Sections: Main page Linux in the news Security Kernel Distributions Development Commerce Announcements Back page All in one big page See also: last week's Back page page. |
Linux links of the weekLinuxArtist.org is a site with the goal of encouraging and supporting artists and graphic artists who want to learn about and use Linux. Since many artists are non-technical and may be intimidated by Linux, this site offers more assistance, links to related sites, and more, all tailored to artists. Section Editor: Jon Corbet |
April 29, 1999 |
|
Letters to the editorLetters to the editor should be sent to editor@lwn.net. Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them. | |
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:15:23 +0100 (GMT) From: dev@cegelecproj.co.uk Subject: Possible RedHat IPO To: lwn@lwn.net Amidst talk about a possible RedHat IPO, and hints on how to get a slice of the action, I hate to sound a note of caution, but ... It is almost inevitable that RedHat stock would almost immediately become seriously overvalued, as happened when Netscape floated. There will be high tech stock dealers out there who want to get a slice of this new market sector while it's still small, expecting massive growth over the next few years. This is looking at a free software based company in completely the wrong way. Those of the older ones of us will remember that a few months ago Bob Young's stated ambition was not for RedHat to grow to the size of Microsoft, rather for Microsoft to shrink to the size of RedHat. This, he asserted, was desirable so that the software business could never again be dominated by a single corporation, and he further said that it was a Very Good Thing for there to be multiple GNU/Linux distributions so that all the players had to stay honest. RedHat is not, and should never become, a high margin business. The high margins which drive Microsoft's revenues, and whose anticipation drove Netscape's stock to such high levels, are pure anathema to the principle of Free Software. The whole point of using GNU/linux is that you *don't* have to shell out further money when you add more machines to your network. This absence of a RedHat tax, and the absence of the possibility of a RedHat tax means that business growth for RedHat will come from elsewhere. RedHat will continue to grow by offering support, training, handholding and other labour and skills intensive services to its customers. RedHat Labs will probably also be contracted by hardware makers to ensure that Free Software runs on their hardware. While these are excellent business areas to be in they will generate normal and decent profit margins rather than excessive and indecent profit margins. Further, with the likes of HP and IBM competing in these some of these areas there won't be a particular opportunity for RedHat to charge much of a premium over small startup companies. #include <disclaimer> // The following is my personal opinion. I am not qualified to give // advice on stocks and shares. You are entirely responsible for your // own buying and selling decisions, etc ... I would steer well clear of early stock offerings in companies based in the free software business. It is likely that Men in Suits who don't understand Free Software will go on a mad buying frenzy wanting to get in at the ground floor of the latest new high technology sector. There are already Internet based stocks which, IMHO, are massively overvalued, and early offerings of Free Software based stocks are likely to go the same way. Dunstan Vavasour dvavasour@iee.org | ||
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:54:47 -0400 (EDT) To: flux@microsoft.com, kragen-tol@kragen.dnaco.net, editor@lwn.net, Subject: Re: Is Free Software Worth the Cost? From: kragen@pobox.com (Kragen Sitaker) (This is in response to your article at http://www.microsoft.com/mind/0599/flux/flux0599.htm.) You write: > While free distribution is a great marketing tool (think about all > those samples you get in the mail), what does it say about the product > itself? Frankly, it says that the product (or the effort that went into > making the product) has no value. Is that what you software engineers > out there want? I suppose that means your article has no value, because I got it for free. And books I borrow from the library. And movies my friends lend me. Right? Maybe if my friends want me to appreciate how valuable their movies are, they should start charging me for borrowing them. ;) > If, however, you gave away all software, how would you pay the > creators of that software? You destroy the subtle motives that only > cash can motives such as food on the table, a warm place to sleep, and > so forth. I'm sure this is news to the folks who work at Cygnus; they might be surprised to discover that their lucrative support contracts for the free software they write don't pay them anything, according to you. ;) > Ironically, these folks are sowing the seeds of their own > destruction. If they actually succeed in making software free, no one > will be willing to employ them to create a product with no value. Most software development is bespoke, and always has been. Bespoke software can be free (to make copies and modifications) without making its production more financially difficult. > Soon, students will stop studying software development in college > since there won't be a way to make a career out of it. All those young, > eager students will have to turn to something less respectable, like > studying law. The job market for programmers might shrink, but there's nothing wrong with that. But professional programmers won't have to spend all their time reinventing the wheel, only to have their work discarded in a year or two. (How many different word processors have been written? How many are in use today?) They'll have to spend their time creating things that are actually useful to society. I suspect there will be plenty of jobs to go around. Indeed, since the large body of free software greatly enhances every programmer's productivity, it is likely that projects that are currently economically infeasible will become feasible, greatly expanding the job market for programmers. The whole shrink-wrapped software swindle has been a great thing for a few programmers -- while it lasted. But it's not going to last much longer. > A product that is copylefted is copyrighted, but can be modified by > anyone as long as they don't charge for their contributions. The source > code for the new changes must be made available for others to see and > learn from. This is factually incorrect. You are certainly allowed to charge for your contributions; indeed, the GNAT project is supported by doing just that. You are just not allowed to prohibit other people from making and giving away copies of those contributions. The source code for the new changes need only be made available to those people you give the changes