- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
German Universities Tap Novell for Infrastructure Needs
WALTHAM, Mass., Aug. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Novell today announced that state universities across the Federal State of North Rhine Westphalia in Germany have selected Novell for their critical IT infrastructure systems. The agreement will give 560,000 students and employees across 33 universities access to key enterprise management and Linux* services from Novell, including SUSE(R) Linux Enterprise Desktop. As a result, the universities of North Rhine Westphalia gain a powerful, yet flexible new infrastructure while benefiting from the lower costs and freedom of choice of Linux. Novell's offerings help the state universities of North Rhine Westphalia realize high cost savings, while at the same time benefiting from increased security and flexibility. Educational institutes are facing many challenges today. The growing number of students, the increasing demand for real-time information, and tight budgets demand a scalable, flexible and cost-efficient IT infrastructure. At the same time, universities want to avoid vendor lock-in. After a comprehensive assessment, the universities of North Rhine Westphalia decided to leverage Novell(R) technology across the federal state. Novell was selected as a partner for its ideal combination of state-of-the-art technology, understanding of educational needs, and strong value. The decision-making process was coordinated by the leadership of Heinrich-Heine-University Dusseldorf. Novell is working closely with each of the universities of North Rhine Westphalia to customize solutions to meet their individual needs. The comprehensive deal covers a wide range of Linux and enterprise management technologies from Novell, including SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop, Novell Open Enterprise Server, Novell Identity Manager and Novell ZENworks(R). To date, 10 universities have already developed plans to implement Identity Manager to manage student, faculty and employee identities. Thirteen universities will use Novell ZENworks to manage their complex heterogeneous IT infrastructures, while nine universities are implementing Novell GroupWise(R) for collaboration. On the Linux front, 15 universities to date have committed to deploying SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. Novell and the universities of North Rhine Westphalia are promoting the use of Linux desktops by allowing staff and students to use SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 on their personal computers so they can test the benefits of Linux. Other German state government entities are also tapping Novell for infrastructure needs. Novell already has similar state-wide agreements with universities in the Federal States of Thuringia and Bavaria. "We've had great success in the German university system, already supporting some 300,000 students in Bavaria and Thuringia with our infrastructure solutions," said Volker Smid, president of Novell EMEA. "With the addition of North Rhine Westphalia, more than 40 percent of all university students in Germany will be using Novell software. This is great validation of the powerful advantages open source can bring to large organizations." For more information on Novell's technology offerings, visit http://www.novell.com/solutions. For information on Novell's solutions for the academic sector, please visit http://www.novell.com/industries/education. About Novell Novell, Inc. (Nasdaq: NOVL) delivers infrastructure software for the Open Enterprise. Novell is a leader in enterprise-wide operating systems based on Linux and open source and provides the enterprise management services required to operate mixed IT environments. Novell helps customers minimize cost, complexity and risk, allowing them to focus on innovation and growth. For more information, visit http://www.novell.com. Novell, GroupWise, SUSE and ZENworks are registered trademarks of Novell, Inc. in the United States and other countries. *Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other third-party trademarks are the property of their respective owners. |
|
|
Comments (34)
14 earlier comments in the full thread.
>It's much more a matter of business model. M$, the crack dealer of the software world, made it REALLY easy to use Winblows.
That's wrapped up in the "weight of Windows". Education belonged to Apple for a long time because they cultivated the market and because Macs are really sweet.
After a point, Windows is everywhere. It's available to schools on the cheap, and parents begin to worry that their precious darlings will somehow be "left out" if they're not learning to use Windows.
Sigh.
That's wrapped up in the "weight of Windows". Education belonged to Apple for a long time because they cultivated the market and because Macs are really sweet.
After a point, Windows is everywhere. It's available to schools on the cheap, and parents begin to worry that their precious darlings will somehow be "left out" if they're not learning to use Windows.
Sigh.
Quoting:The crack dealer business model is what Apple couldn't compete with, and the inertia is what Linux has to overcome.I agree with everything in this post, on the other hand, Isn't that part of the agility?
