On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 10:52:14AM +1100, DaZZa uttered:
> > An interesting take on how the big boys see Linux developement.
> >
> > http://www.itnews.com.au/story.cfm?id=5450
>
> Interesting:
> "Some Linux solution providers view the constantly evolving process
> of the posting of Linux libraries, patches, and updates to the
> Internet as inefficient and cumbersome, Davison said."
>
> Gee, it's worked until now and we have a good OS. What's the problem?
The article is rubbish in this sense. Of all open source projects, Linux
is closest to the traditional business model, ie, Linus (in some sense)
has autocratic authority like a traditional CEO. Further, Linus has an
outstanding track record that, you would have to imagine, would make him
very attractive as a higher level manager to run a large OS kernel like
project within any of the companies mentioned. He'd run it with a far
more autocratic power, the ability not just to decide what gets
included, but also what gets worked on. So if the criticism is of one
person governing the kernel they should rush to level the same Criticism
at Gates and Microsoft, and many other examples in private business. I
think what they are really scared of is that Linus main motivation
outside such structures is not money.
The inefficiency of the "constantly evolving process" is just
laughable. Linux is getting updated fast, so what. How could it not be,
with hardware changing so fast. People can get support for devices as it
is done, without waiting for a major release, as they do with
windows. This point sounds more like praise of linux than criticism of
it. As for whether an analyst judges it to be efficient, they should
first propose another way to integrate the effort of so many.
> I think if the commercial world were to take Linux and make their own
> "commercially driven" kernel, that'd be cool. Because of the GPL the
> mainstream kernel could always plunder their good ideas.
Exactly. IBM, Compaq, "pouring billions of dollars" into the kernel are
free to spend that money on anything they like, including changes to the
kernel. If they improve the kernel, there's little to suggest that the
changes won't get included. If the changes are aimed at some proprietary
advantage, then they probably wont.
The "they don't see a Microsoft" saying they'll be here forever is
laughable. MS could be broken up in the near future. And the stuff about
how companies will stop putting money into linux if they don't make
money back is blindingly obvious. Should linux then be put in the hands
of these companies, who may well drop it with no qualms? No, that's a
strong argument for continuing with the current model, that can
incorporate corporate interest and money, but can also do perfectly well
without it.
I could go on. The whole article is a mish-mash of contradictions and
misunderstandings. It shows how little most of the mainstream press
really understand the principles behind the Free software movement, or
even the open source movement.
cheers,
Martin
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
