The meaning of FREE

January 22, 2007 2 Comments

A recent blog post by Mark Shuttleworth has sparked quite a bit of debate. His assertion:
We have to work together to keep free software freely available. It will be a failure if the world moves from paying for shrink-wrapped Windows to paying for shrink-wrapped Linux.
As free software becomes more successful and more pervasive there will be an increasing desire on the part of companies to make it more proprietary. We've already seen that with Red Hat and Novell, which essentially offer free software on proprietary terms – their “really free” editions are not certified, carry no support and receive no systematic security patching. In other words – they’re beta or test versions. If you want the best that free software can deliver, a rock solid, widely certified, secure platform, from either of those companies then you have to pay, and you pay the same price whether you are Goldman Sachs or a startup in Rio de Janeiro.
That’s not the vision we all share of what free software can achieve.
With Ubuntu, our vision is to make the very best of free software freely available, globally. To the extent we make short-term compromises, for drivers or firmware along the way, we see those as bugs, and ones that will be closed over time.
Basically, he's calling the two main Enterprise Linux distributors proprietary companies. Greg DeKoenigsberg, the Community Development Manager for Red Hat (aka quite active in the Fedora community) fires back:
You can call Red Hat “proprietary” all you want. That doesn't make it true.
The difference between Red Hat Enterprise Linux bits and CentOS bits is virtually nil; we make all of our source RPMs available to anyone who wants them. (Ask Novell if they do the same. I'll save you the time: they don't.) What is “proprietary” is the brand, and the quality of service you are entitled to receive by being a paying customer. Oh, and the notion that “the price is the same whether you're Goldman Sachs or a startup in Rio de Janeiro” is ludicrous.
If you want to duplicate that quality of service for Ubuntu users, that's noble and admirable. That's competition. But leave the FUD at the door, dude. You're better than that. Aren't you?
The discussion gets going from there. My opinion lies somewhere between the two, although that's not surprising considering they're basically diametrically opposed. I think calling Red Hat a proprietary company is a bit disingenuous. The bits are 100% freely available and Red Hat is extremely active in contributing code back upstream. I don't think there is any danger of there becoming a shrink-wrapped only Linux situation. Matt seems to think that Mark doesn't “get” enterprise Linux. I think it might be something else though, and that's that Canonical has an entirely different business model. The Red Hat business model has turned into something along the lines of (yes, these are *gross* oversimplification meant to illustrate a point) “If you want Linux for free, we have a release that is primarily aimed at developers that you are free (in every sense of the word) to do what you please with. The maintenance window is really short and we make no guarantees, but here it is – enjoy. If you'd like a solid and stable version of Linux that comes with support, ISV certifications and long term maintenance, we also have RHEL but it costs”. I've express my desire to have a maintenance without support version of RHEL (for a fee mind you, just a low one) in the past, but that may never happen. If you start with Fedora now and end up wanting official Red Hat support, you basically have to start 100% from scratch with RHEL. The Canonical version seems to be more along the lines of “Feel free to download any version of the product we have, be it LTS or not. If you'd like support, we'd be happy to provide it for a price.” For those not familiar with Ubuntu, LTS is “(Long Term Support”. This does give companies the added advantage of being able to try the official product while maintaining the ability to easily move to the supported product. That is nice, but if you want anything in the line of ISV certification at this time, Ubuntu doesn't have much to offer you (and that is important).
The one great thing that stands out to me here is that, due to the way that Linux is licensed both companies get a chance to prove their models. What's even better, they are doing so with essentially the same bits. Everyone in the community has the potential to win! No vendor lock-in on either side, so comparisons to “Microsoft of Linux” are non sequitur. See how great choice really is? The one final comment I'll add is that Red Hat has done a good job of proving their model works. Can Canonical do the same? Will they?
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source, Red Hat, Ubuntu

Will Sun License OpenSolaris Under GPLv3?

