I think humans are inherently hopeful. So many of us focus on ideals. We are always concerned about things being "fair" and the way things "should" be. That is the underpinnings of idealism.
When we grow up, we are told to be fair in the games we play. We are taught that there are expectations we should strive to meet and that we should always set goals for ourselves and try to meet those goals.
Well, what is a goal if not something we want to accomplish or be? It's an ideal. Something we setup in our minds as something to work for and try to make happen. Why? Because it's the "right" thing to do or something along those lines.
Not until we "grow up" do we enter the world of dog eat dog and everything we learned about fairness, being a good sport and trying to do things the way they "should be" goes out the window as everyone scurries to get what they want now. To beat someone else out at all costs and damn the ethics!
FOSS is the software equivalent to life in the 3rd grade. It's possibly when we are still at that age when the purity of the notions of "fair" and ideals and the way things "should be" are in "full belief.
Not to say that is a bad thing, because it isn't. It is something that people need. A way to try to reclaim a bit of ourselves from the world gone mad with power and greed.
FOSS and the Open Source Community are all about ideals. trying to make software the way it "should" be. Working together as one group where it's not " remove the individual and only the mob is served", but the whole group has come together to work on common interests. Sharing things that benefit me, the individual, and "hey, by the way, you all can use it too if maybe you help me get it working right."
There is a whole new "world" opened up by the development of the FOSS community. People with internet access across the globe, regardless of nation or religion, independent of politics and "ethnic pride", are talking to each other. Helping each other to create computer software, Operating Systems and applications that will make their jobs and lives a little bit better. a little bit easier.
In the process, people are interacting socially as well in ways never dreamed of before. "Friendships" are struck across continents by people who may never meet each other but have helped each other immensely to make a system work. While they are chatting about variables and config settings, someone asks about how things go, do you like a certain kind of food. And so it goes.
These interactions and communications are all about idealism. We get to present ourselves the way we want others to see us. It doesn't matter if one is rich or poor, ugly or attractive, thin or "substantial". It's an ideal of dealing with people based on our merits. not just how much we know but we get to be polite or funny as we see fit.
Yes, of course there are lot's of people who seem to think they want to present themselves not so appealingly, but that's their choice as well. In the end, while many might lack in certain social skills, the FOSS community accepts them because it's not just about what you say it's also about what you do. While "HackerX" might come off as obnoxious and rude in the chat room, he has also provided some excellent contributions of coding or problem solving that he gave freely to the community for all to use. personality notwithstanding.
Cooperation, sharing, allowing free access, etc these are all ideals. Things that we as humans feel are the ways things "should be". These are what Linux and Open Source are all about. Not only the technical work it produces, but the spirit of Community it allows as well.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
To Command Line or not to Command Line, is it really a question?
I am personally a strong advocate of using the Command Line.
However, I am coming from a more tech type of situation than some others do.
For the 'average" user however, is the Command Line relevant to everyday use?
I am a firm believer in productivity. That's the intent of computers to begin with, to make us more productive.
Does the use of the command line make the everyday user any more productive than not?
I would venture to say that the progress of the GUI environment and applications is evolving now to the point where it doesn't matter much.
The folks who write the applications and OS components are finally realizing that it is important to incorporate as much functionality as possible into a GUI representation of an app. Especially when the apps use or are tied to existing command line functions.
As Linux distros develop and mature, there is a growing awareness of the needs of the end user and how different the usage environment is for them. Most users are only working at the computer to get a specific task or job done. It's like an appliance to them. They don't need to know how to configure a coffeepot to make coffee, or install a microwave oven in order to cook something. Likewise, they shouldn't need to know how to configure a printer or resolution settings in order to type a letter or report.
There are two approaches to applications. The Tech approach and the user approach.
The Tech approach is to make sure everything is installed, configured and working as it is expected to work. That is the Tech's job. To make it work and keep it working.
The user approach is basically, to use it. To know the special functions and tricks to make that app perform and produce results to the best of it's capabilities.
I know many Techs who can install OpenOffice.org and ensure that all is top notch compatible and configured with all drivers, associated apps, connected to the LAN, printers, etc. However, just to type a simple letter on it is asking a lot. Typing, data entry, etc is not their skill set, or their forte. They know just enough to know if it is performing as expected and wait until someone who is more experienced reports problems that might not be "visible" otherwise.
I know many office working people who are masters of data entry, spreadsheets and word processing. They produce documents unheard of, artworks in themselves. Ask them to add a new printer and they fall apart. It's not their "thing".