OK Lets call it devious part of agility. What I said still stands as another part.
Well, you're both right.
@Abe: The crack dealer model is more agile than anything else the market had seen to this point, and it was almost impossible to compete with - until now. The Free/Open Source model of the GPL v2 makes the crack dealer proprietary model less effective, as we've seen from the incursion of LAMP on the server side, and Firefox, OO.org, and others on the desktop side.
@dinotrac: I believe deals like the Novell ones mentioned here and in Jeff Jaffe's blog are EXACTLY how we overcome this Windows based inertia. One student at a time, one infrastructure point at a time. Eventually, students aren't left out because they don't have windows, they're running the "cutting edge" - and for free (or low cost) - with Linux. The trick is PERCEPTION, hopefully Novell and the rest of the Linux business players have learned this lesson from watching Microsoft beat the industry to death with image for the past 20 years.
As I mentioned before, the only thing we really need to worry about is the extremists on either side of the fence. The Proprietary Software camp would love nothing more than to preserve the crack dealer business model forever - it's profitable. But the "Free" Software camp tends to work equally hard to force their ideological belief of what "freedom" should mean down everyone else's throat. The really sad part is that both camps tend to use the same methodology - somehow believing that the means justify the ends.
I read that the FSF is rattling it's legal sabres against MS over the GPLv3 now. I haven't followed this story, but remember - PERCEPTION is what matters. The FSF threatening legal action over their new software license will generally harm (rightly or not) the world's perception of "free" software. It seems to me that "free" software should remain free: as long as it's given back to the community after modification (a la GPLv2), that is free. Trying to dictate HOW IT CAN OR CAN'T BE USED will only harm the movement, and makes the FSF no better than M$. The only difference is that one institutes control for profit, and the other institutes control to force an ideology.
In either case, this is only harmful if the public PERCEIVES it as controlling or wrong, or if it impedes the development of the technology. For Microsoft, neither of these conditions were a problem, the public largely hasn't caught on, and the technology has never been a priority as long as the product sells. For the FOSS world, perception still matters (that's why we're always fighting about the issue internally - and why we haven't grown faster), and technology is still important (must be better than the competition, and still be able to interoperate with the competition).
Extreme agendas are harmful, can't we all just get along? :)
@Abe: The crack dealer model is more agile than anything else the market had seen to this point, and it was almost impossible to compete with - until now. The Free/Open Source model of the GPL v2 makes the crack dealer proprietary model less effective, as we've seen from the incursion of LAMP on the server side, and Firefox, OO.org, and others on the desktop side.
@dinotrac: I believe deals like the Novell ones mentioned here and in Jeff Jaffe's blog are EXACTLY how we overcome this Windows based inertia. One student at a time, one infrastructure point at a time. Eventually, students aren't left out because they don't have windows, they're running the "cutting edge" - and for free (or low cost) - with Linux. The trick is PERCEPTION, hopefully Novell and the rest of the Linux business players have learned this lesson from watching Microsoft beat the industry to death with image for the past 20 years.
As I mentioned before, the only thing we really need to worry about is the extremists on either side of the fence. The Proprietary Software camp would love nothing more than to preserve the crack dealer business model forever - it's profitable. But the "Free" Software camp tends to work equally hard to force their ideological belief of what "freedom" should mean down everyone else's throat. The really sad part is that both camps tend to use the same methodology - somehow believing that the means justify the ends.
I read that the FSF is rattling it's legal sabres against MS over the GPLv3 now. I haven't followed this story, but remember - PERCEPTION is what matters. The FSF threatening legal action over their new software license will generally harm (rightly or not) the world's perception of "free" software. It seems to me that "free" software should remain free: as long as it's given back to the community after modification (a la GPLv2), that is free. Trying to dictate HOW IT CAN OR CAN'T BE USED will only harm the movement, and makes the FSF no better than M$. The only difference is that one institutes control for profit, and the other institutes control to force an ideology.
