On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Bob Ham wrote: >On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 00:49 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Tue, 23.06.09 00:36, Fons Adriaensen ([email protected]) wrote: >> > Since you claim that all the *Kit stuff is optional, >> >> (as a side note, I didn't claim that) >> >> > and you will still allow us to run our systems as we >> > see fit, and since you wear a Red Hat, please tell >> > me how to remove >> >> Just downgrade to FC5 or so. > >This response shows a real problem. The fact that you cannot disable >these kinds of services without forking shows there's a design problem. >The fact that these badly-designed services have become so widespread >shows a deeper problem. > >Recently, money seems to have become quite influential in the free >software community, typified by Red Hat and its efforts to drive free >software development in a direction that suits enterprise customers. >The quoted response shows an unwillingness for these parties to >*cooperate* with communities and instead I see a desire to *dictate* to >communities. > >Yes, I can fork Fedora and create a new distribution but that takes a >great deal of time and effort. If Red Hat were interested in >cooperating instead of dictating, that effort would not be needed; Red >Hat would take on the responsibility of ensuring that their systems are >flexible enough not to need a fork. Practically, that means designing >software systems in such a way as they can be easily disabled. > > >Being fuelled by money, this new influence in free software is >susceptible to the control of any parties willing to spend enough. That >opens the possibility of a fifth column within the free software >community. I've previously argued that in future, it may be necessary >to protect the interests of free software by forking away from this >influence if it starts behaving as a fifth column. > >The above response shows that this influence is already having a >detrimental affect on the quality of free software. I wonder if it >won't be necessary to fork away from this influence, purely because of >the sub-standard nature of the solutions it produces. > >RealtimeKit demonstrates this sub-standard nature in that it's a >workaround. It provides an API to be used if a system call fails. This >is not a problem in itself but there seems to be no desire to spend the >time and effort needed to deal with the issue of why the system call is >failing. Instead, there seems to be only a narrow-minded drive to >produce the next-best *Kit, which will provide an all-new service to >enable our enterprise customers! > >It's great that all these new Kits are putting free software in the >hands of average users. What isn't great is that they seem to be >hastily developed and without concern for the wider free software >community. There will be consequences of this lack of concern. > >Bob
+10,000 PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) The NRA is offering FREE Associate memberships to anyone who wants them. <https://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/accept-membership.asp> "In short, _N is Richardian if, and only if, _N is not Richardian." _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
