On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Ed Cogburn wrote:
> > > The issue is not that the Linux kernel would still be available
> > > as open-source, the problem is what happens when 85-95% of app
> > > developers are writing their software only for RH. The 'open
> > > source' community would not be terribly affected, and would
> > > certainly continue support of Debian and others, but if RH can
> > > wrap up the commercial side of the Linux phenomenon, Debian will
> > > never go much farther than it is now.
> >
> > If the "'open source' community would not be terribly affected",
> > why should the growth ("go much farther") of Debian be affected?
>
> Maybe I should have said "Debian will not grow any more than, and
> not beyond, the open source community.
Ya, that is a possibility.
> For some, this may not be
> an issue, as the opensource community has developed all of the
> kind of software that they need. I strongly suspect Linux's
> current popularity is primarily coming from its capabilities in
> the server OS market. For the rest of us, we don't want to be
> dual-booting with Win 2010, a decade from now. We hope for enough
> popularity of Linux to produce commercial software that we can't
> get from the OSS community.
Hmmm, I think you mean proprietary,
since OSS and commercial are not mutually exclusive.
> Just as importantly, I want to be
> able to do the above with Debian, and not be forced to switch to
> RH just to get access to commercial software that only supports RH
> (or whoever dominates the Linux distro market a decade from now).
> Dual-booting with Win is bad, dual-booting with RH to run the
> commercial stuff not available to Debian will be just as bad.
So the scenario is that some proprietary, closed source, program is what
you want, and that it has been built with RH in mind. To be forced into
dual booting RH to run it would mean that the software relies on a
specific kernel version (poorly programmed or incompatibilities between
kernel versions, neither of which is related to the
commercial-proprietary / free-OSS issue), one that your Debian system
isn't running; anything else could be handled by having the correct
libraries on the system. The only stumbling block I can see is if RH
starts using proprietary libs, and the software you want depends on
them. Ok, there would be a delay until the OSS community comes up with
replacements. The only reason I can think of that would result in
"software that we can't get from the OSS community", would be patents
associated with libs only distributed with (lets keep picking on) RH.
So...
> > As long as RH remains OSS, the worst that can happen is that developers
> > have to translate everything from RH into Debian. The fact that RH is
> > commercial doesn't enter into the equation.
>
> Yes, as long as RH remains committed to working with and for the
> larger Linux community . . . . now read the "Heinz ketchup"
> article referred to earlier in this newsgroup. RH wants a
> dominant brand name; when they get it what will they do with it?
...you don't trust RH and assume that what you want would be patented.
> > Are you saying that Linux users will take a commercial product over a
> > free one, just because it is commercial?
>
> Some folks have chosen to use the commercial OSS sound drivers
> instead of the ones that come with the kernel source, although in
> general I'll agree with you that a majority of Linux users have a
> strong preference for opensource stuff. But, what do we do for
> software that has no opensource equivalent (yet)?
wait awhile
> How many
> questions do you remember from debian-user and elsewhere that want
> to know if there is an opensource word processor that can read and
> write MS Word files? There are several commercial versions.
The questions indicate that there is a demand, which should result in
more developer interest in providing support for MS Word documents
(i.e., a shorter while to wait).
> > There is the commercial world and the free world; the free world has
> > been growing in spite of the commercial world, adding one more
> > commercially supported OS will not change that. In fact, since the free
> > world gets most of its users from the commercial world... an increase in
> > the number of commercial Linux users should result in more converts to
> > free Linux distributions.
>
> Basically I agree here, but what I'm concerned about is what
> happens *within* the Linux community when one distro comes to
> dominate all. Also keep in mind, that an increasing percentage of
> new converts to Linux have a rather ambivalent attitude toward
> OSS. These folks are *used* to a market dominated by one OS; they
> won't have a problem with a RH dominated Linux community unless
> they are also (hopefully) OSS converts as well as Linux converts.
I don't think the problem is with one distribution dominating the
market, it is with what I consider to be unethical behaviour (marketing
practices and poorly written software). If RH dominates, fine, if they
use that domination to take advantage of users... the users will start
looking for something else. With the boom in the internet this sorta
thing will be self regulating.
> > Consider this:
> > Did the arrival of a commercial Unix stagnate the free unix
> > distributions (in any way), or did the commercial Unix increase the size
> > of the unix user base (some of whom switched to the free products
> > when they realized that unix was ok)?
>
>
> I'm not an expert on the history of Unix, so ...
Ya, well, you did better than I. I knew that UNIX was around
universities in the 70's, and recalled reading something about Bell Labs
licensing UNIX for the first time in the early 80's, in between I just
assumed that UNIX was free. A look in my library after reading your
message revealed the following (from _UNIX(tm)_System_V_Primer_;
(c) 1984 The Waite Group, Inc.; M.Waite, D.Martin, S.Prata):
"UNIX was born in 1969 at Bell Laboratories, ...
Surprisingly, it began when one man, Ken Thompson, decided to
try to create a less expensive and more hospitable programming
environment. ... During the early 1970's... During the same
time, universities and colleges, ... were given license to run
UNIX at minimal cost. ... ... In January of 1983, AT&T
announced that for the first time it was licensing a new
``standard'' version of UNIX for the commercial OEM (Original
Equipment Manufacturer). ... It contained many of the best
features of the UNIX that was in use at most universities at
that tine [sic] (Berkely UNIX, also called 4.1 bsd)"
Sorry if I confused anyone with what may be a hypothetical situation.
> I'm not aware of any truly free Unices early on (we now have the
> *BSDs as true, and free, descendants). Most of Unix's history has
> been a long running battle between commercial Unices that had no
> need nor desire to put together a 'standard' for Unices, allowing
> app makers to write software which could run on all the Unices
> without major effort on their part. Lets also note that much of
> the time and resources of these Unices were spent concentrating on
> each other, and not on growing the user base. Until the arrival
> of Linux and the free *BSDs, the Unix community was deeply
> fragmented. This is precisely what I fear will happen within the
> Linux community, and at this point, its RH which is in the
> dominant position, so if there is to be fragmentation it will
> likely be RH that starts it.
I like variety and do not see a problem with it,
unless the deck gets stacked in favour of one distribution over the
others.
The big difference between then and now is that the hardware is more
capable, it can handle having to carry multiple versions of the same
libs or kernel without a significant cost penalty. So until RH moves
towards depending on `non-replaceble by the OSS community' software, I
think your fears are, at least, premature..
later,
Bruce
