Linux reference distro

Linux reference distro

Post by mlw » Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:35:38



Now that various Linux companies are having money issues, as with most tech
companies in the U.S.A, this might be a perfect time to reassert the notion of
a standard linux configuration.

An open standard about package format, configuration files, and compliance
versions, anyone remember this?

I see, in the near future, if SuSE or RedHat goes under, that corporations may
have an issue with support. A set of standards, created by and adhered to, will
make any one company failure irrelevant. This is the power of open source.

--
http://www.mohawksoft.com

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by goug.. » Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:59:50



> Now that various Linux companies are having money issues, as with most tech
> companies in the U.S.A, this might be a perfect time to reassert the notion of
> a standard linux configuration.

> An open standard about package format, configuration files, and compliance
> versions, anyone remember this?

> I see, in the near future, if SuSE or RedHat goes under, that corporations may
> have an issue with support. A set of standards, created by and adhered to, will
> make any one company failure irrelevant. This is the power of open source.

I think this is a good idea.  If this was done, it would also help the
progress of the Linux desktop.
Incidentally, there is very little evidence that SuSE or RedHat going
under.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by Ray Chaso » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:13:03



>Now that various Linux companies are having money issues, as with most tech
>companies in the U.S.A, this might be a perfect time to reassert the notion of
>a standard linux configuration.

>An open standard about package format, configuration files, and compliance
>versions, anyone remember this?

The Linux Standard Base, http://www.linuxbase.org/ , is an effort to do
just that.

--
 --------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
         PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
                            Delenda est Windoze

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by Mike » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:32:49



Quote:> Now that various Linux companies are having money issues, as with most
tech
> companies in the U.S.A, this might be a perfect time to reassert the
notion of
> a standard linux configuration.

> An open standard about package format, configuration files, and compliance
> versions, anyone remember this?

> I see, in the near future, if SuSE or RedHat goes under, that corporations
may
> have an issue with support. A set of standards, created by and adhered to,
will
> make any one company failure irrelevant. This is the power of open source.

But they also make any one company irrelevant. It seems to me that there are
only two ways for an open source company to distinguish itself from the
competition: differentiate the product, and offer services. In selecting a
distribution, if the only difference between a Red Hat distribution and any
other is the label on the CD, then there's little reason to select Red Hat.
I'd argue that Red Hat has to differentiate to survive.

Another problem is deciding how that standard configuration is defined, and
how updates are handled. If a company like Red Hat wants to push the
envelope, delivering updates as soon as they are available, and other
companies want to move more slowly, then there will be conflicts with the
standard configuration. If the standard configuration specifies the
particular releases of all the tools, then a new standards effort is needed
for each release - time consuming and distracting, if not expensive. If the
release versions aren't specified, then a distribution containing old
versions and one containing new versions would both be considered standard,
even though they may be incompatible with each other.

-- Mike --

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by mlw » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:06:23





> > Now that various Linux companies are having money issues, as with most
> tech
> > companies in the U.S.A, this might be a perfect time to reassert the
> notion of
> > a standard linux configuration.

> > An open standard about package format, configuration files, and compliance
> > versions, anyone remember this?

> > I see, in the near future, if SuSE or RedHat goes under, that corporations
> may
> > have an issue with support. A set of standards, created by and adhered to,
> will
> > make any one company failure irrelevant. This is the power of open source.

> But they also make any one company irrelevant. It seems to me that there are
> only two ways for an open source company to distinguish itself from the
> competition: differentiate the product, and offer services. In selecting a
> distribution, if the only difference between a Red Hat distribution and any
> other is the label on the CD, then there's little reason to select Red Hat.
> I'd argue that Red Hat has to differentiate to survive.

I disagree entirely. Were RedHat, SuSE, and whom ever, identical, the value
added would be the support of the distribution. If licensed RedHat users were
e-mailed the patches in an encrypted tar-ball, wouldn't that be a huge draw to
license RedHat? How about if they were e-mailed update alerts?

There are many things an open source vendor can do to make money and a name for
themselves. The problem is that most do not understand that they can not
operate like a closed source software company.

Open source companies are 'VARs' not ISVs or software OEMs. The people that
want to sell open source software as if they are an ISV or a software OEM will
fail because the business model does not work. There is no secret code which
makes you better than others.

It is a tough business, but it is less tough because you don't have to write
your write your software, and there are thousands of people improving the
software you service.

--
http://www.mohawksoft.com

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by The Ghost In The Machi » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:16:09


In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ray Chason

 wrote
on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:13:03 -0000


>>Now that various Linux companies are having money issues, as
>>with most tech companies in the U.S.A, this might be a perfect
>>time to reassert the notion of a standard linux configuration.

>>An open standard about package format, configuration files, and compliance
>>versions, anyone remember this?

>The Linux Standard Base, http://www.linuxbase.org/ , is an effort to do
>just that.

