Submitted by “Novell signed a business agreement with Microsoft last year, and many in the open source community started taking shots at Novell. Others in the community are now jabbing at each other, with the rhetoric level rising. The latest rumble began with words from Mark Shuttleworth, founder of the Ubuntu Linux project, lobbing some criticism at some of his for-profit competitors in the Linux distribution arena.”
Mark Shuttleworth doesn’t know what he is talking about. Redhat isn’t proprietary. You pay Redhat for two things, support and copyrighted/trademarked logos. As the article states CentOS is the same exact thing, without the Redhat support and without the Redhat logos. Novell on the other hand, does include a lot of proprietary stuff in their pay distribution but you can have Suse without it. As long as Suse never depends on proprietary solutions we’ll all be ok. Don’t forget that Novell did release YaST as open source.
As far as the “rhetoric level rising”, it’s just the same old criticisms that have been floating about for years. When Gentoo became popular everybody and their mom criticized it. Ubuntu had its share of criticism when it was first released also. If you want to look at the broader OSS world RMS and Theo are usually always criticizing someone.
Not quite true. For example, just try and pry the source code from RedHat’s fingers for RedHat Satellite server. If you license it from them, you essentially get a black box and you can’t legally redistribute it or the source code for it (if you have any).
Solaris is a much better deal pricing wise and has far better enterprise functionality then RHEL.
Of course, if you must use Linux, I’d use Ubuntu…(which I do when I use Linux).
Not quite true. For example, just try and pry the source code from RedHat’s fingers for RedHat Satellite server. If you license it from them, you essentially get a black box and you can’t legally redistribute it or the source code for it (if you have any).
Satellite server is not a necessity and it really isn’t surprising that you cannot get the source code for it considering it is used to get updates from RHN. It’s not very useful unless you are already a paying Redhat customer. I don’t know anyone who would actually care to have the source other than paying customers.
Solaris is a much better deal pricing wise and has far better enterprise functionality then RHEL.
What does that have to do with this discussion?
Of course, if you must use Linux, I’d use Ubuntu…(which I do when I use Linux).
I won’t touch Ubuntu thank you very much. If you want paid support Redhat or Novell are the only way to go. If you want a community distro there are a ton out there and Ubuntu definitely isn’t my top choice but that’s just a personal opinion.
If you want paid support Redhat or Novell are the only way to go.
I believe you can by support contracts from Canonical (in fact, that seems to be the essence of their business model).
If you want a community distro there are a ton out there and Ubuntu definitely isn’t my top choice but that’s just a personal opinion.
To each his own, however you can’t argue that Ubuntu is immensely popular among Linux desktop distros…
I believe you can by support contracts from Canonical (in fact, that seems to be the essence of their business model).
This is true but more commercial applications support Redhat and Suse than Ubuntu. This may change in the future but right now I wouldn’t be using Ubuntu in the enterprise.
To each his own, however you can’t argue that Ubuntu is immensely popular among Linux desktop distros…
It is immensely popular that’s why I qualified my statement as an opinion. I know Ubuntu is one of the most popular distributions, it’s just not my cup of tea.
This is true but more commercial applications support Redhat and Suse than Ubuntu. This may change in the future but right now I wouldn’t be using Ubuntu in the enterprise.
Well, it depends on your enterprise’s needs, obviously. If you need Oracle, then you’re kinda stuck with RH… However, there are lots of SMBs who can use other distros, though generally I agree with you.
Do you happen to know anything about the satellite server or are you just spouting nonsense. My company happens to have one and I was one of the admins trained directly by RedHat to run it. In case you weren’t aware satellite server is plain old RedHat with an Oracle DB and Tomcat sitting on top. It’s all written in java an PHP so getting at the source is about as difficult as firing up vi.
While I might not have ever used Satellite Server, I know that it costs around $11,000.00 per installation (minus additional subscription fees based on the number of clients you have). The place I currently work at is looking at spending over $100,000.00 on Satellite Server and subscription fees just to patch servers. Something that I could do for far less if the machines ran Solaris x86 (where the patch manager is free and support is $120.00 per socket, per year).
Binarycrusader’s point is simple, RedHat is not going to release the code to Satellite Server because it is part of RedHat’s revenue stream. It doesn’t make any difference what it is comprised of, it is unlikely that RedHat will ever make the code available. So is RedHat proprietary, I would have to say yes.
Binarycrusader’s point is simple, RedHat is not going to release the code to Satellite Server because it is part of RedHat’s revenue stream. It doesn’t make any difference what it is comprised of, it is unlikely that RedHat will ever make the code available. So is RedHat proprietary, I would have to say yes.
