From: Collins Richey
> Sounds pretty religious-based to me.
> IBM=bad
> HP,Sun, RedHat, SCO=good.
> OTOH, from some of your comments, Novell=better.
Are you really that shallow?
IBM is our partner, not our friend.
Sun has its interests too, and has 5 different entities of focus, which vary.
Red Hat is a tale of two companies, cut-throat business combined with GPL-analness
(like Stallman on one side, Microsoft on the other - an unique balace).
And Caldera-SCO post-May 2003 is no longer a software company,
and as of their lobbying of Congress as of January 2004,
they are basically condeming the right to digital assembly.
There is no such thing as good/bad.
Companies have their reasons for doing things.
But what I can't stand is people like yourself holding different companies to different standards.
Trust nothing but actual community donations - because everything else can change tomorrow.
> You've provided plenty of one-liners in this discussion.
I don't take the time to explain things for my health.
In fact, most people complain about my verbosity.
And this "summary" you provided is wholly inaccurate and not even relevant.
> Plus there's the underlying religious belief,
> at least that's how I've
read it, that IBM's efforts to make money
> are inherently suspect and/or evil
No. You haven't heard a word I said.
I have repeatedly said that Linux people should not be shallow,
and confuse money with actual donations to the community.
As I call it, it's the "Linux Quiz Show" and many people squabble over many things,
but apparently if IBM does the same thing or even worse, people assume they can't be bad.
SCO v. IBM resulted because of two companies - or bigger than the other.
Sun has been repeatedly scrutinized for things that IBM does and few (outside of Linus and other developers) seem to question.
Whatever people get all hussy about, the media reports, even if its levied unevenly.
And boy to some Linux people seem to get all so political and "anti" all the time.
> and RedHat's attempts to do the same are blameless and
> praiseworthy.
Please point me to the non-GPL compatible (let alone just non-GPL) software Red Hat develops!
Stallman was brilliant, because after AT&T was broken up and could now sell UNIX,
he _knew_ companies can change overnight.
When Red Hat kills its GPL focus, then you will hear me point out the same deals.
Until then, no matter what Red Hat does commercially, we benefit from what they do.
Stallman's moral delima at the foundation of _several_ companies (not just Red Hat) - the ultimate savior from themselves.
IBM is still heavily non-GPL and, again, the irony is that their GPL and even GPL donations still trail even Sun if you can believe that.
Does that mean IBM is bad? I could care less about such a simplication!
But IBM does have a history of destroying even GPL-centric companies when they see them as a threat.
Sun and HP have a long history of standards - although IBM is improving in many areas, but still scary in others.
After all, if I'm CEO of IBM, the patent king, I've gotta be careful.
I hold any company to the same standard.
I don't thin IBM is "bad" -- but damn if they are as "good" as many other companies - at least to date.
But, again, companies can change overnight, so all we're left with is what they gave in GPL or GPL compatible software.
And that's the _only_ standard that is consistent.
I keep a watchful eye, and hold them to actual _community_ donations.
No company should feel obligated, but Linux users need to be a little less "shallow" than bad/good.
And they need to hold _all_ companies to the _same_ standard.
So far, I see a lot of vendor/brand-name bigotry flying around that reminds me of the Windows world.
> All of this has little to do with CentOS, and fortunately
> CentOS isn't into the religion/blame game.
Then leave it off the list in the first place.
When I see a company demonized or slandered, while another is praised,
it's typically based not on actual considerations of their donation to the community,
but blind vendor alignments - the whole reason AT&T became a problem, then Microsoft, etc...
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm not the one slamming companies.
But when I see it, I will stop to point out what assumptions are incorrect.
You can't get upset with me without getting upset with those that keep proliferating the vendor non-sense.
So let us make it about GPL and GPL compatible software,
and not consider the private lawsuits, or the non-GPL compatible (let alone proprietary) R&D.
Let's just keep focused on the community, and not make the community a place where people trash companies off-the-cuff.
Your simplification is noted as your inability to comprehence anything complex, such as the fairly limited history I have tried to provide on the companies you seem to love/hate so much.
I don't trust any company, I only trust the source, and I only favor companies who donate the most GPL and GPL compatible source.
Because it's the only thing that remains if and when they do change.