A Yahoo! Websearch ("FSSTND") also dredged up http://www.pathname.com/fhs ,
which touts itself as "the home of the Filesystem Hierarchy Stanadrd
(FHS)".  There's also a reference to http://www.freestandards.org ,
which incorporated May 8, 2000, on linuxbase.

[.sigsnip]

--

EAC code #191       5d:05h:45m actually running Linux.
                    This is the best part of the message.

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by Mike » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 06:44:02






> > > Now that various Linux companies are having money issues, as with most
> > tech
> > > companies in the U.S.A, this might be a perfect time to reassert the
> > notion of
> > > a standard linux configuration.

> > > An open standard about package format, configuration files, and
compliance
> > > versions, anyone remember this?

> > > I see, in the near future, if SuSE or RedHat goes under, that
corporations
> > may
> > > have an issue with support. A set of standards, created by and adhered
to,
> > will
> > > make any one company failure irrelevant. This is the power of open
source.

> > But they also make any one company irrelevant. It seems to me that there
are
> > only two ways for an open source company to distinguish itself from the
> > competition: differentiate the product, and offer services. In selecting
a
> > distribution, if the only difference between a Red Hat distribution and
any
> > other is the label on the CD, then there's little reason to select Red
Hat.
> > I'd argue that Red Hat has to differentiate to survive.

> I disagree entirely. Were RedHat, SuSE, and whom ever, identical, the
value
> added would be the support of the distribution. If licensed RedHat users
were
> e-mailed the patches in an encrypted tar-ball, wouldn't that be a huge
draw to
> license RedHat? How about if they were e-mailed update alerts?

A good point, but that can happen whether there's a standard or not.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> There are many things an open source vendor can do to make money and a
name for
> themselves. The problem is that most do not understand that they can not
> operate like a closed source software company.

> Open source companies are 'VARs' not ISVs or software OEMs. The people
that
> want to sell open source software as if they are an ISV or a software OEM
will
> fail because the business model does not work. There is no secret code
which
> makes you better than others.

> It is a tough business, but it is less tough because you don't have to
write
> your write your software, and there are thousands of people improving the
> software you service.

Red Hat is on track to be profitable some time in 2002. To be honest, I'm
not sure whether they look like a VAR or an ISV, or even an OEM. I think the
folks at Red Hat would argue that there is a difference in their
distribution, and that customers want what theirs has to offer, even if it
can only be described in vague terms. What is clear is that they have
changed their business model as time has evolved. They originally talked
about becoming a web portal, and generating web advertising revenue. Today,
they point to the growing parts of their business and say they're going to
do more of that. I think the business model is simple: do what people want
to pay for.

-- Mike --

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by Mart van de Weg » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:02:10




> Red Hat is on track to be profitable some time in 2002. To be
> honest, I'm not sure whether they look like a VAR or an ISV, or
> even an OEM. I think the folks at Red Hat would argue that
> there is a difference in their distribution, and that customers
> want what theirs has to offer, even if it can only be described
> in vague terms. What is clear is that they have changed their
> business model as time has evolved. They originally talked
> about becoming a web portal, and generating web advertising
> revenue. Today, they point to the growing parts of their
> business and say they're going to do more of that. I think the
> business model is simple: do what people want to pay for.

> -- Mike --

Mike,

I work in financials, and as a Linux user (and onetime RH6.2
user) I have been tracking RH on this very subject. For one,
they just posted earnings well above expectations, and they've
set their target for profitability as sometime this year (don't
have the exact date here, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
Their current business model is actually simplicty itself: RH
targets itself as a complete solutions provider (Servers and
Workstations) for businesses. One FUD tactic we constantly hear
is: "If something goes wrong with your Linux install you have
noone to blame". RH wants to adress that, they know that
managers *like* solid service contracts, and are willing to pay
good bucks for that. They have in fact stated publicly that
their distro is not aimed at home users. Of course, the money
they earn on corporate contracts gets used to pay their
developers, which ultimately benefits the home user as well. A
sort of trickle down economics if you want.

Mart
--
Happily running Debian, posting with Pan

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:24:37




Quote:> I work in financials, and as a Linux user (and onetime RH6.2
> user) I have been tracking RH on this very subject. For one,
> they just posted earnings well above expectations, and they've
> set their target for profitability as sometime this year (don't
> have the exact date here, and I'm too lazy to look it up).

Isn't it amazing that Red Hat's financials have suddenly picked up since
they decided to start releasing broken versions of their OS (RH 7) that
generate lots and lots of support incidents?
 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by yt.. » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:44:21





>> I work in financials, and as a Linux user (and onetime RH6.2
>> user) I have been tracking RH on this very subject. For one,
>> they just posted earnings well above expectations, and they've
>> set their target for profitability as sometime this year (don't
>> have the exact date here, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
> Isn't it amazing that Red Hat's financials have suddenly picked up since
> they decided to start releasing broken versions of their OS (RH 7) that
> generate lots and lots of support incidents?

