Ransom Love to Focus on UnitedLinux 102
morhoj writes "Looks like Ransom Love, who recently was host to a /. interview, has been replaced as CEO of Caldera and is now exclusively leading the UnitedLinux initiative. Some other stock buybacks and board swaps also happened at Caldera. Can't say that I'm all too pleased by this, I for one didn't like some of his answers in the interview, specifically that fees would be required to become "UnitedLinux" certified. That should really help wider Linux adoption."
First dibs on #41 (Score:1, Funny)
Ransom Love is not on that picture. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Charging fees for Linux certification (Score:3, Interesting)
Open Source Ideal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Say UL is successful and lots of businesses adopt it. They still won't have the kind of control over the users that Microsoft does - because they can always take the source and go elsewhere if they don't like the direction UL is going.
Certification is about giving businesses the comfort factor that applications will work out of the box on their linux systems. Certification means testing - which means time and manpower - which costs money. Charging for it seems to make sense to me. And you're only getting charged if you want to be part of the UL distro club (as far as I can see anyway).
Re:Ransom Love??? (Score:1)
Listen to Ransom Love, he's got a plan: (Score:4, Funny)
2) ??
3) profit
What will undoubtedly hurt UniLinux's credibility (Score:3, Funny)
We might as well have this guy [lycos.com] lead UnitedLinux. Or this [lycos.com] guy. An Oriental [lycos.com] guy would be good for diversity. This guy too.
That should do for now.
well, er (Score:2)
Re:What will undoubtedly hurt UniLinux's credibili (Score:1)
A few corrections (Score:4, Informative)
The basic problem here is that Love has made Microsoft-inspired statements about the GPL, helped his company get a large chunk of their capital from suing Microsoft, buying worst-of-breed products (like SCO), etc. Is he really the person you want to have head the United Linux effort?
I personally think that United Linux will flop, and may take down Turbolinux, SuSE, and Conectiva as well. I would include Caldera as well, but that company has already lived up to its namesake
Re:A few corrections (Score:1)
Never said Caldera opened source, I said they let it go (as give it up to Lineo). =- Beef with Caldera =-
FreeDOS is not by Caldera. And you should try it. It's pretty good. I've been using it on bosch and dosemu.
Re: SCO and Mickeysoft (Score:2, Informative)
Re:United Linux Kingdom (Score:1)
Re:United Linux Kingdom (Score:1)
/usr/src/linux/drivers/video/matrox/mat roxfb_accel.c
The Leopard Can't Change His Spots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Leopard Can't Change His Spots (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Leopard Can't Change His Spots (Score:1)
Re:The Leopard Can't Change His Spots (Score:1)
Ransom Love to focus on UnitedLinux (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, by charging, corporate america will be able to think with it. Besides it might become able to fund the partners to continue creating distributions we've grown so fond of.
It seems few here have any experience with keeping a company afloat. It's always complain, complain when these guys try to get paid for all the work they put into this. It would be one thing if they were making money head over heals like MS.
They have all been running at a loss with their linux distributions. Do you want to pay for them to continue?
I for one am willing to pay for what I get. Fair exchange, don't you think?!
So unless you can put up the money, and time it takes, and make it go right to bring out a great distribution, shut up!
Commercial does *not* mean closed (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I don't mind that United Linux is trying to make a profit. I also wouldn't mind paying for it, if it was worth it.
Having something be commercial is *not* the same as being closed (propriatary). If they try to charge money for something that sucks, no one will pay for it.
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, and I'm a huge open source fan. But, people do still need to make money. And, I would rather see closed source software on an open platform, than closed source on a closed platform.
Just my $.02 worth, anyway.
Re:Commercial does *not* mean closed (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate to point out the obvious, but if a company tries to charge money for something that you can download for free they're not going to make much money. Most distros are going about it all wrong. Free Software == commodity software, which means you had better find something else to sell if you want to stay around for any appreciable amount of time.
p.s. Distros that have managed to make a few quid here and there are selling stuff other than just the shrink wrapped free download.
Re:Commercial does *not* mean closed (Score:1)
Which distros really have made any money? Which, just one? Redhat? Is nearly going toward the black zero, and most of they money they make are because of other services, not for the linux distro.
Come on as soon you make a distro people demand to freely download, do you know what that means for costs for a server, they want free this and free that, they copy their distros etc.
The problems are that the linux users AND develeopers are not business friendly. Honestly think about it, joe average linux user is a fuckwit. Isn't it? Just read slashdot for a half a year to get an idea, all this extremists posts somedays make me embarassed to be a linux user.
