4:51 p.m.
I posted this else where but it was suggested I post this to the list serve
so here goes
Fedora Core 5 is a truly amazing OS and one I think has the potential to
really do great things. Looking forward to what the Fedora Project has the
potential to do, especially with its new focus I decided to give some
suggestions as to what could possibly be done starting with Fedora 6 and
onward. Some of my suggestions are definitely based on the OS itself but
others are also concerning the general focus and outlook of the Fedora
Project itself. I hope my suggestion are not regarded as offensive in anyway
and they are only meant to highlight the greatness of Fedora as well as to
reflect my strong desire to see this project take off and propel the Linux
OS to new heights.
First suggestions has to do with the software side of things. We users need
a competent software installer which is graphical based. One that functions
much the same way that the windows installer works. This installer should
track dependencies naturally and place icons on the desktop or give the
option to have icons for the software just installed to be placed on the
desktop of the user as well as in the applications menu. Also when watching
the Boston Linux conference the suggestion was made to offer a hard disc
manager much like windows offers for formating and receiving hard drivers
etc after installation.
My second set of suggestions will deal with the over all focus and
structure of the fedora project. I was listening to a pod cast interview
with the head of the fedora project where in, the topic came up of some how
generating revenue to put back into the project and make it more self
sufficient. So I have a few suggestions which I think the Redhat company
itself should take note of. Firstly Redhat while promoting Linux among
enthusiast is also in the business of making money. On that front I believe
that they should not only attempt to evangelize Linux in the government,
education, and corporate sectors; they should also attempt to get Linux in
each and every home. The reason being is if people are starting to use Linux
in their homes and they are comfortable with it, employers will be more
likely and willing to deploy a operating system which is different in many
ways to windows on the interactive level. Reason being is when people have
to stop to learn new technology this cuts down on productivity and as a
person who works for a IT department in a major university I can also vouch
for the fact a IT team will not be willing to suggest an infrastructure
restructuring when they know, supporting users on something foreign to them
is going to increase their workload 10 fold. So bottom line, more users both
advanced, intermediate and beginners need to be converted to the Linux
faithful but now the question becomes how?
The Fedora project is the perfect tool for this and here is how. The fedora
team should focus SOLELY on making the operating system run as smoothly and
as fast as possible, interacting with a HUGE number of hardware
configurations. Installation needs to be as smooth as silk and upgrading
needs to be fail proof from version to version. Previously installed drives
with personal user data needs to be able to be retained without fail from
upgrade to upgrade if the user isn't doing a clean install. Now I would like
to move on to "partnerships" Fedora project should look into making
"partners" or some other creative term to define other Linux projects and
organizations. In this partnership Fedora will tightly enforce standards
which will ensure that any software created to run on fedora is following
say the OIN and the GPL standards to the letter to ensure an user friendly
and secure/stable operating system that runs smoothly. Many people in the
Linux community may grumble about this suggestion however life is about
progression and when things do not change and evolve and progress to new
levels then they are doomed to become extinct (think dinosaurs here) or at
the very least remain niche applications. If Fedora project implements such
a model, they do not have to worry about making certain software for the OS
which would take far to much time and man power to create. Prime example
would be the hard disk manager or even the software installer. This sort of
work could be left to groups who's soul purpose is to make such software and
by following strict guidelines they would become Fedora project "partners"
and in turn they would be promised that their software will be included in
the fedora core release. Also by following strict guidelines this software
could be implemented in other Linux distributions which are also following
said guidelines. This would take the pressure off of Fedora and they can
then focus on whats important which is making their OS run like silk. Again
let me stress this approach is keeping in mind that projects such as Fedora
and other Linux distributions desire to penetrate more into the home desktop
market, which then also means more users will or could eventually equate to
greater adoption of the platform in other industries as a result of user
awareness and user comfort with the Linux platform. I should also mention
that those software development groups that do not comply could be offered
as Fedora extras so the community still has choices which is really part of
the appeal of Linux.
Okay so with all that said how could this generate income? Well lets say
Fedora project comes up with one of the first 100% standard enforced
distributions which is as user friendly or even more so than MS windows. Now
say a "ambassador" from Fedora can start making the rounds to Dell and other
companies and attempt to get them to start offering this FREE Linux
distribution on some of their PC models, which would also allow for lower
prices on the retail side for them (ie Dell, Gateway etc.) as the OS is FREE
and that cuts down on cost which the end user ends up incurring. But we
still have not addressed revenue for the Fedora project, and this can be
done by following the Redhat model of offering technical support. Fedora
project could basically offer technical support certification and training
to Dell staff as an example so they (the PC manufacturer) can then take over
supporting the platform for their end users, which also equates to revenue
for these companies in the long run because they can offer extended tech
support to end users at a premium. Fedora core could charge a VERY minimal
fee for this training, so say charge enough that it would generate revenue
that can then be pumped back into the project and at the same time would
still make it cheaper for Dell and other companies to go with Linux on some
desktop offerings as opposed to having a windows only offering.
The future of Linux if to be taken seriously should not be relegated to
just the business, government, and education world as far as standards,
reliability, and software / hardware vendor support is concerned. The brand
will grow far more rapidly if consumers are adopting the standard at home
and at work so basically this is a bottom up approach. This of this, more
desktop users in the home also means more software sales for major companies
because you will have more people buying video games and other such things
which will also mean more companies willing to adopt the platform because
software offering become greater.
There needs to be a consorted effort on the parts of all parties involved
to take Linux to that next phase of existence other wise Linux as a brand,
while it may grow some what will not see its full potential. With the
software being a open and free model we still have to realize with a flurry
of hodge podge coding and no standards insight the end user ends up losing
at least as far as the home front is concerned. Most people are forced to
run duel boot Windows and Linux systems because software makers and hardware
manufactures have not fully bought into the Linux model and we as a
community only have ourselves to blame for that. This approach will also
take some evangelizing to the software makers of such things as yum and KDE
however I believe that those who do not see the need and importants of doing
such things will render themselves obsolete in the long run. Just look at
the Unix model, and we can see what the disasters of not doing this can
incur.
1:13 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
[ I know this is going to come off strong, my apologies in advance ... ]
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 17:51 -0400, Alo Tsum wrote:
First suggestions has to do with the software side of things. We
users
need a competent software installer which is graphical based. One that
functions much the same way that the windows installer works.
God *NO*! As a veteran of 13-17 years of [each] Solaris, Linux and
Windows [NT] enterprise configuration management, you've got it
_all_wrong_. Packages and package management systems exist for a
reason. Windows is _total_hell_ when it comes to enterprise management
compared Solaris and Linux.
BTW, there is already a GUI installer from the former Loki Entertainment
group. It is a shell script with a binary object attached that brings
up a GTK+ GUI. I do _not_ recommend we move to using that approach.
This installer should track dependencies naturally
And the various GUI interfaces, including Pup, do not?
You're kinda losing me on "should track dependencies naturally."
What you want is the Windows "oh, install it anyway" attitude.
That's mutually exclusive with dependency enforcement.
Again, I must be missing your point.
and place icons on the desktop
Who's desktop?
I think you're starting to think in Windows terms, where the Explorer
shell is infiltrated on _everyone_, most users are administrators, and
countless other "enterprise-hell."
Unless I'm really missing something here?
or give the option to have icons for the software just installed to
be
placed on the desktop of the user as well as in the applications menu.
Ummm, are you familiar with all the capabilities of Fedora Core?
From what you just said, it suggests you are not.
There are standards for GNOME.
I can't vouche for how Fedora Core handles KDE though.
Also when watching the Boston Linux conference the suggestion was
made
to offer a hard disc manager much like windows offers for formating
and receiving hard drivers etc after installation.
They already exist. But it's up to the vendors to bundle them.
They don't. We can't do much about that.
I was also at Boston LinuxWorld, and a lot of the suggestions made were
clearly made from people with more background in end-user Windows than
enterprise configuration management of any OS (much less Linux).
My second set of suggestions will deal with the over all focus and
structure of the fedora project. I was listening to a pod cast
interview with the head of the fedora project where in, the topic came
up of some how generating revenue to put back into the project and
make it more self sufficient. So I have a few suggestions which I
think the Redhat company itself should take note of. Firstly Redhat
while promoting Linux among enthusiast is also in the business of
making money.
That's an oversimplification, but I won't go there.
On that front I believe that they should not only attempt to
evangelize Linux in the government, education, and corporate sectors;
they should also attempt to get Linux in each and every home.
Okay, now here's where I think most Linux users are naive.
90% of home users are _not_ interested in long-term customer value.
They are interested in "new gadgets" and baited by "loss leaders" and
are more than willing to upgrade their PC, peripherals, OS and
applications every 2-3 years. I have extensively talked about this as
the "Superstore Profit Model." It's the primo reason Microsoft has a
stake in Best Buy, AOL in Circuit City, etc...
