02 AM EDT |
> They are very much connected. Connected does not equate to the same. > Yet you claimed earlier that outside authority such as a court won't enforce a actual written legal agreement with Microsoft... Not will not. Cannot be relied upon to. Ask the former Sun executives if the Java contract with Microsoft was a good idea. The courts finally did enforce it after years of litigation. Ask the former Chrysler debt holders if the courts can be relied upon to enforce binding legal precedent . Ask the parents of Nicole Brown if the courts can be relied upon to rule correctly even in obvious cases. Going to court is always a gamble. That's why contracts are based on trust. The costs of enforcing them in court are simply too great. If you don't believe me, talk to a lawyer and ask them. |
| cybertao Nov 08, 2015 8:43 AM EDT |
If signing an agreement with Microsoft is no better or worse than not signing an agreement with Microsoft, why hold that against Red Hat? How does it make Red Hat less trustworth? How does it prove or disprove Red Hat's CEO is "evil"? |
| jdixon Nov 08, 2015 9:46 AM EDT |
> If signing an agreement with Microsoft is no better or worse than not signing an agreement with Microsoft, why hold that against Red Hat? It's worse. It implies that you trust Microsoft and opens you to their manipulating the agreement to their advantage. Something they've done too many times to count in the past. > How does it prove or disprove Red Hat's CEO is "evil"? Where have I even insinuated that Red Hat or their CEO is "evil". I've said that he doesn't "get" open source. That's not the same thing. |
| linux4567 Nov 08, 2015 9:46 AM EDT |
> systemd was started as a personal project. no it wasn't. Poettering was a Redhat employee at that time and I guarantee you that he started it because it was something Redhat was interested in pursuing, all he did was he volunteered doing it. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 08, 2015 11:09 AM EDT |
>no it wasn't. It absolutely was and that is a matter of public record. http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html It goes further than that. Red Hat didn't really want to switch init systems since they had just committed to supporting upstart for a decade or longer in RHEL 6. http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/73122/lennarts-linux-revo... Feel free to provide evidence if you have a counter narrative. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 08, 2015 2:50 PM EDT |
@jdixon >Connected does not equate to the same. End result is the same. My question on why you think the current CEO does not get open source remains unanswered. >Going to court is always a gamble. That's why contracts are based on trust. Agreed on the former but that is true for any legal agreements. Not so much on the latter. Commercial contracts are based on commercial interests (duh) and they far over weigh any other factor. You have to work with competitors at times because you have customers using competing platforms and services. So here are the primary considerations here to my understanding 1) MS Azure as a cloud service needs Linux to be viable. A cloud provider without Red Hat is a non starter 2) Red Hat's OpenShift platform has .NET support for Red Hat customers They have signed a contract to support each other's requirements without introducing other conflicts. Time will tell how successful this is going to be. If you are skeptical about the prospects, I understand that. |
| jdixon Nov 08, 2015 9:33 PM EDT |
> My question on why you think the current CEO does not get open source remains unanswered. My answer was that I couldn't help you, anymore than I can explain the difference between red and green to a color blind person. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 08, 2015 10:32 PM EDT |
>My answer was that I couldn't help you, anymore than I can explain the difference between red and green to a color blind person. Your prior response didn't use that distasteful analogy and it looks like we aren't gaining much out of further discussions. I will leave it at that. |
| BernardSwiss Nov 08, 2015 11:25 PM EDT |
This exchange reminds me of the famous Zen parable, the one about the Western professor visiting the Eastern sage, and pouring a cup of tea. http://truecenterpublishing.com/zenstory/emptycup.html |
| jdixon Nov 09, 2015 7:53 AM EDT |
> Your prior response didn't use that distasteful analogy.... Distasteful? OK, if you say so. > This exchange reminds me of the famous Zen parable... Not really BernardSwiss. Neither of us has anything to teach the other. |
| notbob Nov 09, 2015 1:49 PM EDT |
"At Red Hat, I quickly realized I was leading a company driven by something other than the profit motive" Now, doesn't that statement prove Jim's integrity and wisdom? Heck, I'm convinced. ;) |