In either case, this is only harmful if the public PERCEIVES it as controlling or wrong, or if it impedes the development of the technology. For Microsoft, neither of these conditions were a problem, the public largely hasn't caught on, and the technology has never been a priority as long as the product sells. For the FOSS world, perception still matters (that's why we're always fighting about the issue internally - and why we haven't grown faster), and technology is still important (must be better than the competition, and still be able to interoperate with the competition).
Extreme agendas are harmful, can't we all just get along? :)
@Abe and dinotrac: I should have mentioned this earlier - thank you both for your input here. On this very forum, I've been referred to as a troll by some of the more passionate members (I tend to be pretty zealous about my own position also, btw), but I really do appreciate the discussion. It's easy (and cowardly, and intellectually lazy, in my view) to label someone as a troll and dismiss valid points without addressing them, but you guys have been very professional in your interaction here. Your input helps me clarify my own position, and provides me with a better understanding of various sides of the issue. I'm grateful for that.
> Extreme agendas are harmful, can't we all just get along?
You should try asking Microsoft that question. They're the ones willing to break the law to get what they want. There may be a small percentage of juvenile FOSS supporters who are willing to break the law, but it's not the policy of the wider FOSS community. It is corporate policy at Microsoft.
Added:
Which doesn't mean I disagree with you, merely that eliminating the extreme agendas on the FOSS side alone won't actually solve the problem. Let's not forget who we're dealing with here.
You should try asking Microsoft that question. They're the ones willing to break the law to get what they want. There may be a small percentage of juvenile FOSS supporters who are willing to break the law, but it's not the policy of the wider FOSS community. It is corporate policy at Microsoft.
Added:
Which doesn't mean I disagree with you, merely that eliminating the extreme agendas on the FOSS side alone won't actually solve the problem. Let's not forget who we're dealing with here.
dumper, your synopsis of control in regards to profit vs ideology is spot on IMHO. You could do up an article on that expanding and explaining to the masses. I would definitely read it, be warned though no matter how logical and well reasoned you had best have on fire proof undies when the heathens ... er, community gets ahold of it.
@jdixon: No point in asking Micro$oft, we've already demonstrated that they don't care, as long as they're still turning a profit.
Please don't get me wrong, I wasn't implying that the FOSS community breaks any laws on any level. I'm specifically addressing the "you must believe and do exactly as we instruct you to, because we believe it's the right thing" philosophy being pushed from the more extreme ends of the FOSS comunity (specifically the FSF and the GPLv3). Codifying belief about how "free" software should or should not be used into a software license agreement is in my opinion wrong. Further, the typical response to this arguement from the FSF zealots is "if you don't like it, don't use our software." Well, so much for "free" software then, eh?
How free is it, when the FSF champions are dictating by whom and in what way their "free" software can be used? It just seems grotesquely hypocritical to me. The GPLv2 handled the definition of freedom nearly perfectly: Take it and use it. If you change it and distribute those changes, give back the changes in code to the community you took the original from. How you use it is your business.
So While I'd love to see Microsoft (and Adobe, and the other members of the BSA, for example) change their tune, the only way to accomplish that is by making it too painful for them to continue the crack dealer business model. Thus, the advancement of Open Source Software is paramount. I simply think that the extremist methods employed by the FSF do more harm than good. Since they're not motivated by profit, I hope they'll come to the same realization some day. But I'm not holding my breath.
Possibly BECAUSE the FSF is not motivated by profit, they'll never figure this out. It's a lot easier to hold on to an ideal - right or wrong - when doing so won't mean your eventual demise. Unfortunately, this also means that they're not bound by logic, the necessity of cooperation, or the impact of their actions on the real world. Allow me to adapt a quote from Jack Nicholson (minus the derogatory sexual reference) to describe the FSF: "I think of an Open Source supporter, and I take away reason and accountability."
@azerthoth: Thank you. I'd considered putting up an article somewhere, but I've already developed a mild persecution complex from the more fervent members of the community. :) I don't know, maybe someday - after I find my asbestos overcoat.
