Fedora Parasitic?, was Re: [discuss] irrelevancy
russell at flora.ca
Wed Jan 28 22:34:24 EST 2004
I realize this is old as well, but I simply can't let this one slide.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Shad Young wrote:
> I feel that by splitting their offering into their corporate branch and
> their unsupported "fedora" branch, Red Hat has demonstrated parasitical
> tendencies yes.
As a Fedora Core 1 user I find that the updates are more frequent now
than they were for the old RedHat Linux distribution. In fact the
positive move by RedHat to create Fedora may have convinced me to not jump
to Debian which was on my TODO list for a while. I found that trying to
have the same distribution be their community supported and Enterprise
offering was making them a "jack of two trades, master of neither".
> This is what I see: Red Hat can not support the billionaire lifestyle of
> Robert Young and still offer a free/free OS.
Why should you be offered a free/gratis OS from a private sector
for-profit company? I assume free/gratis and free/libre are the two
frees you are trying to mention.
What is so wrong with a private sector company making money, if it is
done in an ethical way as RedHat has?
I for one am glad Robert was able to do what he did. He has now gone
onward beyond RedHAt to do other extremely interesting projects I have
thought of (and wish I was more part of) such as Lulu.com
<http://www.lulu.com/russell/> and The Center for the Public Domain
He's one of those few people who make me proud to be Canadian:
You have a very different concept of giving back than I do I suspect. I
think picking on Mr. Young is quite uncalled for as he is one of the heros
in this movement. While I've been called a Stallmanist for years because
of my very strong social and political views about Free Software (from
back when it was very unpopular), Mr. Young is one of those people who
understood the economic aspects of Free Software early and helped make
what we all enjoy today possible.
RedHat is nothing like a Microsoft (or even an IBM which has ulterior
motives we need to be careful of). They are also not a volunteer sector
organization or a charity, but just because they are from the private
sector and have profit as part of their motivations doesn't make them
evil. They make money in a way that supports their business, supports
many communities, and supports a free market economy such that others are
able to work with them and also make a living.
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than
politicians should be bought. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
discuss mailing list
discuss at linux.ca
Return-Path: <discuss-admin at linux.ca>
More information about the discuss