|
|
| Enderle Uses the Word Grok but Doesn't Get the GPL |
 |
|
Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 02:17 PM EST
|
Well, would Sunday be complete without a Rob Enderle article on Linux to have a laugh over with you? Of course not. So here you are, Mr. Enderle on whether IBM is a boon or a bane to Linux. Of course, he gets almost everything wrong about GNU/Linux, and quite a bit about IBM too, now that I think of it, but that is the fun of it, no? And since he uses the word Grok, we seem to be halfway there with him, so let's see if I can now pull him, albeit kicking and screaming, across the finish line. The piece he doesn't get is the GPL.
He begins combatively, as is his wont:
"IBM is arguably the most active supporter of Linux: at war with SCO, aggressively contributing to the Linux code base with its own intellectual property, and providing (for them) unprecedented executive-level support for a product the company doesn't actually own. On the other hand, the SCO issue, which wouldn't even exist if it weren't for IBM, has created the largest FUD cloud around the Linux platform." I take it this is intended as a line on his resume, since he certainly has contributed mightily to the FUD cloud, including the final sentence here, since so far SCO has presented no evidence any of us have seen that IBM has done one thing deserving of becoming SCO's target, except having deep pockets and the misfortune of signing a license agreement in the 1980s with a predecessor-in-interest (maybe, partially, sorta, who knows?) of SCO. I am guessing that's statistically about the same odds of trouble as someday hitting a deer on the highway, one of those events that can happen but for which there are few effective avoidance strategies, so I don't think IBM can be blamed.
I just know one of you brainiacs is going to actually compute the odds of hitting a deer and of being sued by SCO and tell me that actually, to be precise, the odds are not identical.
: )
Mr. Enderle next notices that IBM selling off the PC division could have implications, namely that IBM is more committed than ever to GNU/Linux: "With the divestiture of its PC division, which is expected eventually to pull the XServe line, IBM will be more focused on PowerPC and Linux than ever before. This focus is very similar to the way IBM worked prior to the PC era, when the company owned its platforms and dominated the PC business. This shift will allow IBM to focus its resources on both platforms and, potentially, to become a true competitor to both Intel and Microsoft." What would we do without analysts to explain things to us? But, what is the bane part? Here is where he starts to wobble:
"OK, now step back for a moment and grok what I just said. What is it you like about Linux? The collaborative nature of the product, the idea that is it created by a community, the freedom, the low price? Now think of the technology world the way it was in the 1970s. Was there ever a world farther away from these core values?
"If IBM is successful, it will effectively own Linux. It will have the best tools, it will make the most measured contributions to the installed base, and it will bend every rule to make sure its solutions are better, faster, and stronger than anyone else's.
Look at the SCO problem: Didn't it result from IBM's unilateral actions to introduce code into Linux that was at risk? Now take that kind of practice and multiply it a thousand fold. Rather than Linux becoming the new UNIX, doesn't it now become the new AIX, the most non-standard of the UNIX variants? Oh dear. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Let me try to be kind. I'll break this down into Little Golden Book terms.
Here is the key to grokking this subject: The Linux kernel is distributed under the General Public License, the GPL. That means no one can own it, in the sense Mr. Enderle means, control it, or coopt it. The author of a contributed bit of software can and does own the piece they personally contributed. You can see that in IBM's memorandum in support of its motion for partial summary judgment on its 8th counterclaim on copyright infringement, where the allegations relate only to the pieces they themselves contributed. But once code is placed under the GPL, it's licensed under its terms.
All the individual pieces are copyrighted to the individual or entity that wrote them. Linus owns the copyright on the collective work. But no one can contribute code to the kernel without accepting the GPL's terms. What that means is no corporate entity can contribute code that is accepted into the kernel that only they can "own", use, distribute, or that they can keep others from using, expanding, distributing, modifying, copying, etc. It's one of the requirements of the GPL that you pass on to users the same rights and freedoms that you enjoy under the GPL. It's a circle of a compelled niceness, if you will, or at least an enforceable niceness for those who choose to enter the circle. No one has to. So even if we accepted that IBM contributed code it shouldn't have, and frankly I see plenty of evidence that they had every right to contribute what they did, there is no way for IBM to control Linux or GNU/Linux and make it "non-standard". The worst they could do is their own version of a GNU/Linux product, and sell services for it for a fee and set up some bumps in the road that the ungeeky have trouble getting over. But if they do that, no one has to buy it. The GPL code is freely available to the universe. Well, the world, anyway, Planet Earth and any astronauts who want to take it with them on interplanetary visits. Think about it. Would you rather your spaceship ran on Windows? Hopefully this explanation will resolve Mr. Enderle's worries. And if he doubts my explanation that no one has to buy a product they feel is not altogether free, I suggest he just think back to Caldera, when it tried to get just as close to the acceptable GPL line as it could. Contemplate how well that worked out for them. Not. But here we reach Mr. Enderle's biggest misunderstanding:
"I've often thought that the Linux community in its blind rush to displace Microsoft was making the same mistake that Microsoft made in its efforts to displace IBM. You often have to become what it is you are fighting, and just as often that means moving into a world you actually don't want to live in.
"What made Linux attractive was its freedom in terms of both cost and behavior, the community cooperation, the camaraderie, and, frankly, that it represented a kind of rebel counterculture. . . .
"If you have to become what you hate in order to win, isn't that self-defeating? If the goal of beating Microsoft requires you destroy what is attractive about Linux, does that really make sense? Yet IBM and Linux are on a path which could, in fact, allow the company not only to pummel Microsoft and Windows but to replace them." Mr. Enderle would like GNU/Linux to remain a hobbyist platform. Well, so, coincidentally, I'm sure, would Microsoft. So would SCO. Businesses, however, have discovered there is a real competitive advantage in using GNU/Linux systems, and they are the ones pursuing. Linus hasn't changed.
And heaven only knows, Stallman is a masterpiece of consistency. The genius of the GPL is that no one can break the niceness circle without consequences, as SCO is finding out. All they can do is not participate in the first place. I truly believe that Stallman's genius is shown in the GPL every bit as much as in the code he wrote. Of course, that is precisely why greedo corps hate it. They can't control, coopt, divert, embrace or extend that code. They have to play by the GPL rules, and that gets in their way. It was designed to. And the world has watched the SCO case with interest, and we see the role the GPL has played, and unless pigs really do start to fly, the GPL is the big winner in the whole litigation. It has played the role it was designed to play -- to force corporations to play nice. It will be SCO's Waterloo. There is a next version in the works, reportedly more business-friendly, but I have zero fear that there will be anything in it Microsoft or SCO will like.
