Wouldn't this make life a whole lot easier for the development of Speakup and all other packages. I hope this turns into more then a pipe dream. When commenting on this article, maybe include the original author in your notes so that he gets a feel on how this concept would benefit our group as well. Here is his particulars: Nicholas Petreley is founding editor of LinuxWorld. http://www.linuxworld.com Reach him at: nicholas at petreley.com Stephen Dawes B.A. B.Sc. Web Business Office, The City of Calgary PHONE: (403) 268-5527. FAX: (403) 268-6423 E-MAIL ADDRESS: sdawes at gov.calgary.ab.ca -----Original Message----- From: OpenSource@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:OpenSource at bdcimail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:08 AM To: sdawes at gov.calgary.ab.ca Subject: NICHOLAS PETRELEY: "The Open Source" from InfoWorld.com, Wednesday, March 7, 2001 ======================================================== NICHOLAS PETRELEY: "The Open Source" InfoWorld.com ======================================================== Wednesday, March 7, 2001 Advertising Sponsor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What Makes a Guru? Swallow your pride, because the answer is: He knows more than you. Like InfoWorld "Window Manager" columnist Brian Livingston. He?s been studying and explaining Windows for power users and IT managers longer than just about anybody. Any other questions? Brian will send the answers to your e-mailbox. Subscribe at http://www.iwsubscribe.com/newsletters/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WE'LL ALL BE BETTER OFF WHEN LINUX DISTRIBUTORS ACCEPT THE INEVITABLE Posted at March 2, 2001 01:01 PM Pacific I obviously spent too much energy raving about the Debian approach to upgrading software and neglected to reconnect the dots on the other issues that I had brought up in past columns.LAST WEEK I suggested that all commercial distributions adopt Debian as the foundation for their Linux distribution. Gauging from the response I received, most readers misunderstood my rationale for choosing Debian as a prime candidate for a Linux distribution standard. I'll gladly take the blame for that. Despite how I waxed rhapsodic over Debian's apt-get program last week, this isn't about Red Hat Package Manager (RPM) package format versus Debian package format, nor about the apt-get program versus the various RPM update programs available. This is about all major commercial Linux distributors agreeing to start with a common, comprehensive, standard Linux distribution and add value above and beyond that foundation. To have the maximum benefit to customers and developers, here are the requirements as I see them: This Linux distribution standard must be broad enough to eliminate kernel, application, and package incompatibility issues across all commercial distributors who adopt this standard. It must document strict installation and maintenance policies by which all Linux software must be developed and packaged. An independent group must maintain and provide this distribution so that no single commercial entity can manipulate the standard to its exclusive advantage. Each distinct level should be maintained and provided in such a way that customers have maximum flexibility as to how and what they update within their individual Linux installations. For example, customers should be able to, with a minimum of effort, update only security fixes or update everything, at their discretion. All of the levels of development must be freely available to both customers and developers. Customers and developers must be able to update or upgrade their base Linux distribution easily and without cost, regardless of the commercial Linux distribution they chose. All software package dependencies should be resolved automatically when updating any of the software.The independent Linux distribution standard group should divide its work into several levels. It should continue to maintain and improve the current version, develop the next version, and experiment with ideas for future versions. In addition, the group should maintain a repository of security fixes. The software installation and upgrade process must be safe, flexible, and reliable. By safe, I mean it should attempt to guarantee that the software being installed is free of Trojan horses or other malicious changes to the original software. By flexible, I mean the installation software should allow you to install some software by other means, such as compiling it yourself, without confusing the installation or upgrade process for other packaged software. Reliability is rather self-explanatory. I'm sure I've neglected some important factors, but I'm equally sure you understand that good standards are never created by a single person. This is a starting point, and I believe Debian GNU/Linux currently fits the above description best and would be the easiest to tweak wherever it does not compare well to other distributions. But please don't fixate on Debian or packaging issues. Of course, Debian has many weaknesses, including even its packaging format, as many readers aptly pointed out. If Debian offends you, forget about it. The point is for all commercial distributions to adopt the kind of standard distribution I describe above, wherever it originates. Look at the advantages. If all commercial Linux distributors agreed to begin with a Linux distribution standard and build from there, they would no longer have to devote so much talent toward maintaining a base distribution -- an effort that is needlessly duplicated across all commercial distributors. They could easily redirect a portion of their development talent to improving the base distribution and devote the rest of their talent toward the task of building the kind of unique added value to their commercial offerings that would bust the Linux market wide open. If all commercial Linux distributors adopted a Linux distribution standard, it would eliminate the need for multiple packages for any single software product, whether that software product is free or proprietary. There would be no Mandrake version, Red Hat version, or Debian version of the Apache Web server. There would be simply Apache for Linux. If all commercial Linux distributors adopted a Linux distribution standard, this would create unmatched consumer confidence