(This post is written of 100% free software)
Re:Commercial does *not* mean closed (Score:1)
Commercial is Good, but UL is Definitely Not Good (Score:2)
I agree, and while my experiences with Blender have led me to conclude that proprietary software coupled with proprietary formats is a no-win situation on any platform, open or closed, there is a place for commercial software in the Free World.
The problem with United Linux is that they are promoting a very erroneous and IMHO destrictuve meme: that (a) a single commercial entity imposing a defacto embrace-and-extended standard is better than a community consensus and (b) that commercial products are better off targeting one imposed distribution and counting on compatability with others (in contrast to packaging their binaries in a distribution-neutral manner, the way VMWare does, Blender and Loki did, etc.).
Point (b) is particularly problematic (and my sole signficant gripe with Red Hat, who I otherwise like as a company, as they have promoted that harmful meme to some degree as well), and why I will actually be cheering the demise of United Linux (to put it bluntly).
Their strategy is to encourage vendors to package stuff for their distro, arguing that they are the standard to which all other distros (e.g. Gentoo, Source Mage, Slackware, Debian, etc.) must become compatible, then use that in)compatabilties to coerce those who would like to use said commercial products into purchasing their distro.
In short, they are about coercion and removing choice from the community, and as I said in another thread, the losers will ultimately be the commercial vendors, whose products would simply be disregarded regardless of merit because of their incompatability with the installed distribution (which in our case we prefer for a number of reasons, the details of which aren't important here). The vendors will likely then think, erroneously, that they failed due to a lack of GNU/Linux interest, when in fact they failed because they targeted a coercive distribution that the majority of the community rejected, and thus closed themselves out of the very market they were trying to address.
The entire notion of United Linux is based upon at least two false pretenses: (1) that it is somehow impossible for vendors to package binaries in a distribution-neutral manner, despite numerous examples to the contrary and (2) that the GNU/Linux community will accept a compatability standard imposed upon us by either a unilateral or multilateral corporate interest instead of community consensus.
They are sorely mistaken on both of these points, and their arrogance will likely prevent them from seeing that until it is far too late.
Hmmm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Redhat charges for Advanced Server (targeting the Enterprise), but allows server and desktop for free. If I understand correctly, United will charge for "Server" and up, but the desktop will be free. Sort of like "If you build it, they will come" for the desktop piece.
What is troubling (to me) is that, in the end, the precedents here are well documented. We all remember the "free" for life" services when the internet was in first bloom. Free E-mail, web hosting, etc. Those are gone. They won't be back, either. Because they didn't make money.
The "give" here (by United) is on the GPL and releasing source code to developers. That keeps the platform "open", while still managing to charge for the product.
Is Linux on the desktop "ready for Prime Time"? No, probably not. It isn't mindless enough. Certifications? Let's hammer away at that like MS and get 500,000 + folks certified (how many MCSE's are there?). Looks good to IS departments, anyway.
My point? The Linux community will have to answer United's push, and the answer will be an MS-like Linux based counterpoint to Windows. Things are fixing to change.
Free as in beer (Score:1)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:1)
I don't know if I'd choose that wording ("useable" is the one I'd use), but yes, it does need to be made easy enough for the non-hacker masses to pick up and use. Charging money is the fastest way to get there because as soon as United needs to make a buck quarter to quarter, they will have to pursue other markets than Linux zealots. Perhaps we don't like to think about it, but we are way outnumbered by the non-hacker computer users, and there is no way Linux can ever replace Microsoft without appealing to them.
My recommendation (not that anyone asked :-), is to centralize access to all the umpteen different ways to muck with the configuration. RedHat 7.3 a la KDE has a pretty good start on this (I wonder why..), but there is still configuration that cannot be gotten to from the menus. The configuration doesn't need to be dumbed down at first, just findable.
OSF all over again? (Score:4, Interesting)
The more I read about UL, the less I like it. I seriously doubt that the people who developed most of Linux were expecting to be used as free labor in a conventional retail software product.
Ransom Love Will Destroy this. (Score:4, Interesting)
Love seems to shoot himself in the foot each time he opens his mouth. People are complaining about the slashdot interview. That was one of the best interview he ever gave...go search for more, you'll see. This guy does not belong in the Linux business, he just doesn't understand it. What's even worse is he thinks he does.
This move of his saddens me. It also makes me want to go out and purchase some RedHat stock. All of RedHat's serious competition is about to die. I hope SUSE can maintain itself, and not sellout to Love's screwball mindset. I thought they knew better.
-Pete
Re:Ransom Love Will Destroy this. (Score:4, Insightful)
He sure will (Score:2)
Regarding SUSE, I'm not so sure any of the Linux parters in UL can survive this expensive mistake. These companies simply don't have the financial reserves to go out and take foolish risks like this. Of all the potential UL casualties, SUSE is the only one that I will miss.
