Open Source is seen as a fundamental good .. - Linux

This is a discussion on Open Source is seen as a fundamental good .. - Linux ; "Outside the United States, open source is seen from a public policy perspective as a fundamental good", Jim Whitehurst, Red Hat President/ CEO ......

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Open Source is seen as a fundamental good ..

  1. Open Source is seen as a fundamental good ..

    "Outside the United States, open source is seen from a public policy
    perspective as a fundamental good", Jim Whitehurst, Red Hat President/
    CEO ...

  2. Re: Open Source is seen as a fundamental good ..


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:2200a375-95bd-4bd3-bc6e-9fa492f435e8@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    > "Outside the United States, open source is seen from a public policy
    > perspective as a fundamental good", Jim Whitehurst, Red Hat President/
    > CEO ...


    Translation - Redhat CEO shills his own company products.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  3. Re: Open Source is seen as a fundamental good ..

    ____/ Doug Mentohl on Thursday 27 March 2008 13:53 : \____

    > "Outside the United States, open source is seen from a public policy
    > perspective as a fundamental good", Jim Whitehurst, Red Hat President/
    > CEO ...


    The problem here is that Whitehurst characterises it as a stance against the US
    rather than PRO Independence, PRO control, PRO local labour. It's not a matter
    which is associated with the States. It could be any other country... people
    just want it to be theirs... they want to /own/ the code... it's not a matter
    of America choosing one policy over another, software patent lunacy aside.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Previous signature has been conceded
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    14:20:01 up 8 days, 2:29, 5 users, load average: 1.20, 1.26, 1.22
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

  4. Re: Open Source is seen as a fundamental good ..


    "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    news:47EBB4AB.BD07F9EB@web.de...
    >
    > Red Hat simply takes free software (majority of which is created by
    > others) and turns it into pretty proprietary (copy use "licensed")
    > software... a fee based Freedom Zero, so to speak. Red Hat locks in its
    > clients my means of its certification programs with other proprietary
    > software vendors like Oracle, IBM, etc.
    >

    RHT sells the same functional product as does MSFT and NOVL, i.e. they sell
    their customers a result that consists of a reliable, trustworthy server
    operating system that has useful capabilities for providing critical
    functions like email, database access, web services, and the like. Other
    than being somewhat contained on proprietary hardware, Sun and HP do the
    same thing with their Unix systems.

    RHT and NOVL (SUSE) get a leg up on MSFT because they do not bear the full
    weight of having to develop all the code involved, since they get some of it
    gratis via the OSS projects contained in their systems. But their
    profitability suffers from the same major costs of sales, marketing,
    support, and general administrative charges. With RHEL you have to pay each
    year and you pay less up front. With MSFT, you buy the software one time
    although they offer a subscription service for upgrades, IIRC, which would
    kind of match the RHT revenue model.

    RHT loses some ability to differentiate its products from others, for
    example NOVL or ORCL, since they are all chained to the same Linux kernel
    development and layered products such as Apache, MySQL, PHP, Firefox, etc.,
    and they cannot vary that without starting to look like Microsoft to the
    fickle OSS crowd.


  5. Re: Open Source is seen as a fundamental good ..


    amicus_curious wrote:
    [...]
    > fickle OSS crowd.


    in action over here (the show features Roy Schestowitz[1] among others)

    http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/77

    in conversation started by Mark Shuttleworth voicing opinion that

    "We have to work together to keep free software freely available. It
    will be a failure if the world moves from paying for shrink-wrapped
    Windows to paying for shrink-wrapped Linux.

    As free software becomes more successful and more pervasive there will
    be an increasing desire on the part of companies to make it more
    proprietary. Weíve already seen that with Red Hat and Novell, which
    essentially offer free software on proprietary terms - their ďreally
    freeĒ editions are not certified, carry no support and receive no
    systematic security patching. In other words - theyíre 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, and you pay the same price whether you are Goldman
    Sachs or a startup in Rio de Janeiro.

    ....

    No, I donít claim proprietary software is bad - peoplehave the right to
    produce it and others have the right to use it, of course. But I do say
    that ďfree software under proprietary termsĒ is bad. When a free
    software kernel is compiled by a company and then licensed under a
    commercial license (i.e. you can use this source code freely, but you
    canít actually run our build freely), then I think we are in danger of
    recreating Microsoft in the Linux world.

    ....

    Applications, as you know, donít run on source RPMís. Hardware vendors
    donít certify source RPMís. Users donít install source RPMís. Really -
    how many vendors (hardware or software) certify CentOS? As far as Iím
    aware, none of any consequence. You know thatís true. So letís talk
    about the real meat - the binaries that make up RHEL. As you are well
    aware, these are a closely controlled and licensed under terms very
    similar to those of any traditional proprietary software. Thatís why
    Oracleís having to jump through hoops to produce Unbreakable Linux
    (bless Ďem). Thatís why users are required to pay for the privilege of
    using RHEL.

    Sounds proprietary to me.

    And with regard to pricing, given RHELís volume pricing and the
    likelihood that Goldman Sachs will be using a lot more RHEL than a Rio
    startup, I think the truth is more likely to be that the Rio startup
    will pay more per licence than the NYC bank. Prove me wrong.