Please don't get me wrong, I wasn't implying that the FOSS community breaks any laws on any level. I'm specifically addressing the "you must believe and do exactly as we instruct you to, because we believe it's the right thing" philosophy being pushed from the more extreme ends of the FOSS comunity (specifically the FSF and the GPLv3). Codifying belief about how "free" software should or should not be used into a software license agreement is in my opinion wrong. Further, the typical response to this arguement from the FSF zealots is "if you don't like it, don't use our software." Well, so much for "free" software then, eh?
How free is it, when the FSF champions are dictating by whom and in what way their "free" software can be used? It just seems grotesquely hypocritical to me. The GPLv2 handled the definition of freedom nearly perfectly: Take it and use it. If you change it and distribute those changes, give back the changes in code to the community you took the original from. How you use it is your business.
So While I'd love to see Microsoft (and Adobe, and the other members of the BSA, for example) change their tune, the only way to accomplish that is by making it too painful for them to continue the crack dealer business model. Thus, the advancement of Open Source Software is paramount. I simply think that the extremist methods employed by the FSF do more harm than good. Since they're not motivated by profit, I hope they'll come to the same realization some day. But I'm not holding my breath.
Possibly BECAUSE the FSF is not motivated by profit, they'll never figure this out. It's a lot easier to hold on to an ideal - right or wrong - when doing so won't mean your eventual demise. Unfortunately, this also means that they're not bound by logic, the necessity of cooperation, or the impact of their actions on the real world. Allow me to adapt a quote from Jack Nicholson (minus the derogatory sexual reference) to describe the FSF: "I think of an Open Source supporter, and I take away reason and accountability."
@azerthoth: Thank you. I'd considered putting up an article somewhere, but I've already developed a mild persecution complex from the more fervent members of the community. :) I don't know, maybe someday - after I find my asbestos overcoat.
Quoting:maybe someday - after I find my asbestos overcoat.
I can borrow you mine. And dino probably has some fireproof undies if you need them :-)
oh dumper4311, you were doing fine until you got to
So much illogic in such a compact space. You're the one mis-representing what Free software is. The FSF has no power to "force" anyone to do anything, and the next twit that says that should get a sound twapping.
Two important points you are (on purpose?) overlooking- it's not your code, and Free software does not mean Free as in Freeloader. Though Free software users are getting a free ride, and that's a pretty cool and generous thing. Users are not restricted in any way- the restrictions apply only to distributors. Which shoots down most of what you're saying right there.
No one gets you wrong- you are very clear on where you stand. I do call you a troll, by your insistent uses of deliberately inflammatory language and deliberate misrepresentations. You're just trying to stir things up. And succeeding. You're not even particularly interesting- just re-hashing the same old recycled erroneous guff.
Quoting: But the "Free" Software camp tends to work equally hard to force their ideological belief of what "freedom" should mean down everyone else's throat. The really sad part is that both camps tend to use the same methodology - somehow believing that the means justify the ends. I read that the FSF is rattling it's legal sabres against MS over the GPLv3 now. I haven't followed this story, but remember - PERCEPTION is what matters. The FSF threatening legal action over their new software license will generally harm (rightly or not) the world's perception of "free" software. It seems to me that "free" software should remain free: as long as it's given back to the community after modification (a la GPLv2), that is free. Trying to dictate HOW IT CAN OR CAN'T BE USED will only harm the movement, and makes the FSF no better than M$. The only difference is that one institutes control for profit, and the other institutes control to force an ideology.
So much illogic in such a compact space. You're the one mis-representing what Free software is. The FSF has no power to "force" anyone to do anything, and the next twit that says that should get a sound twapping.
Two important points you are (on purpose?) overlooking- it's not your code, and Free software does not mean Free as in Freeloader. Though Free software users are getting a free ride, and that's a pretty cool and generous thing. Users are not restricted in any way- the restrictions apply only to distributors. Which shoots down most of what you're saying right there.
