On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 12:24, Phil Mattison wrote:
> > ---
> > I don't know where you got your info from but this is all bad info from
> > less than reliable sources.
> >
> Hmm... sounds a little like distro religion, but I'll take the bait.
> Actually I consider my own experience among the most reliable of "sources"
> for my own purposes. I tried up2date -u shortly after getting the system up
> and running, and it crashed to whole system. I was never sure whether it
> corrupted it as well, since I never tried it again. And sure enough, KDE was
> the biggest source of instability.
---
I have installed Red Hat with rhn / up2date on at least a dozen machines
and not a single one has ever crashed when I've run up2date. In fact,
the only crash I have every had with any Linux product has been a system
that acted as router/gateway since RH 6.0 and was frequently updated and
finally, ext2 filesystem corrupted - perhaps some 5-6 years later (last
December)

Must have been your bad luck I suppose.
---
> > And lastly, when you speak of masquerading as some kind of New-Age
> > benefactor of Open Source Enlightenment (ignoring your comment about
> > signing a deal with the devil to go public), and while I am amused by
> > your characterization, I think that it is far from the reality of what
> > is happening. You are however, entitled to your opinion. My own opinion
> > is that open source / FOSS - NEEDS Red Hat. They needed some company to
> > have bundled on various server hardware shipped by the major players
> > like IBM, HP, Dell etc. which offers consistent packaging, long term
> > viability, commercial support etc. This is what some businesses want and
> > Red Hat can offer it. Are there better financial models for this than
> > Red Hat? Will someone step in and offer a better package for the
> > hardware vendors and end users? Possibly - Red Hat doesn't have an
> > exclusive lock on anything except being there at this moment in time.
> >
> Well, I didn't say they *are* the Devil. But now they are driven by their
> shareholders, and can no longer afford to do things for idealistic reasons,
> regardless of how people like you feel about it. And idealism seems to be a
> big factor in the FOSS movement. I have seen the phrase "scum-sucking
> profiteers" on this board. 
---
what kind of response is this? "I didn't say they *are* the Devil...I
have seen the phrase "scum-sucking" profiteers on this board."

If you have an opinion, don't be afraid to voice it but please don't
make assertions by paraphrasing unnamed sources so you cannot be
challenged. 
---
> That describes every public corporation with the
> possible exception of non-profits (even though a lot of those fit that shoe
> as well.) Whether you think the profit motive is evil is a personal matter.
> Everyone hates monopolists, but every public corporation wants to be one.
> Personally I don't care how RH does business so long as they don't interfere
> with my life. But I don't have to like them or even respect them.
> --Phil M.
----
OK - well, I used to think that I was somewhat socialist minded but
apparently you are way far to the left of me - but this is politics,
pure and simple and to be honest, I cannot possibly deduce from your
writings what you think the proper financial models should be. Clearly
the GPL license was written in contemplation of the fact that this is a
capitalistic society and that the code would not become the provincial
domain of any corporation, large or small, public, private or
non-profit, but would be available for use, study and modification. I
consider the GPL license to be similar to the Constitution of the United
States, experimental in design, aiming to reach far into the future and
desiring to protect freedoms some of which haven't been fully
identified. The fact remains that this is a capitalistic society and
both the Constitution and the GPL must co-exist in this society.

>From your earlier 'make a deal with the devil to go public' comment and
your allusion to 'profit motive being evil' it's fairly evident that you
have little use for a capitalistic society. Unfortunately, there are few
places on this earth where you can safely practice your craft without
this imposition upon you. While you may see FOSS as a means to achieve
socialism and software for the people, I would suggest that FOSS is more
of the means to keep the control out of any one or two corporations
hands - thus, it is about keeping the stain of money off the software.

By the way, not everyone hates monopolists...not their shareholders.

Craig