January 22, 2007 1 Comment

A recent eWeek article intimates that Sun will dual license OpenSolaris under the GPLv3 once it's officially released. Rich Green points out that no decisions will be made until after the GPLv3 is officially released, but indicates that Sun is in discussions with the community regarding the detailed terms of GPLv3. He also notes that he's happy with the current progress. That makes a lot of sense and I'd certainly not expect Sun to commit to a license that isn't even released yet. Putting that aside for a moment, let's assume that Sun does like the final terms of the GPLv3 (WARNING: there is no way to know whether that will be the case, this is just speculation based on that assumption). Dual licensing OpenSolaris under the GPLv3 would be an interesting move with a lot of up side for Sun. OpenSolaris is currently a bit of a step child to some in the Open Source community due to the CDDL. Releasing under the GPLv3 would allow Sun to use a license with some street cred while also keeping the code out of the Linux kernel. This is because Linus has made it extremely clear that the kernel will remain GPLv2 only. I've already mentioned that the GPLv2/v3 split has a chance to create a small fissure in parts of the community. We're used to a large number of licenses, but the GPL is a very dominant one.
However, a move of this nature could attract significantly more developer attention for OpenSolaris. I've seen speculation that Sun may encourage some Linux developers to dual license their code under the GPLv2 and GPLv3, but that makes little sense to me. To make it back upstream into OpenSolaris proper, the code would also need to be licensed under the CDDL. Note that is my understanding of how things would need to work. I am not a lawyer and a three license scenario is far behind what I'm able to properly grok. Back to actual code, I've already said how much I like DTrace and Sun is doing some interesting things elsewhere. The ability to increase collaboration and share code should be beneficial to all, even if kernel-to-kernel code flow is prohibited. Much of the early Linux growth came at the expense of Solaris and the other proprietary UNIX variants (not Windows, as many seem to think) so it's hard to gage what impact this may have on commercial and enterprise Linux uptake. For now, it's a moot point. Once the GPLv3 is actually released however, it will be something to keep an eye on.
(Note: I had typed a much longer version of this post that contained some additional thoughts and ideas. Firefox crashed as I was hitting submit and this is a quick reconstruction of my thoughts. Hopefully I've hit on all the salient points of my original post.)
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source, Sun

OSDL and the Free Standards Group will become The Linux Foundation

January 22, 2007 Leave a comment

From the press release:
The two leading consortia dedicated to the advancement of Linux – the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and the Free Standards Group (FSG) – today announced that they have signed an agreement to merge and form The Linux Foundation. The new organization accelerates the growth of Linux by providing a comprehensive set of services to compete effectively with closed platforms.
Founding platinum members of the Linux Foundation include Fujitsu, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Intel, NEC, Novell, and Oracle. Jim Zemlin, former executive director of the Free Standards Group, leads The Linux Foundation. Other members of the new organization include every major company in the Linux industry, including Red Hat, as well as numerous community groups, universities and industry end users.
“Computing is entering a world dominated by two platforms: Linux and Windows. While being managed under one roof has given Windows some consistency, Linux offers freedom of choice, customization and flexibility without forcing customers into vendor lock-in,” said Zemlin. “The Linux Foundation helps in the next stage of Linux growth by organizing the diverse companies and constituencies of the Linux ecosystem to promote, protect, and standardize Linux.”
The Linux Foundation, which continues to sponsor the work of Linux creator Linus Torvalds, employs a shared resources strategy – much like open source development itself – to collaborate on platform development while enhancing the Linux market for end users, the community, developers and industry.
The FSG and the OSDL have worked together on a variety of projects in the past. While their areas of focus have been different, they both have the same general goals and ideals. They also previously had to compete with each other for membership and resources. The joining of the two companies should give the new entity more resources, less overhead and duplication of effort and increased market influence. The only downside I see is that previously the “standards group” was a separate entity that didn't do a ton in the way of general advocacy or development. That independence is now gone, but it seems like a very small price to pay and managed correctly I don't see it as any problem at all. The New York Times article contained some verbiage that worried me a bit:
And the mission of the new organization is help Linux, the leading example of the open-source model of software development, to compete more effectively against Microsoft, the world’s largest software company.
Why did that worry me? Microsoft shouldn't really me our main focus in my opinion. Sure, we should learn from what they do well and be aware of what they are doing, but improving Linux should be the main goal. Luckily, that sentence seems to be the interpretation of the NYT author. Outside a quote in the press release, the word Microsoft is almost no where to be found on the actual Linux Foundation site (although there is a mention of “Successful proprietary software companies”, a generalization that I really like) and the wording of everything is in line with what I would expect of an entity focused on improving Linux and not battling a specific company. While on the topic of the site, it's a great mix of MediaWiki and WordPress that they've brought together very nicely.
A quick glance at the people involved here and it's clear that this group should be able to pick up some traction and make some demonstrable differences fairly quickly. They will also continue to employee developers such as Linus and Andrew. I'd encourage them to also try to work in community participation. I offered my support and the support of LQ to OSDL in the past. After some initial talks nothing every came of it – they just didn't have a spot for community participants. I hope to see that change with the new group. That issue aside, welcome to the party TLF; best wishes and good luck!
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

