I found the lectures today rather unimpressive, although the event itself
was quite nice and well organized.
Some specific notes:
1. The "Ila" guy seemed to misunderstand the whole "use Linux in govt."
proposition. This has been discussed a lot, but worth repeating:
His argument was that if Linux is good, it should compete and win based
on that, and not on a law. This is all well and nice for private
organizations and people, but for the government, one of the *features*
of Linux and OSS is their openness and auditability. Therefore, the
law is doing just what he suggests should be done - the best OS is being
chosen based on its features, where "features" is not restricted
to technical superiority. Basically, for the government, the openness of
Linux is just as important as the technical advantages are, if not
more so.
Especially disappointing was Moshe Bar's lecture. I've only heard about him
until now, but since he teaches the "OS design" class in TAU (which I'm
going to have to take for my degree), I assumed he's more knowledgeable
that that. Of course, it could also be that I'm the ignorant and uninformed
one, in which case, I'm sure you folks will be happy to put me in place :-)
2. Nobody is making money from selling Free software? This may be true per
se, but it's a very bad statement. There are many companies who are making
money *developing* Free software, so who cares if they're not *selling* it
to make the money? The important thing is that valid business plans of the
type:
1. Develop Free software.
2. ???
3. Profit.
do exist, by replacing the question marks with something reasonable.
Examples? I was going to say "RedHat and Trolltech", but since Moshe
already replied about RedHat, I'll put up Trolltech as an example. Theirs
is the most viable business model I have seen so far for developing
Free/Open source software. For those who don't know, Trolltech give away Qt
under the GPL (and the QPL), but also sell it to under a different license
you if you want to avoid the "viral" nature of the GPL and make your own
changes without having to release them.
3. Linux is Open Source? FreeBSD is Free Software? Am I missing something
here? Last I checked, Linux was GPL and FreeBSD was BSD, making Linux Free
Software and FreeBSD OSS. I would've believed it was an honest mistake,
unless he repeated it (in various forms) so many times. The "Zend" guy
seemed much more proficient regarding the GPL/LGPL/BSD than Moshe Bar...
4. OpenOffice a fork from last available open version of StarOffice? I'm
not 100% sure that it's not true, but AFAIK more than half of the people
working on OO are Sun's people. From what I understand, StarOffice is just
OpenOffice with various useful add-ons... Am I wrong?
5. The Theodore Ts'o lecture was of course much better, but too business
oriented for me. I would've preferred to hear about Linux kernel
development, relationships between the main developers, perhaps his stand
on the BitKeeper issue, etc. Not his fault of course... this is
what he's been asked to talk about by IBM.
Alexander (aka Sasha) Maryanovsky.
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: IBM lecture(s) rant Alexander Maryanovsky
- Re: IBM lecture(s) rant kfir lavi
- Re: IBM lecture(s) rant herouth
- Re: IBM lecture(s) rant Alexander Maryanovsky
- Re: IBM lecture(s) rant Shlomi Fish
- Re: IBM lecture(s) rant Ira Abramov
- Re: IBM lecture(s) rant Muli Ben-Yehuda
- Re: IBM lecture(s) rant Ira Abramov
- Re: IBM lecture(s) rant Shlomi Fish
- Re: IBM lecture(s) rant Jonathan Ben Avraham
- Re: IBM lecture(s) rant Shlomi Fish