- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Why Open Source Isn't Succeeding
Lately however, certain things have begun to become apparent. Proprietary software vendors have locked the advancement of technology. This is to be expected. But the open source movement is in full swing to counteract that. The only problem with the open source movement is that it isn't succeeding in fully counteracting this huge pendulum that has swung in opposition to multi-source, multi-national technological advancement for the gain of mankind (not company kind). Instead, open source has begun to push the stone uphill on it's own without assistance from the VERY companies that take from it. |
|
|
Comments (13)
Redhat doesn't give back to open source?
>>
There is entirely too much uninformed trash talk about Redhat floating around.
I'm speaking of open source as a whole not just Linux. Perhaps they give a framework, model, and some nice packages...but I doubt much if they are now putting a certain percentage of their earnings back into the community or donating fundage to open source projects.
And that was my point on this...that companies will distance themselves in the pursuit of the almighty dollar and that it is impossible for them to do otherwise...it's not their fault, they need to make money and this is how they do it. The bad part about it is that if too many places or people take and take and take...and it has changed so much from say...1996 when it was all about giving.
Things will change with the onslaught of enterprise Linux...and that is also the main point as well.
devnet
And that was my point on this...that companies will distance themselves in the pursuit of the almighty dollar and that it is impossible for them to do otherwise...it's not their fault, they need to make money and this is how they do it. The bad part about it is that if too many places or people take and take and take...and it has changed so much from say...1996 when it was all about giving.
Things will change with the onslaught of enterprise Linux...and that is also the main point as well.
devnet
Didn't they create a legal fund for defense of open source projects and contribute $1 million to it as seed money? Didn't they fund ext3? Don't they allocate many of their best programmers, not to mention hardware and bandwidth resouces, to the Fedora project on an ongoing basis? Didn't they buy and open source GFS? Didn't they develop JFFS2? Don't they regularly contribute (much more than a little) employee time to the Linux kernel? Don't they develop Cygwin? This is all just off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm missing plenty more examples. Contributing to the quality, variety, legal welfare, and popularity of open source in general is *fundamental* to their success as a company and they know it well.
Redhat has been in the enterprise Linux market for a while now, and their policies have not waivered. So I don't see any evidence supporting your last point. Things *could* change in the future. But I see absolutely no evidence of it now. (Hey, even Debian *could* turn evil. Don't hold your breath, though.)
I simply don't see a problem here.
Redhat has been in the enterprise Linux market for a while now, and their policies have not waivered. So I don't see any evidence supporting your last point. Things *could* change in the future. But I see absolutely no evidence of it now. (Hey, even Debian *could* turn evil. Don't hold your breath, though.)
I simply don't see a problem here.
Question.
Does Red hat allows it's developers to work on Open source projects on company time?
Does Red Hat not only release that code back, but take other packages and help those developers to make their own prodcut better?
You can't as a business just give away your profits. You need funding for when time is bleak. You need funds to stay alive. Look at Novell. Do you really think if they gave away all of their netware tech back in the mid 90's they would of had enough capital to buy Suse?
Red Hat , Suse Hire developers, to work on their projects, but also to work on other people's projects to make sure they can be intergrated easily. Who does the beta testing? It's not just the code being released, but how your company is working with others to make a better product.
sun contributes the most code in lines, but less in developers times now a days. When(if) Solaris goes open that should change.
Does Red hat allows it's developers to work on Open source projects on company time?
Does Red Hat not only release that code back, but take other packages and help those developers to make their own prodcut better?
You can't as a business just give away your profits. You need funding for when time is bleak. You need funds to stay alive. Look at Novell. Do you really think if they gave away all of their netware tech back in the mid 90's they would of had enough capital to buy Suse?
Red Hat , Suse Hire developers, to work on their projects, but also to work on other people's projects to make sure they can be intergrated easily. Who does the beta testing? It's not just the code being released, but how your company is working with others to make a better product.
sun contributes the most code in lines, but less in developers times now a days. When(if) Solaris goes open that should change.
> Does Red hat allows it's developers to work on Open source projects on company time?
Yes... duh...
> Does Red Hat not only release that code back, but take other packages and help those developers to make their own prodcut better?
Yes... duh...
> Do you really think if they gave away all of their netware tech back in the mid 90's they would of had enough capital to buy Suse?
The capital to buy SUSE was provided to them by IBM.
> Sun contributes the most code in lines
That is not even close to being true.
> but less in developers times now a days. When(if) Solaris goes open that should change.
I don't think so... but the whole concept doesn't even make sense.
Yes... duh...
> Does Red Hat not only release that code back, but take other packages and help those developers to make their own prodcut better?
Yes... duh...
> Do you really think if they gave away all of their netware tech back in the mid 90's they would of had enough capital to buy Suse?
The capital to buy SUSE was provided to them by IBM.
> Sun contributes the most code in lines
That is not even close to being true.
> but less in developers times now a days. When(if) Solaris goes open that should change.
I don't think so... but the whole concept doesn't even make sense.
Redhat as a Distro (including Fedora) doesn't jive with my personal needs. Apart from that, Redhat has always been a very nice, true and formidable Open Source partner.
