Ian C. Blenke 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.
>
That is my point. Do not say, "You have to use RedHat, because there is
no local support for anything else." Instead, technology decision
makers should say, "Linux is Linux, and it doesn't really matter which
distro you use for a project. There is a smidge of difference; it is a
matter of taste." If we choose to *rely* on RedHat-proprietary, non-GPL
extensions, then we are granting RedHat monopoly power over us. We
should make a determined effort to avoid vendor lock-in!
BTW, I am not really picking on RedHat. I am scolding the member who
said that we had to use RedHat because it was the only viable choice in
this country. It would be unwise to lock yourself in to any vendor's
proprietary products.
>
> 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.
You're right that granting RedHat a monopoly position in the marketplace
won't jeopardize the availability or quality of the Linux kernel. It
could, however, destroy the corporate adoption of Linux. If corporate
customers get it in their heads that the only viable Linux distro is
RedHat, then what happens to them when RedHat changes their licensing to
$200 per seat? Mass delusion could stifle price and feature
competition, even when the most important parts of the product are
[F/f]ree.
We can combat this menace (pause for melodramatic violin riff), by
keeping the concept of distro, in its place. I prefer SuSE, it has a
light cinnamon flavor. Will I choose to starve to death in front of a
plate of Debian? No.
>
>>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.
But let them be semi-skilled Linux engineers, not semi-skilled RedHat
engineers.
--ronan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 12:48:14 EDT