themselves to. If you don't make the changes available, you don't need to make the source code available either. > If intellectual property isn't property, then just what is property? As anyone who has taken an IP course in law school knows, intellectual property has not been property for centuries. The last time intellectual property was property in England was in the 1700s, when it was used to support publishers and censorship. > I'm not saying that Stallman is anticapitalist, I'm saying the whole > free software movement is. That's absurd. What about Cygnus, Digital, HP, Intel, Crynwr, WebTV, Red Hat, SuSe, Sun, Cisco, and IBM? They all give significant support to the free software movement -- indeed, many of them are supported entirely by free software. Are you saying they are anticapitalist? > Giving away software is a great marketing tool. It's hard to compete > if your competition is free. That's something that a number of > companies have discovered. Now it's Microsoft's turn with Windows NT > versus Linux. Microsoft has been losing to Linux with Windows NT for years. Now it's Microsoft's turn with Windows 98 versus Linux and KDE, and Office versus KOffice and friends. > I just want the folks who write that software to be and paid for > writing it. That is the proper model for the industry. So the next > time you think about using some free software, consider its cost to the > software industry. If the software industry can be outcompeted by students in their spare time, what good is it? Let it die. People will keep writing software for sure. I suspect that a new software industry will be created, though -- one that actually performs useful work and innovation instead of rehashing the same 1960s OS architecture and networked hypertext, 1970s user-interface work and word processor, and 1980s spreadsheet over and over again. -- <kragen@pobox.com> Kragen Sitaker <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/> TurboLinux is outselling NT in Japan's retail software market 10 to 1, so I hear. -- http://www.performancecomputing.com/opinions/unixriot/981218.shtml | ||
From: Brian Hurt <brianh@bit3.com> To: "'editor@lwn.net'" <editor@lwn.net> Subject: In defense of the benchmark people Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:04:09 -0500 The MindCraft survey is a wonderful argument as to _why_ Oracle and TPC set up the rules as they did. Even a legitimate, known benchmark, like TPC-D or SpecMark, can be skewed in favor of one or the other participant. Oracle want's to make sure that if it's DB is benchmarked, that you don't "pull a MindCraft". TPC wants to make sure that it's benchmarks are done fairly, allowing people to have some confidence in TPC numbers when they're seen. I don't speak for Bit 3. | ||
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:50:50 -0400 From: "Ambrose Li [EDP]" <acli@mingpaoxpress.com> To: editor@lwn.net Subject: smbfs idle timeout Hello, this weeks' news reported a "new" smbfs idle timeout problem that has "cropped up recently". This is not true. This idle timeout problem has existed since 2.0, but under 2.2, the kernel's behaviour w.r.t. idle timeouts has changed. Under 2.0, after the idle timeout has happened, the mounted share dies, and we can use smbumount to unmount the share, use smbmount to remount it, and all is A-OK. Most of the time, at least, anyway. Sometimes that doesn't work and we eventually hang the kernel, requiring a reboot. Under 2.2, after the idle timeout has happened, the mounted share dies, and smbumount generates an I/O error when one attempts to unmount. The umount fails, and we are stuck because we can't remount the thing. Even though the kernel didn't hang, we have to reboot the machine. The moral is, never use smbfs on a live, production server :) (I remember working on a problem two years ago involving the use of both smbfs and ncpfs, around the time when 2.0 comes out. Both smbfs and ncpfs were not very stable; they still aren't.) Regards, -- Ambrose C. Li / +1 416 321 0088 / Ming Pao Newspapers (Canada) Ltd. EDP department / All views expressed here are my own; they may or may not represent the views of my employer or my colleagues. | ||
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:24:05 -0700 From: Kirk Petersen <kirk@speakeasy.org> To: pr@rational.com Subject: booch's comments on free software/opensource X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i Hi, I just read an article (http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/990427/software/software1.html) with some comments by Grady Booch regarding free and opensource software. I was hoping that someone with as much knowledge about designing software as he has would be able to talk more effectively about free software. In the article, he is quoted as saying that Red Hat adds nothing to Linux and that they are essentially using "slave labor." This indicates that he doesn't know how much work Red Hat is paying for in the areas of desktop environments (both GNOME and KDE), installation, and high-end kernel development (David S. Miller, Alan Cox, Stephen Tweedie, Ingo Molnar - essentially all the big name kernel programmers outside Linus Torvalds - are all working for Red Hat). It also indicates that he doesn't understand that Red Hat charges nothing for the software they ship - they charge for the media (both CDs and books) and technical support. When I used Red Hat, I generally bought it from a place called CheapBytes, who charges $1.99 for the CD. This is the flexibility of the free software world - manuals, media, support, etc. are all separate and custom ordered. He also asks "Where are the tools?" If he means that Linux doesn't have a visual modelling software package, then the best people to fix that problem is Grady Booch and Rational Software. As far as I'm concerned (I currently do Java GUI and database programming, moving to a Linux programming job) Linux development tools are generally superior to Windows development tools. Finally, I have an issue with the statement that he has "yet to see any Fortune 1000 company bet a major part of their strategy on Linux." I'd just like to ask what should be considered major? Since I couldn't find Grady Booch's email address, I'm sending this to the PR department, hoping that it will reach him or that the PR department will realize that he doesn't help Rational Software by speaking incorrectly of essentially non-competitive products. -- Kirk Petersen www.speakeasy.org/~kirk/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Kirk Petersen www.speakeasy.org/~kirk/ | ||
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Bond <wmbond@yahoo.com> Subject: Cool Idea! To: lwn@lwn.net Given the recent flak surrounding linux.de's "Where Do You Want To Go Tommorrow" I request you post the following idea for use within the Linux community (royalty free of course): "No gates, no windows ... it open!" Bill Bond elusive@adisfwb.com | ||
|