On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 09:02, Ronan Heffernan wrote:
> I'll offer local support for SuSE! Seriously, anyone who can't support SuSE,
> can't support Linux. If you are that addicted to RedHat's custom
> tools, then you should not be allowed within 100 feet of any
> mission-critical system. This argument also highlights a weakness
> that could destroy Linux as a viable corporate platform. If people are
> focusing on any distro (even my beloved SuSE) to the point where the
> fact that a system is RedHat or SuSE or Debian is more important than
> the fact that it is Linux, then the wonderful robustness of the
> community turns into a fragmented fork-fest. Look at the UNIX
> fragmentation of the 70's and 80's; it can happen to Linux if we let
> it.
Linux is Linux. Unlike the various flavors of Unix, most every Linux
distribution "acts" like every other. The primary differences are only
in the packaging and init scripts (and the config files those init
scripts read).
Once you understand how to use and create tarballs, RPMs, and DEBs,
you've mastered the packages.
Spend a little time with shell scripting and peruse /etc/rc* for a
while, and you've mastered the init scripts and the config files they
use.
But the kernel is universal. All distributions use the same unified
Linux kernel (with minor distribution-dependant patches that never seem
to make it back into the mainstream kernel), but at least they ALL "act"
the same.
This does not hold true for Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, IRIX, or any of the
true legacy Unix flavors.
A Linux PC tech does not a Unix admin make...
... however, it's usually a great start toward that end.
> Tying your companies fortunes to RedHat is no safer than tying your
> companies fortunes to Microsoft. One of our strengths used to be,
> "It is Linux; it will survive the bankruptcy or animosity of any and
> all corporations."
As I believe it continues to be today. There are distributions that die
(remember Storm?), but the kernel and GPLed tools live on. This is the
primary reason why I like to preach OpenSource and GPL - you cannot kill
an opensource product. It lives on, it gets better, it fosters newer
generations of software and is ALWAYS there as a reference.
Linux is a great kernel with drivers for most everything and a well
engineered driver model for kernel hacks to build upon. There is always
the potential for a better "competing" GPLed kernel to come along. As
long as the drivers for the hardware are there (perhaps with a Linux
kernel driver compatibility layer), and the community embraces it, an
alternative can and should exist. IMHO, it is inevitable.
> The moment you start churning-out RHCSEs who are
> as enslaved to RedHat as MCSEs are to Microsoft, you are crippling the
> engineer, and his customers. If you declare that it is significant
> that these people dominate the marketplace, then you are crippling
> anyone who believes you. Everyone repeat the following mantra until
> you lapse into nirvana, "Linux is Linux. I am a Linux Guru, not a
> corporate puppet. Linux is Linux..."
Then there is the counter-argument: more Linux advocates and support
techs help grow that corporate market. Sure, the support quality goes
down without the wizards handy, but there are more semi-skilled people
to do grunt work.
> Finally, if 'buying American' is more important than choosing a distro
> that preserves your OpenSource rights, then choose Windows. Every
> red-blooded American knows that Linux is some commie plot from Finland
> :-)
Software should be free.
- Free as in libre. This is *entirely* American.
- Free as in beer. This has anti-capitalistic overtones, until business
models change to address the reality.
- Ian C. Blenke <icblenke@nks.net> <ian@blenke.com>
http://ian.blenke.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 12:47:49 EDT