You need to ask yourself why since RedHat has bought and released software under the GPL when they can. You might be surprised.
Do you happen to know anything about the satellite server or are you just spouting nonsense.
Yes, actually, I do. I worked for a company that ran RedHat Enterprise Linux on all of our servers, so I’m quite familiar with the legal conditions and terms of the licenses involved. The license for Satellite Server is very clear about prohibiting redistribution, especially of source code.
They are sure that they already killed *BSD (obvious FUD of course) and now they started killing each other. Way to go Linux zealots!
I conclude that GNU/Linux/GPL/hype is over in near future. They already pissed off all proprietary software/hardware developers and now they want a pie from other fellow GNU/Linux distributions.
Everyone admits that GPL is viral license and unusable for serious/quality projects (due to shit throwing from different parties and harassment from GPL advocates).
P.S. This is MY humble opinion and I don’t care what you think about MY opinion.
that’s nice
By antik (1.82) on 2007-01-22 19:39:22 EET
They are sure that they already killed *BSD (obvious FUD of course) and now they started killing each other. Way to go Linux zealots!
I conclude that GNU/Linux/GPL/hype is over in near future. They already pissed off all proprietary software/hardware developers and now they want a pie from other fellow GNU/Linux distributions.
Everyone admits that GPL is viral license and unusable for serious/quality projects (due to shit throwing from different parties and harassment from GPL advocates).
P.S. This is MY humble opinion and I don’t care what you think about MY opinion. Score: -2
What? Truth hurts? Of course!
What? Truth hurts?
No, off-topic flaimbaiting (in addition to being a steaming pile of BS).
No, off-topic flaimbaiting (in addition to being a steaming pile of BS).
That’s right- all GNU/Linux guys like BS very much- that’s why they are throwing it onto each other.
NOTE: I am politically correct- calling things with their real names (GNU/Linux, B*shit, etc.).
P.S. When do you guys understand that “Free beer” does not exist. Stallman is cool guy but his definition of freedom sucks (there can’t be only one *correct* definition).
antik: When do you guys understand that “Free beer” does not exist. Stallman is cool guy but his definition of freedom sucks (there can’t be only one *correct* definition).
I’m probably a bit dense, but i think you have mistaken Stallman’s definition of “free software.” He actually talks about “free speech” as the example and not “free beer.” To quote Mr. Babbage:
“On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”
— Charles Babbage
P.S. When do you guys understand that “Free beer” does not exist. Stallman is cool guy but his definition of freedom sucks (there can’t be only one *correct* definition).
I’ll try to not feed the troll here, I hope, but I would like to stress out that “Free beer” exists. Haven’t tried it myself so far, but I’m generally not an earyl adopter of new technology
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/12/29/PM200612295.htm…
EDIT. Forgot to include the part of the OP that I replied to.
Edited 2007-01-23 11:41
Full ack, the kill open source with their license wars. Freedom is freedom without any trade-offs.
Really at this point we shouldn’t be taking shots at each other. Linux is growing at a huge rate but we have everything to lose. As far as it goes I don’t see a problem with what RedHat & Novel are doing If they put something out under the GPL then as long as they are following those rules then thats all that matters. I mean this isn’t a holly war between each other (or MS and OSX for that matter) Linux is about having the freedom to chose.
Red Hat has traditionally been a great example of the right way to run an open source company. They have contributed so much back to open source that it’s fair to say everyone using _any_ Linux distribution has benefited; that includes Ubuntu users. To Ubuntu’s credit, they’re starting to make similar contributions that can be felt community wide (Upstart, etc).
What Shuttleworth is complaining about is that Red Hat only makes RHEL binaries available to customers buying support. Yes, Ubuntu does make binaries available even if you don’t buy the support services they now offer. But this seems like an inconsequential nitpick; CentOS makes RHEL binaries available just fine.
However, Red Hat are prone to making similarly stupid arguments about Ubuntu. For example, they make accusations of Ubuntu not being as dedicated to free software as Fedora. Given a few of the Fedora boards recent decisions this seems like extremely hypocritical hair splitting.
Anyway, it would be nice if they both stopped the pissing contest between the two distros and concentrated on overall Linux adoption. Maybe they could even recognize that their target audiences don’t overlap all that much (at least traditionally).
For example, they make accusations of Ubuntu not being as dedicated to free software as Fedora.
The possible inclusion of closed binary drivers in Ubuntu is a valid reason to question Ubuntu’s commitment to free software.
Given a few of the Fedora boards recent decisions this seems like extremely hypocritical hair splitting.
Which decisions do you mean? (I’m not challenging, just curious.)
They’re doing basically the same thing Ubuntu is doing. Installing a program that when you try to play an MP3 file (or other proprietary format) it will pop up a notification telling the user how to install the proper software to be able to play it and warn against closed formats.