Clue: Linux doesn't care who wins in the marketplace. It wasn't created to destroy or replace Microsoft. And the community honestly doesn't much care about that. Certainly Linus has said he doesn't. I know I don't. The community is very diverse, so some might care. IBM might, but IBM isn't Linux. The only reason Microsoft even appears on Groklaw's pages is because it has said and done some things that make me think it is trying to destroy the GPL and Linux competition, using FUD and some other dirty tricks, from our standpoint. If Microsoft just competed fair and square, nobody would give them a thought. But when Hannibal is heading over the mountains on his elephants in your direction, it's prudent to wake up, throw on some armor, and study your options. While I take heart in seeing Mr. Enderle using a word like grok and having deep thoughts about the future of GNU/Linux, I would remind him that it's very hard to reach solid conclusions unless you base your thinking on actual facts. Think garbage in, garbage out. Therefore I suggest before he writes about Linux, he might wish to read the General Public License, its FAQ page, how to place your program under the GPL or the LGPL, why FSF gets copyright assignments for GNU projects, the LGPL, and then take the FSF GPL quiz. By the way, for those of you who have wondered about it, the FSF recognizes the difference between software, documentation and other kinds of works: Licenses for Other Types of Works
We believe that published software and documentation should be free software and free documentation. We recommend making all sorts of educational and reference works free also, using free documentation licenses such as the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL).
For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons. A good example of releasing documentation under the GNU Free Documentation License is the book "Knowing Knoppix," which I just downloaded after seeing it mentioned on Slashdot. It is designed to help a beginner wanting to try out Knoppix but who likes to have a book handy to ease any pain, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's subtitled, "The beginner's guide to the Linux that runs from CD." I've always been the type that just starts clicking away on things to see what happens, and that is how I like to learn. It's a mighty slow way, though, if you mess up, so a book like this is great. One of the things it explains is how to rescue your files after your Windows computer no longer starts, using Knoppix. That's how I first used Knoppix, actually, on rescue missions, and it has a lot to do with why I eventually switched over. I look forward to reading this book very much. I love Knoppix, which comes to us under the GPL. Who knows what happens to it if software patents are approved in Europe? That reminds me. Some of you may wish to say thank you to Poland. If so, here's where you can.
Maybe Mr. Enderle should also take the time to read about how copyleft works: What Is Copyleft?
Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well.
The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.
In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.
Copyleft also provides an incentive for other programmers to add to free software. Important free programs such as the GNU C++ compiler exist only because of this.
Copyleft also helps programmers who want to contribute improvements to free software get permission to do that. These programmers often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get more money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may want to turn the changes into a proprietary software product.
When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away.
To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable.
Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing ``copyright'' into ``copyleft.''
Copyleft is a general concept; there are many ways to fill in the details. In the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use are contained in the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License and the GNU Free Documentation License.
The appropriate license is included in many manuals and in each GNU source code distribution.
The GNU GPL is designed so that you can easily apply it to your own program if you are the copyright holder. You don't have to modify the GNU GPL to do this, just add notices to your program which refer properly to the GNU GPL. Please note that you must use the entire text of the GPL, if you use it. It is an integral whole, and partial copies are not permitted. (Likewise for the LGPL and the FDL.)
Using the same distribution terms for many different programs makes it easy to copy code between various different programs. Since they all have the same distribution terms, there is no need to think about whether the terms are compatible. The Lesser GPL includes a provision that lets you alter the distribution terms to the ordinary GPL, so that you can copy code into another program covered by the GPL. After he reads all this and then really think about what the GPL does and what it disallows, I think he'll have to rewrite his article. That's the thing about knowledge. It wilts FUD dead away, like Dorothy tossing water on the Wicked Witch of the West. Of course, Dorothy did that by accident, whereas I know exactly what I'm trying to do.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: chrisbrown on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 02:27 PM EST |
| thks [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ghengis-Khan? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 02:53 PM EST
- Ghengis-Khan? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 02:55 PM EST
- Thoughts on IBM Selling PC Division - Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 06:19 PM EST
- Odds of Hitting a Deer - Authored by: dodger on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 08:11 PM EST
- Interesting article - Authored by: lifewish on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 09:14 PM EST
- Didnt the elephants freeze to death in the Alps? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 10:33 PM EST
- What should your space ship run on? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 10:44 PM EST
- FDL considered harmful - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 11:16 PM EST
- OT: Dell donates $US3M to tsunami aid - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 12:11 AM EST
- California residents grab your MS cash now - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 01:10 AM EST
- OT: RIAA, MPAA and maybe MS heaven - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 09:33 AM EST
- E-Week article - Authored by: cc0028 on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 11:17 AM EST
- SCO/Canopy eWeek Links Summary - Authored by: clark_kent on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 11:54 AM EST
- [OT] Disasters or near ones - Authored by: frk3 on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 12:46 PM EST
- Linux spacecraft are on their way - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 07:16 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: TerryC on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 02:40 PM EST |
It's the best and most succinct description of why the GPL works that I've seen
to date.
---
Terry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gdeinsta on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 02:45 PM EST |
And a historical note to get us started:
But when Ghenghis
Khan is heading over the mountains on his elephants in your
direction...
It was Hannibal, the great Carthaginian general,
who used elephants. Ghenghis Khan's men rode on sturdy little Mongolian
ponies. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 03:27 PM EST |
Rob would have us believe that his ramblings were actually Garbage-In,
Gosepl-Out. No such luck.
Even his comment about AIX being the most non-standard of the UNIX platforms...
um... "standard" is a compliance issue, and I think if he were to
actually look at the UNIX/SPEC and IEEE standards, that AIX is more than a
little compliant.
So, he takes a lot of non-fact "information" (the GI) and puts it all
in a garbage disposal... and we get P-GO.. Pureed Garbage Out. A smelly, rude
paste that only deserves to be headed down the drain.
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsi on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 03:35 PM EST |
| >> I am guessing that's statistically about the same odds of trouble as
someday hitting a deer on the highway, one of those events that can happen but
for which there are few effective avoidance strategies, so I don't think IBM can
be blamed. Actually that is not the right analogy. The odds depend on where
you live. Hitting a deer in Manhattan is pretty slim, but not impossible, as
there was a deer caught in the entrance of the subway station up the street from
my apt. Hitting a deer in Maine is a lot easier. After watching a deer bound
across the road in front of my car, I had to stand on my brakes to avoid hitting
the three other deer now in front of my car, last year. My brother used to own
a Corvette, until a deer decided to turn the same direction as he swerved to
attempt to avoid it. Being hit by lightning, a NYC Subway fare reduction, or
SCO coming to their senses, are far more greater odds! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Simon G Best on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 04:02 PM EST |
The other day, in between watching more news on the awful tsunami
catastrophe, I wondered a bit about the astrotrolls, wookiees, G2, The SCO
Group's sealing of things, and that sealed IBM email that The SCO Group seemed
to want out in the open.