The more technically oriented the task, the more likely one might use or have use for the command line. even then, not as much as before. With administration tools like webmin, which provide a tremendously productive and powerful tool for administrating computers and servers, all based on existing command line apps and commands, life for the visual user and admin begins to be more consistently GUI.
Also, the hardware capabilities of the computers today are tremendously more capable than those of even 5 years ago, so the value of "conserving" resources, isn't as much of an issue as before as the machines are often more than powerful enough to accommodate GUI rendering using memory and processor time.
I would have to say that the command line shouldn't be removed from the picture, but it doesn't need to be in the highlights for 'everyday' users anymore either.
However, I am coming from a more tech type of situation than some others do.
For the 'average" user however, is the Command Line relevant to everyday use?
I am a firm believer in productivity. That's the intent of computers to begin with, to make us more productive.
Does the use of the command line make the everyday user any more productive than not?
I would venture to say that the progress of the GUI environment and applications is evolving now to the point where it doesn't matter much.
The folks who write the applications and OS components are finally realizing that it is important to incorporate as much functionality as possible into a GUI representation of an app. Especially when the apps use or are tied to existing command line functions.
As Linux distros develop and mature, there is a growing awareness of the needs of the end user and how different the usage environment is for them. Most users are only working at the computer to get a specific task or job done. It's like an appliance to them. They don't need to know how to configure a coffeepot to make coffee, or install a microwave oven in order to cook something. Likewise, they shouldn't need to know how to configure a printer or resolution settings in order to type a letter or report.
There are two approaches to applications. The Tech approach and the user approach.
The Tech approach is to make sure everything is installed, configured and working as it is expected to work. That is the Tech's job. To make it work and keep it working.
The user approach is basically, to use it. To know the special functions and tricks to make that app perform and produce results to the best of it's capabilities.
I know many Techs who can install OpenOffice.org and ensure that all is top notch compatible and configured with all drivers, associated apps, connected to the LAN, printers, etc. However, just to type a simple letter on it is asking a lot. Typing, data entry, etc is not their skill set, or their forte. They know just enough to know if it is performing as expected and wait until someone who is more experienced reports problems that might not be "visible" otherwise.
I know many office working people who are masters of data entry, spreadsheets and word processing. They produce documents unheard of, artworks in themselves. Ask them to add a new printer and they fall apart. It's not their "thing".
The more technically oriented the task, the more likely one might use or have use for the command line. even then, not as much as before. With administration tools like webmin, which provide a tremendously productive and powerful tool for administrating computers and servers, all based on existing command line apps and commands, life for the visual user and admin begins to be more consistently GUI.
Also, the hardware capabilities of the computers today are tremendously more capable than those of even 5 years ago, so the value of "conserving" resources, isn't as much of an issue as before as the machines are often more than powerful enough to accommodate GUI rendering using memory and processor time.
I would have to say that the command line shouldn't be removed from the picture, but it doesn't need to be in the highlights for 'everyday' users anymore either.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Theodore Roosevelt must be spinning
Intellectual Property. What a term. There is actually a Law that says someone can 'own' an idea.
Back in Theodore Roosevelt's day, he was known as the 'trust buster'. He adamantly refused to allow companies to have monopolies over a market.
TR was from a 'rich' family, yet he believed in doing things the "right" way.
He believed that business in America should be done fairly.
President Roosevelt was firm in the belief that if you wanted to be successful in business, you did it it by making a better product, by providing a better service. Not by locking competitors out of the market.
As President, he issued approx 44 lawsuits against major corporations back then. Why? Because they were not openening markets and "innovating" as some of our current monopolists like to say, instead, they produced inferior products, and instead of competing fairly in an open market, used legal loopholes and manipulation to keep competitors out.
Hmmm. I wonder what President Roosevelt would have said about Microsoft, or a huge number of mega corporations that exist now?
One might think he would have been stunned to see our current government so deeply in the pocket of corporate interests. He may very well have declared war on Congress.
The conduct of modern corporations and politicians in America now is very skewed from what the framers of the Constitution set down in words so many years ago.
President Roosevelt ( Theodore) believed in responsibility. Responsibility in business and in government.
He didn't try to eliminate companies or prevent them from doing business. Only to ensure they played fair and kept the marketplace 'open'.
"Open", that's an interesting word, isn't it? As far back as 1901, when President Theodore Roosevelt took office, there was a concern about "open" markets and fair corporate play.
How does the saying go? " The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Not just Microsoft, but ANY company that tries to exclude competition in the marketplace is fundamentally un-Constitutional and viewed by many as simply 'Un-American". Yet the politicians who keep looking the other way and taking the bribes also continue to be derelict in their duties.