At least this is what I gathered from reading on the net. Personally I just don’t like how Fedora Core deviates from stock Gnome programs (gnome-system-tools isn’t there!)
Unfortunately Ubuntu lately has been pissing me off, though I think it’s actually SuSE’s fault. That new Gnome Control Center stinks. Unfortunately it almost looks like it’s going to become part of standard Gnome.
A little friendly competition never hurt anyone, it’s when egos get in the way and all development stops (I’m looking at you Debian, I love you, but damn it, pull your heads out and get Etch released!) that it becomes a problem.
At least this is what I gathered from reading on the net. Personally I just don’t like how Fedora Core deviates from stock Gnome programs (gnome-system-tools isn’t there!)
sytem-config-network existed before gnome-system-tools AFAIK. If you like, you can make gnome-system-tools available for Fedora repository much like other distributions do.
Red Hat has traditionally been a great example of the right way to run an open source company. They have contributed so much back to open source that it’s fair to say everyone using _any_ Linux distribution has benefited; that includes Ubuntu users. To Ubuntu’s credit, they’re starting to make similar contributions that can be felt community wide (Upstart, etc).
Ubuntu’s contributions to the free software community have, so far, been notably small. In fact, it looks like Canonical has a policy of not paying their employees for any upstream software development, Shuttleworth only seems to want his employees to concentrate on packaging software that has been developed elsewhere (with the exception of Launchpad).
http://blog.incase.de/index.php/2006/11/28/canonical-and-debian-fri…
GNOME developer Jeff Waugh, for example, left Ubuntu precisely because he wanted to concentrate on developing GNOME (instead of just packaging it for Ubuntu). Red Hat, on the other hand, pays many of its employees for working in upstream projects.
Of course, there’s a big difference between Canonical and Red Hat — Canonical is just a small upstart company that doesn’t yet make much profit. Maybe they’ll start funding software development outside their own project once they become a successful business company. Meanwhile, the very positive public image of Ubuntu’s contributions to the free software community is somewhat exaggerated.
this is just competitor-speak. in the computing world, MS is the 800-pound guerilla, but in the linux computing world, an up-and-coming company like Canonical has to worry more about Red Hat than MS.
“they’re beta or test versions. If you want the best that free software can deliver, a rock solid, widely certified, secure platform, from either of those companies then you have to pay”
Last time I checked you can get OpenSuse freely, and it’s just as ‘certified?’ or ‘solid’ as Ubuntu if not more. I’ll admit, I don’t know exactly wtf he means by certified? Is it warrantied? If I get Ubuntu and it hoses my Follett database, they’ll fix if free? I know he doesn’t mean that Ubuntu is supported by more enterprise software, because I see RH and Suse all over the place when I look at the list of operating systems certified to work with my enterprise products.
You can get Ubuntu, and pay for support if you choose or not. Same for Suse. Neat.
Also, maybe I’m smoking something, but security patches for Suse do exist in the wild… even for free.
First he profits from Debian development without giving back much himself. Then he wants to mix proprietary stuff with GPL stuff which simply is illegal. Then he wants Novell developers to jump ship because of the Novell-MS deal. Now he accuses Red Hat of shipping proprietary software.
The man sucks to hell, and I’ve never liked him. This, again, proves that my stance towards him is right. The man is evil for the Linux community. He should really be looking for a job at Microsoft.
Then he wants to mix proprietary stuff with GPL stuff which simply is illegal.
There’s nothing he proposed that would be illegal. It’s not illegal to distribute GPLed and proprietary stuff on the same medium. The GPL permits aggregation.
This, again, proves that my stance towards him is right. The man is evil for the Linux community.
Come on, you’re over-reacting here. I don’t really liked that Launchpad is proprietary, but apart from that the man has greatly helped Linux become more popular by sponsoring the Ubuntu distribution. The criticism towards Novell and RedHat is only part of the natural banter between competitors, nothing else.
Exactly what has he done for FOSS, including other non-Debian distros, in general besides promote Ubuntu?
I’m sorry, I just don’t think I can take much more of this BS about Ubuntu.
It’s like Ubuntu, within two years time, has become synonymous with Linux in the computer-literate mindset. Every time a criticism is leveled against Ubuntu or Canonical, the #1 defence that used in its favor by its fans is exactly what you just said, and I quote:
“the man has greatly helped Linux become more popular by sponsoring the Ubuntu distribution.”
or what about this from TonyCubed at Digg?
“Linux users should be patting the backs of the Ubuntu developers for making this really good distro, after all, it’s going to be distro’s like Ubuntu which bring more companies over to Linux.”