Rob Enderle's latest offering fits rather
nicely with what I was contemplating.
Would it be terribly surprising if
IBM wishes to regain the sort of leadership/control that it used to enjoy before
Microsoft took dominance over the PC platform? I wouldn't find it surprising.
I also wouldn't find it surprising if IBM, having learned from the past, would
seek to do so in a way that would not lead to the kind of unpopularity it
suffered from in the days when it was Big Bad Blue. So, I would not be
particularly surprised if the sealed email that The SCO Group seem to want to
enlighten the world about happens to have something to do with such aspirations.
It's not hard to imagine The SCO Group wishing to drive a wedge between IBM and
the rest of the FOSS world.
Enderle's article seems to rather strongly
suggest that it's IBM's control, rather than freedom, which IBM would ultimately
bring to Linux (which would, of course, be rubbish).
Or, perhaps, I'm
falling for the bait, and speculating exactly what The SCO Group, et al, would
like us to speculate on their fuddy behalves.
Cloud everything, the
tinfoil hats do.
Moving more off-topic (but with some more tinfoil added
to my hat), I wonder how much of the stuff coming from The SCO Group, et al, is
actually intended to misdirect Groklaw? With Groklaw having become a big
problem for The SCO Group's PR/FUD efforts, it would hardly be surprising if
there are misdirection attempts, or some other devious strategy or tactics. It
was some of the astrotrolling things of recent weeks that got me wondering about
that.
Just some thoughts.
---
FOSS IS political. It's just
that the political establishment is out of touch and hasn't caught up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 04:05 PM EST |
Hardly a week goes by without one of the usual suspects coming out of the
woodwork with some proclamation, no matter how nonsensical.
Rob
Enderle, Laura Didio, Jeff Merkey, Peg Bundy, er, I mean Maureen O'Gara, Darl
McBride (pre-Baystar debacle), and others.
Who will it be next? Hmmm,
we haven't heard from Merkey in a while, that's who my money is on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 04:05 PM EST |
When IBM first started to look at GNU/Linux there was considerable confusion
about the GPL. The questions floating around included, "Who owns this
stuff?" and "How do we set up a contract to use it?" It took some
time before IBM (the corporate entity) 'got' the GPL. I should point out that
this was told to me by a relative of an IBM employee. It was an interesting bit
of info at the time, because IBM had some fairly dark, monopoly actions in its
past. These days I don't see them as a threat to FOSS.
Also at around that time I thought that the lack of general recognition of FOSS,
and GNU/Linux, was fine, because if/when Microsoft woke up, it would be trouble.
I still think that Microsoft doesn't get FOSS; I think that's a good thing. Bill
Gates has never played well with others, from his days at his local computer
club. Joining a 'circle of a compelled niceness' is the last thing he wants to
do. While he probably doesn't originate any of the M$ behavior, he certainly
approves every bit of it. The phrase 'business ethics' is an oxymoron to him.
We owe a huge debt to Stallman and Moglen. Their genius is creating a legal
framework that enables FOSS to flourish.
---
In a recent survey 87% of respondents thought TSCOG are greedy and dishonest.
The other 13% thought they are also stupid.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 04:24 PM EST |
> and providing (for them) unprecedented executive-level
> support for a product the company doesn't actually own.
It seems to me that precedents do exist, some products that IBM supported yet
didn't actually own:
PC-DOS / dBase II / WordStar / VisiCalc / etc
all offered as IBM products for IBM PC.
Windows
in many versions and still does offer.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pscottdv on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 04:35 PM EST |
same odds of trouble as someday hitting a deer on the
highway
More like getting hit by a deer on the
hiway, I would say. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 04:51 PM EST |
According to Enderle:
"This focus is very similar to the way IBM worked prior to the PC era, when
the company owned its platforms and dominated the PC business."
I suppose he means "dominated the mainframe business." IBM had no PC
business before its deal with Intel/Microsoft. In 1980, IBM had a stranglehold
on the mainframe business, but their software and hardware plaforms had already
been unbundled and upstarts like Amdahl and Fujitsu were actively marketing
compatible hardware that ran IBM's OS. Amdahl also had Unix ported to the
mainframe architecture. People hated IBM the way they do Microsoft today.
Minicomputers and Unix were gaining a toe-hold in small-to-medium scale
enterprises. The VAX and M68K architectures were delivering 32-bit computing
for orders of magnitude fewer dollars. BSD Unix ran nicely on both.
Personal computers were toys. IBM decided on the PC architecture so as to cash
in on its name, in much the same way that Cardin and others apply their names to
Walmart products. They had no idea that their architecture would evolve into a
serious computing platform the way it did. Indeed, they actively tried to
prevent it by introducing "incompatibles" like the PS-2 (that's not
PlayStation, for the history-challenged).
I'm at a loss to figure out what point Enderle is trying to make. That IBM
could, or would like to, return to 1980? That somehow they could regain their
stranglehold on high-end computing? I think not.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arch_dude on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 05:26 PM EST |
In addition to the many tactical errors, Endrele makes a grand strategic error
that PJ did not address.
Enderle speaks of "Linux" as if it were a single entity, and of he
"Linux community" as if it were monolithic.
In fact, there may very well be a portion of the community that just wants the
best preconfigured and supported software, and IBM may very well contemplate a
strategy to use Linux to deliver it. This is indeed a case of Linux defeating
Microsoft by becomeing more like Microsoft, at least in one particular niche.
Enderle then attempts to apply this to the Linux community as a whole and
assumes we will all lose our innoscense and fall under this new spell. Sorry,
but this is fundamentally wrong. At work, we are currently as close to Enderle's
model as we can get: RHEL in IBM e-servers, totally stock, for our servers.
However, for our Linux-based embedded product we have created our own tailored
mini-distro, (instead of a VxWorks solution) and at home I use Gentoo in keeping
with the true hobbyist spirit that Enderle thinks is in danger.
I am therefore a member of (at least) three almost disjoint "Linux
communities," one of which directly competes with the Microsoft server
market, one of which competes with VxWorks, and one of which no longer has mush
real competition.
Because of the GPL and the ever-decreasing cost of hardware, these three
communities now benefit because sofware can flow freely among them, but the
communities still have completely distinct cost-benefit models, philosophy, and
language.
I'm also a member of a fourth Linux community: In addition to my hobby machine
at home, I have a Linux desktop at home. This is not the arena in which IBM
chooses to compete with Microsoft: IBM makes servers, not desktops. Enderle
utterly fails to make this distinction.
PJ also chose to focus on the Kernel. In my opinion, the distro is the more
important battleground. Enderle's article is slightly easier to understand if he
is thinking about distros rather than the kernel. Almost all of PJ's points
remain valid of course even when generalized, and Enderle's conclusions are
still hopelessly, ludicrously wrong.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BrentRBrian on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 06:27 PM EST |
Use it to get the job done, or put it around your neck.