in Linux as a choice of operating systems. If you become unsatisfied with your choice of commercial distribution, or if your commercial distributor goes out of business, you'll still be able to update and upgrade the most important part of your Linux installations indefinitely. Because the base distribution is the same, you could even switch to another commercial distribution and start taking advantage of the new distribution's unique value-added software without having to reinstall an entirely new Linux distribution. All you would have to install is the software that is unique to that new distribution. And all you would stand to lose by switching is any proprietary added value that was offered by your previous choice of commerical distribution. Your investment in Linux itself would be protected. About now, it should become obvious that if the commercial Linux distributors followed my advice they would no longer be Linux distributors at all. They would be distributors of support and value-added software. What should be equally obvious, however, is that this is not only a good thing, it is inevitable. I am optimistic about the future of commercial distributions, partly because I have already heard rumblings about the possibility of many of them collaborating on a single distribution standard. But for the sake of argument, let's assume Linux distributors ignore the need for a broad distribution standard and continue to differentiate at too low a level for adequate cross-distribution compatibility. Sooner or later, one Linux distributor will have to become the de facto standard. The problem for other distributions is that the dominant one alone will have sufficient resources to add unique value and support its distribution. The others will be wasting too much time maintaining those basic elements of Linux that are largely invisible to the customer -- the software that compromises the bulk of a base disribution. The nondominant players will be duplicating this effort with a fraction of the revenue that the seller of the de facto standard enjoys. The "little guys" are essentially throwing away the very money that they could be using to make their offerings worth purchasing. In the end, the only way they can avoid this problem will be to adopt the de facto standard commercial distribution and build on it. Perhaps that is how it will play out. Maybe Caldera, Conectiva, Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux or some other distribution will become the de facto standard and all of them will eventually build on that standard. But I don't see how that can happen without a bloodbath in the Linux market first, and that has two serious consequences. First, it undermines the perception that Linux is a good investment. Second, it just shifts dominance from one player to another without solving the problem. Just about every commercial Linux distributor (except Red Hat, obviously) sees Red Hat as the "enemy." Assuming everyone but Red Hat collaborates on a standard to beat Red Hat, there will by necessity emerge a dominant player among those collaborators who won. Then that dominant player will become the enemy, and the cycle will start again. The only way to avoid this situation is for everyone to adopt a comprehensive open standard maintained by people who are not driven by commercial interests. Lo and behold, there lies Debian waiting to be plucked up and honed to the task. This is one of the many reasons why I picked Debian as a starting point, but it's certainly not the only possibility. If you have a better idea, go for it. Get The Open Source via e-mail Go to http://www.iwsubscribe.com/newsletters and click The Open Source to receive this column every Monday, free via e-mail. Nicholas Petreley is founding editor of LinuxWorld (http://www.linuxworld.com). Reach him at nicholas at petreley.com. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE LATEST IN LINUX FROM INFOWORLD: * IBM offers 10 percent discount on Linux servers for small businesses - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/03/05/010305hnsmallbiz.xml * Delphi deftly leaps to Linux - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/03/05/010305tckylix.xml - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - QUOTE OF THE DAY: "The Internet could change from a World Wide Web to geographically segmented entities. The American Web would be completely visible to people connecting from the United States, partly invisible on the more restrictive French Web, still more restricted on the well-policed Chinese Web, and almost completely lost on the Afghan Web." --George A. Chidi, IDG Correspondent, writing about censorship of the Web in countries outside the U.S. http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/03/05/010305hnpriv.xml?0307weli - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SUBSCRIBE To subscribe to any of InfoWorld's e-mail newsletters, tell your friends and colleagues to go to: http://www.iwsubscribe.com/newsletters/ To subscribe to InfoWorld.com, or InfoWorld Print, or both, go to http://www.iwsubscribe.com UNSUBSCRIBE If you want to unsubscribe from InfoWorld's Newsletters, go to http://iwsubscribe.com/newsletters/unsubscribe/ CHANGE E-MAIL If you want to change the e-mail address where you are receiving InfoWorld newsletters, go to http://iwsubscribe.com/newsletters/adchange/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If your network's not secure, you're toast. Get practical advice on how to run a tight ship with InfoWorld's security guru P.J. Connolly, in the e-mail version of this hands-on, technically oriented weekly column. Subscribe now to SECURITY WATCH, or any of InfoWorld's e-mail Newsletters. Go to: http://www.iwsubscribe.com/newsletters Advertising Sponsor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What Makes a Guru? Swallow your pride, because the answer is: He knows more than you. Like InfoWorld "Window Manager" columnist Brian Livingston. He?s been studying and explaining Windows for power users and IT managers longer than just about anybody. Any other questions? Brian will send the answers to your e-mailbox. Subscribe at http://www.iwsubscribe.com/newsletters/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Copyright 2001 InfoWorld Media Group Inc. This message was sent to: sdawes at gov.calgary.ab.ca