90% of home users put up with the fact that they buy a PC, peripherals,
OS and applications that are integrated. And they put up with the fact
that if they upgrade one after a few years, they might as well upgrade
the other 3. "Oh, my new printer won't work with my old system, so I'll
need a new one -- oh, that's right, I have to buy new software." Trying
to break them of this is difficult -- when you tell them "free" they
think "free Microsoft software." Literally.
You're not going to reach them -- and that's 90% of the home consumer
market. It's a long, involved story, and trying to sell them on Linux
and dealing with hardware incompatibility (which will _not_ be solved
because of the "Superstore Profit Model" when it comes to drivers,
longer story), is not what they want.
I think Red Hat has the _best_ idea.
We got the techs from Day 1. Now we're going after the Enterprises, and
that's happening. As more and more Enterprises adopt Open Source, it
will come into the home out of necessity as people take work home. It
won't happen overnight. But it _is_ happening. It's an utter waste of
their time to jump right to the home user.
I personally think an expansion of the "Fedora Ambassadors" is far more
worthwhile. "Fedora Ambassadors" are who will reach the smaller users.
If Red Hat wanted to allocate a little budget for that, I wouldn't
argue. But I don't think Red Hat will see much return at all from what
you suggest. It's not worth their time, and I don't blame them.
The reason being is if people are starting to use Linux in their
homes
and they are comfortable with it, employers will be more likely and
willing to deploy a operating system which is different in many ways
to windows on the interactive level.
No, you have it backwards. Windows came into the home because of
business. Just like DOS, 1-2-3, WordPerfect, etc... before it.
If you can show me where mass adoption of an OS in the home forced
enterprises, great! But I don't see it. I only see small adoption in
the consumer _until_ businesses proliferated it so all consumers
adopted.
Reason being is when people have to stop to learn new technology
this
cuts down on productivity and as a person who works for a IT
department in a major university I can also vouch for the fact a IT
team will not be willing to suggest an infrastructure restructuring
when they know, supporting users on something foreign to them is going
to increase their workload 10 fold.
IT infrastructure and personnel != average home user
Linux has the geeks, and more and more of the IT professionals.
That's already happening in the enterprises _now_.
I think you're talking about apples and oranges.
So bottom line, more users both advanced, intermediate and beginners
need to be converted to the Linux faithful but now the question
becomes how?
It's _exactly_ how Red Hat is doing it.
The geeks got Linux in the corporations.
I know, I was there.
Internet services in the early '90s.
Engineering desktop and applications in the mid-to-late '90s.
Mainstream development and even desktop adoption in the 21st century.
SuSE (now Novell) and Red Hat added the traditional support behind it.
That's what enterprises want.
That's what Red Hat is giving them.
The Fedora project is the perfect tool for this and here is how. The
fedora team should focus SOLELY on making the operating system run as
smoothly and as fast as possible, interacting with a HUGE number of
hardware configurations.
Ummm, is that not the focus?
What do you think the focus is?
Installation needs to be as smooth as silk
Installing Fedora Core on a bare hard drive is _easier_ than Windows.
Installing Fedora Core into a dual-boot is _easier_ than Windows.
Installation has _never_ been the problem. Why?
Because 99.9% of home users get their OS _pre-installed_!
and upgrading needs to be fail proof from version to version.
Fedora Core upgrades _easier_ than Windows too.
Heck, even Service Packs or Hotfixes to Windows.
I'm trying to find out what you are "comparing" to here?
Previously installed drives with personal user data needs to be able
to be retained without fail from upgrade to upgrade if the user isn't
doing a clean install.
Okay, you've got to be _kidding_me_ here! _All_ UNIX systems have "home
directories." It is 100% _absolute_ and _all_ programs save config
files and data to it!
Microsoft took *2*Decades* to finally "standardize" on "Documents and
Settings" and even then, you still do _not_ have 100% (not even 90%) of
applications and other programs that handle it correctly.
I absolutely do _not_ understand this point at all.
UNIX is very standard in this, Windows is not.
Anyone who managed NT 3.1, 3.50, 3.51, 4.0 along side DOS 7.0 (95/A),
7.1 (95B/C/98/98SE) saw this clusterfsck first hand. And it's still not
solved in NT 5.0 (2000), 5.1 (XP/2003), etc... either. If they change
it in Vista, I'm done -- I really am.
Now I would like to move on to "partnerships" Fedora
project should
look into making "partners" or some other creative term to define
other Linux projects and organizations. In this partnership Fedora
will tightly enforce standards which will ensure that any software
created to run on fedora is following say the OIN and the GPL
standards to the letter to ensure an user friendly and secure/stable
operating system that runs smoothly.
Ummm, is that not the focus?
What do you think the focus is?
The GPL does _not_ guarantee anything.
In fact, open source does _not_ guarantee anything.
If anything, Red Hat's continued control over the Fedora Project and the
release of Fedora Core is more about guaranteeing proper regression and
integration testing of packages into a distribution than what individual
open source projects can do on their own.
I would _love_ for Microsoft to do the same with their own software.
God knows they rely on Altiris internally do handle their own patch
management resolutions and expertise.
Many people in the Linux community may grumble about this suggestion
We grumble because we think you're not aware of the details you speak
of.
however life is about progression and when things do not change and
evolve and progress to new levels then they are doomed to become
extinct (think dinosaurs here) or at the very least remain niche
applications.
I have no idea of the point you're making.
If Fedora project implements such a model,
What "model"? I honestly don't know what you're looking for.
You're
making assumptions that are incorrect -- about Linux, about Windows,
etc...
they do not have to worry about making certain software for the OS
which would take far to much time and man power to create.
Please detail this? I'm really interested in where you are coming from.
Prime example would be the hard disk manager
What? I'm utterly confused.
or even the software installer.
Again, unless you are advocating the Loki GTK+ installer (which I say
"hell no"), I'm utterly confused.
This sort of work could be left to groups who's soul purpose is
to
make such software and by following strict guidelines they would
become Fedora project "partners" and in turn they would be promised
that their software will be included in the fedora core release.
That ignores regression and integration testing.
Regression and integration testing is _distribution-wide_.
Open source projects, on their own, doesn't address that.
Also by following strict guidelines
Please define "strict guidelines."
You mention OIN and GPL.
What is the "standard" that says a distribution will ship with what
version of GCC, GLibC? That's just 2 _core_ libraries right there that
make 75% the difference between distros and releases.
this software could be implemented in other Linux distributions
which
are also following said guidelines.
What "strict guidelines"?
Red Hat was and still is constantly criticized for "pushing the
envelope" with GCC and GLibC versions in newer Red Hat(R) Linux and,
now, Fedora(TM) Core. Other vendors "hold back."
I don't think you are completely aware that I'm just talking about
*2*base* and core libraries -- and that's just the start!
Even Linux Standards Base (LSB) won't touch it!
Until LSB says "this is the standard GCC-GLibC combo," there is
definitely no guarantee of distro inter-compatibility.
And that's just 2 core libraries to start!
This would take the pressure off of Fedora and they can then focus
on
whats important which is making their OS run like silk.
What makes Fedora(TM) Core trusted, like Red Hat(R) Linux before it,
which is the foundation of Red Hat(R) Enterprise Linux, is the package
testing, regression testing and integration testing and resulting
versioning.
You can't get most distros to "work together" on that, because they
handle many things differently. Who's to say that the Debian model of
package testing, regression testing and integration testing is better or
worse than Fedoras? Who's to say Gentoo's "ports" approach that has
its
advantages and disadvantages against the formal "packages" approach of
Debian and Fedora-based distros?
Again let me stress this approach is keeping in mind that projects
such as Fedora and other Linux distributions desire to penetrate more
into the home desktop market,
Which is a _pipe_dream_ because 90% of consumers are catered to by the
"Superstore Profit Model." Consumers are not interested in hearing
excuses on why that brand-new $80 All-in-One Printer doesn't come with
Linux drivers out-of-the-box, or they have to wait 3-6 months on
drivers, when a newer, better, cheaper model will be out!
which then also means more users will or could eventually equate to
greater adoption of the platform in other industries as a result of
user awareness and user comfort with the Linux platform.
I should also mention that those software development groups that do
not comply could be offered as Fedora extras so the community still
has choices which is really part of the appeal of Linux.
Comply with what?
Again, to start, 50% of distro incompatibility comes down to GCC-GLibC
combination. Red Hat pushes the envelope with Fedora Core. It holds
back with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (based on several, previous Fedora
Core releases).
Okay so with all that said how could this generate income? Well lets
say Fedora project comes up with one of the first 100% standard
enforced distributions
Again, there's that "standard enforced" phrase.
I honestly feel for you man, I really do.
which is as user friendly or even more so than MS windows.
When 90% of American consumers can't get their brand new model, $80
on-sale All-in-One printer to work with Linux, they really aren't going
to think Linux is "easier-to-use" at all.