Re:Ransom Love Will Destroy this. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's horrible and they're destroying it? So what's your problem?
All the highly moderated comments so far have been very critical of Ransom Love. The parent post here makes a lot very critical statements, but with no facts to back them up. I know Caldera as a distribution has never been particularly popular amongst geeks, and that Mr Love's views don't exactly coincide with the majority of the Slashdot readership, but whatever happened to "a rising tide lifts all boats"?
When Sun introduced payment for Star Office, reaction on Slashdot was fairly muted. People could see it still represents good value compared with MS Office, Open Office is still available for free (and Free), and businesses are happier because they can understand the revenue model and have faith that with Sun making money on it, it will have a future.
Many of us have to use Windows at work and would love to use Linux instead. Many corporations will be happier to use Linux if they think it has a viable (read profitable) future. If Caldera and OpenLinux want to charge per-seat licensing then great! With the money, they can pay people to do some of the more tedious jobs that need doing. They could update all the HOWTOs, some of which are years out of date. They could pay driver manufactures to release drivers. They could sponsor people on gcc to work specifically on pre-compiled headers, faster load times for C++ programs etc.
And guess what? If you don't want to pay for Linux, you still don't have to! So cut Caldera some slack, they just have a different business model from IBM, and go do something useful.
Ransom's Contributions (Score:4, Insightful)
That shows how much he understands the Open Source world. I remember when Caldera was considered a "bigger" more reliable Linux distribution than RedHat back in the kernel 1.2 days. Look at the two of them now, and the business/respect they have. If he thinks "marketing" his own product is enough giving back to the open source community, he deserves to fail. Calera should have died a long time ago. He bites the hand that feeds him...we have bitten back. I am afraid he will stunt (if not completely destroy) UnitedLinux's growth like he did Caldera.
-Pete
Re:Ransom's Contributions (Score:2, Interesting)
While I have read the GPL, and understand the FSF 'philosophy' I also believe it is somewhat like the bible. Full of good intentions, but unable to put across the full picture.
While I agree that 'just marketing' is not putting back into the free software community in the spirit of the GPL that marketing may attract thousands, or even millions (if done well) of new Linux users.
Each one of those Linux users will become a part of the community, and maybe one in a hundred or so will become an active and contributing hacker on some project - bringing much more mindshare to the Linux meme.
*This* is incredibly important as the proprietary software vendors seek more and more to shut open source software completeley out of the marketplace using laws and other unfair methods - I know that Ransom Loves main reason for conducting marketing was to make a profit, but please do not underestimate how important it is to gain mindshare in the current climate, and only effective marketing can do that with any degree of success. Without it, Linux will die a death within a very few years because the current user base is too politically apathetic and too small to prevent legal and commercial pressures from halting Open Source production and distribution.
Re:Ransom's Contributions (Score:2)
In my opinion this is BS.
Is it just me? (Score:3, Insightful)
ttyl
Farrell
Re:Is it just me? (Score:2)
If it wasn't for Caldera's superdope icon sets I wouldn't even care who they were or who ran them. Wait, I don't. I like the crystal icon sets though.
Re:Is it just me? (Score:1)
Of course it does, but don't tell DISNEY!!! If they find out they gonna sue Caldera into nothingness.
Slashdot exists for my amusement. (Score:2)
Re:The only reason this guy gets any coverage at a (Score:1)
fees (Score:1)
Yeah... it almost looks like a business... ehm... oops
Wake Up People (Score:1, Insightful)
Now lets go after peoples bitches about Ransom and how he "bitches" about the "freeloaders" in the Linux community. First off, I have read all of his interviews that I can find. I have never seen that quote. Usually that is people saying that he said that. Second, everything that Caldera does for Linux OS is done under the GPL so all can get to the source. To me, he is giving more back to the community than most people who are just running Linux (I put myself in that boat!) Please notice that I put Linux OS because they do write apps like Volution for money. Yes, I said the dirty thing when it comes to Linux, making money. Business's as a rule need to make money to stay in business. I realize that most people in the community don't seem to have a clue about running a business, but let me make it clear as I can. The above is the first and cardinal rule: You need to make money to stay in business.
Oh, buy the way, there are not to many businesses staying afloat on service contracts alone. Look at RedHat as an example.
The moral of my story would appear to be: If you don't like Caldera or the UnitedLinux thing, don't use it. Plan and simple.
Sounds good to me (Score:1)
Let him go out and do stuff on his own.
I dont see a problem with it.