The one thing government is supposed to do is stay out of the way as much as possible and work to ensure a level playing field, so that ALL people and businesses may compete and do business fairly and, dare I say, "openly" as possible.
That doesn't mean they should take sides and prop up one group over another, just make sure that business stays fair. Not 'closing' markets to prevent competition. Kind of a recurring item here isn't it?
Proprietary means 'closed". If it is closed it prevents fair and equal access. That's about as simple as it gets.
You either have a good product or you don't. If someone sees or even buys one company's crappy product and says to himself, I can build a better one of these than that. They should be able to enter the fray and using his wits, business savvy and materials, see if he can offer a better product. Thus you get fair and open competition. each one producing an item to do X and each trying to top the others most recent effort.
Consumers will decide which fits their needs best and let the competitors know what isn't cutting it.
Poor President Roosevelt, after going to such lengths to keep corporations 'honest', his successors just took the money and turned their heads.
Back in Theodore Roosevelt's day, he was known as the 'trust buster'. He adamantly refused to allow companies to have monopolies over a market.
TR was from a 'rich' family, yet he believed in doing things the "right" way.
He believed that business in America should be done fairly.
President Roosevelt was firm in the belief that if you wanted to be successful in business, you did it it by making a better product, by providing a better service. Not by locking competitors out of the market.
As President, he issued approx 44 lawsuits against major corporations back then. Why? Because they were not openening markets and "innovating" as some of our current monopolists like to say, instead, they produced inferior products, and instead of competing fairly in an open market, used legal loopholes and manipulation to keep competitors out.
Hmmm. I wonder what President Roosevelt would have said about Microsoft, or a huge number of mega corporations that exist now?
One might think he would have been stunned to see our current government so deeply in the pocket of corporate interests. He may very well have declared war on Congress.
The conduct of modern corporations and politicians in America now is very skewed from what the framers of the Constitution set down in words so many years ago.
President Roosevelt ( Theodore) believed in responsibility. Responsibility in business and in government.
He didn't try to eliminate companies or prevent them from doing business. Only to ensure they played fair and kept the marketplace 'open'.
"Open", that's an interesting word, isn't it? As far back as 1901, when President Theodore Roosevelt took office, there was a concern about "open" markets and fair corporate play.
How does the saying go? " The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Not just Microsoft, but ANY company that tries to exclude competition in the marketplace is fundamentally un-Constitutional and viewed by many as simply 'Un-American". Yet the politicians who keep looking the other way and taking the bribes also continue to be derelict in their duties.
The one thing government is supposed to do is stay out of the way as much as possible and work to ensure a level playing field, so that ALL people and businesses may compete and do business fairly and, dare I say, "openly" as possible.
That doesn't mean they should take sides and prop up one group over another, just make sure that business stays fair. Not 'closing' markets to prevent competition. Kind of a recurring item here isn't it?
Proprietary means 'closed". If it is closed it prevents fair and equal access. That's about as simple as it gets.
You either have a good product or you don't. If someone sees or even buys one company's crappy product and says to himself, I can build a better one of these than that. They should be able to enter the fray and using his wits, business savvy and materials, see if he can offer a better product. Thus you get fair and open competition. each one producing an item to do X and each trying to top the others most recent effort.
Consumers will decide which fits their needs best and let the competitors know what isn't cutting it.
Poor President Roosevelt, after going to such lengths to keep corporations 'honest', his successors just took the money and turned their heads.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Is a copycat, by any other name, still a copycat?
There is an article on EWeek that discusses the goal of the new RedHat CEO to keep focused on OpenSource software.
In this article, the author makes a point to discuss difficulties RedHat must face, particularly 'Copycats' or groups who duplicate RedHat's work and redistribute it.
Two of the 'Copycats' mentioned are Oracle and CentOS. Both are groups who have taken the RedHat distribution and re-distributed and re-branded it with a different name and with different purposes.
Oracle has re-branded RedHat distro and sells support for it on their own, in a bid to profit from that product. On the other side, CentOS has also re-branded RedHat's distro but offers no paid support and does not sell it, but offers it for free.
Since the distro being copied falls under ( primarily) the GPL, it is perfectly legal to "copy" it. So there really isn't a legal wrongdoing here, but an ethical wrong is being suggested.
In the case of one for-profit company, relabeling another company's product then making a profit from that, I can see where some would come to that conclusion of being 'ethically' wrong. If not wrong, certainly not a move that will gain Oracle many friends. ( Edit: Oracle does NOT charge for their version of Re-branded RHEL, only for support.)