Now say a "ambassador" from Fedora can start making the
rounds to Dell
and other companies and attempt to get them to start offering this
FREE Linux distribution on some of their PC models, which would also
allow for lower prices on the retail side for them (ie Dell, Gateway
etc.) as the OS is FREE and that cuts down on cost which the end user
ends up incurring.
*BUZZ* WRONG! THANK YOU FOR PLAYING!
Have you ever heard the Microsoft term, "per-model licensing"?
Please, _please_ read up on this.
But we still have not addressed revenue for the Fedora project, and
this can be done by following the Redhat model of offering technical
support.
Are we back in the .COM boom or something? ;->
First off, apparently you missed the reason why Red Hat Enterprise Linux
exists. It's not because Red Hat was "greedy," it's because SuSE Linux
Enterprise Server (SLES) 7 _outsold_ Red Hat Linux 6.2 "E" (considred to
be, retroactively, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 1) 6-to-1!
Why? Because most enterprises want support bundled with the product.
If this wasn't the case, Ian Murdock and Progeny would be infinitely
more successful with their service offerings than Red Hat is with RHEL.
And when it comes to home user tech support? Forget it! It's so
"nickle'n dime" that Microsoft itself won't touch it! That's what
it
relies on the PC OEMs for -- to handle those home user calls!
It's $135/call to call up Microsoft directly for Windows support by an
home user. They aren't going to get any better value out of a formal
support program for Fedora. So why would home users buy into Fedora?
Only the community can offer a better deal -- and that removes at least
90% of home users.
Fedora project could basically offer technical support certification
and training to Dell staff as an example so they (the PC manufacturer)
can then take over supporting the platform for their end users, which
also equates to revenue for these companies in the long run because
they can offer extended tech support to end users at a premium.
Do you know what's _involved_ with building a training/certification
program? If not, get involved with LPI!
Fedora core could charge a VERY minimal fee for this training,
How? I mean, building a training/certification program is
_very_costly_! How are you going to fund it? Oh, that's right, Red
Hat! As if they don't already have their _own_ approach.
Again, do you understand the _reason_ why Red Hat Enterprise Linux
exists? It's because such things cost _real_dollars_.
so say charge enough that it would generate revenue that can then be
pumped back into the project and at the same time would still make it
cheaper for Dell and other companies to go with Linux on some desktop
offerings as opposed to having a windows only offering.
The project is largely funded by Red Hat (or Red Hat pays a lot of
salaries), and that's unlikely to change anytime soon. Just like Sun on
OpenOffice.org, etc...
The future of Linux if to be taken seriously
Seriously by whom?
The average home user?
Or the enterprise with actual money?
Learn from Microsoft.
The used each market infiltration to force product adoption.
From DOS to MS Office, you infiltrate and proliferate.
SuSE (now Novell) and Red Hat have done it at the enterprise.
It will come, it just takes time.
should not be relegated to just the business, government, and
education world as far as standards, reliability, and software /
hardware vendor support is concerned.
Again, the "Superstore Profit Model" is a _big_brick_wall_ in the face
of Linux with regards to hardware vendor support.
The brand will grow far more rapidly if consumers are adopting the
standard at home and at work so basically this is a bottom up
approach.
Ain't gonna happen that way, sorry. Enterprise adoption will push Linux
downward. Once it reaches the point where Linux adoption is widespread
enough that it affects the "Superstore Profit Model," _then_ and
_only_then_ you'll see realistic consumer adoption.
Unfortunately, the "Superstore Profit Model" is hard to deal with.
Linux offers hardware vendors _nothing_ in increased profits. Windows
version-specific drivers and loss-leaders offset by Microsoft dollars
does. ;->
This of this, more desktop users in the home also means more
software
sales for major companies because you will have more people buying
video games
Okay, software economics 101 ...
Q: What is the _least_profitable_ software industry?
A: Games
Yes, you have breakaway titles. But for the most part, it's a
cut-throat, razor-thin, often _in-the-red_ industry.
and other such things which will also mean more companies willing to
adopt the platform because software offering become greater.
Top-down: Enterprises adopt OpenOffice.org, users are stuck with
running it at home. Evolution to do corporate collaboration, etc...
There needs to be a consorted effort on the parts of all parties
Who are?
The projects?
The distros?
Who?
Have you read Linux Standards Base (LSB)?
Do you understand what it does _not_ address?
involved to take Linux to that next phase of existence other wise
Linux as a brand,
Linux is _not_ a brand, it's a technology.
Linux will _never_ be a brand.
while it may grow some what will not see its full potential.
As long as people don't understand why Linux is not being adopted, this
will very much be the case.
With the software being a open and free model we still have to
realize
with a flurry of hodge podge coding and no standards insight
Whoa! Great job! You've managed to insult the projects.
No offense, but in working on _mission_critical_ defense and financial
systems code for about 9 years of my career, I can tell you, with great
certainty, that open source is _very_robust_ and _very_standardized_.
The problem isn't coding and no standards -- that's Windows' problem!
Open source projects are _far_better_!
The problem is no standards on core libraries, release models, etc...
Things that make up a distribution as a whole.
Debian, Fedora, SuSE, etc... all differ!
Even before looking at Gentoo.
And that's _unlikely_ to change!
Because Debian, Fedora and SuSE _disagree_ on those details.
Heck, Ian Murdock and Debian-Progeny have an entirely different
philosophy than Michael Tiemann and Fedora-RHEL. _Both_ models have
merit. I actually believe more in Murdock's "configuration management
as a process" than Tiemann's "subscription/support as a product," but
as
a professional, Red Hat has the mindshare because of what enterprises
assume from Microsoft, Sun, etc... before them.
I think you're not looking at the entire picture -- and down to those
actual, real technical and enterprise details. And that's before we
look back at the home user and the "Superstore" issue.
the end user ends up losing at least as far as the home front is
concerned.
Why?
Yes, I agree the home user is bombarded by software written largely by
incompetent, oursourced or H1B Visa Indian, Irish and Israeli
programmers who have had virtually _little_ (if any) exposure to any
formal software development or engineering processes, let alone don't
care about the software they write like the passion of open source.
But for the average home user, he/she doesn't care about security.
He/she only cares why their brand new model, $80 All-in-One printer
doesn't work. And if a new PC and software comes out, they want to run
all those latest things on it -- that old PC can be Linux, if they get
time.
Most people are forced to run duel boot Windows and Linux systems
because software makers and hardware manufactures have not fully
bought into the Linux model and we as a community only have ourselves
to blame for that.
No, not at all.
The idea of open specifications and community-developed, perpetual
software drivers for hardware is _mutually_exclusive_ with the
"Superstore Profit Model" of releasing hardware for a limited time,
enforced by lack of drivers for the next OS version, let alone the
hardware itself is largely software-based -- licensed from a 3rd party,
so it cannot be released open source.
That's 90% of the issue with hardware right there! At least for home
users! The users who buy cheap hardware at the Superstore, and not
quality hardware that enterprises use for servers and workstations.
90% of users are more than willing to buy a new PC, peripherals, OS and
applications every 2-3 years. If they replace one, and it's
incompatible with any of the other 3, they just assume they have to
upgrade all 4! They see the pricetag and the loss-leader, and in 2-3
years, it's "not new and fun anymore" so they don't care about it not
being usable.
Welcome to the Superstore Profit Model!
Welcome to the whole reason Microsoft controls Best Buy!
This approach will also take some evangelizing to the software
makers
of such things as yum and KDE however I believe that those who do not
see the need and importants of doing such things will render
themselves obsolete in the long run.
Huh? Paying customers are supreme. What can Linux offer hardware and
software vendors over the "Superstore Profit Model"? _Nothing_ but
grief.
Just look at the Unix model, and we can see what the disasters of
not
doing this can incur.
What was the "disaster" of the UNIX model?
Licensing was about the only thing tangible.
Microsoft gained control of the PC distribution channel and went from
virtually _no_ Office marketshare to _everything_ in 2 years.
Microsoft has since gained significant marketshare in the retail
channel, and that killed Apple until Microsoft gave them a cash influx.
The main thing saving Apple on the retail shelf now is the iPod.
That's the "disaster" that keeps SuSE (now Novell) and Red Hat away.
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------
****** Speed doesn't kill. Difference in speed does! ******
1:18 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- "6 Things to Know About Linux"
Alo Tsum wrote:
...
I probably should have just posted this ...
"6 Things to Know About Linux"
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/10/6-things-to-know-about-linux.html
(apologies in advance for my grammar, or lack thereof)
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------
****** Speed doesn't kill. Difference in speed does! ******
1:59 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
>Many people in the Linux community may grumble about this
suggestion
>
>
We grumble because we think you're not aware of the details you speak
of.
>Prime example would be the hard disk manager
>
>
What? I'm utterly confused.
>or even the software installer.
>
>
Again, unless you are advocating the Loki GTK+ installer (which I say
"hell no"), I'm utterly confused.
This is where I stopped reading, and forgive me for not finishing
but it is clear to see this is all idealogy, not anything that has been
proven.
