On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not anymore, but you certainly were close to Red Hat:
"Alan was employed by the Linux distributor Red Hat during 1999-2009. He is as of 2010 employed by Intel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cox
That's not another Aln Cox, is it?
Do you really believe that the OEMs who use Android will tell their users: "Buzz off, you don't contribute code" and refer them to some android_this or that .org that nobody knows who the maintainer really is, that provide false information for months, if not years? Fedora does this. It lets anybody use their name, Google won't, unless an OEM puts its name on the product it has modified.
This won't happen because whichever OEM treats users like shit will lose market share. Open Source is a new game. It's not a developers' gizmo anymore, it's now out in the open world and brings in lots of revenue. Users problems will have to be taken into consideration.
You really believe I'm an Apple apostle? :) I find Apple's business model is just horrible. It's a plain rip-off. But they cater to know-nothing people who are really willing to pay a fortune not to be sent searching all over the web. It works. Why can't Red Hat develop a business model that is not a rip-off for desktop users?
When a site such as fedorafaq.org provides wrong information to install nvidia drivers, why doesn't Red Hat complain that somebody using its... subsidiary (see my previous post) name is diffusing wrong info?
Why should they do this? Maybe they will sell contracts at $320/year/desktop. Working against Fedora helps Red Hat sell contracts which are really way too expensive. I would think they don't sell many, though.
Goldman $... oops & Sachs did a really bad job as a main underwriter for Red Hat's introduction on the Stock Exchange. Do you remember how shares went from $14 to ~$300?(1) This certainly made Bob Young and his wife -- you remember Bob Young, don't you? -- fabulously rich, but it set a money culture in Red Hat that, in my opinion, won't, in the long run, help Red Hat stick to the straight and narrow.
============
(1) Someday, when you feel like reading something else than code, learn more about Goldman & Sachs, see:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796?FORM=ZZNR3
A search on "laddering" is advised. Rolling Stone will certainly tell you more than the Wall Street Journal, which would see all its revenue dwindle if they ever published such an article. Mr Taibbi does a really good job!
======================
Now, you can say if Bob Young got hundred of millions for next to nothing, the present EO's are certainly worth a few millions a year but, meanwhile, Shuttleworth not only doesn't make a cent, he puts some of his own to accelerate Canonical development. And whereas all Red Hat offers is $320/year support contracts, Ubuntu offers its users some music and films. This makes more sense. How come Red Hat's multi-millionaires *EOs can't figure this out? They're mighty slow!
> course, Red Hat is moving forward but is it at the right pace? Google, who
> went public five years after Red Hat now has 25x the market capitalization.
> If your good friend :) Linux Torvalds had to entrust Linux's future to a
> company, which one would it be?
Nowadays, it's pretty much Linux Torvalds :)
> I strongly believe more attention should be given to users' problems and
> wills.
Of course, drawing a picture of the present Red Hat situation is just nothing. No doubt Taibbi shouldn't get paid either, I mean, he doesn't write code, does he? Do you really believe that a technical know-nothing like should open a 1000th and one site on how to manage Fedora? There are already too many!
Developers, people like you, Rahul Sundaran, Adam Williamson, etc. are well aware that Fedora has no direction set at the present time. (Please, Rahul, don't argue... I could reply) In the new Linux world, it's headed nowhere. You defend Fedora and Red Hat with all kind of arguments that you know don't stand up, because you think that defending Red Hat whatever happens is the way to go.
I DON'T THINK SO. I think it's better to face reality. Developers certainly have a better insiders' view than me. I KNOW far from all agree with the direction Fedora is taking. I believe you should get together and voice your concerns openly. And I believe what I'm writing here could be a good start for reflection. Believe it or not, Mr kernel maintainer, I believe I'm contributing right here, now. Did Schmidt ever write a line of code?
What is Fedora's mission? Despite all its successes, in the long run, it's clear to me it is headed for failure. Let's wait and see, you will say. No, this is notpossible. If you don't see forward what the great picture will be in 5 to 10 years, you're failing. Today.
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:14:07 -0400
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I don't work for or speak for Red Hat.
>
> > > Ok, so that's why it's OK if it doesn't work! Windows at $35 (OEM) for
> > 5-7
> > > years seems a better alternative though. Red Hat salesmen must be really
> > > competent. I certainly couldn't sell one Red Hat copy for sure.
> >
> > If you want to run Windows then do so.
>
>
> Hey, that's exactly the answer I said wouldn't help Red Hat. Great! I'm
> surprised it comes from a former kernel maintainer. Maybe that's the spirit
> at Red Hat?
Not anymore, but you certainly were close to Red Hat:
"Alan was employed by the Linux distributor Red Hat during 1999-2009. He is as of 2010 employed by Intel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cox
That's not another Aln Cox, is it?
