What I meant by standard was from one rev to the next, only with RH. I'm
with you on the otherwise lack of standard...Obviously Debian is going
to be different from SuSe from RH from Slackware. My main idea (not a
complaint, really, since I don't use RH :-) is that RH doesn't have a
smooth upgrade path: everything has to be upgraded because if you want
to use an .rpm for one upgraded package, you have to upgrade everything
else, because even the .rpm version isn't compatible. It's a catch-22
situation, or chicken-and-egg problem.
Having someone to blame/sue isn't a bad thing, because if you're willing
to let me pay to do that -- there's money to be made! I just worry that
RH will end up "victimizing" people (or corporations?) with similar
tactics to M$, who demands exclusivity. Okay, maybe you can't victimize
a corporation, since they're big kids, too, but the idea remains that
it's still some loss of freedom. Maybe this is just part of the trade.
You get power from a specialist, but the promised freedom has to be
compromised in order to allow RH to be responsible for breakdowns or
other problems with the software they're selling.
So maybe this is just me coming to terms with what can really be done
with Freedom...everyone else will just be playing catch-up, if they want
to, that is.
Russell
____________________________________________________
Without sharing, there would be no Internet
Without the Internet, there would be no sharing
Share your code, share your source
-- Let's build something as great as the Internet!
----------
>From: "Todd" <trunnels@tampabay.rr.com>
>To: <slug@nks.net>
>Subject: Re: [SLUG] Vendor Specifics
>Date: Sun, May 27, 2001, 10:48
>
> First off let me say there is no "standard" for linux...There is a tiny
> group of people pushing for standards to define "compatible" linux
> distros....Will it ever happen? Probably not. Why? Because basically right
> now there are basically 4 standards which all other distros are based on or
> around: Debian and Red Hat being the biggest, and then Slackware and SuSe
> basically doing thier own thing for their own distro. Why is stuff built
> specifically for red hat? Well its the old thing that people want someone
> to sue when something goes wrong. That makes Red Hat which is one of the
> most visible and biggest linux companies, the most popular for enterprise
> level applications. Then you add in the fact that you have mandrake- one of
> the easiest distros for newbies- which was originally based ON red hat and
> now is compatible with red hat. Will the standards that the tiny group is
> pushing for ever make it? Nope....Why not? Because each of the 4 competing
> groups believe that they ARE the standard and everyone sould do as they do.
> That kind of thinking sound familiar, maybe similiar to M$? Well thats
> human nature folks....everyone wants to be the best.
>
>
> Just my two cents,
> Todd
>
>> It's ironic that we can still have vendor specific software, even though
>> it's all open source. I think RedHat is on to something here. In other
>> words, "So what if it's open source?" Too many people don't know enough
>> about code to be able to make changes to make it compatible, anyway.
>> Then there's the versions (a la RedHat) that aren't 'standard,' which
>> once again creates a problem for the average user/admin. They have to
>> keep up with what RedHat is doing. And then they have to buy from
>> RedHat. Kinda like some other company we know. The only difference here
>> is that once RedHat makes a release, you are only bound to buy one copy
>> then you can sell it for less. But what if you're a big company that has
>> a contract with RH? Are you still forced to "upgrade?" What would the
>> contract be for, anyway? Service and support? Could you just buy a
>> support contract from RH, but not the software? Would they support you
>> if you bought a "non-official" version of the same thing RH was selling?
>> (In other words, once RH makes their release official, someone buys a
>> copy, then, because of the GPL, sells it to you for less, or free, but
>> it didn't come directly from RH's CD factory) Interestingly, the GPL
>> does support this sort of behavior, IMHO. It is very capitalistic. OTOH,
>> this sort of behaviour flies in the face of the GPL, because the GPL was
>> supposed to take some of the power away from the "Mages" (who kept code,
>> and therefor power, a secret) and put it in the hands of everybody.
>>
>> Russell
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:13:06 EDT