No one gets you wrong- you are very clear on where you stand. I do call you a troll, by your insistent uses of deliberately inflammatory language and deliberate misrepresentations. You're just trying to stir things up. And succeeding. You're not even particularly interesting- just re-hashing the same old recycled erroneous guff.
I disagree somewhat TC, it's true that they can't force us to do anything. However their most loquacious spokesman states bluntly that distributing any software package under anything less than a free and open license is immoral. On that point the FSF standpoint is very clear, its one of the points that I personally believe is wrong, and it indicates clearly what they want and advocate. Then what they advocate becomes scripture to many of the more fanatical elements, bludgeoning us "non believers" relentlessly about the ears and eyes until we give up from frustration. Very few have the intestinal fortitude to keep saying "your just not right".
Anyone who has the ability to sit back and question everything from every side gets my approval, regardless of I agree with them or not.
Anyone who has the ability to sit back and question everything from every side gets my approval, regardless of I agree with them or not.
Oh come on, azerthoth. Bludgeon? Are they making personal visits to you? Anyone can say anything at anytime- what impact does it really have on you? Are you being forced to license your code under GPL3? Have you lost the rights to actually use any Free software?
I've been bludgeoned with heterosexual propaganda my entire life, and it had no effect, except to make me cranky. I get bombarded with review copies of Microsoft's and other proprietary software, and all kinds of material exhorting me to use it and no other, but somehow I manage to resist. I even support some customers who depend on proprietary crapware, and somehow I am immune to its blandishments. The only explanation for your predicament is the FSF has targeted you personally and has hunted you down in real life, because I've found it pretty easy to ignore them when it suits me.
I've been bludgeoned with heterosexual propaganda my entire life, and it had no effect, except to make me cranky. I get bombarded with review copies of Microsoft's and other proprietary software, and all kinds of material exhorting me to use it and no other, but somehow I manage to resist. I even support some customers who depend on proprietary crapware, and somehow I am immune to its blandishments. The only explanation for your predicament is the FSF has targeted you personally and has hunted you down in real life, because I've found it pretty easy to ignore them when it suits me.
ooo I may have made a mistake. Sorry dumper4311. "Trying to dictate HOW IT CAN OR CAN'T BE USED" is indeed a debatable issue. My apologies. The beer and chocolate are on me.
@tuxchick: Welcome to the discussion. A couple things to keep in mind:
"it's not your code, and Free software does not mean Free as in Freeloader" Thank you for injecting your personal belief system into the definition of "free." I've already covered my personal take on it, summed up pretty well by the GPLv2. Allow me to reiterate: "Take it and use it. If you change it and distribute those changes, give back the changes in code to the community you took the original from. How you use it is your business." Further, how can I be a freeloader if it's a product INTENDED TO BE GIVEN TO EVERYONE FREELY, AND FOR USE AS THEY SEE FIT? As I see it, free software should be just that, anything else makes you a bit of a hypocrite - as I've already stated above.
Mind you, I know what's coming next - "that's not what RMS meant for it to be," "that's not the true intent of the GPL," or some similar blabber. Obviously. That's why he came up with GPL v3. But that has NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM, that is STRICTLY ABOUT THE PROMOTION OF HIS IDEOLOGY.
Also: "Users are not restricted in any way- the restrictions apply only to distributors. Which shoots down most of what you're saying right there."
Huh? It's FREE CODE. By definition, distributors of this "free" code ARE users of the code. END USERS HAVE NO USE FOR CODE, FREE OR OTHERWISE. This is a kind of sad rationalization I hear a lot, but it's total BS, and a complete cop out. How that shoots down any argument I've made is beyond me. Quite the contrary, your extremist response has served to support my argument.
I'm sorry you don't find me interesting, but I'm certainly not trying to stir up anybody. You seem to have done that to yourself pretty well. :) What's worse, the only deliberately inflammatory language I've seen has come since YOU joined this merry discussion. Again, I'm not mad at you, and I'm still smiling. :)
I guess I can be the smiling troll, eh?