The Contradictory Nature of OOXML II

January 21, 2007 Leave a comment

A quick follow up to this post. Stephen Walli, an ex-Microsoftie (via acquisition) whom I've had the pleasure of having a few drinks with, makes some interesting observations about the current ODF/OOXML situation. From his blog post:
I'm going to take a slightly different view here. ECMA has already approved the specification. One can imagine that the Microsoft marketing and standards engines are in full gear, and Microsoft execs, Office spokespeople, and field account execs are faithfully espousing:
* “Microsoft Office 2007 is standards compliant. ECMA International is a recognized international standards organization, with participation from IBM, HP, Intel, Adobe, and dozens of other companies.” [Subtext: It must be a good standard for all our partners and competitors to have passed it in a fair-minded international standards process.]
* “Indeed, ECMA International has submitted the standard to ISO for fast track approval as an international standard, and the process will complete in 2007.” [Subtext: It's so good, that they have recommended it for FAST track at the world's premier standards body.]
I would be surprised if Microsoft's Massachusetts team isn't already lobbying to have the new “standard” included in the ITD reference architecture alongside ODF. Regardless of the merit of ISO accepting the document, however, buyers will be staring the nasty rhetorical beast in the teeth. So what is a procuring organization to do?
He then outlines a certification process plan that I really think would serve ODF well. Hopefully something along these lines happen soon. Time is certainly of the essence here. He concludes with something similar to what I said in my previous post:
“Standards” with only one implementation aren't. The buying side of the marketplace has always recognized this and chosen the standard with multiple implementations over the specification with only a single implementation. The ODF world has the ability to demonstrate this message in a way that meets the needs of customers, and the demonstration through a branded certification is much more powerful than unaligned vendor rhetoric.
Absolutely spot on. The days of this kind of thing being accepted are thankfully coming to an end. Many companies and institutions have had to learn the hard way, but they are learning.
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

The Contradictory Nature of OOXML

January 21, 2007 Leave a comment

Andy Updegrove continues his excellent coverage of the OOXML standards approval process. From this post:
Regular readers will be aware that OOXML, the Microsoft Office XML-based formats adopted by Ecma, are now in the adoption queue at ISO/IEC. Ecma is a “Class A Liaison” partner with ISO/IEC, which permits it to use the same Fast Track process that national standards bodies use. That process takes six months – the same amount of time that the PAS process takes (the route used by OASIS to submit ODF to ISO/IEC) – but has two steps rather than one, although the practical result is much the same.
During the first one-month step, any member may submit “contradictions,” which, loosely defined, means aspects in which a proposed standard conflicts with already adopted ISO/IEC standards and Directives. Those contradictions must then be “resolved” (which does not necessarily mean eliminated), and these resolutions are then presented back to the members during the second stage to consider as part of the voting package. During this second, five-month step, other objections, questions and comments can be offered by members. (For more detail on the rules relating to contradictions and what can be raised during this phase, see the excellent writeup at the OpenDocument Fellowship site.)
While the unprecedented size of OOXML (over 6,000 pages) has made performing a detailed review a daunting task, more and more contradictions are being found by those that are slogging their way through on this very tight timeframe. Here is a sampling of those that people have brought to my attention:
He goes on to detail some of the upcoming contradictions that will be submitted. You should read the full post, but they include items such as reliance on the Windows platform, necessitating the implementation of undocumented Word bugs and reliance on documentation not included in the 6,000+ page draft. In the end, I very much agree with this statement: Other contradictions would seem to be impossible to resolve given the nature of OOXML itself, the stated purpose of which is to describe a single vendor's product – bugs, rats and all. The format is not a community developed standard that is meant to describe an office document format, it's basically “how MS Office works”… including bugs… without some needed information. That's not a problem for Microsoft given that their implementation is already done. It seems doubtful that even Microsoft given this document could write a fully compliant application. That means no one else even stands a chance. If this is passed, Microsoft will be able to keep Government contracts (which are increasing requiring an Open and standard document format) and also get good PR. All the while the standard almost certainly won't be implemented fully by any other product. Not exactly how standards are supposed to work.
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Flash 9 Final for Linux (and an odd EULA) follow up