I agree with Brian on this issue, so much is so wrong and everything
needs to be so changed he can't evan name a single application he is
talking about.
Have a nice day.
J. Hartline
2:16 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
OK, I agree with Brian J Smith for 99% of everything he wrote.
My Contradictions are inline though.
If I haven't quoted it, assume bjs++
PS: It appears bjs misunderstood a lot of this. When Alo Tsum mentions
standards, he means 'Everything you can install must be 100% open
source'.
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 02:13 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 17:51 -0400, Alo Tsum wrote:
> The reason being is if people are starting to use Linux in their homes
> and they are comfortable with it, employers will be more likely and
> willing to deploy a operating system which is different in many ways
> to windows on the interactive level.
No, you have it backwards. Windows came into the home because of
business. Just like DOS, 1-2-3, WordPerfect, etc... before it.
Actually, MacOS is really popular now, cause apple went around giving it
at huge discounts (or maybe even free) to a large pile of schools.
I agree here, reach the casual users first, then, when the casual users
grow into hardcore users, they bring their preference of OS with them
I use linux at home, as do most of our ambassadors, and most of us have
little or no commercial interest in it at all.
Installing Fedora Core on a bare hard drive is _easier_ than
Windows.
Installing Fedora Core into a dual-boot is _easier_ than Windows.
Installation has _never_ been the problem. Why?
Because 99.9% of home users get their OS _pre-installed_!
Yeah, more or less.
Installing Linux being hard is an urban legend, more or less (and gentoo
isn't helping ;)
95% of all FC installs are real easy, but there is still the 5% that
fails hard because of non complaint hardware.
There really isn't much developers can do, not because they couldn't
crack the hardware's drivers, but because it is impossible to locate
every peripheral possible, and hack on it.
As our user base increases, we get more hardware supported (and more
kernel bloat ;)
> and upgrading needs to be fail proof from version to version.
Fedora Core upgrades _easier_ than Windows too.
Heck, even Service Packs or Hotfixes to Windows.
I'm trying to find out what you are "comparing" to here?
I think he means between cores.
Upgrading FC4->FC5 is miserable, when just core packages are used. Throw
in 3rd party apps, code build from source (on a devel box), and that is
enough to b0rk pretty bad.
But this is a fedora think, not a linux one. And you can resist
upgrading, by choosing to stick with legacy, if it IS an issue.
I'm sure that this particular issue is NOT a problem for a home user,
but rather an enterprise one.
> Previously installed drives with personal user data needs to be
able
> to be retained without fail from upgrade to upgrade if the user isn't
> doing a clean install.
Okay, you've got to be _kidding_me_ here! _All_ UNIX systems have "home
directories." It is 100% _absolute_ and _all_ programs save config
files and data to it!
Anyone who has used UNIX before knows that you should mount /home on
it's own partition. I'm not sure if the FC installer does this (never
auto partitioned), but this will let you keep everything between
upgrades, down to your wallpaper.
> Now I would like to move on to "partnerships" Fedora
project should
> look into making "partners" or some other creative term to define
> other Linux projects and organizations. In this partnership Fedora
> will tightly enforce standards which will ensure that any software
> created to run on fedora is following say the OIN and the GPL
> standards to the letter to ensure an user friendly and secure/stable
> operating system that runs smoothly.
Are you saying we should build some trap which will not allow us to
install any proprietary app?
Or ban Adobe from creating rpms?
People like oracle build rpms for RHEL which are completely closed
source.
And people like Red Hat earn a living from Oracle on RHEL.
We can't ban closed source software. We must accept them to live
together.
Fedora will not distribute it, but they will not disallow others from
getting it either
The GPL does _not_ guarantee anything.
In fact, open source does _not_ guarantee anything.
Well, it guarantees freedom ;)
> If Fedora project implements such a model,
What "model"? I honestly don't know what you're looking for.
You're
making assumptions that are incorrect -- about Linux, about Windows,
etc...
I think said individual wants to turn Fedora into Red Hat.
Free software, with support available, and a guarantee.
This isn't about to happen, we aren't going to hire people for support.
3rd party vendors are welcome to do this however. They are allowed to
charge to support Fedora.
In fact, unless I'm mistaken, I believe BobJensen does something like
this. He ensures that boxes with Fedora run 100% for his clients, and he
charges for it.
Fedora won't provide support, but we won't stop you from going to any
other 3rd party for support.
That's open source.
> I should also mention that those software development groups
that do
> not comply could be offered as Fedora extras so the community still
> has choices which is really part of the appeal of Linux.
Comply with what?
I think our friend here is advocating proprietary software in extras.
Not going to happen, sorry... Next topic.
> Now say a "ambassador" from Fedora can start making
the rounds to Dell
> and other companies and attempt to get them to start offering this
> FREE Linux distribution on some of their PC models, which would also
> allow for lower prices on the retail side for them (ie Dell, Gateway
> etc.) as the OS is FREE and that cuts down on cost which the end user
> ends up incurring.
*BUZZ* WRONG! THANK YOU FOR PLAYING!
Have you ever heard the Microsoft term, "per-model licensing"?
Please, _please_ read up on this.
This is one of those lose-lose situations.
When windows is on, we are forced to pay extra for the software.
When there is no os on, then that is a ground of promoting piracy.
If we FORCE linux/fedora on it, then it is as bad as having windows, as
it simply is against freedom.
But, that being said, it is in the project's interest to request Dell to
put fedora on their boxes. On the other hand, Dell already KNOW linux is
free, you aren't telling them ANYTHING new.
This is an interesting topic, but I'm leaving it for now
> Fedora project could basically offer technical support
certification
> and training to Dell staff as an example so they (the PC manufacturer)
> can then take over supporting the platform for their end users, which
> also equates to revenue for these companies in the long run because
> they can offer extended tech support to end users at a premium.
Do you know what's _involved_ with building a training/certification
program? If not, get involved with LPI!
And not only that, everything changes every 6 months.
If you tried editing your yum.conf now, it will be really different from
what it looked like a year ago, in FC2
Remember, between then an now, everything moved to yum.repos.d
> With the software being a open and free model we still have to
realize
> with a flurry of hodge podge coding and no standards insight
Whoa! Great job! You've managed to insult the projects.
No offense, but in working on _mission_critical_ defense and financial
systems code for about 9 years of my career, I can tell you, with great
certainty, that open source is _very_robust_ and _very_standardized_.
The problem isn't coding and no standards -- that's Windows' problem!
Open source projects are _far_better_!
You obviously haven't looked at the code for OpenOffice.org (not that I
understood it ;)
Of course, that is a closed source program that became open, so doesn't
count.
And further, at least we HAVE the source, and we can change it, and I
know there is a huge effort going on to clean it up. So yes, we have
things a lot better
Yes, I agree the home user is bombarded by software written largely
by
incompetent, oursourced or H1B Visa Indian, Irish and Israeli
programmers who have had virtually _little_ (if any) exposure to any
formal software development or engineering processes, let alone don't
care about the software they write like the passion of open source.
Excuse me?
This is not only terribly rude and offensive, it is also innacurate.
Perhaps, you should look up some indian open source Contributors.
From Sirtaj, one of the founding members of KDE,
Rahul, here on
the Fedora Board,
The founder of Anjuta (which is named after his wife)
Shreyas S (gnome developer, ex maintainer of evo for mac until his mac
was pried from his hands)
Satish (writes a hell of a lot of kernel modules, and heads the Red Hat
bangalore offices)
Sankarshan
Runa B
Gopal Vijayraghavan, Lead developer of dotgnu,
and I could go on for a while
This comment is simply racist.
Tejas Dinkar
2:41 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
Tejas Dinkar wrote:
I use linux at home, as do most of our ambassadors, and most of us
have
little or no commercial interest in it at all.
As an ambassador it should be in your interest to be interested in Linux
anywhere.
In the field, office or home.I think he means between cores.
I think he means between cores.
Upgrading FC4->FC5 is miserable, when just core packages are used. Throw
in 3rd party apps, code build from source (on a devel box), and that is
enough to b0rk pretty bad.
This isn't true at all.
I think you are confusing YUM upgrading between cores not upgrading with
Anaconda.
>>Previously installed drives with personal user data needs to
be able
>>to be retained without fail from upgrade to upgrade if the user isn't
>>doing a clean install.
>>
>>
>Okay, you've got to be _kidding_me_ here! _All_ UNIX systems have "home
>directories." It is 100% _absolute_ and _all_ programs save config
>files and data to it!
>
>
Anyone who has used UNIX before knows that you should mount /home on
it's own partition. I'm not sure if the FC installer does this (never
auto partitioned), but this will let you keep everything between
upgrades, down to your wallpaper.
It does, it even allows you to type in what partitions you want.
/home, /var, /etc, /usr /tmp and of course my favorite, /pub 8-)
>>Now say a "ambassador" from Fedora can start making
the rounds to Dell
>>and other companies and attempt to get them to start offering this
>>FREE Linux distribution on some of their PC models, which would also
>>allow for lower prices on the retail side for them (ie Dell, Gateway
>>etc.) as the OS is FREE and that cuts down on cost which the end user
>>ends up incurring.