Another quote from tuxchick: "Anyone can say anything at anytime- what impact does it really have on you?"
Interesting (and self contradictory) question. Maybe ask yourself that before getting all bent at the rest of us. :) In any case, I do appreciate your acknowledging (in your later post) the FSF's promotion of an ideology rather than freedom, even if you don't care to debate it reasonably.
As I've tried to explain to you in a previous discussion: passion is admirable - and you are obviously very passionate about the subject, but passion untempered by reason is useless.
@azerthoth: I'm starting to feel a bit bludgeoned (I love that word) :). I fear we're rapidly approaching the point of collective monologue. It's a shame to see, but I've enjoyed what I've gathered so far. Whether you agree with me or not, I've appreciated your input - and that of everyone else who genuinely wishes to discuss the issues.
The truly sad part is, you're right. When something is repeated over and over again, eventually people begin to accept it as true, whether it makes sense or not. That's part of how Micro$oft got to where they are, and that's the same tactic the FSF extremists have chosen to spread their ideology. Sadly, that's the one thing extremists tend to do very well - without any need of reason or accountability.
"it's not your code, and Free software does not mean Free as in Freeloader" Thank you for injecting your personal belief system into the definition of "free." I've already covered my personal take on it, summed up pretty well by the GPLv2. Allow me to reiterate: "Take it and use it. If you change it and distribute those changes, give back the changes in code to the community you took the original from. How you use it is your business." Further, how can I be a freeloader if it's a product INTENDED TO BE GIVEN TO EVERYONE FREELY, AND FOR USE AS THEY SEE FIT? As I see it, free software should be just that, anything else makes you a bit of a hypocrite - as I've already stated above.
Mind you, I know what's coming next - "that's not what RMS meant for it to be," "that's not the true intent of the GPL," or some similar blabber. Obviously. That's why he came up with GPL v3. But that has NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM, that is STRICTLY ABOUT THE PROMOTION OF HIS IDEOLOGY.
Also: "Users are not restricted in any way- the restrictions apply only to distributors. Which shoots down most of what you're saying right there."
Huh? It's FREE CODE. By definition, distributors of this "free" code ARE users of the code. END USERS HAVE NO USE FOR CODE, FREE OR OTHERWISE. This is a kind of sad rationalization I hear a lot, but it's total BS, and a complete cop out. How that shoots down any argument I've made is beyond me. Quite the contrary, your extremist response has served to support my argument.
I'm sorry you don't find me interesting, but I'm certainly not trying to stir up anybody. You seem to have done that to yourself pretty well. :) What's worse, the only deliberately inflammatory language I've seen has come since YOU joined this merry discussion. Again, I'm not mad at you, and I'm still smiling. :)
I guess I can be the smiling troll, eh?
Another quote from tuxchick: "Anyone can say anything at anytime- what impact does it really have on you?"
Interesting (and self contradictory) question. Maybe ask yourself that before getting all bent at the rest of us. :) In any case, I do appreciate your acknowledging (in your later post) the FSF's promotion of an ideology rather than freedom, even if you don't care to debate it reasonably.
As I've tried to explain to you in a previous discussion: passion is admirable - and you are obviously very passionate about the subject, but passion untempered by reason is useless.
@azerthoth: I'm starting to feel a bit bludgeoned (I love that word) :). I fear we're rapidly approaching the point of collective monologue. It's a shame to see, but I've enjoyed what I've gathered so far. Whether you agree with me or not, I've appreciated your input - and that of everyone else who genuinely wishes to discuss the issues.
The truly sad part is, you're right. When something is repeated over and over again, eventually people begin to accept it as true, whether it makes sense or not. That's part of how Micro$oft got to where they are, and that's the same tactic the FSF extremists have chosen to spread their ideology. Sadly, that's the one thing extremists tend to do very well - without any need of reason or accountability.
Ok everybody, I'm sorry, but I just can't resist. Please accept this in the humorous spirit it was intended. I think we should all post that the FSF is MAKING us do something . . . . anything.