Same rope, the choice is yours.
(btw. nobody ever blames the rope for a hanging).
B[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 06:37 PM EST |
I think many of us who are responding to PJ's post miss Enderle's point, and the
point of PJ's response.
Enderle's point is to spread FUD. That FUD is that IBM will take over Linux to
the detriment of customers: overcharging, making incompatible changes, hiding
internals, ad infinitum. ... Sort of like Microsoft has done with Windows(tm,
and all that).
PJ's point is to refute Enderle's assertions, as a counterpoint to the sheep who
would read Enderle and actually believe him.
So, if your PHB reads Enderle, point it to PJ's article.
JMHO, HTH, HAND[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 06:53 PM EST |
No, Rob, the "SCOldera problem" happened because a company about to
sink beneath the waves without a trace, with nary a ripple, to be missed by few,
decided it would rather file lawsuits than find a better way to survive.
The court documents have borne this out for over 20 months now.
_____
Look at the SCO problem: Didn't it result from IBM's unilateral actions to
introduce code into Linux that was at risk?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: producer on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 07:15 PM EST |
Bob,
You're all wet.
IBM maintains,and has always maintained,a simple business structure. IBM doesn't
care to own or control Linux any more than any other software. Just as long as
it works. Remember DOS?
News to Bob,and you should remember this since you did work for them once,IBM is
a hardware company.
IBM doesn't care what software you use as long as you use their hardware to use
it.
Chevron doesn't care what bloated SUV you drive so long as your burn their
poison to run it,do they?
IBM no longer needs MS for an OS and consequently no longer needs to play nice
with Intel. They've locked themselves up with the largest customer base on the
planet,the same one Mr. Balmer brought up the idea of court appearances to, sit
on the board of the largest PC company for that customer base, swooped in on the
server market to that same population and will now control it,all with MS on the
outside looking in.
By all means, let the people have an inexpensive OS as an alternative. And they
will have all those Leveno/IBM PCs to run it.
MS is desperate for that same market and CEO Steve's PR doesn't help much. If
they want in, and they do, they have to work a deal with the largest China has
to offer. And that means IBM. The shoe is suddenly on the other foot.
It's pretty simple Bob.
IBM is exactly where they have wanted to be since first making a deal with Bill.
They will now proceed to enact their revenge.
As far as IBM can see, Open Source is much needed nourishment.
And even Sammy “no neck” Palisano won't bite that hand.
It's pretty simple Bob.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Brian S. on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 07:53 PM EST |
Any arguement, no matter how well argued, starts from a point where certain
facts are "understood" to be understood by both sides.
I've checked his
story, he doesn't mention the GPL once or even hint at it. Dropping a vital
"assumed fact", is a tactic which can be employed in an arguement when you are
not sincere in the point of view you are putting across. People do it all the
time in everyday silly arguements, but they know when they do it.(O.K. sometimes
they may forget something). It's like unspoken lying - white lies seem
O.K.
This tactic allows you to create a logically sound false arguement. It
requires thought and effort but its easy when the other person can't argue back.
It will fool someone who is listening from an uninformed position and is
deliberately intended to do so.
The problem with this tactic is it's also
instantantly obvious to the informed, which is why PJ instantly went for the
GPL. How could he make that arguement? Has he forgotten it? That's just plain
cazy because.... and we at Groklaw are treated to another fine article by
PJ.
The point of my comment is to note that Enderle uses this tactic all the
time. I've checked other stories where he will leave out a vital fact which will
instantly destroy the arguement he is making. I'll be polite but I don't believe
his memory is failing, I would say at best he's being deceitfull (feel free to
insert your own description).
He knows very well what he's doing and it's
aimed at the uninformed as a spoiler.
As a point of interest, the "missing
fact tactic" is also regularly employed by Biff. Brian S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 08:08 PM EST |
The main problem with the GPL is that it can't remove the fact that copyleft can
only be pursued by the copyright holder. And that as soon as somebody owns
parts of the copyright, he can try having a copyright case brought against him
thrown out of court.
That is the reason that the FSF requires copyright assignments for core pieces
of GNU software. Only in that manner can a small shop like the FSF hope to hold
their own in upkeeping the GPL: they don't have the legal pockets of IBM.
And so the funny thing is that the GPL benefits the public, but not the FSF.
And that's the reason that Stallman acts resentful when people decide to
sacrifice a controlled copyright situation for other advantages when forking.
It is the whole point of the GPL to allow everyone his own fork, but if they do,
the FSF can't reincorporate their stuff without endangering the legal standing
of the GPL, and thus the continued freedom to fork.
And that's the real bane of the GPL: if it is supposed to hold its own pitched
against the interests of big corporations, it is dangerous to really make use of
the "Public" in its name.
And that's the reason that Linux is being dragged through the legal mud for
years. SCO won't be the last one to try this sort of game. And there will
probably be others with less dirty hands than them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 08:09 PM EST |
| Other than the glaring inaccuracies it seems to be a well thought out and
factual article. And it is just that. It appears to be a well thought out
and factual article.
IBM is arguably the most active supporter of Linux:
at war with SCO...
Since comapnies that actually sell Linux, like Red
Hat and Novell are not active supporters. Well, arguably, I guess.
...the
SCO issue, which wouldn't even exist if it weren't for IBM...
Well, the
SCO "issue" has to do with a group of people cooking up an ill concieved and
executed scam that I think IBM had little to do with. Arguably, the scam would
never have formed if someone did not think IBM should have paid them or bought
them out.
...will the result be positive or negative for
Linux?
Wow, yes! I believe one of those are possible.
"What is it
you like about Linux?", Mr. Enderle asks.
No doubt "the collaborative
nature of the product", "the idea that is it created by a community", "the
freedom", and "the low price" are why he uses and cherishes Linux. He does seem
terribly concerned that IBM might diminish his ability to use and enjoy
Linux.
Look at the SCO problem: Didn't it result from IBM's unilateral
actions to introduce code into Linux that was at risk?
Is anyone else
having problems with the links to the "code at risk"? I am having problems
accessing his gossip examples. I do wonder if IBM's unilateral
actions include the BSD and API files that SCO likes to harp on. Perhaps when I
am able to see his examples it will be clear.
If you have to become what
you hate in order to win, isn't that self-defeating?
Yes, we all hate
those calm discussions between Linux users about how IBM will ruin
everything.
On second thought, just another silly rambling article. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 08:10 PM EST |
Growing pains can be tough. Almost there, Rob, almost there.
Anger: check
Denial: check
Bargaining: now
Depression: now
Acceptance: Real Soon Now!
