[ale] More from Business Week

[Jeff Hubbs]

That's really sad.  I bet their letter section is going to be inundated.

In any case, I wish they had included that finding that the total
development cost of RH 6.2 (IIR the version number C) is estimated at
US$1B.  I should have mentioned that in my talk the other night.

- Jeff

On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 06:19, Matt Magee wrote:
> I read the article last night and was shocked by the lack of research the 
> author did.  Almost everything about Free Software, Open Source, 
> compatibility and the very nature of Linux itself was misrepresented.  
> 
> The author's description of Linus Torvalds would make a reader believe that 
> he alone controlled the development of Linux as a whole, rather than the 
> kernel itself.  If I were a manager within a corporation, I would certainly 
> be scared off by that idea.
> 
> The article suggested that R.M.S. didn't like the idea of people making money 
> from software, which is silly.  It is difficult to profit from the 
> distribution of software that has been GPL'd, but it does not go against 
> Stallman's view of "free as in speech".
> 
> Compatibility isssues were mentioned in the article that don't exist.  It was 
> suggested that Intel's processors were not compatible with Linux and that 
> Intel had only recently begun making CPUs for Linux machines.  Perhaps some 
> confusion over Palladium ?  I was also surprised by the comment about MS 
> Office document files.  Perhaps no one at Sun had told the author about 
> StarOffice's push for compatibility with MS Office?  I personally have not 
> had significant problems opening Office Docs in S.O.
> 
> Perhaps we should voice our concerns about the (lack of) quality of the 
> article to the editors at Business Week?
> 
> 
> On Saturday 22 February 2003 10:40 am, you wrote:
> > Reading "The Linux Uprising", one quote rubbed me the wrong way:
> >
> > "Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in
> > which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it."
> >
> > Why must the press always confuse open source with the GPL?  It's blatant
> > misinformation, and I'll bet that sentence turns some managers away from
> > considering open source software.
> >
> > The GPL is a great license, but there are so many other open source
> > licenses out there that do allow you to redistribute without open sourcing
> > your code.  I wish that just once, a large-scale non-tech oriented
> > magazine like Business Week would set this record straight.
> >
> > I'm not as hard core in my beliefs as Stallman, and I choose to view open
> > source as an attitude, not a license.
> >
> > BS like this only contributes to Microsoft's FUD and cancer commentary.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale