No pretty pictures in this one. A few blocks down I did a blurb called “Linux Reaches an Understanding” and today I received a reply from a reader. Thought the objections and my answer might be interesting. (Hey, what do I know.) Anyway, the answer is up top, the reader’s note below.
—————————————————————————-
I didn’t expect anyone who’s a Linux fan to agree with me. If they did, they’d have to admit that this Utopian concept they’ve developed about Open Source might not standup to close scrutiny. On that note, however, the first comment you forwarded makes no sense. Technically, Linus can’t own Linux if it’s Open Source. The agreement among that Linux consortium I described was to keep it from further forking –which it had already started to do (if not fracturing)– and bring it back to a selected baseline
As for the second comment, Linus took a job. Why? To make some money. Why? Because there was no money to be made from Linux. The end result of that (and it’s only going back a year and a half ago or so) was an overall uproar from the Linux community that Linus was slacking, taking too much time validating the kernels, and hurting the OS. Money moves the world.
Now I’m sorry to bring the harsh, cruel, light of day into the room, but trace back to when Linux actually started to make some headway against Windows. When was that? When IBM started pumping money into the development. Before that, Linux had chiefly dinged Unix and Netware installations and not really in any big way. IBM, however, is a business, a BIG BUSINESS. Right now it’s making money on its servers wrapped in Linux but, if you look back at IBM historically, that’s not where it will stay happy. Historically, IBM has positioned itself as the major consumer of a product and, thereafter, threatened (asked) the owner to either sell the business or it would stop consuming. That tactic failed with Intel and Microsoft because each had sufficient resources to weather the threat. To the point of Linux, IBM has more money than God. More money than Gates too. It can stop it’s Linux commitment at any time, write off the R&D expenses, and walk away without blinking. If you think there would still be a Linux after that, you’re mistaken.
The problem is that most of the Linux folk don’t have the experience that goes back 30-something years to be able to identify IBM’s ‘business plan.’ As well, they’re so happy that someone of prestige has joined “the group” that they’re in denial. I have no problem with that. Hopefully they won’t either.
———————————————————————————————
Bill,
Regarding your post titled “Linux Reaches An Understanding…”, you said the following:
“Well, it’s about time. What’s taken these guys so long to realize they need to work together? Beware the prediction, however: Short of IBM, few of this consortium can spare the money to do open ended funding for something that is theoretically free. Linux as Open Source will pass away in the not too distant future.”
I mentioned your remarks in the alt.comp.freeware newsgroup and got the following reactions:
“Unless Linus revokes his ownership of the copyright, it ain’t happening. The major distros do NOT control Linux. If they mess with it, it’ll fork and while they may not be wrecked, it will hurt their business as most of the developers will go with the forked version rather than give up open source. Open source is just that, John, nobody controls it.”
“You might point him to the example of XOrg. Once XFree86 adopted a license which was not GPL-compatible, they forked; XOrg was based on the last XF86 release which had a ‘good’ license. I couple of months ago, I switched from XF86 to xorg, and the transition was seamless. The major distros don’t control development of the Linux kernel, of the GNU OS components, or of the X server. I reckon they fund things like this standards initiative (and the XOrg Foundation) in hopes of having some influence over direction, but I don’t think they hope or want to make these things proprietary. By and large, ISTM that the involvement of IBM et al. in the GNU/Linux community has been a good thing.”
All three of us disagree with you on this one.
Comment