Could it really be that Rob is adapting and showing us that he's not a dinosaur
(Microsaurus Rex) after all?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 08:16 PM EST |
If I shouldn't say "hell", then PJ shouldn't say "heaven",
right? Or "devil's advocate", as I once read here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Language, please - Authored by: Tim Ransom on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 09:08 PM EST
- Language, please - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 10:58 PM EST
- Language, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 11:49 PM EST
- Language, please - Authored by: darksepulcher on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 01:47 AM EST
- Language, please - Authored by: Rann on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 06:38 AM EST
- Language, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 07:39 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Dave on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 08:16 PM EST |
As usual, Enderle fails to make any kind of convincing argument in this column.
Instead, it's another sad attempt at propaganda. His purpose: to make long-time
users and developers of Linux and/or GNU/Linux systems distrustful of IBM. He's
trying to drive a wedge between natural allies in the development of free and
open source software.
Actually, he starts out quite strongly, with six paragraphs of mostly factual
description of IBM. The background on the PC division, microelectronics,
software group, and global services is mostly free of flaws. One noticeable
gaff, which I pointed out in a comment above, is that he refers to IBM's
x86-based server line as XServe, which is actually the Apple's PPC-based server
line, rather than eServer xSeries. Nonetheless, he does a reasonable job of
establishing credibility.
His use of "grok" makes his audience clear. This piece was not
written for business leaders or PHBs, it was meant to appeal to technical people
who use and support FOSS. I find it funny that the use of the term seems kind
of forced and not terribly correct. A geek doesn't grok something after
stepping back "for a moment." Enderle may choose to go no deeper into
things than a moment's thought, but that's hardly sufficient to understand
something deeply and intimately -- to grok it. And, frankly, there's not much
substance in Enderle's pieces to grok, anyway.
So, now we get to the problem: two short paragraphs to convince us of his view
of the truth behind IBM's Linux strategy. To try to convince us that IBM wants
to "own" Linux, he briefly flashes back to the past, where IBM was the
monopolist that did dominate the computing industry, that held its customers
hostage with proprietary lock-in solutions.
Sorry, Rob, that doesn't cut it.
IBM has completely reinvented itself since the 1970's. A severe humbling in the
early 1990's and an ensuing change in direction had a powerful effect on the
culture of IBM. That's well known and well documented. Based on various press
reports and personal experiences, I believe that IBM, from the executive level
down, has learned to compete and win without locking anyone in to or out of
anything. IBM certainly doesn't believe in the FSF software-freedom view of the
world. But they're more than willing to work with those who do, in order to
build solid infrastructure, on which they can sell their specialized, powerful
systems and services to those who need (and can afford) them. Enderle has shown
no need or intent to do any harm to the community in the process.
And, even if he could, he would still need to demonstrate that it would be
possible in the face of the GPL. He doesn't even dare try. I won't dwell here,
since PJ's article makes the case brilliantly.
I'll just add that there's another obstacle beyond the GPL itself: the community
that it has fostered. You can't take Linux away from the community that
developed it. The community *is* the value.
So, based on Enderle's flimsy leap of faith, he then launches into six
paragraphs of pure rhetoric: a world you don't want to live in; Linux becomes
the new Windows; you become what you hate in order to win; the advantages of
Linux you have come to know and love are eliminated; be careful what you wish
for.
Enderle heaps on the sci-fi cliche, desperately trying to scare the geeks away
from IBM. But it's all so blatant and transparent -- would anyone fall for
it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 09:01 PM EST |
From the article:
"If, as a child, you want the authority of a parent, you often lose the fun
of being a child in the process. As a perennial child myself, I'm not really
sure that's a worthwhile tradeoff."
Good God! Does this mean ol' Rant for Rent Rob is reborn on some unholy night
*each year*?!
We must find his crypt before the moon eats itself!
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 09:04 PM EST |
IBM has produced many documents (including emails) marked as confidential,
pursuant to the protective order.
[and SCO has of course done likewise
with the materials that they have produced]
Obviously SCO is not
supposed to disclose *any* of the contents of the IBM documents/emails without
the court unsealing the documents first.
However, I noticed that SCO
seems to have find a way round this in filing 350 (exhibits to declaration of
Jeremy Evans) for instance --- they simply put the piece of info (usually a
quote) that they want the world to know in the title of their exhibit or filing.
For example - I do NOT believe that the quoted sections in the filing
titles were part of the original document titles - if you look at S5 it's
pretty clear they're NOT -- rather SCO is sort of circumventing the protective
order, by quoting the parts that they want to use in document titles, while
keeping the original document/email under seal.
350-S3 - IBM Internal
Email from Bill Sandve to Kim Tran, January 22, 2002 - 'AIX was derived from
System V.' (2002-01-22) [sealed]
350-S4 - Argus Systems Group, Inc.
license agreement with IBM for
AIX Source Code - 'AIX is derived
from software under license from SCO.'
[sealed]
350-S5 -
IBM Royalty Statement, June 30, 1987 - AIX is 'derived from
System
V' (1987-06-30) [sealed]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 09:10 PM EST |
| Honorable Undersecretary Marcinski,
Software patents in my country have
resulted in lack of choice, elevated consumer prices, and suppression of
innovation. Now an American monopoly, Microsoft, seeks the same ruthless
leverage in the EU and throughout the world.
Please accept my gratitude for
standing up for individual freedom by opposing efforts to circumvent the
majority, exactly the process which resulted in software patents in my country
in the first place.
The world economy will suffer noticably whenever simple
duplication of old ideas is given great economic value. True value, true
productivity improvement, can be had by providing the healthy economic
competition that software patents have been demonstrated to prevent.
It is
so glaringly obvious that Microsoft's 80% estimated profit margin removes money
from the world economy directly. The additional economic penalty from the
Microsoft products themselves, vulnurable to security breaches, instablility,
crashes, and many unresolved errors in programming logic, make even the act of
using Microsoft products compared to available alternatives, an act of economic
inefficiency.
Many in the US intend to persist in political pressures to
resolve social penalties resulting from big business' forced unfair competition
through software patents.
Please accept my sincere thanks for your
inspiring stance against those attempting to force adoption of software patents
against the wishes of the people of the EU and the citizens and representatives
of Poland. Your name now holds great respect in the worldwide open source
software movement.
Ben Baston, CEO
ComputerPro, Inc. ---
Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO,
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold.
-+++->> Have you donated to Groklaw this month? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nicholasperez on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 09:11 PM EST |
"And heaven only knows, Stallman is a masterpiece of consistency."
-- PJ
Dear goodness, I about spit water through my nose reading that. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 09:32 PM EST |
Call me a pessimist;
I believe Rob Enderle does get the GPL just fine.
<sarcasm>
I am so sure the whole reason Rob Enderle wrote that article was to insure Linux
was protected from IBM.
