On 10/21/2013 03:33 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > Am 20.10.2013 13:18, schrieb Daniel Campbell: >> On 10/20/2013 06:02 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >>> Am 20.10.2013 12:52, schrieb Daniel Campbell: >>>> On 10/20/2013 04:24 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >>>>> Am 20.10.2013 08:34, schrieb Daniel Campbell: >>>>>> hm, Redhat is one of the companies investing the most money into linux >>>>>> kernel, userland, graphics... if you 'don't trust them' you are pretty >>>>>> much 20 years too late. >>>>>> Investing money does not make them any more qualified or deserving of >>>>>> making decisions. Red Hat is not the sole user of Linux. They should >>>>>> consider themselves lucky that they are even able to profit from >>>>>> something that's free. >>>>>> >>>>>> You're right, though. They've been around for a while, and I've never >>>>>> trusted them or any other corporate interest in *nix. There's always a >>>>>> catch when dealing with a business. >>>>>> >>>>> 'have been around for a while' - replace that with 'are financing more >>>>> core developers than anybody else'. >>>>> >>>> That's less reason to trust, not more. That's like citing the popularity >>>> of something as proof of its quality, when oftentimes it's the exact >>>> opposite that's true. >>>> >>>> So they spend a lot of money hiring developers. The more important >>>> question is what is their agenda? What do they tell those developers to >>>> *make*? You don't hire people without a business plan in mind. >>>> >>>> >>> without Redhat, there would be no linux. gnu software would be massively >>> lacking and X would be without drivers. >>> >>> So calm down. >>> >> Linux was created and released in 1991, built with GNU tools. Red Hat >> didn't come along until 1993. Linux and GNU would both still be here; >> their quality without Red Hat involvement is speculative at best. > > no, it is not. Several of the most important Kernel devs are or were > Redhat developers. > > So you just showed that you have no clue at all. You should stop right > there. I do "have a clue", but there is logically no way to say, for sure, that Linux and GNU would be worse off without Red Hat's existence. Why? Because we only know what happened _with_ their existence. The assertion can't be validated or even tested without somehow going back in time and preventing Red Hat from forming. It's an empty assertion.
> >> I maintain that motives matter more than money and that they (motives) >> should continually be audited, especially when receiving contributions >> from a company. They may already be; I don't know. >> >> Re: drivers, do you expect me to believe Red Hat is responsible for >> every X11 driver out there? > no, but they paid a lot of developers working on several drivers. > > For example David Airlie is employed by Redhat. > > Look him up. > The "no" is all I need to see. You said "X would be without drivers". So unless Red Hat employees wrote every line of the X driver code (unlikely) or produced every single X driver available (proven false), the assertion is false. > >> How many of this list?[1] What of radeon and > > radeon? David Airlie again. > >> nouveau? nvidia's own driver? xf86-input-wacom (and linuxwacom)[2]? I'm >> sure Red Hat has contributed plenty to X11, but your statement is >> flat-out false. > > nope. Your statements lack any connection to reality. > > since you like links, think about this one for a while: > > https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/560928-counting-contributions-who-wrote-linux-32 > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2012/04/linux-foundation-releases-annual-linux-development-report > > My statements reflect the truth that Red Hat contributed to, but did not single-handedly *build*, the GNU/Linux operating system. Without their existence, there's no proof that the same drivers (X11 or otherwise) wouldn't be written by some other people. Like I said, speculative at best. On both sides. Your links truthfully reflect that Red Hat contributes the most changes of any company. A majority of something does not magically make it perfect or good or whatever other mythical ideal one can conjure. The links prove that Red Hat guides a lot of the changes. Taking a look at the pdf[1] from 2012, Red Hat's contribution percentage, compared to other companies, is rather high (11.9%, p.10). Almost double the next highest contributor (Novell, at 6.4%). Why would a company invest that much effort into something open and free if there was no agenda, no business plan, no grander scheme or vision? I'm sure some of their work is good. Nothing's all bad or all good. But a company should not be trusted simply because they throw money at something or have the most people working on something compared to other companies. That's reason to be *suspicious*. A business does not throw money at something unless they plan on capitalizing on it in some way. [1]: http://go.linuxfoundation.org/who-writes-linux-2012
