Shuttleworth: Microsoft Fracturing the Open-Source Community

Quoting:I'm still wondering about "Shuttleworth promotes FUD to kill off competitors." Not seeing anything to support that.

Me neither.

>>I'm still wondering about "Shuttleworth promotes FUD to kill off competitors." Not seeing >>anything to support that. > Me neither.

Whew!! I thought it was just me having a senior moment.

Quoting:Whew!! I thought it was just me having a senior moment.

naah. Just an extinction moment. ;)

/me ducks

>Just an extinction moment. ;)

Hey, shouldn't you be taking it easy while that new kidney is in its break-in period?

OMG that was techiem's kidney?? Oh dear...

/me hides the steak-and-kidney pie

>/me hides the steak-and-kidney pie

TC -

This is a side of you we haven't seen before.

I think I like it. I won't let you get near me with cutlery...

hahaha

I think you got one of my orginals..that's not gonna make a very good pie...

>.that's not gonna make a very good pie

From what I hear from usually unreliable sources, neither is TC.

Nice to see you up and kicking, techiem2. :) Want some pie?

wow devnet, you did read a totally different article.

Quoting:wow devnet, you did read a totally different article.

nah, Devnet read the same article alright. In my opinion, he read a little more than necessary. I too got the same feeling and I chose to give Shuttleworth the benefit of the doubt for all the good things he said in the same article. Devnet chose not to be as forgiving.

Suttleworth could be all sincere, we can't know for sure, but time will tell. On the other hand, don't forget that he is a very clever guy too. Remember the fiasco when Novell signed the famous agreement with MS, Suttleworth garbed the chance to invite all OpenSuse developers to his camp.

I believe that is the sort of thing that Devnet is talking about. I think.

I'm not any big fan of Mark Shuttleworth- I just don't believe that the level of thought-policing that devnet seems to imply is necessary, and I'm very bored with people shrieking "FUD!" every time they read something they don't like. And what's not to like in this article? This part, maybe?

Quoting: "That's extortion and we should call it what it is," he said. "To say, as [Microsoft CEO Steve] Ballmer did, that there is undisclosed balance sheet liability, that's just extortion and we should refuse to get drawn into that game.

Or maybe this:

Quoting: "I think it's obvious at this stage that really what Microsoft is doing is trying to unsettle the marketplace. It isn't working and has not had the slightest impact on those companies that refuse to be drawn into that line of discussion with Microsoft. If anything, there is plenty of evidence to show that the companies who have been drawn into that have paid a significant price," he said.

Mmkay. I'm trying to read anti-FOSS FUD into that, but I can't.

Like it or not, the FOSS community includes the commercial vendors. It's not a unified community by any definition, more like a cat herd, and this article is not FUD, and it certainly isn't going to drive trusting innocents into the arms of Redmond.

TC -

Methinks devnet has the thinking cap screwed on a little too tight. Coming and going are getting criss-crossed.

You are absolutely correct. The Linux community may not be a commercial vendor, but commercial vendors are definitely part of the community -- and, judging from the time and money they put into it, a very important part of the community that we all should be grateful for.

Let's face it - volunteer workers tend to scratch an itch. They work on what interests them. Problem is, non-technical users and developers don't always itch in the same place. If Linux is to be a satisfying and capable desktop option for many non-technical users, somebody's going to have get paid to do a little work that might not otherwise excite them. That's where commercial vendors excel. They have money and they pay people.

Quoting:commercial vendors are definitely part of the community

I disagree.

The community can only be there to serve the community or it ceases to be community. Commercial vendors are there to serve the shareholders of their company. Commercial interests are placed above that of the community. With this being 100% always the case, one cannot argue that commercial vendors are part of the community...maybe, contribute to the community...but not part of it.

I'm curious devnet, were I to rephrase that to "Only through altruism can one be part of the community" would that accuratly depict what you are saying? Thats what I'm understanding you to say as I read it.

azerthoth -

By devnet's apparent beliefs, there isn't much of a community.

Who really qualifies?

Not Andrew Morton or Jeremy Allison. They are paid by Google to do their free software work. That means they have to satisfy stockholders, etc,etc.

Not Linus Torvalds. He works for the Linux Foundation, a group funded by folks like Red Hat, Novell, IBM and many, many more.

Alan Cox? Oops! Red Hat.

Well -- nobody can quibble with Richard Stallman, right? Of course, he did invite scads of corporate lawyers to help with GPLV3 -- and we know that commercial interests can't be part of the community, so, if he courted non-members to help write the GPL, doesn't that make his community membership a little shaky?

I'm thinking that, when you get right down to it, the community limited to a few fanbois who wrote A REALLY NEAT start to a GREAT IDEA as a computer science project, GPL'd it, put it up on Sourceforge and waited for the accolades to come rolling in.

Quoting:By devnet's apparent beliefs, there isn't much of a community.

Dino, I think you are putting too much into it. Devnet wasn't talking about individuals working for commercial companies, he was strictly talking about the companies as entities.

Commercial companies invest their money to make money. That is their primary object when they participate and support FOSS. The individuals you listed are contributing their time and talent because they believe in the mission. It is not the same and there is a big difference to be considered.

>he was strictly talking about the companies as entities.

I'm sorry., but the distinction is meaningless in this context. Companies do what the individuals who comprise them do. Companies can do things individuals can't -- like muster resources to pay Linus, Alan, Jeremy, etc.

Devnet is all wet on this one.

devnet, I think you're falling into the trap of seeing this giant division between "money" and "more noble motivations." That's a false distinction. Why would any rational person base their actions solely on altruism? That's nuts. People should not do anything unless they get some kind of reward out of it. There are many rewards beyond paychecks, and for the large majority of people, money is not a big motivator. They'll work at jobs to earn money because they have to, but they'll invest their serious time and talent in activities that do not have paychecks, but are actually more rewarding than getting money. But it sounds like you would dismiss the value of their contributions if they do dare to get paid to do what they enjoy.

You speak of commercial Linux vendors as thought they were demons or something, instead of real people, with real feelings, who are worthy of goodwill. Building bridges, rather than putting up walls around exclusive little cliques, is the true spirit of FOSS. Branding entire classes of people as icky corporate droids and saying they are not truly part of the FOSS community is bigotry, don't you think? It's a copout to say "teh evil corporation as an impersonal entity that is OK for us to scorn or hate or exclude." Those are people in there, not abstractions. Maybe I'm not understanding you, because honestly I'm having a hard time following your reasoning, but that's what it sounds like.