</sarcasm>
I will call Rob Enderle a great spin doctor; but he is not a reporter.
Never put off to ignorance that which can be explained by malice.
Opps, I did not sign in
Sunny Penguin
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: m_si_M on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 10:03 PM EST |
Oh dear. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Hardly
any of Mr. Enderle's sentences make sense and can at best claim grammatical
correctness. Examples:
"aggressively contributing to the Linux code
base with its own intellectual property" ???
"Didn't it
result from IBM's unilateral actions to introduce code into Linux that was at
risk?" ???
dictionary.co
m has the following definition of logorrhea:
"pathologically
excessive and often incoherent talkativeness or wordiness that is characteristic
especially of the manic phase of manic-depressive disorders —log·or·rhe·ic or
chiefly British log·or·rhoe·ic /-'rE-ik/ adjective
Ironically (a word
ironically used frequently by Mr. Enderle), some people actually pay for
being cured from this. Mr. Enderle turned it into a business and reading his
articles really hurts, especially if one considers he gets paid for,
well, logorrhea.
Bottom line? Ignore him. He's deliberately stupid.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: llanitedave on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 10:11 PM EST |
PJ: "I just know one of you brainiacs is going to actually compute the
odds of hitting a deer and of being sued by SCO and tell me that actually, to be
precise, the odds are not identical."
I've hit a deer. I've had more than a few close calls. The odds, then,
calculate as 1.
I've never been sued by SCO. I can't guarantee that I never will be, but
especially at this juncture, I consider those odds pretty darn remote.
We'll say 0.000001 just to be generous.
You're right. They aren't identical -- for me.
The question is, has IBM ever hit a deer?
You're right. They aren't identical.
---
Of course we need to communicate -- that goes without saying![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tredman on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 10:11 PM EST |
Well, I'm no braniac, but...
A Chicago Tribune story replicated
at Montana Associated Technical Roundtable's web site (written by Blaine
Harden of the Washington Post) states there is research supporting a number of
about 1 million deer-related auto accidents in the US in 1995. Divide that by
the number of registered drivers (about 262,755,000 in 1995, according to the National
Highway Traffic Safety [PDF] Administration web site). So allowing for
differences depending on where you live, the national average chance of having
the misfortune of striking a deer with your car is about 1 in 263.
In
comparison, your chances of being hit by lightning are 1 in 3,000,000, and your
chances of hitting the Florida Lottery's Pick Six
is about 1 in 22,957,480.
Of course, you can also compare that to the
chances of being a Fortune 1000 company and being sued by SCO, which are, what,
1 in 250? (somebody correct my calculations if I'm wrong)
I'd rather play
the lottery, the odds are steeper, but it only costs a buck and the payoffs are
bigger if you win. Also, if I win the lottery, I have a reasonable expectation
that the state of Florida won't go bankrupt before I can collect, and the
lottery officials aren't going to be investigated by the SEC.
Tim
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a statistician, and
my job doesn't involve deep research, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last
night... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chaz_paw on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 10:45 PM EST |
In all the time I have been a member of Groklaw, I now find it amazing that I
have no recollection of mention of Valentine Michael Smith.
Maybe I'm wrong.
---
Proud SuSE 9.1 user since 07/26/04
Charles[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not so OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 02:31 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 10:46 PM EST |
That is, have a section of the site devoted to debunking the ongoing FUD of
"journalists" (some would say shills) like Pretenderle, G2/O'Gara,
Didiot, etc. If each alleged journalist had a section, it would serve as an
organized online debunking document. Over time, the debunkings would accrue to
the point where one could point to them as evidence of the incompetence of the
shills, and in the long run other journalists would stop quoting them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 11:12 PM EST |
I am not the least bit surprised that Rob "Vroom Vroom" Enderle would be
incapable to getting the facts straight about the GPL. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 11:33 PM EST |
Like that Lawyer who was trying to win the pool by getting the word rickshaw
into the record, I bet Pretenderle was dared to see if he could slip 'grok' into
an article and keep a straight face.
I bet DARLing boy and his fellow cronies were snickering for an hour over it...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Bill The Cat on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 11:47 PM EST |
Now think of the technology world the way it was in the 1970s.
Was there ever a world farther away from these core
values?
Actually, the world of computing in the '70s and '80s
was a lot like the community software world of today. Maybe even better. The
research areas like Xerox PARC, Stamford, Cornell, Rochester Institute of
Technology (RIT), MIT, NCSA and others all openly shared elements of source
code. UseNet also had many source code distributions -- many of which were
adapted by BSD and Unix. Open public FTP servers were indexed and widely
used.
The software often was developed by teams working at different
research centers. Remember ARPA? So, 30+ years have passed and many people are
still working together to generate wonderful programs that benefit society. I
believe the Open Source Community is closer to the original core values than
ever before.
So, Rob Enderle either wasn't active on the net in the '70s or,
if he was, he wasn't around those of us who were busy with the Alto, Burroughs,
DEC and other fun boxes of the day. If he was, he would probably know just how
extensive software collaboration and sharing were back then.
Ah, the best
days (long before software patents) when software developers could really
develop some exciting things. Proprietary ownership and greed killed most of
that reality off and only the Open Source Community exists as the evolution of
those days. ---
Bill Catz [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 11:58 PM EST |
Pay him to write it. SCO and MS pay him to lie but he'll write whatever you
want as long as you pay.
Rob Enderle: Opinions for sale, cheap!
---
constructive irrelevance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stingbot on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 12:50 AM EST |
commodity and services
Get it?
It seems like IBM
does.
Operating systems are becoming a commodity
Application servers
are slowly becoming a commodity
Eventually databases will become a commodity
(although, I have to admit, it's taken much longer than I would have
anticipated).
Oracle, IBM, etc... understand this. They know the future is
in services, not licenses.
When working with commodities, you don't want
to pay a premium when you don't have to. That is why people choose Linux.
OS innovation is over. Operating systems do what we need them to do.
IO, threading, etc.
Even if IBM becomes the dominating player (code
submitter) for linux, no one will care because linux is a commodity.
I
trust you'll figure it out eventually.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tbogart on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 01:05 AM EST |
Since it hasn't been brought up, I may well be off base ...
Reading the article rather than just PJs selections, I was struck again what I
perceive as an underlying tone of 'how IBM just went wrong not listening to me
before'. "I helped draft the competitive report that was used to justify
the spin out of IBM Software in the 1990s (which of course never happened)"
Between this piece and that talk he gave that was covered here in some depth it
leaves me feeling the he believes this huge powerfull company that is going so
wrong would be just perfect if they had kept grooming him to take over.
Consider that it might not just be that MS gave him money, but that they
_believed_ in him when no one else would that has captured his undying devotion.