I don't believe I've ever actually seen it, but I swear I'd pay good money to see somebody get "a sound twapping."
Come on tuxchick, smile a bit. Whether I agree with you or not, I thought that line was pretty cool, and I'm just playing. :)
I don't believe I've ever actually seen it, but I swear I'd pay good money to see somebody get "a sound twapping."
Come on tuxchick, smile a bit. Whether I agree with you or not, I thought that line was pretty cool, and I'm just playing. :)
Pah. You cannot make me smile.
|:-(
See?
|:-(
See?
>And dino probably has some fireproof undies
Not at all. Who doesn't love roasted nuts?
Not at all. Who doesn't love roasted nuts?
Oh all right, that's worth a small grin. |:-|
BTW "END USERS HAVE NO USE FOR CODE, FREE OR OTHERWISE" just isn't so. I'm no ace coder, but I sometimes read source code to look for undocumented command options, or to see if a driver supports a certain function. As I study programming more, I'm happy to have bales of free code to study and learn from. Some of my customers have hired programmers to customize Free software. So end users have plenty of uses for source code. Which ain't ideology, but the ultimate pragmatism.
BTW "END USERS HAVE NO USE FOR CODE, FREE OR OTHERWISE" just isn't so. I'm no ace coder, but I sometimes read source code to look for undocumented command options, or to see if a driver supports a certain function. As I study programming more, I'm happy to have bales of free code to study and learn from. Some of my customers have hired programmers to customize Free software. So end users have plenty of uses for source code. Which ain't ideology, but the ultimate pragmatism.
> BTW "END USERS HAVE NO USE FOR CODE, FREE OR OTHERWISE" just isn't so.
Absolutely correct. Compiling for source is often easier than finding a precompiled binary which works with your arcane distribution of the month; or in my case, my arcane distribution of choice, Slackware.
Absolutely correct. Compiling for source is often easier than finding a precompiled binary which works with your arcane distribution of the month; or in my case, my arcane distribution of choice, Slackware.
@tuxchick and jdixon: Believe it or not, we agree! On one thing at least, in a round about way. There are times when an end user can have a use for the code. I stand corrected.
I'm no supercoder either, but my point was this: while every developer is also an end user, average end users are very rarely developers. Entire DISTRIBUTIONS are developed for this simple fact - Ubuntu comes to mind as the best example (God help me, now I'll have the Ubuntu supporters after me) :). This most popular of distros is popular specifically because of their non-techie focus. And while compiling from source is often a useful tool, your average windows convert will go to great lengths to avoid such pain - thus the popularity of Ubuntu. Further, these compilers from source aren't modifying the code, just installing a program.
In any case, lets avoid this tangent all together and cut back to the point - which you've both helped to demonstrate. Whether you compile from source for a custom or unsupported distro, or hire programmers, or study programming yourself, you are (or employ) developers (after a fashion). Why did you do this? It doesn't matter, the point is, you're trying to overcome a deficiency in your software DISTRIBUTION of choice, or add to it, or . . . .
So invariably, what affects the distributors affects the end users, whether they ever see the code or not. It doesn't matter if it's because of the design of the distribution, or because of a license restriction, IF IT AFFECTS THE DISTRIBUTORS, THEN IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES AFFECT THE END USER. Whether they are in the minority that has a use for the code or not.
And if it's a licensing restriction that prevents functionality the end user was looking for, then that LICENSE has a negative impact on the advancement of "free" software. That is EXACTLY the problem - perceptually or in actual fact - that I have been describing above.
Conversely, and more related to the original direction of this thread, the Novell/Microsoft deal had almost no effect on the advancement of Free Software in actual fact (other than millions of dollars net in Novell's pockets). But the PERCEPTION of cooperation and safety offered to the pointy-haired bosses considering Linux was worthwhile. At least until the FSF and GPLv3 made it into a crusade. Thus, I hope they return to a more sane position of supporting real freedom (GPLv2) versus the pushing of an ideology (GPLv3).