> > Fedora is a *project* not a product.It's like the difference between watching Germany lose at football, and
> What's this supposed to mean? That you can escape all problems by sending
> users to Bugzillas?
playing football. In the former case you pay money for and it may or may
not do what you want, in the latter case you are part of making something
happen.
Do you really believe that the OEMs who use Android will tell their users: "Buzz off, you don't contribute code" and refer them to some android_this or that .org that nobody knows who the maintainer really is, that provide false information for months, if not years? Fedora does this. It lets anybody use their name, Google won't, unless an OEM puts its name on the product it has modified.
This won't happen because whichever OEM treats users like shit will lose market share. Open Source is a new game. It's not a developers' gizmo anymore, it's now out in the open world and brings in lots of revenue. Users problems will have to be taken into consideration.
Oh yes - like the iphone where they don't allow users to install software
> management at Google's? They're people who have one thing in sight: the
> user. And they succeed. People who have geek "projects" in mind fail. Of
they want ?
You really believe I'm an Apple apostle? :) I find Apple's business model is just horrible. It's a plain rip-off. But they cater to know-nothing people who are really willing to pay a fortune not to be sent searching all over the web. It works. Why can't Red Hat develop a business model that is not a rip-off for desktop users?
When a site such as fedorafaq.org provides wrong information to install nvidia drivers, why doesn't Red Hat complain that somebody using its... subsidiary (see my previous post) name is diffusing wrong info?
Why should they do this? Maybe they will sell contracts at $320/year/desktop. Working against Fedora helps Red Hat sell contracts which are really way too expensive. I would think they don't sell many, though.
Goldman $... oops & Sachs did a really bad job as a main underwriter for Red Hat's introduction on the Stock Exchange. Do you remember how shares went from $14 to ~$300?(1) This certainly made Bob Young and his wife -- you remember Bob Young, don't you? -- fabulously rich, but it set a money culture in Red Hat that, in my opinion, won't, in the long run, help Red Hat stick to the straight and narrow.
============
(1) Someday, when you feel like reading something else than code, learn more about Goldman & Sachs, see:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796?FORM=ZZNR3
A search on "laddering" is advised. Rolling Stone will certainly tell you more than the Wall Street Journal, which would see all its revenue dwindle if they ever published such an article. Mr Taibbi does a really good job!
======================
Now, you can say if Bob Young got hundred of millions for next to nothing, the present EO's are certainly worth a few millions a year but, meanwhile, Shuttleworth not only doesn't make a cent, he puts some of his own to accelerate Canonical development. And whereas all Red Hat offers is $320/year support contracts, Ubuntu offers its users some music and films. This makes more sense. How come Red Hat's multi-millionaires *EOs can't figure this out? They're mighty slow!
> course, Red Hat is moving forward but is it at the right pace? Google, who
> went public five years after Red Hat now has 25x the market capitalization.
> If your good friend :) Linux Torvalds had to entrust Linux's future to a
> company, which one would it be?
Actually his name is Linus
Nowadays, it's pretty much Linux Torvalds :)
> I strongly believe more attention should be given to users' problems and
> wills.
So stop just believing and start doing. Ranting on email lists rarely
changes the world. Fedora is a project - so like the football team, if
you think you can do better, stop whining from the touch line and start
playing - and if you don't like the club you can start your own or join
another one.
Of course, drawing a picture of the present Red Hat situation is just nothing. No doubt Taibbi shouldn't get paid either, I mean, he doesn't write code, does he? Do you really believe that a technical know-nothing like should open a 1000th and one site on how to manage Fedora? There are already too many!
Developers, people like you, Rahul Sundaran, Adam Williamson, etc. are well aware that Fedora has no direction set at the present time. (Please, Rahul, don't argue... I could reply) In the new Linux world, it's headed nowhere. You defend Fedora and Red Hat with all kind of arguments that you know don't stand up, because you think that defending Red Hat whatever happens is the way to go.
I DON'T THINK SO. I think it's better to face reality. Developers certainly have a better insiders' view than me. I KNOW far from all agree with the direction Fedora is taking. I believe you should get together and voice your concerns openly. And I believe what I'm writing here could be a good start for reflection. Believe it or not, Mr kernel maintainer, I believe I'm contributing right here, now. Did Schmidt ever write a line of code?
As I said I don't work for Red Hat. I don't work on any Red Hat product
> Your buzz off answer won't solve this kind of problem. It never has and
> never will. If your spirit is the kind that rules at Red Hat, no doubt Red
> Hat is doomed.
either.
You seem to be very confused about what Fedora is. The Fedora mission
statement isn't 'blow Microsoft out of the water' nor is it 'world
domination' nor 'end user product'. If that is what you are looking for
you are - as you've been told many times - in the wrong place.
What is Fedora's mission? Despite all its successes, in the long run, it's clear to me it is headed for failure. Let's wait and see, you will say. No, this is notpossible. If you don't see forward what the great picture will be in 5 to 10 years, you're failing. Today.
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