    ....

    When you say ďall of Red Hatís bits are freeĒ, you mean ďall of Red
    Hatís published source code is freeĒ. But applications do not run on
    source code, they run on binaries, and Red Hatís BINARY bits are not
    free, are they? I canít just download and install RHEL on as many
    machines as I like, and get free security updates, can I? Essentially,
    the terms of licence of those binaries is similar to Windows, at a
    similar price.

    ....

    I do believe that there is a trap, which is all too easy to fall into,
    which is to miss the essentially proprietary nature of restricted-use
    binaries where that restriction is not source code related. It creates
    the illusion of something which is changing the fundamental model from
    that which is used by Microsoft, when in fact the model is exactly the
    same. This free-test / restricted-production approach creates a
    two-class society, where those who can pay for the binaries have a
    competitive advantage over those who cannot.

    ....

    I donít think Iíve ever taken a swipe at either Fedora or OpenSUSE. Iíve
    certainly said that the proprietary nature of RHEL and SLED / SLES (you
    have to pay for them everywhere you want to use them) is not the full
    expression of free software, and I think the organisations behind them
    are in a tricky position to have to sell a commercial edition over their
    free community editions. Iíve certainly watched conference salesmen from
    both companies trash their community versions, which is unfortunate
    given the dedication and love their communities put into that work."

    regards,
    alexander.

    [1] (from the same page linked above)

    ----
    Roy Schestowitz Says:

    January 17th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
    > You can call Red Hat ďproprietaryĒ all you want. That doesnít make it true.


    I concur. It ainít so. It was deceiving enough to have me confused.
    ----

    LOL

    --
    "03/17/2008 10 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL: Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)
    of the F.R.C.P., plaintiffs Erik Andersen and Rob Landley hereby dismiss
    this action against defendant Verizon Communications Inc. WITH
    PREJUDICE"

    -- CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-11070-LTS

  6. Re: Open Source is seen as a fundamental good ..


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:2200a375-95bd-4bd3-bc6e-9fa492f435e8@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    > "Outside the United States, open source is seen from a public policy
    > perspective as a fundamental good", Jim Whitehurst, Red Hat President/
    > CEO ...


    So if being anti-MS isn't enough, try anti-US?


  7. Re: Open Source is seen as a fundamental good ..

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    > ____/ Doug Mentohl on Thursday 27 March 2008 13:53 : \____
    >
    >> "Outside the United States, open source is seen from a public policy
    >> perspective as a fundamental good", Jim Whitehurst, Red Hat President/
    >> CEO ...

    >
    > The problem here is that Whitehurst characterises it as a stance against the US
    > rather than PRO Independence, PRO control, PRO local labour. It's not a matter
    > which is associated with the States. It could be any other country... people
    > just want it to be theirs... they want to /own/ the code... it's not a matter
    > of America choosing one policy over another, software patent lunacy aside.
    >


    I'm not sure that Whitehurst is doing the characterisation, rather, I
    think that he's reporting same as a problem.

    As you say, owning your own code, or for that matter, your services, is
    fundamental to preventing vendor lock-in.

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  8. Re: Open Source is seen as a fundamental good ..

    ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 29 March 2008 19:10 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >> ____/ Doug Mentohl on Thursday 27 March 2008 13:53 : \____
    >>
    >>> "Outside the United States, open source is seen from a public policy
    >>> perspective as a fundamental good", Jim Whitehurst, Red Hat President/
    >>> CEO ...

    >>
    >> The problem here is that Whitehurst characterises it as a stance against the
    >> US rather than PRO Independence, PRO control, PRO local labour. It's not a
    >> matter which is associated with the States. It could be any other country...
    >> people just want it to be theirs... they want to /own/ the code... it's not
    >> a matter of America choosing one policy over another, software patent lunacy
    >> aside.
    >>

    >
    > I'm not sure that Whitehurst is doing the characterisation, rather, I
    > think that he's reporting same as a problem.


    Yes. Watch his words (heh. Listen rather). It's something along the lines
    of "we happen to benefit from the fact that there is anti-American sentiment,"
    but I think he ought to have emphasised a different point to make it harder
    for 'MSPress' to take out of context (portraying Red Hat as rebels).

    > As you say, owning your own code, or for that matter, your services, is
    > fundamental to preventing vendor lock-in.


    I guess the 'anti-American' sentiment is that of 'anti-possessiveness'. Many
    other countries praise culture (sharing is the fundamental basis for
    traditions, folklore) while Americans are believes to cherish corporations
    (it's a matter of upbringing, or so I'm told). To put this differently,
    someone from the States explained to me why people get together in malls
    (shopping) rather than in 'spendings-neutral' venues... maybe even outdoors.

    Again, I apologise for any generalisations made here. That's just the bunch of
    views I hear from Free software enthusiasts in the US, whose culture is more
    hostile towards FOSS.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    "Monopoly raises two classes of problems for a free society. First, the
    existence of monopoly means a limitation on voluntary exchange through a
    reduction in the alternatives available to individuals. Second, the existence
    of monopoly raises the issue of ‚Äúsocial responsibility‚ÄĚ, as it has come to be
    called, of the monopolist."
    --Milton Friedman

+ Reply to Thread