-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 10:34, Kevin Anderson wrote:
> They don't have an install for Gentoo, and frankly, I can't even fake it,
> since they require different versions of Glibc, GCC, etc (Boy...lots of
> acronyms ending in c) than what this machine is set up with.
this is exactly why the LSB is so amazingly critical. companies can target the
LSB and then it can be run and supported on any LSB-compliant (e.g.
certified) distribution.
Mandrake, SuSe, Connectiva and Red Hat didn't get LSB certification just
because it was cool: they all understand that it's the key to getting
software support in the future. United Linux also follows the LSB.
start planting the seeds of LSB in the ears of those you buy Linux software
from.
> Debian probably has a bigger install base, but still, Red Hat is the target.
debian a bigger install base? that probably changed many, many years ago
> Here's my choices for email. Run a RH server, and install Samsung Contact,
> or run a legacy Windows server and run another legacy product, Exchange.
yes, Red Hat Linux is better than MS Windows ;-)
> NDS, Domino, etc. It doesn't matter. Big closed source apps will require
> a particular distro.
not now that the LSB is finally shaping up. the last big thing missing is a
C++ ABI, but that shouldn't be hard since that is already a (recent) standard
being followed by GCC, Intel and others.
> In a while, once everything is open source, then it won't be a problem
i don't know if we'll ever quite reach that point...
> distro. Further, RH is splashed in front of the same audience as MS. PHBs
> sign the paychecks, so THEY need to buy into the idea of using a given type
> of software.
which is why we need to sell them on Linux, not Red Hat. and yes, we do have
quite a bit of sway in this matter as experts and decision makers.
> It's hell to try to get approval to buy pizza for the Tridge,
> similarly, I won't even bother asking to buy a thong to support KDE. If
heh.. of course not. the thongs are for individuals, not companies. =) but you
are quite right...
> I'm not too sure what you do for money,
rob banks and write code. you? ;-)
> but KDE won't be paying your bills, I suspect.
not directly, but at least in part. i've got some consulting work with a
company looking to deploy KDE across their workstations (>100) and they've
brought me in for expertise. with time, i hope to see more and more of that
sort of gig spring up.
> And that's a shame. I like that Open Source is free. I like having the
> option to not pay for it. But when I install it for a company, and they
> know that they'll make several million (or billion) dollars because of it
> they have no problem contributing. But how do they do it so that it can
> pass an audit?
several ways:
o buy from companies that hire OSS developers
o contract a company that employs OSS devels for custom work/support (working
in Germany for several KDE devels)
o contract an individual to provide support, expertise, on-demand bug fixing
and/or custom coding
o hire an employee whose mandate is to work on a specific body of OSS
software that the company relies on (including in-house support, obviously)
> I don't know how, but developers need to find a way to make
> something useful and sell it for a price that is legitimate. Sell a
of course, i have to ask if we really "need to". much of the Free software has
been developed for non-monetary reasons, and many Free software devels have
found jobs doing so full time. i'd love to see more OSS devels be able to do
nothing but develop Free software *ahem* *ahem* but it isn't like the whole
thing will fail if we don't.
> Red Hat has done that. I can buy a copy of software from them. They get
> my cash, and they grow.
so 1993. ;-) but seriously, the distros haven't made a profit by trading $ for
cardboard boxes of CDs and manuals. they are making money (for those that
are) by selling services. like many (most?) other software companies these
days.
> BIND, or something like that. Like 'em or hate 'em, RH does contribute
> back to the OSS community even if it's just by paying a salary for someone
> writing code.
and why can't a regular company do just that? perhaps not a full body, but
sponser X hours/mo of development on a certain project. business will first
need to start seeing how the new supply chain in software works, though:
people develop software, you get it. so if you pay a project developer $X,
you are ensuring the longevity of your software. it's kind of like the old
days, just without the licensing details and without all the middle-man
companies.
> Maybe I don't "get" OSS. But frankly, if I want to pay you for something,
> even if you're not asking, I'd like to know how, and I'd like to be able
> to. But I need to have something that I'm buying.
a future for your software?
consulting, expertise and/or custom development?
support (including source-level bug fixes)?
> answer 2 kde Thongs, and pizza for Canberra's User Group. Actually, Samba
> is a great example. They finally said listen, rather than Pizza, we
> actually do need some cash to host our site, and send people to
> conferences.
hrm..... ok...
"I need some cash so I can work on KDE full, or at least part, time. Er. I
need some cash so I can work on KDE full, or at least part, time and actually
get paid for doing so ;-) In return, you'll get better desktop software that
addresses the issues you need/want addressed."
*drums fingers, waiting*
all kidding aside though, we're seeing more and more kernel level and server
related developers being hired full/part time to work on OSS because there is
now a market around those things. there isn't a sustainable market for all
aspects of OSS. sometimes this is because it hasn't happened yet (desktop)
and sometimes this is because the needs are very niche and there probably
never will be a sustainable market for it (closed or open).
i do think that one large paradigm shift that still needs to occur is the
concept of local companies paying local developers to work on the Free
software they have come to rely on. i'm not talking about consulting, but
about actual software development. something like a local open source
development lab where companies provide a budget and target specific Free
software projects. those budgets would be combined and managed by a single
(cooperative?) non-profit entity to fund local developers involved in the
targetted projects.
> finance them. That way, the need for closed source software, running on
> Red Hat only will dimish, because OSS replacements can be written and
> thereby the need to have a given distro is gone.
this is a very good point and one that i hope sees somes fruitition.
- --
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"
- Albert Einstein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE92oJv1rcusafx20MRApDwAJ9siVBK5emySHZTztSkHXjNaHTBFwCfWBhJ
Yugy4k2r6thD2slI1azUlxw=
=1zPy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