If IBM had simply done it earlier ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 01:18 AM EST |
"If IBM is successful, it will effectively own Linux. It will have the best
tools, it will make the most measured contributions to the installed base, and
it will bend every rule to make sure its solutions are better, faster, and
stronger than anyone else's."
Is this so hard to believe? Even
going beyond simple marketing/branding (RedHat == Linux to many people), break
down what IBM has and can do:
1. Sell off PC business, no more
Microsoft licensing
2. IBM has the PPC architecture
3. Crush SCO, AIX
source is largely free and clear (based on USL vs. BSDi).
5. Heavily modify
the Linux kernel (PPC optimizations, full POSIX compliance, porting from AIX
codebase)
6. Package PPC + new kernel + GPL unix tools, sell to the server
market.
Under this scenario, they would release the updated kernel
source to keep with the GPL, essentially forking the Linux kernel. There's no
issue with changes being accepted to the main tree, the GPL only requires
redistribution, not acceptance by Linus. IBM could very quickly take a large
slice of the server market from x86/linux, which is what IBM would really care
about. Also, they would be fully open source at the OS level, and the burden of
keeping up with IBM would fall on the kernel maintainers.
From there,
start to take over the desktop market within corporations, again with
PPC+kernel+open source desktop software. And once that happens, make headway
into the consumer market, since people will be comfortable with the computers
they use at work.
I realize the above still subject to people not
wanting to buy into "IBM Linux". However, with the stuff Microsoft is pulling
with patents and trusted computing, IBM could be a very good position to reclaim
the server market, making money off hardware and services. If you're a business
looking to switch servers/desktops away from Windows... nobody ever got fired
for buying IBM.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 01:21 AM EST |
There are two ways, to view Enderle's comments in the following
article
EITHER
(a) He's just
commenting:
OR
(b) He's hinting that Apple (and other closed
source vendors) should buy a license from SCO, so since in his own words --
"Raising concerns about the legal underpinnings of source code would benefit
anyone who has a long history of control over source code" -- to which he later
reiterates how much Apple can benefit from a cloud of Linux.
Inf
oWorld, September 2003
"It's not a beauty contest about code. They
are looking out for
their own best business interests,"
says Rob Enderle, principal
analyst at The Enderle
Group. "Raising concerns about the legal
underpinnings of source code would benefit anyone who has a
long history of control over source code and that would be
Microsoft and Sun."
...
"Although it has not entered
a license agreement since SCO initiated its campaign, Apple is
another vendor that stands to benefit from the uncertainty. "Apple was
one of the potential
casualties of a successful
Linux," Enderle says. "But now that Linux is under this cloud, Apple
looks like it is holding a little better at least in mind
share. You don't see a lot of product
movement, but
there is less of this feeling that Linux is going to take Apple out, which is
what I
think they were suffering through an awful lot
last year."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 02:02 AM EST |
I think a good question, is what does Enderle want?
If we take the article at face value, (and we temporarily ignore its egregious
factual errors) -- Enderle is saying he perceives a problem for the Linux
community and/or IBM ?
So the question is what he suggesting that the Linux community and/or IBM to do
to resolve the problem?
He seems to be hinting that the Linux community shouldn't accept any
contributions from IBM, at least until the SCO problem is resolved? (or perhaps
never)
Perhaps the idea here (a fantasy I believe) is that if the Linux community turn
their backs on IBM, IBM might be more likely to settle with SCO...
....Either because IBM might not put Linux at the center of its strategy going
forward,
...And/Or perhaps because he thinks IBM would be prepared to pay off SCO, if IBM
became convinced that this was the only way back into the Linux world's good
books (because in the Enderle fantasy world the Linux community is seriously
concerned about SCO --- oddly enough this part of the fantasy world seems to
match Darl's fantasy world).
ANY OTHER EXPLANATIONS OR THOUGHTS? I'm having trouble coming up with any other
explanation of how Enderle wants this perceived problem solved? In short -
WHAT'S HIS POINT?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 02:19 AM EST |
Mr Enderle ought to Grok his own articles, that doesn't really make sense does
it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 02:36 AM EST |
What is it you like about Linux? The collaborative nature of the
product,
the idea that is it created by a community, the freedom, the low
price? Now
think of the technology world the way it was in the 1970s. Was
there ever a
world farther away from these core values?
I thought the 70's were
the decade of The Homebrew Computer Club
(and countless others), where people
built their own computers and then got
together to share information. I thought
the 70's were the decade of Byte,
Compute!, and other magazines which published
pages and pages of source
code in each issue. I thought the 70's were a decade
of intense innovation in
all branches of computing hardware and
software.
Maybe Rob was talking about the 1870's? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 06:04 AM EST |
| Having sold off it's PC division, IBM no longer has any real concern about
internal competition (such as that which occured between the original IBM PC
division and their minicomputer division which crippled the original PC
design.)
IBM could now create a brand new personal computer hardware design
without having to allow for historical compatibility, or having to license
software from a rival. Loading it with Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox etc you could
have something that can compete directly with a WinTel box but avoiding all the
current performance and security problems. With their experience in
bullet-proofing AIX, IBM can create a version of Linux that looks after itself
and just keeps on running.
IBM have revolutionised the market once before
and almost killed Apple in the process. This time the target is Microsofts
corporate business.
As for Enderle, it's about time that he learnt the
difference between the cost and the value of something. IBM see Linux and other
open source software has having a huge value but little cost. IBM can leverage
this difference to create products that they can sell for a profit. It's not
even a new idea - supermarkets have been "adding value" to cheap goods for
years.
---
Invention and Innovation are not synonyms.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dashing Leech on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 06:31 AM EST |
| "What is it you like about Linux? The collaborative nature of the product,
the idea that is it created by a community, the freedom, the low price? Now
think of the technology world the way it was in the 1970s. Was there ever a
world farther away from these core values?"
That's odd. I thought the
GPL was an attempt to bring back some of the 70's "values" that were lost by big
business takeover of software production. In the 60's and 70's many programmers
would share code regularly. Bill Gates biography was one of the first (and
biggest) protectors of IP in the coding business in the 70's. When he formed
Microsoft he even sent out messages to programmers to stop stealing Microsoft
code.
Check out Microsoft'
s history. A quote:
"Bill Gates is one of the first
programmers to raise the issue of software piracy. In his "An Open Letter to
Hobbyists," first published in MITS newsletter "Computer Notes" and later in
several other newsletters and magazines), Gates accuses hobbyists of stealing
software and thus preventing "...good software from being written." "If you are
STILL using Altair BASIC 1.1, you have a copy that was stolen in March
1975!"
