Which distro for the enterprise now?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Mattison" <mattison20@cox.net>
To: <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Which distro for the enterprise now?

> >
> 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.

Wow - that is odd. I've used up2date on literally hundreds (very possibly
over a thousand) occasions and I've never seen that.

>
> Since switching distros I haven't tried KDE for more than a few minutes.
> Gnome seems to work ok, and that's good enough. If the major packages are
> practically impossible to compile unless you make a career of it, that
sort
> of shoots holes in the whole FOSS rationale, or at least in the argument
> that there is value in source availablilty.

Um, how so? Just because *I* don't muck about with packaging or modifying
source all the time doesn't mean in any way that no one else does. There
are lots of folks out there who continually improve F/OSS who do muck about
with said source and packaging. Without the code being open that would not
happen.

> And thanks for the invitation,
> but I try to stay away from cell blocks, regardless of the color of the
hats
> they wear inside.
>
> > Now - when you talk about RH wanting to make their customers dependent
> > upon them, I fail to see how anything you said would make Mandrake or
> > any other reasonably popular distro less dependent upon the packagers.
> > It is after all, the packaging that makes the distro because the source
> > is out there for all to use, modify and compile themselves. I stated a
> > few days ago that the use of a distro is like a contract between the
> > users and the packagers to give feedback and generally help improve the
> > concept of how things and which things are being used and which things
> > need to be changed. Software is after all, never perfect.
> >
> Actually I don't think the GPL says anything about being obligated in any
> way if you simply use the software. Only if you distribute the software
does
> it come into play.

I don't think you understand what he's saying. There is an implied
contract, more a noble ideal that the folks who make the distro will do
their best, and the users will provide feedback to help the distro improve.
Everyone is trying to be helpful to the common end of having a stable
distro.

> I think the biggest advantage of FOSS is that you can try
> it out and if it turns out to be garbage, or not what you need, you've
lost
> nothing but your time. Of course, time has value, and if the software
> consumes too much of it, the benefit of its "free" nature declines.

I think you miss much of the point of F/OSS. To me anyway, the cost factor
isn't the biggest deal. It's way down the list. What I love is that if I
use a F/OSS application or tool and it doesn't do what I expect, in most
cases I can either contact the author ot the developers list and someone - a
real person who has a clue about the software - will resond. Usually with a
fix. I contribute in my small way by revealing a bug. They contribute in a
much bigger way by fixing it. We both get the benefit of better software.
It's a love fest, man! ;-)

> > 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.

Um, and they are supporting Fedora, a FREE (beer and speech) distro for what
motive? While I will be the first to admit they do derive benefit by
working with the community, they are still giving their work away in Fedora.
That's pretty altruistic.

> And idealism seems to be a
> big factor in the FOSS movement. I have seen the phrase "scum-sucking
> profiteers" on this board. That describes every public corporation with
the
> possible exception of non-profits (even though a lot of those fit that
shoe
> as well.)

Hrm. I definitely do not disagree with this sentiment, but I think that's
just a matter of my experience with corporations being different from yours.

> Whether you think the profit motive is evil is a personal matter.
> Everyone hates monopolists, but every public corporation wants to be one.

That's simply not true. We are constantly bombarded with news of the tiny
percentage of bad corporate actors, but the reality is that many if not most
corporations are not evil.

> 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.

Your loss.

Thomas