>>
>>
>*BUZZ* WRONG! THANK YOU FOR PLAYING!
>Have you ever heard the Microsoft term, "per-model licensing"?
>Please, _please_ read up on this.
>
>
This is one of those lose-lose situations.
When windows is on, we are forced to pay extra for the software.
When there is no os on, then that is a ground of promoting piracy.
If we FORCE linux/fedora on it, then it is as bad as having windows, as
it simply is against freedom.
But, that being said, it is in the project's interest to request Dell to
put fedora on their boxes. On the other hand, Dell already KNOW linux is
free, you aren't telling them ANYTHING new.
Companies already ship Linux on thier PCs. A friend of mine who works at
Best Buy
has had several people come in and request Linux be put on a new PC they
are buying
and guess what.. that's right.. what the customer wants is what the
customer gets.
I have a magazine sitting right here if you want me to give you phone
numbers and purchasing
information on these vendors.
>Yes, I agree the home user is bombarded by software written
largely by
>incompetent, oursourced or H1B Visa Indian, Irish and Israeli
>programmers who have had virtually _little_ (if any) exposure to any
>formal software development or engineering processes, let alone don't
>care about the software they write like the passion of open source.
>
>
Excuse me?
This is not only terribly rude and offensive, it is also innacurate.
Perhaps, you should look up some indian open source Contributors.
>From Sirtaj, one of the founding members of KDE,
Rahul, here on the Fedora Board,
The founder of Anjuta (which is named after his wife)
Shreyas S (gnome developer, ex maintainer of evo for mac until his mac
was pried from his hands)
Satish (writes a hell of a lot of kernel modules, and heads the Red Hat
bangalore offices)
Sankarshan
Runa B
Gopal Vijayraghavan, Lead developer of dotgnu,
and I could go on for a while
This comment is simply racist.
You must have lived a very sheltered childhood.
I too come from a military background, in fact my uncle is a retired
Marine Captain
and is now working as a civilian at the Pentagon. My Grandfather and
Mother both
are retired military, my Grandfather being a veteran of Vietnam.
It may have been off-key, but racist??
Read what he wrote:
incompetent, oursourced or H1B Visa Indian, Irish and Israeli
programmers who have had virtually _little_ (if any) exposure to any
formal software development or engineering processes
I didn't hear him say Gook, Spic or Slope. Did you?
Seriously.
J. Hartline
2:55 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
Jasper O'neal Hartline wrote:
> Excuse me?
> This is not only terribly rude and offensive, it is also innacurate.
> Perhaps, you should look up some indian open source Contributors.
> From Sirtaj, one of the founding members of KDE,
> Rahul, here on the Fedora Board,
> The founder of Anjuta (which is named after his wife)
> Shreyas S (gnome developer, ex maintainer of evo for mac until his mac
> was pried from his hands)
> Satish (writes a hell of a lot of kernel modules, and heads the Red Hat
> bangalore offices)
> Sankarshan
> Runa B
> Gopal Vijayraghavan, Lead developer of dotgnu,
>
> and I could go on for a while
>
> This comment is simply racist.
You must have lived a very sheltered childhood.
I too come from a military background, in fact my uncle is a retired
Marine Captain
and is now working as a civilian at the Pentagon. My Grandfather and
Mother both
are retired military, my Grandfather being a veteran of Vietnam.
It may have been off-key, but racist??
I must also include, I was already put-off by asking why we had
Fedora Ambassadors spying on Mandriva install parties on this list.
I don't know what is or isn't the job, idealogy or focus of Ambassadors
but I can say personally that isn't how things work around my house.
Spying on other projects install parties to better yourself is exactly
what it was, whether you want to take it in that context or not.
In any case I had shown the mails to a few people and they were less than
impressed. I think the ambassadors need to stop with the tunnel vision and
try to think about priorities. As an Ambassador I would think it is in your
focus to promote Fedora Core, end of story.
J. Hartline
4:13 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
On Saturday 22 April 2006 08:55, Jasper O'neal Hartline wrote:
I must also include, I was already put-off by asking why we had
Fedora Ambassadors spying on Mandriva install parties on this list.
I don't know what is or isn't the job, idealogy or focus of Ambassadors
but I can say personally that isn't how things work around my house.
Spying on other projects install parties to better yourself is exactly
what it was, whether you want to take it in that context or not.
In any case I had shown the mails to a few people and they were less than
impressed. I think the ambassadors need to stop with the tunnel vision and
try to think about priorities. As an Ambassador I would think it is in your
focus to promote Fedora Core, end of story.
If it was spying, they'd be wearing black clothes and jumping in through the
ceiling :)
But seriously, an ambassador went along to an install party to see "how they
did it", so that Fedora ones can take any good ideas from it.
No harm in that, is there?
Clair
11:14 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
Clair wrote:
If it was spying, they'd be wearing black clothes and jumping in
through the
ceiling :)
But seriously, an ambassador went along to an install party to see "how they
did it", so that Fedora ones can take any good ideas from it.
No harm in that, is there?
No harm in it at all in my opinion if learning is at the personal level.
However as a Fedora Ambassador, it isn't the Ambassador project's
main goal or a top priority for Ambassadors to spy on other OSS project's
install parties.
If learning was at the personal level that is fine, however no one can play
that card in this instance because the frame of mind and wording of the mail
was not such of learning at the personal level to become a better Fedora
Ambassador.
That is what I read, this is now what I think. I am a good english speaker
and I know you aren't about to tell me I am the only one in a few
hundred billion
possible readers on this list to have thought this.
J. Hartline
11:23 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
On Saturday 22 April 2006 17:14, Jasper O'neal Hartline wrote:
Clair wrote:
>If it was spying, they'd be wearing black clothes and jumping in through
> the ceiling :)
>
>But seriously, an ambassador went along to an install party to see "how
> they did it", so that Fedora ones can take any good ideas from it.
>
>No harm in that, is there?
No harm in it at all in my opinion if learning is at the personal level.
However as a Fedora Ambassador, it isn't the Ambassador project's
main goal or a top priority for Ambassadors to spy on other OSS project's
install parties.
If learning was at the personal level that is fine, however no one can play
that card in this instance because the frame of mind and wording of the
mail was not such of learning at the personal level to become a better
Fedora Ambassador.
I understand this is how you have read the mail in question, and I'm not
questioning that, however it isn't any kind of priority or goal, and I'm
sorry you feel this way. However, let me assure you that I have never been to
an install party, Fedora or otherwise, in my life, and I couldn't care less
what other linux distros do :)
That is what I read, this is now what I think. I am a good english
speaker
and I know you aren't about to tell me I am the only one in a few
hundred billion
possible readers on this list to have thought this.
I didn't know the internet went outside the galaxy... ;)
Clair
11:43 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
Clair wrote:
>That is what I read, this is now what I think. I am a good english
speaker
>and I know you aren't about to tell me I am the only one in a few
>hundred billion
>possible readers on this list to have thought this.
>
>
I didn't know the internet went outside the galaxy... ;)
Hundred million, estimated 6 billion possible readers.
I over exaggerated the number.
With satellite and microwoave communications I wouldn't
doubt the internet could reach the edge of the galaxy.
J. Hartline
12:08 p.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
On 4/22/06, Jasper O'neal Hartline <jasperhartline(a)adelphia.net> wrote:
With satellite and microwoave communications I wouldn't
doubt the internet could reach the edge of the galaxy.
I hope they like spam, porn and spam about porn out there, then, cuz that's
what they're getting.
--jeremy
12:26 p.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
Jeremy Hogan wrote:
On 4/22/06, *Jasper O'neal Hartline* <jasperhartline(a)adelphia.net
<mailto:jasperhartline@adelphia.net>> wrote:
With satellite and microwoave communications I wouldn't
doubt the internet could reach the edge of the galaxy.
I hope they like spam, porn and spam about porn out there, then, cuz
that's what they're getting.
--jeremy
Nah, their TCP connections will time out due to transmission delay. And
even if they didn't, can you imagine the window size one would need?
Oh, and hello everyone. I am new to the list and hope to be able to
contribute something useful and serious after a while. :-)
Debbie Deutsch
9:44 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 02:41 -0500, Jasper O'neal Hartline wrote:
You must have lived a very sheltered childhood. I too come from a
military background, in fact my uncle is a retired Marine Captain
and is now working as a civilian at the Pentagon. My Grandfather and
Mother both are retired military, my Grandfather being a veteran of
Vietnam.
It may have been off-key, but racist??
It was out-of-context without detail, I apologize.
Understand I am an American-born engineer who has worked _most_ of my
early career with _far_more_intelligent_ and _experienced_ foreign-born
workers than myself.
But the trend of H1B Visa abuse and outsourcing in the last 8 years has
utterly turned it 180 degrees the other way! These developments are the
_crap_ that is writing software at or for Boeing, Diebold, IBM,
Lockheed-Martin, Microsoft, State Farm, etc...