So wait a minute, Ubuntu helps Linux and FOSS by becoming popular on its own, and damn the other distros?
I don’t grok this logic. I don’t get why Ubuntu is so special compared to other distributions, and I don’t get why its being so damn overrated and overadvertised as the best thing in the Linux distroverse since sliced cheese on whole wheat bread.
I mean shit, if you need to give the people anything, give them Symphony OS preinstalled on a $99 PC. http://www.rpquinn.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=30
Well, you may not like it, but Ubuntu has in fact become the most popular distro, and it is in fact very appealing for new users. The Ubuntu devs have done a great job, and the community is very dynamic.
It’s more than that, though. It just so happens that Ubuntu is a great brand, and one shouldn’t underestimate the power of a good brand.
It may seem illogical to you, but there it is.
You probably mean the Debian developers have done a great job … How many Ubuntu developers are there? And yes, they’ve finetuned Debian, they’ve created new icons, they’ve invented Upstart. What else? They’ve generally limited the packages, they include only one application for every task, they’ve limited the architectures.
If you bow your head, bow it to the Debian devs.
Edited 2007-01-23 15:16
Hey, one can give a tip of the hat to the Ubuntu devs *and* acknowledge the amazing work done by the Debian community. It’s not a one-or-the-other thing. So yeah, the Ubuntu dev have done a great job building on the solid Debian base.
So what if Ubuntu is mostly a repackaging of Debian – that particular repackaging has brought in a host of new users, and that’s no mean feat.
IIRC he’s dumped millions into Ubuntu – I haven’t heard much about profit. The only difference between ubuntu and all of the many other distros which are based on Debian is that Ubuntu has become very popular. That said, I agree that his stance on Red Hat is off base.
If they keep fighting like this with each other then how they will gonna compete with Windows and OS X?
Open Source communities fighting with each other doesn’t looks good. Please stop this and work with a common goal of developing, supporting, and spreading FREE SOFTWARE.
You won’t accomplish anything by that. The whole purpose of Open Source is to NOT be Free Software. While both movements may support open source, only one of them promotes freedom.
With all of this Linux-boosting and Vista-shunting that is, seemingly, calculated, at least in part, by Microsoft through many of its actions.
It would seem Microsoft could be attempting to diminish the Windows market share.
I would not blame them, on this one, considering the anti-monopoly loopholes they now have to run through.
Of course, they have to be careful not to slide off too much of their business at once, and must not make it look terribly intentional.
Likely, MS would benefit greatly in this area if they were to release just some of the bootloader restrictions for OEMs.
But, of course, MS normally has always tried to grow the Windows line ( but they can still do that by diversity ).
This will take years to come out in the wash ( likely nearing a decade ).
–The loon
Honestly, the article isn’t really that impressive and doesn’t offer any real content or any real kind of “news”. This is just people competing and trying to point out competitor flaws. Just business as usual.
What I dont like is how it seems to be blown out of proportion. For example, the linking title “When Linux Distros Rumble”, when it’s just two guys who are part of competing companies taking shots at the others products. The distributions themselves, nor the communities behind them, are “rumbling” and fighting. Just some guys at the top making jabs.
Also, sometimes I think Mark Shuttleworth forgets his position, that as the founder of Ubuntu he’s looked up to and highly criticized (and sometimes praised) for his actions, including what may or may not be his personal views.
As for competing with Microsoft, they can take jabs all they want about the “ideology” of software, but it’s the practical solutions they can offer companies and users that will win competition from Microsoft, not who serves the term “free” in a more exact definition.
I wouldn’t take this article in much seriousness, it’s every day business that seems to be press for the sake of press.
Just my 2 (and a half) cents.
Mark Shuttlesworth has invested quite a hefty sum in the Ubuntu project and for that he is to be commended. Many use his distro and benefit from it.
But it appears that Mr Shuttlesworth has bought his way onto the Linux stage.
I think he uses any prestige obtained from Ubuntu’s success and leverages it to trumpet his ideas on which directions Linux could and should take, as well as his opinions on many different subjects.
Just like anyone else (noteworthy or not) his remarks should be taken with a grain of salt and a dose of reality.
Edited 2007-01-23 05:35
Spent lest time being critical of each other on a “my bike is better than your bike” sort of way maybe they could do something productive like say put pressure on hardware vendors that don’t want to open up their drivers or come up with a groupware solution that rivals Exchange anything except wasting all that brain power on nonsense.
-nX
Ubuntu and Mark Shuttleworth does a tremendous amout of goodnes for opens source. My only gripe is their hypocritical stance on Free Software. If they where honest they’d just claim to support Open Source and drop all claims of supporting Free Software.