Don't bash Redhat for making a buck with Open Source. They contribute shitloads of quality code back into the community.
If you need to bash the rotten apples within FOSS, just look at The SCO Group. There you have this totally evil entity, that went from dishonest GNU/Linux distributor to public FOSS enemy #1.
Companies are here to make a profit, that is the way these bodies work. Redhat is an excellent partner by being 99.9% FOSS. IBM and Novell do contribute less, but still they contribute. I'm a bit skeptical about Sun, but nevertheless acknowledge their contributions. Let's not bite the hands that feed us (partially). There are graver dangers out there.
Don't bash Redhat for making a buck with Open Source. They contribute shitloads of quality code back into the community.
If you need to bash the rotten apples within FOSS, just look at The SCO Group. There you have this totally evil entity, that went from dishonest GNU/Linux distributor to public FOSS enemy #1.
Companies are here to make a profit, that is the way these bodies work. Redhat is an excellent partner by being 99.9% FOSS. IBM and Novell do contribute less, but still they contribute. I'm a bit skeptical about Sun, but nevertheless acknowledge their contributions. Let's not bite the hands that feed us (partially). There are graver dangers out there.
> If you need to bash the rotten apples within FOSS, just look at The SCO Group. There you have this totally evil entity, that went from dishonest GNU/Linux distributor to public FOSS enemy #1.
Just to be fair to what I term as "Old Caldera" which was always a bit tenuously perched as a true OSS company, but on the whole, was pretty honest and up-front about the fact, I should say that the current SCO Group is an entirely different animal. The old management was ejected, and the new, lying, scheming (and now, losing :-) set of SOBs that are currently at the helm came later.
Live Long, and Prosper,
Steve Bergman
Just to be fair to what I term as "Old Caldera" which was always a bit tenuously perched as a true OSS company, but on the whole, was pretty honest and up-front about the fact, I should say that the current SCO Group is an entirely different animal. The old management was ejected, and the new, lying, scheming (and now, losing :-) set of SOBs that are currently at the helm came later.
Live Long, and Prosper,
Steve Bergman
All this Redhat bashing i think stems from SUN's fud, Maybe Redhat aren't the "giving" company they used to be maybe they are, i dont know but i do know that in the past they have put a lot in to supporting OSS, far more than most i believe!
Disclaimer: I am not a Redhat/Fedora fan boy, Slackware is my drug of choice, i just believe in credit where it is due.
Disclaimer: I am not a Redhat/Fedora fan boy, Slackware is my drug of choice, i just believe in credit where it is due.
And the facts are that Red Hat is a contributor of FOSS and an advocate of GPL in particular. My differences with Red Hat are usually with regards to how they chose to implement something. Shoot... if tomorrow you told me that my ONLY choice was Red Hat, well... all I can say is that it's better than the alternative!
As I said to the author, I'm delighted that Red Hat can make a buck out of it. Even if they didn't kick back in - and they do, with much less ambiguity of motive and position than Sun (but, hey, when all's said and done Sun do contribute). The more the merrier.
The only time I have a problem is when somebody tries to stop other people from making a buck out of it, or not, as their tastes lie.
The only time I have a problem is when somebody tries to stop other people from making a buck out of it, or not, as their tastes lie.
don't feed the troll
No one posts stuff like this with such an incredible disregard for facts without being delusional or trolling. Don't give him clicks, don't respond.
Hi tuxchick,
The article has problems, but is not quite as bad as the title suggests.
I think he is sincere. As for not responding, it's never wrong to counter misinformation with facts.
Peace and Long Life, Steve Bergman
P.S. It's always refreshing to see more evidence that we have an ever increasing number of female "Comrades In Arms" as part of our community. :-)
The article has problems, but is not quite as bad as the title suggests.
I think he is sincere. As for not responding, it's never wrong to counter misinformation with facts.
Peace and Long Life, Steve Bergman
P.S. It's always refreshing to see more evidence that we have an ever increasing number of female "Comrades In Arms" as part of our community. :-)
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
Wow. Redhat doesn't give back to open source. This kind of misinformation always disturbs me.
Redhat has made open source the foundation of their entire business model. What successful business does not invest in its own foundations? Redhat gives *all* of its (rather substantial) development work back to the community. I know of no instance of the source code of any Redhat project being under a proprietary license.
What's more, they go *beyond* the requirements of GPL. e.g. They are not required to make nice, tidy SRPMS available so that third parties like Whitebox can more easily create their own generic brands of RedHat Enterprise Linux. But they do anyway. Also, I do not believe that they are required to separate out all of their trademarked material into one tidy SRPM to make it easy for others to replace the trademarked material in said generic distros, but they do it anyway.
Also, although they could bundle proprietary packages into their RHEL products, I do not believe that they do so. At one time (2.1), Sun's Java runtime was included. I'm not certain, but I do not believe that's true anymore. (I am not absolutely certain of the accuracy of this paragraph. Can someone confirm or deny, please?)
There is entirely too much uninformed trash talk about Redhat floating around.