Read what he wrote:
incompetent, oursourced or H1B Visa Indian, Irish and Israeli
programmers who have had virtually _little_ (if any) exposure to any
formal software development or engineering processes
That is _who_ Diebold, IBM, Microsoft, State Farm, etc... are using
right now to develop commercial and in-house software. They are using
the "lowest price the world has to offer."
Open source will _continue_ to be the "best the world has to offer."
You've never seen the H1B Visa system in action until you've seen that
10% foreign, minority _expert_ have to deal with the other 90% of _crap_
that came from the same (and other) countries. And the only reason they
came is because they were _cheap_ and they cannot leave for another
American company because they don't hold Green Cards.
It's really bad people. It's abuse.
The problem with immigration in America has never been the immigrant.
It's always been the American who is ready to abuse them. The H1B Visa
is a legalized system of abuse. With the Green Card system,
foreign-born workers could change jobs and get paid what they are worth.
Those who were not qualified would not get jobs, or not last long, and
would not.
Oursourcing is a major problem. American managers, who are nearsighted
to only 3 years or less of budget, don't care what kind of software they
get back -- just that they met deadlines and saved a lot of money.
There are only a very select few engineer-managed companies left, like
HP (which, not surprisingly, is one of the _real_ companies that "get
Linux" -- because they're engineers!) and look at a 30 year plan.
NASA was nearsighted in the '90s too. After the Mars Pathfinder
mission, they started slashing budgets 90% and using COTS. They didn't
realize they were slashing necessary costs like QA. So it wasn't a big
surprise when the Mars Polar Lander crashed because one team was using
Metric units and another Imperial standard. They realized that they
couldn't save on everything, but maybe save 30-40% overall by using
COTS.
The same is happening in outsourcing today. American managers save 90%
and save on everything -- not realizing you can't outsource it all. But
what do they care, they'll be promoted and freed up by the time the
software goes into production. I mean, you have things like business
logic and locale being developed by foreign developers who have no
concept of American common law and business. I constantly had to define
American legal and other terms, and train developers on details. It's
one thing for them to write a low-level subsystem for communication
(although some were utterly lacking in basic architecture/concepts), but
to write user-interfaces, documentation, etc... Nuts!
Again, the problem isn't the people, it's the _system_ setup that causes
the problems. I've worked with so many qualified, foreign-born experts
-- people more intelligent than myself. But with increased H1B Visa
abuse and outsourcing, it's gone from 90% qualified immigrants/workers
(far in excess of the native American percentage) to 10% qualified
immigrants/workers (often replacing the greater percentage of native,
American knowledge -- and only because they are cheaper).
Sorry, I didn't mean to introduce this tangent. But this is commercial
software for you in the US today. It's utter crap. That's why I
believe in open source strongly -- the best the world has to offer!
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------
****** Speed doesn't kill. Difference in speed does! ******
9:59 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 10:44 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
That's why I believe in open source strongly -- the best the
world has to offer!
You know, I really like this quote
Open Source, the Best the World has to Offer!
Gja
10:02 a.m.
New subject: Open source ... globally developed, locally customized ...
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 10:44 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
The same is happening in outsourcing today. American managers save
90%
and save on everything -- not realizing you can't outsource it all. But
what do they care, they'll be promoted and freed up by the time the
software goes into production. I mean, you have things like business
logic and locale being developed by foreign developers who have no
concept of American common law and business. I constantly had to define
American legal and other terms, and train developers on details. It's
one thing for them to write a low-level subsystem for communication
(although some were utterly lacking in basic architecture/concepts), but
to write user-interfaces, documentation, etc... Nuts!
One thing I've been meaning to write on is why open source is better in
not only the global economy, but the market locale. It highlights (and
solves) one of the chronic issues with past, largely American-led (and
ignorant), commercial software and sales overseas.
Linux is developed globally, to solve problems that are common and cross
boundaries, languages and other, more social details. That is why Linux
is so technical strong, with a solid foundation to standards and
interoperability.
But what most people don't realize is that Linux is also very, very
localized. While the software itself is developed world-wide, it is
customized into localized business logic, common law, language,
marketing and support.
The distributions are collectives by and of software projects that solve
technical problems. But the distributions are how the software, as a
collective whole, is regression and integration tested, put into form
and function for the locale, and not only marketed, but supported as
such.
Take the commercial origins of Connectiva, Mandrake, SuSE, etc... out of
commercial aspects of Red Hat. Here are South American
Portuguese-Spanish, European-French, European-German derivatives that
are largely a fall-out of an American-English distribution that probably
could never have been as localized, no matter what international focus
and support efforts Red Hat put into them.
Sure, more on the pure community end (even if there is commercial
support), we're seeing American-founded Fedora join German-founded
Debian, but that's largely because there are not the commercial aspect
that almost force locale with related marketing and support. I mean,
even Debian founder Ian Murdock has Progeny for the more commercial
aspects -- and some of their focus (e.g., configuration management as a
process, not a product) doesn't market well to many American commercial
views (e.g., we want fixed product).
Now compare these _realities_ of locale, with related marketing and
support, when it comes to more localized Linux distribution focus to
those of ... say ... Microsoft?
Here's an American-English company that first makes assumptions in
software in the context of American business logic, English language,
American common law, marketing, support, etc..., then goes out and hires
the "lowest price the world has to offer." Then it has to deal with the
differences is locale assumption in working in their developments back
into the American-English assumptions that make the product. Then that
product is re-"translated" back into various foreign logic, language,
law, marketing, etc...
Yeah, after 2-3 levels, it's not only inefficient, but a _lot_ is lost.
Especially when you have Service Packs, Hotfixes, documentation, etc...
_only_ available in American-English at times. ;->
Whereas Open Source starts with _global_ input on the _common_ locale
that "we all have the same technical problems." And as they are solved
by the "best the world has to offer," each locale takes them, integrates
them into a distribution, with the logic, language, law, marketing and
support behind them that is far more locale.
Much more efficient and, more importantly, without all the
American-English assumptions.
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------
****** Speed doesn't kill. Difference in speed does! ******
3:01 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
Tejas Dinkar wrote:
I use linux at home, as do most of our ambassadors, and most of us
have
little or no commercial interest in it at all.
hrmm.. 90% of my advocating is in the commercial sector for Fedora and
RHEL. I used solely Fedora and RHEL in my work and at home.
Probably best that you don't make "sweeping" statements about what
others interests are without firm knowledge and or stats to back it ;)
As for the rest of the email, sounded like a flame fest brewing, so I
won't comment....
Michael
4:10 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
On Saturday 22 April 2006 08:16, Tejas Dinkar wrote:
And not only that, everything changes every 6 months.
If you tried editing your yum.conf now, it will be really different from
what it looked like a year ago, in FC2
Remember, between then an now, everything moved to yum.repos.d
conf.d is a common way of writing config. Same file, but split into several
files. Not much of a change.
You obviously haven't looked at the code for OpenOffice.org (not
that I
understood it ;)
Of course, that is a closed source program that became open, so doesn't
count.
And further, at least we HAVE the source, and we can change it, and I
know there is a huge effort going on to clean it up. So yes, we have
things a lot better
A lot of open source code is dirty. Who cares? If it works, great. If it
doesn't, then fork it and tidy it up.
Clair.
9:26 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- foreign-born experts v. outsourced/H1B Visa "cheap guys"
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 12:46 +0530, Tejas Dinkar wrote:
Excuse me?
This is not only terribly rude and offensive, it is also innacurate.
Perhaps, you should look up some indian open source Contributors.
From Sirtaj, one of the founding members of KDE,
Rahul, here on the Fedora Board,
The founder of Anjuta (which is named after his wife)
Shreyas S (gnome developer, ex maintainer of evo for mac until his mac
was pried from his hands)
Satish (writes a hell of a lot of kernel modules, and heads the Red Hat
bangalore offices)
Sankarshan
Runa B
Gopal Vijayraghavan, Lead developer of dotgnu,
and I could go on for a while
This comment is simply racist.
That's because you took it wrong and didn't pay attention to the fact I
was talking about _major_ H1B Visa and outsourcing abusers like Diebold,
IBM, Microsoft, State Farm, etc... when it comes to _commercial_
software or in-house software development.
Understand *I* have worked with _many_ foreign nationals on _many_
engineering projects. In fact, I've often been a "minority native-born
American" on them and that was just fine by me! Immigrants make the
United States -- something Americans don't realize. They have been
_experts_ and, in many cases, _uniquely_qualified_. This _includes_
many _outstanding_ open source project originators and maintainers.
But the problem right now in the US is that we keep importing the _crap_
of the world on 90% of our H1B Visas and while letting the "lowest
foreign bidder" develop software, 90% who are typically _not_ qualified.
My points are ...
