Re: [TCLUG:18038] Where is Cygnus now? (was Re: [TCLUG:17968] Debian error)

["Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@veldy.net>]

> > Sure it is.  But that doesn't mean that all future compiler releases
will
> > be.  But really, my greater point was that Redhat is now in a position
to
> > push Linux where they want it to go instead of where the userbase at
large
> > want it to go.  I don't like that they were able to "buy" the influence
over
> > future linux developement.  I hate RedHat.
> >
>
> While they wouldn't be the first corporation to unwittingly slaughter
their
> source of golden eggs, I'm optimistic that Red Hat won't soon forget that
they
> got where they were by following what the masses wanted, not by dictating
it.
> And I'm certain they won't be closing off any of the source if they can
help
> it -- we've all already seen plenty of examples of the uproar that follows
even
> the *appearance* of such a move.  They suffer enough bashing as it is,
largely
> (as far as I can tell) only because they're the most visible success of
the
> Linux movement...  Smells like Nirvana Syndrome to me.

They can't close of the existing or derived code of gcc - unless they get
the copyright from FSF.  Redhat has earned the bashing they get by making
their initialization scrips cryptic and hard to understand.  They want you
to use their stupid GUI tools.  Everything they do is based upon RPM.  Pain
in the but to get the SPEC and any corresponding scripts without downloading
the entire SRPMS.  They are taking money up the rear from commercial
organizations which are now in the position to influence future development
efforts by Redhat (and thus Cygnus).  Besides, Redhat is well known as the
BUGGIEST distribution around.  Beta everything.  Notice they seem to have
ties to the latest and greatest patches that the general public doesn't
(always the latest kernel + patches - latest glibc + alpha patches, etc).

>
> At any rate, although (AFAIK) there's still been no major courtroom test,
the
> various Open Source licences guarantee that Linux will not become "closed
> source" any time in the near future.  Unless Red Hat has the phenomenal
> resources and stupidity to write their own incompatible Linux clone and
> copyright it, there isn't even a door to close.

Nope - no door.  I never said anything about closing a door.  Just that they
are getting more influence of the future of Linux than I would like to see.
If they control compiler development, and if they can start getting control
of glibc and perhaps an influence upon kernel development - they will have
it all.  Granted, it is not likely that they will - who would have thought
they would get hold of gcc either.

>
> Comparing Red Hat to MS strikes me as facile and ill-thought out.
Microsoft has
> actively stifled competition, bought out other companies simply to
eliminate
> their products, and been a thorn even to their so-called allies.  Red Hat,
while
> not exactly lily-white, can hardly be accused of strangling innovation or
> stifling competition -- in their tenure so far, the number of commercial
> distributions has exploded, many of them even taking RH's distribution as
a
> starting point.  Can you see MS allowing somebody else to do that with
Windows,
> *ever*?

I am not comparing the current Redhat to Microsoft - just a possible future
Redhat.  So, yes, it was thought out.  They have commercial backing that
most other distributions can't touch (Debian and S.U.S.E. are getting some
backing).

I don't want to turn this into a conspiracy theory - but it does bother me
that something that did not seem impossible before has suddenly become more
so.


Tom Veldhouse
veldy@veldy.net