See also: last week's Back page page.

Linux links of the week

For a site with similar goals, and with the meanest-looking penguin around, have a look at KMFMS. You can get a cool T-shirt while you're at it.

A much more positive take on things can be found at the Why Linux? site. Here you'll find a nicely-arranged "collection of Linux propaganda."

Letters to the editor

Subject: Development, Ethical Trading, and Free Software
To: editor@lwn.net
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:04:17 +1100 (EST)
From: "Danny Yee" <danny@staff.cs.usyd.edu.au>

Hi!

I've written a piece on "Development, Ethical Trading, and Free 
Software".
	http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/freedom/ip/aidfs.html

This is aimed at getting the development organisation I work for as a
volunteer (Community Aid Abroad, a member of Oxfam International) to
move towards free software, but should be of more general interest.
Any publicity for it would be appreciated.  I'm especially keen to get
feedback from free software users and advocates in the "Third World"
(where I'm hoping LWN has a decent reach).

Danny.

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:08:29 -0500
From: "Steven A. DuChene" <sad@ale.org>
To: editor@lwn.net
Subject: IDG/LinuxWorld Expo alienates OSS speakers?

The following quote comes from Alan Cox's diary page at
http://www.linux.org.uk/diary/  (it's in the entry for Dec. 11th.
<quote>
  I also had some non fun mail from the LinuxWorld people (ie IDG) when
I asked them to clarify arrangements for speakers expenses. Answer "we
wont be paying any". Thats one less speaker. I know three other speakers
who will also probably be dropping out and no doubt more will follow
when they discover this.<P>

  Now in my case sure I can probably extract the money from someone but
there is a principle at stake. Many Linux hackers are in it for fun and
don't get paid for it. A conference whose financial greed extends to
excluding all the non commercial Linux hackers is wrong.  It may be how
those dreadful non technical all gloss networking/windows shows run but
its not how a technical conference should be run. It's not how other
Linux events are run and its not how Usenix is run.

  I may be a member of the small club of Linux people who can get
funding to attend and speak at such an event but I want no part in it.
</quote>

I am one of the organizers of the Atlanta Linux Showcase since it's
begining over three years ago. I think things like this are an important
distinction between a Linux trade show whose sole purpose seems to be to
take advantage of the Linux community in order to generate trade show
revenue and ALS, which is as close as we can get to an Open Source type
of Linux trade show. ALS is put on by a not-for-profit corperation made
up of voluteers from the Altanta Linux Enthusiasts user group and we
have always covered travel expenses for people who were willing to take
time out of their busy schedules to come and speak at ALS.

I feel it is important for the Linux community to be made aware of
possible undesirable effects when a commercial for-profit group intends
to take part in the activities of the Linux community soley as a means
of generating revenue rather than contributing back to the Open Source
community. ALS is put on by voluteers because we feel it is important to
offer something back to Linux and the people associated with it.
-- 
Steven A. DuChene   Linux Fan!  http://www.mindspring.com/~sduchene

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog it's
too dark to read.
                -- Groucho Marx

From: Craig Goodrich <craig@ljl.com>
To: bill@laberis.com
Subject: Tens of thousands ....
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:12:40 -0600

Bill Laberis indulges in punditry:
> Microsoft is what it is because there are tens of thousands of
> independent developers worldwide working on the Microsoft
> platform. That isn't Linux, not today, not in 12 months, and
> probably not ever. 

Well, Bill, I won't argue the "independent developers" number --
but I have to point out that the number of independent developers
working on Linux has grown more than exponentially over the 
last few years and shows no sign of slowing down. 

Could it possibly be that you have this exactly backwards?  That
the tens of thousands of independent developers are working
on MS platforms (and, by the way, talking about "the Microsoft
platform" as though there were only one is -- right now, at least --
a mistake; differences between NT and Win9x will still bite the
unwary programmer at every turn) simply because of the size
of the installed base?  And if that's true -- which seems much
more likely -- then your punditry reduces to the near-tautological
"Microsoft is what it is because of its installed base."