You dont have the smallest idea of how many report incidents microsoft
deals with every day.

-----.

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by J Sloa » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:12:14





> > I work in financials, and as a Linux user (and onetime RH6.2
> > user) I have been tracking RH on this very subject. For one,
> > they just posted earnings well above expectations, and they've
> > set their target for profitability as sometime this year (don't
> > have the exact date here, and I'm too lazy to look it up).

> Isn't it amazing that Red Hat's financials have suddenly picked up since
> they decided to start releasing broken versions of their OS (RH 7) that
> generate lots and lots of support incidents?

What support incidents?

I've been running 7.0 on several boxes and not a
hint of trouble in sight, but a number of labor reducing
enhancements.

jjs

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by Perry P » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:26:55


On 11 Feb 2001 17:44:21 GMT,


>You dont have the smallest idea of how many report incidents microsoft
>deals with every day.

sed "s/deals with/ignores/"

Perry

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:43:58






> >> I work in financials, and as a Linux user (and onetime RH6.2
> >> user) I have been tracking RH on this very subject. For one,
> >> they just posted earnings well above expectations, and they've
> >> set their target for profitability as sometime this year (don't
> >> have the exact date here, and I'm too lazy to look it up).

> > Isn't it amazing that Red Hat's financials have suddenly picked up since
> > they decided to start releasing broken versions of their OS (RH 7) that
> > generate lots and lots of support incidents?

> You dont have the smallest idea of how many report incidents microsoft
> deals with every day.

Oh, I do.  But MS is actively trying to reduce the number of incidents, Red
Hat seems to be trying to increase them (for obvious reasons, since they
make money on support calls, and this is where most of their revenue comes
from).

That wasn't a commentary on number of support calls, it was a commentary on
what I view to be Red Hat's policy to generate them.

 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:45:38






> > > I work in financials, and as a Linux user (and onetime RH6.2
> > > user) I have been tracking RH on this very subject. For one,
> > > they just posted earnings well above expectations, and they've
> > > set their target for profitability as sometime this year (don't
> > > have the exact date here, and I'm too lazy to look it up).

> > Isn't it amazing that Red Hat's financials have suddenly picked up since
> > they decided to start releasing broken versions of their OS (RH 7) that
> > generate lots and lots of support incidents?

> What support incidents?

> I've been running 7.0 on several boxes and not a
> hint of trouble in sight, but a number of labor reducing
> enhancements.

You're going to sit there and tell me you're not the least bit aware of all
the issues surrounding Red Hat 7?  You're not aware that Linux has stated
categorically that RH7 is severely broken?
 
 
 

Linux reference distro

Post by Mart van de Weg » Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:42:22






>> I work in financials, and as a Linux user (and onetime RH6.2
>> user) I have been tracking RH on this very subject. For one,
>> they just posted earnings well above expectations, and they've
>> set their target for profitability as sometime this year
>> (don't have the exact date here, and I'm too lazy to look it
>> up).

> Isn't it amazing that Red Hat's financials have suddenly picked
> up since they decided to start releasing broken versions of
> their OS (RH 7) that generate lots and lots of support
> incidents?

Poor Erik,

That would have been a nice theory, were it not that the
earnings that were above expectations could have been at most
q4, and I believe it was actually q3 that gave the right
numbers.
In either case, this would mean that this has not much to do
with RH7, because it's release was too close to the end of q4 to
make a difference.
Barking up the wrong tree again I'm afraid.

Mart
--
Happily running Debian, posting with Pan

 
 
 

1. FWD- Red Hat is indeed the Bugs Hat and the suckest distro amongst the Linux distros.

Red Hat is indeed the Bugs Hat and the suckest distro amongst
the Linux distros.

It's so bad, only Windoze NT can beats it.

http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/stats.html?&_ref=1074041852

Alex Lam.

--
- Please remove XY from address if reply by e mail.
-*Linux Rocks. BSD Rules.But both are great.
**Linux is NOT Red Hat-Sign the GNU/Linux petition :
  http://www.redhatisnotlinux.org/petition.php4
***Micro$oft says Unix is more secure.

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP

2. Linux Crashed on me, can't get back in...

3. Community-created OpenSolaris minimal "reference distro" -- is it possible?

4. Any good recommendations for int. ISDN TA for Linux?

5. Distro or not to Distro..... that is the ????

6. Apache 1.3.26 & Php 4.2.2

7. Slackware distro secure? (was Redhat distro secure?)

8. SSL (secure sockets) for Linux

9. undefined reference to `pw_crypt',undefined reference to `spw_unpack'

10. Blue Linux (Linux distro for educational field)

11. Linux Distros (crosspost from alt.os.linux.slackware)

12. Linux; The Complete Reference, Now with YOUR choice of Linux!

13. Dr. Linux vs. Linux: The Complete Reference?