He prophetically concludes with the line, "...Nothing would please me
more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with
good software." "
Sounds like the 70's values were very much
about a community of programmers sharing code to make better programs, at least
until big business tried to take those values away from them. The GPL
formalizes these values in a legal framework to avoid the Microsoft situation
again.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 10:02 AM EST |
Interesting phrases and my personal opinion:
The phrase "freedom in terms of both cost and behavior" seems a bit
funny.
"How do you define success?"
This phrase, along with others in the article referring to a "you",
seem
interesting. Who is "you"? Is it the Linux community, is it IBM, is it
the
computer industry?
The author of the article then also tries to suggest a definition of success:
"If success means defeating Microsoft and Intel...", it means that (at
least) at
in this usage, "you" should be IBM, otherwise, it would not make
sense.
IBM's move away from the PC business (or should I say IBM-compatible PC)
may indicate that there is no much growth in the PC business, that the in the
future there will not be PCs as such. Also, this may be the opportunity for IBM
to end a period of where their investment in DOS and the PC, was taken
advantage by Microsoft by controlling the OS for the PC, and then having PC-
clones. A time where Bill Gates recommended to use assembler for 286 to
write OS/2, while Microsoft was in their way to use C for portability.
I think that some people are afraid that IBM is going to change the industry
again by giving its support to Linux.
Cheers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 11:27 AM EST |
judging from the rapid growth and maturity of Linux and the FOSS
community, who
exactly is the GPL an issue for? the mass of PHBs out there in
the
world--executives and managers who enjoy a level of compensation that
is not
comparable to their skills or judgement--these are the guys who in
Enderle's
'good old days' *always* bought proprietary solutions, either
because that was
the ruling paradigm at the time, or some other
PHB slipped them some faux
nugget of wisdom, like "Nobody ever got fired
for buying Microsoft."
(originally IBM;)
now, the paradigm has shifted, yet there are thousands,
if not millions, of
these dinosaurs roaming the earth--
who are they a problem
for? not Linux, nor the GPL, but simply, the people
that work for them, who
know that a Linux implementation would deliver
tremendous advantages in costs,
time, flexibility, etc.
Darwin identified Adaptability as the most prized
attribute in a species, in
terms of propagation, and avoiding extinction.
Unfortunately for the species
PHB, when dinosaurs mingle, all they ever see is
other dinosaurs;>
Linux is the ultimate threat, because it comes from a
place outside of the
PHB's known reference point, the commercial software
world. It is a threat,
because it shifts the paradigm towards knowledge and
empowerment, and
away from cozy corporate relationships...
Enderle's
specialty is selling to the PHB--Linus doesn't care how many of the
Fortune 500
are using Linux--ultimately, Business needs Linux more than
Linux needs
Business!
-DWitt[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 11:29 AM EST |
Reference to AIX being strange go back a long way.
When Henry Spencer and Geoff Collyer were developing the final release of
C-news, I did some of the testing on AIX. (This was 1990 or so.) In one of the
problem resolution exchanges, Henry referred to an earlier quote of Geoff's:
"AIX: It's a LOT like Unix."
In those days, AIX had a lot of parts that looked like Unix on the surface, but
were implemented in a unique way under the hood; and, of course, those
implementation details wuold crop up as issues for portable software that needed
to install itself on all Unix variants.
Since most of the Unix variants that were around in those days have fallen by
the wayside, and POSIX standards have mandated many of the details (both
user-visible and software install kit visible), AIX is no longer particularly
notable as being hard to work with.
John Macdonald[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 03:39 PM EST |
Interesting thread in Linuxtoday in the link to this story...
Apparently PJ is a myth![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jaywalk on Monday, January 03 2005 @ 03:46 PM EST |
| Or is it the other way around? I'm never sure with Enderle.
The first half
of his article is spot on. Of course they want to dominate the market.
Who ever thought IBM would want to do anything else? I'm just surprised Enderle
was the first analyst I've seen who put the pieces together. - They ditch
their PC division.
- They make a huge push with Linux.
- They sell Power Chips
to anybody who wants them.
- They pump up their services division.
Put it
all together and IBM is ditching both Microsoft and Intel. In theory, IBM would
completely replace Intel as the lead chip producer. Microsoft would be
supplanted by Open Source. Ideally, IBM would rather have taken over
Microsoft's role as well (can you say OS/2?) but has failed in this
repeatedly.This is where Enderle wanders off into the weeds. Deep down, I
think he knows it as well. Try this little experiment; count the question marks
in the "boon" and "bain" sections of the article. There are none in the "boon"
section and a bunch in the "bain" section. As Enderle's argument weakens, he
relies increasingly on rhetorical questions. He desparately wants to have IBM
taking over Linux, but it's just not their property. Under the licensing terms,
they have to release OS improvements back to the community. Of course, they
could give their version of Linux more add-on bells and whistles than anyone
else, but without real control over the OS, IBM will have to be content with
being the dominent company rather than a monopoly.
---
===== Murphy's
Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 04 2005 @ 06:33 AM EST |
| PJ makes the point that the GPL is at least as clear a sign
of genius as RMS's
code. I'd argue it's clearer.
To me,
the crowning achievement of his
code is the architecture
of gcc, but as he himself said, had the Free
University
Compiler Kit been available under easier licensing, it
would have
been used as a basis. GNU Emacs is a great
thing, which I've used daily for
20-odd years, but is it
truly more impressive than Bernie Greenberg's Emacs
for
Multics (which was actually written in Lisp, rather than
embedding Lisp)?
And RMS had Gosmacs and its MockLisp to
pave the way.
But the GPL is a
unique achievement, which had no precursors and is
truly original. For the GPL,
and for the community around
it, RMS has built a monument which will endure long
after
his code has fallen from use.
ian [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardcode57 on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 11:43 AM EST |
<I just know one of you brainiacs is going to actually compute the odds of
hitting a deer and of being sued by SCO>
If you have deep pockets, and you hit a deer, the probability that SCO will sue
you is 1. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 08:36 AM EST |
Some more points to be made:
"aggressively contributing to the Linux code base
with its own intellectual property"
How does one aggressibely contribute code?
Is IBM forcing it in, saying "either take our code or prepare to be
tortured"???
"On the other hand, the SCO issue, which wouldn't even exist if
it weren't for IBM, has created the largest FUD cloud around the Linux
platform."
A moot point if ever I've seen one. Replace "IBM" with any of the
following: "SCO", "Linux", "UNIX", "Law", "Computers" or "Electricity", either
would be equally valid.
"Rather than Linux becoming the new UNIX, doesn't it
now become the new AIX, the most non-standard of the UNIX variants?"
Linux was
never meant to be the new UNIX, it is in fact only _based_ on UNIX. Linux not
becoming UNIX is basically Linux achieving one of it's goals. And yes, where
speaking litteral UNIX replacement here, as demonstrated by the whole AIX
comparison, Enderle expects UNIX-standards conformance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