In this industry, though, we have a near-complete turnover of
the installed base -- on the desktop, at least -- two or three
times a decade.  If we didn't, Intel and Microsoft would suddenly
stop raking in the upgrade loot.  But this implies in turn that 
"market penetration" at any given moment is a mile wide but
an inch deep, and in this dynamic market a couple of years 
can produce remarkable shifts in direction and corporations'
relative positions -- look at what happened to IBM as a PC
supplier in 1986--88:  One bad mistake and they went from
dominance to also-ran status almost overnight.

The last-year's predictions you quote were obvious softballs
(for example, I confidently predict that the link between IT and
the business will remain unforged in 2025 -- as will the link
between engineering and finance).  I'll go out on a limb, though:
Linux' share of the LAN server market will triple between 
December 1998 and December 1999, and its share of the enterprise
desktop will quadruple.

You may well say that even if this happens, Linux will still have
only a small fraction of the Microsoft market share.  True; and
if your definition of "niche" is based purely on a static picture
of the situation at any given moment, then your "niche" prediction
is very nearly contentless, being equivalent to "I unhesitatingly
predict that Linux will have less than 50% of the operating
system market in 1999."  I can't argue with that.  After all, 
what can a bunch of small ratlike furry warm-blooded creatures
do to take over the planet from these impressively huge
reptiles?

Best wishes for the holidays,

Craig Goodrich
Rural Village Systems
somewhere in the woods near Huntsville, Alabama

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:07:39 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jason Y. Sproul" <jsproul@picasso.cslab.wesleyan.edu>
To: editor@lwn.net
Subject: Pyrrhic victories

Here's my response to Bill Laberis' column. His response was "Points well
made and well taken. Thanks."

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:44:39 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jason Y. Sproul" <jsproul@picasso.cslab.wesleyan.edu>
To: Bill Laberis <bill@laberis.com>
Subject: Pyrrhic victories

In your December 14 column for ComputerWorld, you write:

"Worst case scenario: The government will prove that Gates and Co. are
guilty as charged of competing with ferocity, using the exact same
tactics employed by their detractors, only with better
results. ... Realizing it can't seek antitrust liens against an entire
computer industry, which in fairness it would have to do, the
government will lose its case."

If the government establishes these claims, Microsoft will be found in
violation of antitrust law and subject to judicial remedy. The Sherman
Act (and FTC Section 7, etc.) prohibits holders of any monopoly,
whether illegally attained or arising naturally, from engaging in
behaviours which are legal for non-monopolists. The "protect and
extend" rule prohibits these on the grounds that they pervert what
might well be a natural monopoly arising from economic efficiencies
into an unnatural monopoly grounded in force and coercion.

What Microsoft have failed to realise is that the same "scrappy"
behaviours which served them well in their ascendancy from the shadow
of IBM become much less tolerable when backed with the might of
monopoly power. It's rather like the village weakling who, upon
winning a few fights with the village bully, becomes the next village
bully himself.

I firmly believe that operating systems, as a fundamental component of
a commoditised mass-market computing industry, have a natural monopoly
tendency. These are the grounds on which systems such as Linux and the
various flavours of BSD UNIX gain credibility - not only are they
technically excellent solutions to real problems, but they leverage
the monopoly tendency of the market to drive further
improvements. Many of the developers working on Linux, whether
professionally or as hobbyists, that I have spoken to recognise this
fact. Whether Linux or another open source competitor to be, large
companies will inevitably realise the dangers of single-sourcing and
closed software to their bottom line.

I hope you find these comments useful and informative,

Sincerely,

Jason Y. Sproul
Software Designer - ICE, Inc.

........................................................................
Jason Y. Sproul        \\ //       http://www.con.wesleyan.edu/~jsproul/
jsproul@wesleyan.edu    \\/     jsproul@iced.com    http://www.iced.com/
Anarchy works-or doesn't-whether you call it anarchy or the rule of law.