CentOS recognizes that the distro is free to redistribute under the GPL, once the company trademarked identifications, etc are removed ( labeling or 'Branding' ). RedHat sells their branded version and offers a different version for free called Fedora. But, the Branded product is indeed also subject to the GPL and the folks at CentOS are not trying to make any money off the deal, per se, merely to make freely available, that which the GPL says is able to be shared as such.
So, one can pay RedHat for their branded distro and pay for support beyond that to have their Linux run smoothly. Or , one can download Oracles re-branded RedHat distro for free and pay Oracle for support beyond that to have their Linux run smoothly. OR, one may download CentOS's re-branded RedHat distro for free and do some research and homework to have their Linux run smoothly.
CentOS might be seen as a modern day Robin Hood, albeit not legally 'stealing' from the rich to give to the poor, but the scerio is close enough to make the comparison. The reason, as I have read thus far, on CentOS's part wasn't to release a re-branded Distro in order to compete, but it was legally obligated to remove the trademarked "RedHat" branding and images, etc from the distro and replace them with something in order to be legally responsible and still provide a product that is recognized as a leader in the Linux industry without having to pay high costs upfront for it. Essentially making the RedHat product available to everyone, without the support being available for it.
Mind you, an entire support industry has popped up in the form of books, internet forums and other means to provide support and CentOS/RedHat directly benefits from this as RedHat is one of the most commonly used distros authors use to base their teaching examples on.
Oracle on the other hand, is doing the same, only they are charging for their support and "extras".
No matter how you re-brand it, it is indeed RedHat's distro. Both Oracle and CentOS know this. It's all open source and free, in more ways than one. Both of their methods are 'legal' based on the GPL. Most people, from the start, observed that Oracles move is not largely viewed as 'ethically' right. CentOS is not seen by most as "ethically' wrong because they charge no money, despite RedHat, if it wanted a 'free' version of their top drawer product, would have provided one.
In this article, the author makes a point to discuss difficulties RedHat must face, particularly 'Copycats' or groups who duplicate RedHat's work and redistribute it.
Two of the 'Copycats' mentioned are Oracle and CentOS. Both are groups who have taken the RedHat distribution and re-distributed and re-branded it with a different name and with different purposes.
Oracle has re-branded RedHat distro and sells support for it on their own, in a bid to profit from that product. On the other side, CentOS has also re-branded RedHat's distro but offers no paid support and does not sell it, but offers it for free.
Since the distro being copied falls under ( primarily) the GPL, it is perfectly legal to "copy" it. So there really isn't a legal wrongdoing here, but an ethical wrong is being suggested.
In the case of one for-profit company, relabeling another company's product then making a profit from that, I can see where some would come to that conclusion of being 'ethically' wrong. If not wrong, certainly not a move that will gain Oracle many friends. ( Edit: Oracle does NOT charge for their version of Re-branded RHEL, only for support.)
CentOS recognizes that the distro is free to redistribute under the GPL, once the company trademarked identifications, etc are removed ( labeling or 'Branding' ). RedHat sells their branded version and offers a different version for free called Fedora. But, the Branded product is indeed also subject to the GPL and the folks at CentOS are not trying to make any money off the deal, per se, merely to make freely available, that which the GPL says is able to be shared as such.
So, one can pay RedHat for their branded distro and pay for support beyond that to have their Linux run smoothly. Or , one can download Oracles re-branded RedHat distro for free and pay Oracle for support beyond that to have their Linux run smoothly. OR, one may download CentOS's re-branded RedHat distro for free and do some research and homework to have their Linux run smoothly.
CentOS might be seen as a modern day Robin Hood, albeit not legally 'stealing' from the rich to give to the poor, but the scerio is close enough to make the comparison. The reason, as I have read thus far, on CentOS's part wasn't to release a re-branded Distro in order to compete, but it was legally obligated to remove the trademarked "RedHat" branding and images, etc from the distro and replace them with something in order to be legally responsible and still provide a product that is recognized as a leader in the Linux industry without having to pay high costs upfront for it. Essentially making the RedHat product available to everyone, without the support being available for it.
Mind you, an entire support industry has popped up in the form of books, internet forums and other means to provide support and CentOS/RedHat directly benefits from this as RedHat is one of the most commonly used distros authors use to base their teaching examples on.
Oracle on the other hand, is doing the same, only they are charging for their support and "extras".
No matter how you re-brand it, it is indeed RedHat's distro. Both Oracle and CentOS know this. It's all open source and free, in more ways than one. Both of their methods are 'legal' based on the GPL. Most people, from the start, observed that Oracles move is not largely viewed as 'ethically' right. CentOS is not seen by most as "ethically' wrong because they charge no money, despite RedHat, if it wanted a 'free' version of their top drawer product, would have provided one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