I guess we just have different ideas about what is pragmatic. But given the choice, I'll stand by the groups that put their money and professional existence on the line based on real-world results, versus the group that isn't bound by any real need for reason or accountability, just ideology.
One more thing to chew on: There was an article put out recently that describes using a hypervisor to reconcile GPL and proprietary embedded code. Personally, this makes me pretty happy, as it illustrates the simple fact that practical solutions can still win out over bad license agreements (like the GPLv3 or MS' EULA), or bad laws (like the DMCA), or bad corporations (like Microsoft). All of which strive to implement forms of control that I believe are wrong.
I'm no supercoder either, but my point was this: while every developer is also an end user, average end users are very rarely developers. Entire DISTRIBUTIONS are developed for this simple fact - Ubuntu comes to mind as the best example (God help me, now I'll have the Ubuntu supporters after me) :). This most popular of distros is popular specifically because of their non-techie focus. And while compiling from source is often a useful tool, your average windows convert will go to great lengths to avoid such pain - thus the popularity of Ubuntu. Further, these compilers from source aren't modifying the code, just installing a program.
In any case, lets avoid this tangent all together and cut back to the point - which you've both helped to demonstrate. Whether you compile from source for a custom or unsupported distro, or hire programmers, or study programming yourself, you are (or employ) developers (after a fashion). Why did you do this? It doesn't matter, the point is, you're trying to overcome a deficiency in your software DISTRIBUTION of choice, or add to it, or . . . .
So invariably, what affects the distributors affects the end users, whether they ever see the code or not. It doesn't matter if it's because of the design of the distribution, or because of a license restriction, IF IT AFFECTS THE DISTRIBUTORS, THEN IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES AFFECT THE END USER. Whether they are in the minority that has a use for the code or not.
And if it's a licensing restriction that prevents functionality the end user was looking for, then that LICENSE has a negative impact on the advancement of "free" software. That is EXACTLY the problem - perceptually or in actual fact - that I have been describing above.
Conversely, and more related to the original direction of this thread, the Novell/Microsoft deal had almost no effect on the advancement of Free Software in actual fact (other than millions of dollars net in Novell's pockets). But the PERCEPTION of cooperation and safety offered to the pointy-haired bosses considering Linux was worthwhile. At least until the FSF and GPLv3 made it into a crusade. Thus, I hope they return to a more sane position of supporting real freedom (GPLv2) versus the pushing of an ideology (GPLv3).
I guess we just have different ideas about what is pragmatic. But given the choice, I'll stand by the groups that put their money and professional existence on the line based on real-world results, versus the group that isn't bound by any real need for reason or accountability, just ideology.
One more thing to chew on: There was an article put out recently that describes using a hypervisor to reconcile GPL and proprietary embedded code. Personally, this makes me pretty happy, as it illustrates the simple fact that practical solutions can still win out over bad license agreements (like the GPLv3 or MS' EULA), or bad laws (like the DMCA), or bad corporations (like Microsoft). All of which strive to implement forms of control that I believe are wrong.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
It's much more a matter of business model. M$, the crack dealer of the software world, made it REALLY easy to use Winblows. It comes "free" on every new pc, and they practically give it away (to this very day) to retain or recruit new users. People tend to be creatures of habit, and inertia makes most of their decisions for them - logic or efficiency have precious little to do with the process. Once you're "hooked' it's a simple matter for Microsoft to reel you in - and make a huge profit from the userbase they've just suckered or threatened into being "customers".
Another side to this argument is in an article I read recently linked from this site. It stated essentially that "windows is free" at least in effect. People will receive it with their new PC for "free" or pirate it without any concern for legality. Microsoft's public response has been "hang them all", but their private business model seems to be something quite different - more in line with the crack dealer mentioned above, and this is where the threats come into play: "We know you're using our software, pay up, or we'll sue you to death."
The crack dealer business model is what Apple couldn't compete with, and the inertia is what Linux has to overcome.