| rahulsundaram Nov 10, 2015 8:49 PM EDT |
>Distasteful? Yep. I would avoid using a disability like blindness as a analogy if you I were you. There are much better ways to make the same point. |
| jdixon Nov 11, 2015 12:26 AM EDT |
> Yep. I would avoid using a disability like blindness as a analogy if you I were you. I'm sure you would. Fortunately, I'm not you. In any case, color blindness is not the same as blindness. |
| cybertao Nov 11, 2015 12:55 AM EDT |
Well, you've convinced me. The hat isn't red. |
| BernardSwiss Nov 11, 2015 1:25 AM EDT |
> Well, you've convinced me. The hat isn't red. Oh??? How can you tell? |
| rahulsundaram Nov 11, 2015 1:50 AM EDT |
>I'm sure you would.... I'm not you. True but that still misses the point. Let me expand on that below. >In any case, color blindness is not the same as blindness It is a specific type of blindness and you were still using a disability (in several places legally classified as a disability and protected against discrimination) as a analogy which is in poor taste. What makes it worse it that it is factually incorrect. Red green color blindness is only one among several types of color blindness and unlike other types of color blindness, red green blindness is only one in which corrective lenses are readily available to get people to perceive the colors better. Even otherwise, color blindness is not necessarily total. |
| jdixon Nov 11, 2015 7:39 AM EDT |
> True but that still misses the point. No, it doesn't. I understood your point completely. And I rejected it. > It is a specific type of blindness No, it isn't. Blindness has a meaning. While it's possible that people have tried to change it over the past few decades (they've done their best to redefine marriage, after all), I don't really care. > ...and you were still using a disability ...as a analogy which is in poor taste. As I said, if you say so. It may have escaped your attention but I don't really care what you or anyone else who is easily offended about such matters thinks. > What makes it worse it that it is factually incorrect. Red green color blindness is only one among several types of color blindness... It's the most commonly understood one, which is why I used it. At this point, I think I should drop the thread. No useful information is being exchanged to either us or anyone else who has bothered reading. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 11, 2015 10:07 AM EDT |
>No, it doesn't. I understood your point completely. And I rejected it. Your notion that you can't teach color blind people the difference between green and red is objectively wrong. That is just a fact. >No, it isn't. Blindness has a meaning. Color blindness as a name should tell you something. >It's the most commonly understood one, which is why I used it. It is still inaccurate analogy like I already pointed out. Even with that specific type of color blindness, many people can perceive the color differences. |
| JaseP Nov 11, 2015 10:35 AM EDT |
Quoting: Your notion that you can't teach color blind people the difference between green and red is objectively wrong. That is just a fact. I am slightly red/green color blind. You cannot teach me the difference between what I see as a gray object and what you see as a green object. Nor can you teach me the difference between what I see as an orange object and what you see as a more red-orange object. The only way that it is possible to have me see the difference is with (newly invented) chromatic glasses. Quoting: It is still inaccurate analogy like I already pointed out. Even with that specific type of color blindness, many people can perceive the color differences. I just told you,... No, we cannot. We can learn to fake it really good (tell when a color is near our limit of perception and "guess" that it is the other). We cannot be taught to see what we don't perceive. |
| rahulsundaram Nov 11, 2015 10:58 AM EDT |
> I am slightly red/green color blind I didn't want to personalize this but fyi, I have vision issues as well but I have already pointed out that red/green color blindness is only one of the types. >I just told you,... No, we cannot I would accept that if you are talking about yourself. |
| JaseP Nov 11, 2015 11:48 AM EDT |
If you cannot accept facts (like the effect of the absence of working cones from ones retinas) that are contrary to your world-view, then there is no point in talking to you... I will, personally, not consider anything more that you have to say... |
| rahulsundaram Nov 11, 2015 11:56 AM EDT |
I am not discounting your personal experiences. We do have empirical evidence that it is a broad spectrum. Those are the facts. |
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!