Raj Mathur wrote: > >>>>>>>"Sandip" == Sandip Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Sandip> Regardless of your views of Atul ;), you should read this. > Sandip> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/linux-bangalore-2005/message/1823 > > Sandip> I can't but help agreeing to the following excerpt from > Sandip> the above. > > Sandip> """ I find this particularly urgent now, because I am > Sandip> beginning to see the LUGs being sidelined by the Powers > Sandip> That Be. In fact, someone from a well-known vendor > Sandip> recently told me that the LUGs are irrelevent, and that > Sandip> they only work with organisations that actually do > Sandip> something worthwhile (according to the vendor). > > Sandip> These very same vendors also tend to raise the profile of > Sandip> *some* groups (that they are involved with) with people > Sandip> like the Government, completely cutting the LUGs out of > Sandip> the picture. > > Sandip> This, according to me, is killing the goose that lays > Sandip> golden eggs, or shooting yourself in the foot. It was the > Sandip> LUGs that did the hard ground work, it is the LUGs that > Sandip> support people who have questions, it is the LUGs who come > Sandip> up with initiatives. When the LUGs become irrelevant, the > Sandip> passion and the backbone goes out of the picture, and the > Sandip> efforts die down, making it a vendors' game. > > The medium-term history of Linux has been a great divide between > commercial interests and the ``community''. Most, if not all, Linux > vendors are in it purely for the money, they couldn't give a damn > about LUGs, community, or even Linux as long as their revenues keep > flowing. > > I don't mean to single out any one company, but for the sake of > example let's consider IBM. IBM is perceived as a ``Linux-friendly'' > vendor, in that they promote Linux, release some amount of their code > as FLOSS, support Linux on their machines, indemnify FLOSS usage of a > few of their software patents, etc. Is IBM really friendly to the > Linux community? > > Look at the flip side of things: > > - IBM still brands ``IBM recommends Windows XP'' on all their laptop > ads in the print media. > > - IBM refuses to give a blanket indemnification on FLOSS usage of its > software patents. > > - IBM continues to support and fight for software patents in Europe. > > - IBM continues to keep their selling products (e.g. Webshpere, DB2) > proprietary. > > - IBM prefers the use of these same proprietary products running on > Linux over FLOSS alternatives in projects. > > Not that IBM is alone in doing this -- most ``Linux-friendly'' vendors > have done even less for FLOSS than IBM has. The only conclusion I can > come to is that vendors choose to give lip service to Linux as a means > of fighting the MS monopoly. Vendors push Linux as a platform for > their proprietary products in markets where the words ``FLOSS'' and/or > ``Open Source'' have weight, e.g. Government projects that mandate or > give preference to Open Source solutions. > > If there were an alternative to Linux that these vendors could use as > their tactical weapon in their war against MS, they would drop Linux > like a shot and switch to that other technology. > > The question of relevance of LUGs just does not arise in this > scenario. LUGs are what made Linux what it is today, and making the > support of vested commercial interests a prerequisite for the success > of Linux is a mistake. Vendors will come and go, but do they really > define whether Linux and FLOSS succeed or not? No -- FLOSS did and > will continue to thrive without vendor support. > > Vendors need Linux more than Linux needs the vendors. > > Regards, >
I agree with Mr. Raj. Today many topnotch vendors(IBM,DELL,HP,SUN etc) supporting linux as a weapon to fight agianst MS monoply. But they are not looking sincere to support open source philosophy. They treat linux as big market platform to sell their proprietary software and hardware. > If there were an alternative to Linux that these vendors could use as > their tactical weapon in their war against MS, they would drop Linux > like a shot and switch to that other technology. agree I like this line... :-) > > Vendors need Linux more than Linux needs the vendors. > Ritesh _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [email protected] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