January 20, 2007 Leave a comment

Looks like my post about the Flash 9 EULA has sparked some discussion on John Dowdell's Blog (he's an Adobe employee). While I'd agree with the comments on his blog about “use” vs. “distribution”, it's great to see an employee participating in the discussion in an open and transparent manner. If the intent of the license is what John thinks it is, the wording really should be changed. I could absolutely see the reason for not allowing distribution, it's the “use” bit that I found surprising. As for the “restrictive commenting practices” – to be honest I really don't like the software that currently runs this blog. It's being moved to WordPress as soon as 2.1 is out.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Alan Cox Files DRM related Patent

January 19, 2007 Leave a comment

I've seen quite a bit of buzz about the patent application recently filed by Alan Cox. Here's the summary of the patent:
The present invention provides a technique for preventing the unauthorized use of a computer application, operating system, or other program without causing the loss of any information or data. Specifically, the technique of the present invention monitors a computer program for use that is not in compliance with acceptable terms. These terms may be defined, for example, through the use of a license agreement between the computer program provider and the user. When unauthorized use of the computer program is detected, any information and data is saved and the computer program and/or a portion of the computer system is disabled. The specifics concerning data that is saved may be determined, for example, by the computer program vendor or the user upon installation of the computer program. Similarly, a conventional “suspend to disc” operation may be utilized. The suspension of the computer program and/or a portion of the system may be maintained for as long as the violation exists, thereby permitting the user to, for example, renew any expired license terms. Once compliance has been reestablished, suspension of the computer program and/or a portion of the system is terminated and activities resumed. In situations where compliance is not reestablished, the data may be transferred to the user.
My interpretation is that it's a way for DRM to save data in the case of non-compliance, or to suspend the program until compliance is reached. Some seem to think this indicates Red Hat will go after Microsoft after Vista is mainstream. I can't conceivable see that to be the case. Issues such as prior art aside, that seems unlikely to me for two reasons. First, it's way outside the current operating parameters of Red Hat. They're not the kind of company I see going on a patent offensive. They get that software patents are inherently broken. Next, they can't at this point in their lifetime (young, small and growing rapidly with a sustainable business model) want to get into a legal battle with Microsoft, who has piles of cash and a legion of battle tested lawyers. So why the patent application? I'd say it's part of a plan that they've been building on for about two years now. The systematic buildup of strategic defensive patents, with the goal of amassing enough defensives to avoid being the target of a patent related suit. With Ballmer making thinly veiled threats, what choice do they really have. While they know the system is broken, that doesn't mean they don't have to play the game.
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source, Red Hat

MySQL Stats

January 17, 2007 Leave a comment

I just logged into the LQ MySQL server to get some statistics. I have a couple ideas for some optimizations and wanted to get a baseline on things. I fired up mytop and got the following:
Queries Total: 1,033,746,636 Avg/Sec: 112.80 Now/Sec: 119.93 Slow: 667
Cache Hits : 478,453,845 Avg/Sec: 52.21 Now/Sec: 56.15 Ratio: 46.28%
Not too shabby – one billion queries since the last MySQL restart. Almost all of the “Slow” queries are either me doing maintenance (some of which just simply use long queries) or queries going on during our snapshots (which I plan to move to the slave soon). I think we have a good handle on the current LQ growth, which continues to be fantastic. Performance is important, but we're also adding some interesting features in the near future. Stay tuned.
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, LinuxQuestions.org, Main Page, MySQL, Open Source

Flash 9 Final for Linux (and an odd EULA)

January 17, 2007 Leave a comment

A quick follow up to this discussion, it looks like Flash 9 Final for Linux has been released. Kudos to the Adobe team. I know some don't like flash (which I think is more indicative of the abuses in implementation such as horrific seizure inducing ads than anything else) but these days many sites just don't function well without it. There is already enough discussion going around about Flash not being Open Source, so I won't add to that. I do have a different comment though. Has anyone read the EULA on Flash? The following stuck me as extremely odd:
3.1 Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use a Web Player on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices.
(Full version here.) Does it seem strange to anyone that a format that relies 100% on being ubiquitous has such arcane arbitrary limitations? What could the possible benefits of this be to Adobe? If they don't get flash going on mobile (never mind specifically disallowing it) they are in trouble. Where the …and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition came from is also beyond me. So if I purchase an IBM tablet and put Linux on it, I'm not legally allowed to run Flash? That's asinine.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

World’s Highest Linux Distribution

January 17, 2007 Leave a comment

It's amazing where you end up running into Linux these days :) It's a true testament to Linux and Open Source that the same OS that powers many of the most powerful computers in the world is also the one that keeps you entertained in an embedded system mid-flight. BTW, congratulation to Chris on his recent wedding.
–jeremy

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

← Older posts

Newer posts →