A. In the open source world, the software is produced by qualified
people. These people typically have a passion for their development,
and they excel at it. They can be _any_ nationality, and many are _not_
Americans. You get the _best_ the _world_ has to offer.
B. In the commercial software world, the software is produced by
commercial funding of "the lowest price." In these cases, many
_unqualified_ Indian, Irish, Israeli and other firms are tapped -- or
H1B Visas granted to bring such _unqualified_ individual in because of
the costs. You get the _lowest_price_ the _world_ has to offer.
C. I have personally seen this first-hand in a half-dozen Fortune 100
companies. I have written both requirements for outsourced software as
well as managed H1B Visa workers. In a couple of cases, they wanted to
(and sometimes did) send me or someone I worked with to a foreign nation
to supervise these developers. In 90% of the cases, they were _not_
remotely qualified -- and it was a pure cost game, one that was
impossible to deal with.
But American companies don't care, and that's why we get the crap in
commercial software!
So *WHY* would you *PAY* for *COMMERCIAL* software that is the "lowest
price the world has to offer" when you can get *OPEN*SOURCE* software
designed by "the best the world has to offer"?
That's why Open Source is _better_!
D. The IEEE has been trying to get the stupid "pro-protectionalim v.
pro-immigration" non-sense to stop, because _both_ sides are _wrong_!
H1B Visas are basically indentured servitude. Green Cards are not. If
you give an immigrant a Green Card, they aren't under the thumb of a
sponsoring company, but free to take whatever job they want. This not
only means they won't be underpaid, unlike in the H1B Visa system, but
it also means we aren't letting corporations import _crap_ merely
because of price. Linus Torvalds is one of the IEEE's Poster Children
on this -- he was given a H1B Visa when he was _unqiuely_qualified_ and
should have been given a Green Card. Miguel deIcaza is another.
As a responsible American, I _welcome_ both world competition and
immigration. But right now, America is _shooting_ itself in the foot by
allowing its companies to import unqualified slaves under H1B Visas and
outsourcing to companies who clearly are _not_ qualified to do many
software developments. That's why the crap we get from IBM, Microsoft
and many others is junk. It's why Diebold, State Farm and other
financial companies are putting in _horrendous_ security nightmares into
our financial systems. It's why Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and other firms
have major development issues (even if Americans with Security
Clearances design the products, some of the IT/software they use is more
H1B Visa and outsourced "lowest price" non-sense).
I hope you see my point now. I, as well as the IEEE, typically get
caught in the cross-fire between "protectionalism" and "immigration."
H1B Visa are _not_ immigration. They do _not_ allow America to become
better by allowing the best of the world to immigrate. And outsourcing
is being done irresponsibly in 90% of cases. I have argued where
oursourcing does and doesn't work, just like I argued where COTS usage
at NASA does and doesn't work in the '90s. You can't save on
everything!
But that all does _not_ matter when it comes to community developed
software! You get the _best_ of the world! People who want to work on
software. People who _know_ their field! Not merely someone who is
paid, or in 90% of cases, _overstates_ what their company can do for the
"lowest price." Sorry, that's what I see from 90% of the Indian, Irish
and Israeli firms and H1B Visa workers I've worked with and saved their
asses on. That's the commercial software world in the US for you right
now.
It's that other 10%, the ones that are actually worth more, that get the
shaft. Luckily they make up the bulk of open source software
development. The best the world has to offer.
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------
****** Speed doesn't kill. Difference in speed does! ******
9:27 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- foreign-born experts v. outsourced/H1B Visa "cheap guys"
vim's better!
Sorry, wrong thread.
Clair ;)
On Saturday 22 April 2006 15:26, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 12:46 +0530, Tejas Dinkar wrote:
> Excuse me?
> This is not only terribly rude and offensive, it is also innacurate.
> Perhaps, you should look up some indian open source Contributors.
> From Sirtaj, one of the founding members of KDE,
> Rahul, here on the Fedora Board,
> The founder of Anjuta (which is named after his wife)
> Shreyas S (gnome developer, ex maintainer of evo for mac until his mac
> was pried from his hands)
> Satish (writes a hell of a lot of kernel modules, and heads the Red Hat
> bangalore offices)
> Sankarshan
> Runa B
> Gopal Vijayraghavan, Lead developer of dotgnu,
> and I could go on for a while
> This comment is simply racist.
That's because you took it wrong and didn't pay attention to the fact I
was talking about _major_ H1B Visa and outsourcing abusers like Diebold,
IBM, Microsoft, State Farm, etc... when it comes to _commercial_
software or in-house software development.
Understand *I* have worked with _many_ foreign nationals on _many_
engineering projects. In fact, I've often been a "minority native-born
American" on them and that was just fine by me! Immigrants make the
United States -- something Americans don't realize. They have been
_experts_ and, in many cases, _uniquely_qualified_. This _includes_
many _outstanding_ open source project originators and maintainers.
But the problem right now in the US is that we keep importing the _crap_
of the world on 90% of our H1B Visas and while letting the "lowest
foreign bidder" develop software, 90% who are typically _not_ qualified.
My points are ...
A. In the open source world, the software is produced by qualified
people. These people typically have a passion for their development,
and they excel at it. They can be _any_ nationality, and many are _not_
Americans. You get the _best_ the _world_ has to offer.
B. In the commercial software world, the software is produced by
commercial funding of "the lowest price." In these cases, many
_unqualified_ Indian, Irish, Israeli and other firms are tapped -- or
H1B Visas granted to bring such _unqualified_ individual in because of
the costs. You get the _lowest_price_ the _world_ has to offer.
C. I have personally seen this first-hand in a half-dozen Fortune 100
companies. I have written both requirements for outsourced software as
well as managed H1B Visa workers. In a couple of cases, they wanted to
(and sometimes did) send me or someone I worked with to a foreign nation
to supervise these developers. In 90% of the cases, they were _not_
remotely qualified -- and it was a pure cost game, one that was
impossible to deal with.
But American companies don't care, and that's why we get the crap in
commercial software!
So *WHY* would you *PAY* for *COMMERCIAL* software that is the "lowest
price the world has to offer" when you can get *OPEN*SOURCE* software
designed by "the best the world has to offer"?
That's why Open Source is _better_!
D. The IEEE has been trying to get the stupid "pro-protectionalim v.
pro-immigration" non-sense to stop, because _both_ sides are _wrong_!
H1B Visas are basically indentured servitude. Green Cards are not. If
you give an immigrant a Green Card, they aren't under the thumb of a
sponsoring company, but free to take whatever job they want. This not
only means they won't be underpaid, unlike in the H1B Visa system, but
it also means we aren't letting corporations import _crap_ merely
because of price. Linus Torvalds is one of the IEEE's Poster Children
on this -- he was given a H1B Visa when he was _unqiuely_qualified_ and
should have been given a Green Card. Miguel deIcaza is another.
As a responsible American, I _welcome_ both world competition and
immigration. But right now, America is _shooting_ itself in the foot by
allowing its companies to import unqualified slaves under H1B Visas and
outsourcing to companies who clearly are _not_ qualified to do many
software developments. That's why the crap we get from IBM, Microsoft
and many others is junk. It's why Diebold, State Farm and other
financial companies are putting in _horrendous_ security nightmares into
our financial systems. It's why Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and other firms
have major development issues (even if Americans with Security
Clearances design the products, some of the IT/software they use is more
H1B Visa and outsourced "lowest price" non-sense).
I hope you see my point now. I, as well as the IEEE, typically get
caught in the cross-fire between "protectionalism" and
"immigration."
H1B Visa are _not_ immigration. They do _not_ allow America to become
better by allowing the best of the world to immigrate. And outsourcing
is being done irresponsibly in 90% of cases. I have argued where
oursourcing does and doesn't work, just like I argued where COTS usage
at NASA does and doesn't work in the '90s. You can't save on
everything!
But that all does _not_ matter when it comes to community developed
software! You get the _best_ of the world! People who want to work on
software. People who _know_ their field! Not merely someone who is
paid, or in 90% of cases, _overstates_ what their company can do for the
"lowest price." Sorry, that's what I see from 90% of the Indian, Irish
and Israeli firms and H1B Visa workers I've worked with and saved their
asses on. That's the commercial software world in the US for you right
now.
It's that other 10%, the ones that are actually worth more, that get the
shaft. Luckily they make up the bulk of open source software
development. The best the world has to offer.
9:53 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- foreign-born experts v. outsourced/H1B Visa "cheap guys"
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 10:26 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
That's because you took it wrong and didn't pay attention to
the fact I
was talking about _major_ H1B Visa and outsourcing abusers like Diebold,
IBM, Microsoft, State Farm, etc... when it comes to _commercial_
software or in-house software development.
Ok, perhaps I misunderstood your post.
I Apologize for accusing you of being racist.
It just struck a bit close to home.
Tejas Dinkar
10:18 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- foreign-born experts v. outsourced/H1B Visa "cheap guys"
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 20:23 +0530, Tejas Dinkar wrote:
Ok, perhaps I misunderstood your post.
No, I'm partly responsible for not explaining my viewpoint better.
I'm a very frustrated American Engineer. I'm seeing American businesses
piss our country down the drain. Not because developers are Indian,
Irish or Israeli, but because with so much H1B Visa abuse and
outsourcing, 90% of its is crap just because it saves money.
It's not like it was in the mid-'90s and earlier, when you didn't have
expansion of the H1B Visa system and outsourcing was done carefully.
I've worked in the defense industry, semiconductor industry and the
financial industry over 15 years now.
It used to be that foreign-born engineers and technologists were given
Green Cards and became the most outstanding of Americans. Because they
were allowed to move from company to company, he could ask for the same
salaries as myself. If he wasn't qualified, he didn't last, because an
American was the same price. That's why 90% of immigrant engineers were
very qualified -- far more than the percentage of Americans who really
didn't deserve their positions at times. It was a great balance!
Now we have the H1B Visa system, not an immigration system at all.
Having qualified Americans replaced with crap, just because they are
1/3rd the price, is horrendous. So we've gone from 90% quality of
immigrants (displacing maybe 50-60% _unqualified_ Americans -- which is
a _good_thing_ -- especially since most of these immigrants will become
Americans!) to 10% quality immigrants (replacing _all_ Americans,
including the 40-50% qualified -- just because they are 1/3rd the
salary).
Outsourcing is now a joke. Every company I've worked at spends more on
"fixing" what they get back, sending Americans overseas to supervise
development teams, and generally _discarding_ most of what they get. In
many cases, the original business manager who started it has been
promoted because of the savings, and the next guy is "stuck with it."
Why? Because these Indian, Irish, Israeli and other companies I've
worked with _oversell_ what they can do. I have fixed so much crap, and
saved their butts so many times (e.g., when I've been a peer-consultant
on-site to their firms) it sickens me.
I've seen it first hand at most of the companies I mentioned before.
Open Source? This crap doesn't happen. You get the _best_ the world
has to offer, period. People either know or they don't, or they learn
trying, failing, picking themselves back up and succeeding. That is
what made American engineering strong in the past. I'm very happy, both
as an American and engineer, to see that this is a world-wide reality.
In fact, nothing sickens me as both an engineer and as an American than
when I see a technician say, "oh, Microsoft gives me job security
because their stuff always breaks." And people wonder why the US is
going down the toilet!
I Apologize for accusing you of being racist.
Hey, I'm a land-locked, 1-language, ignorant American. Sometimes I need
to check to make sure I'm not being a racist or bigot. No offense taken
at all -- especially since I didn't detail what I meant.
It just struck a bit close to home.
I know. Just try to realize what I'm saying.
I've worked with extremely intelligent, uniquely qualified, foreign-born
individuals from literally 50+ nations in my career. Most of them were
far more intelligent than I.
But in today's American corporation that develops software for either
in-house use or sale, it's changes drastically over the last 8 years.
It's gone from finding that talent and asking them to become an American
to telling them they have to work for 1/3rd their worth and they can't
become Americans.
If you think that is bad for America, what about that uniquely
qualified, foreign-born expert who is now not only surrounded by his
"cheap labor" peers, but then assumed to be "just another
under-qualified, but cheap H1B Visa worker" like them?
90% of H1B Visa workers and outsourcing partners are crap today. And
that's who's writing in-house and commercial software in America's
Fortune 100 companies.
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------
****** Speed doesn't kill. Difference in speed does! ******
10:27 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- foreign-born experts v. outsourced/H1B Visa "cheap guys"
On 4/22/06, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org> wrote:
I'm a very frustrated American Engineer. I'm seeing American
businesses
piss our country down the drain. Not because developers are Indian,
Irish or Israeli, but because with so much H1B Visa abuse and
outsourcing, 90% of its is crap just because it saves money.
I'm pretty sure your congressperson isn't on this list so whatever
political agenda you seem to be on fire about, but its well outside
the scope of anything appropriate with regard to fedora discussion.
The specifics about US government's current Visa policies are at best
tangential discussion, at worst its a discussion destined to offend
because its clearly a deeply emotional issue for you and you have
lapsed into general venting about. It's time to let this particular
topic go on this list and its time for you to contact your
congressperson and vent.
-jef"Or how about I write a 40 page manfesto on how the current US
energy policy blows monkeychunks and point out the specifics as to
where open source transitioning works to reduce the cost of
diversifying the energy policy and then post it one page at a time to
this list over the next month or so"spaleta
10:39 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- foreign-born experts v. outsourced/H1B Visa "cheap guys"
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 11:27 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
I'm pretty sure your congressperson isn't on this list so
whatever
political agenda you seem to be on fire about, but its well outside
the scope of anything appropriate with regard to fedora discussion.
My original point was that these are the people writing much of
Microsoft software and other commericial and in-house developments.
It's based on first-hand experience, both before and after the explosion
of the H1B Visa program and outsourcing.
The specifics about US government's current Visa policies are at
best
tangential discussion, at worst its a discussion destined to offend
because its clearly a deeply emotional issue for you and you have
lapsed into general venting about. It's time to let this particular
topic go on this list and its time for you to contact your
congressperson and vent.
My apologies for taking it to a new level. I realized I managed to
insult a few people in my original comment. I've worked with some
extremely intelligent and capable Indian, Irish and Israeli immigrants
and even a few firms early in my career.
And I've worked with utter crap from the same the last 7-8 years,
because now they are sending too much of the crap over too. You'd have
the same problem if you shipped the lowest technical crap of America too
(probably more so).
It doesn't happen with Open Source. That was my point.
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------
****** Speed doesn't kill. Difference in speed does! ******
10:31 a.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- foreign-born experts v. outsourced/H1B Visa "cheap guys"
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 11:18 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Now we have the H1B Visa system, not an immigration system at all.
Having qualified Americans replaced with crap, just because they are
1/3rd the price, is horrendous. So we've gone from 90% quality of
immigrants (displacing maybe 50-60% _unqualified_ Americans -- which is
a _good_thing_ -- especially since most of these immigrants will become
Americans!) to 10% quality immigrants (replacing _all_ Americans,
including the 40-50% qualified -- just because they are 1/3rd the
salary).
...
Open Source? This crap doesn't happen. You get the _best_ the world
has to offer, period. People either know or they don't, or they learn
trying, failing, picking themselves back up and succeeding. That is
what made American engineering strong in the past. I'm very happy, both
as an American and engineer, to see that this is a world-wide reality.
Just want to point out 1 more detail ...
Red Hat (among other, community-development-focused commercial entities)
hires some of the world's best Open Source developers. They are people
who have _already_ established their talent publicly. They are not
merely a "worker" who some head-hunter/foreign-agency oversells as
qualified.
So even though Red Hat likely has to hire foreign-born workers under H1B
Visas to come and work in the US, or outsource their work to them
remotely, that is _not_ the same as what I'm talking about. If
anything, both Red Hat and these individuals are _victims_ of our
currently screwed up H1B Visa system and/or common outsourcing logic.
That's why the IEEE has been trying to get through the business and
immigration special interest groups -- to _ban_ the H1B Visa, _issue_
Green Cards to established, foreign engineers, developers and
technicians who want to come work in the US, and to point out the
follies of outsourcing by American corporations who nearsightedly can't
see past 2-3 years of planning.
-- Bryan
P.S. I don't speak for the IEEE in any capacity. But I agree with
almost all of their efforts 100% on this. The entire
pro-protectionalist and pro-immmigration lobby on both sides has it
_all_wrong_. Just give people Green Cards and let the market decide.
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------
****** Speed doesn't kill. Difference in speed does! ******
3:55 p.m.
New subject: Marketing ideas -- I have to strongly _disagree_ with 99% of this ...
Installing Fedora Core on a bare hard drive is _easier_ than Windows.
Installing Fedora Core into a dual-boot is _easier_ than Windows.
Installation has _never_ been the problem. Why?
Because 99.9% of home users get their OS _pre-installed_!
> and upgrading needs to be fail proof from version to version.
Fedora Core upgrades _easier_ than Windows too.
Heck, even Service Packs or Hotfixes to Windows.
I'm trying to find out what you are "comparing" to here?
>
I agree 100% with that, based on my own experience _half a dozen years
ago!!_, and also based on what I watch around me from time to time...:-)
P.S. I'm afraid the problem is not how much Linux (any flavour) will be
able to improve -this could be being increased until the infinite, while
the Linux user amount just keeping indefinitely under 1% :-(
What Linux (any flavour) needs is more IBM's, more Novell's, more Asian
Governments adopting it, more institutions, corporations and official's
establishments, more "dirty" money (yeah).
Regards,
Daniel Rodriguez
6578
days inactive
6580
days old
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
25 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Alo Tsum -
Bryan Smith -
Clair -
Debbie Deutsch -
J. Hartline -
Jef Spaleta -
Jeremy Hogan -
M Daniel R Magarzo -
Michael J. Knox -
Tejas Dinkar