choosing a linux ?

szboardstretcher · 03-25-2011, 11:41 AM

Essentially, any succesful company ends up going through this cycle, at different profit levels.

Code:

Start.
[   0$] What do the customers want?
[  1M$] What do the customers need?
[100M$] What do we feel like giving the customers?
[  1B$] Scru the customer, we're a worldwide entity. They'll deal with it.
[Bankruptcy]
[-10M$] How do we get back to giving the customers what they want?
Go back to Start.

TobiSGD · 03-25-2011, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kabars_edge

I come to this conclusion because I run a Linux shop that is all RHEL 5.x, I work with RH everyday; be it through upgrading our subscriptions, talking to their engineers, or just using their products. They have completely abandoned their roots and have become a money-making machine. I appreciate what they do for the open-source world, and I appreciate the fact that I can purchase support from them for my business environment; however, because of their loss of vision and idealism, there is no way I would run their products, or their product spin-offs on my personal machines and will resist them at all cost. I guess since they were acquired, Suse has kind of become that way too, and I feel the same about them. GNU/Linux is more than just an operating system, it's about returning power to the people, which is where it belongs. We shouldn't have to bow to the Red Hats, Microsofts, or Novells of the world. We need to exercise our freedom of choice and show the "man" that we do not have to rely on them. It keeps things in balance, and I'm all about balance. I've been in this game a long time, and the more I learn, the less I know; but, I do know know what happens to societies that let down their guard because they get to comfortable with something, as should you. May the freedom of choice live forever.

This is rather pointless. Nobody forces you to use Red Hat, you have chosen it. In my opinion, you have exact three choices, if your shop is dependent on running Linux systems:
1. Buy support, like you actually do. Of course this will cost you money.
2. Hire an expert. Of course this will cost you money.
3. Become an expert yourself. Of course this will cost you time, which, we know it all, is money.

So thinking about it, it is not Red Hat that is the evil, it must be Linux, because if your company is dependent on running Linux systems you have to pay for it. Thinking a little more, and I come to the conclusion that any OS is evil, because this applies to them all.
By the way, if you run a Linux shop, don't you do that for money? So that it is a money making machine? Or is your shop a non-profit organization? In that case I would be happy if you can send me a Linux t-shirt for free, preferably Slackware.

Arcane · 03-26-2011, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kabars_edge

{...}We need to exercise our freedom of choice and show the "man" that we do not have to rely on them. It keeps things in balance, and I'm all about balance.{...}

Freedom of choice doesn't come from empty air. It requires resources(any kind). I don't see why any linux should be bad just because it was supported or made by company who has lot of money..as long as end result is free from charge. And i dunno about place you live but where i live people do need to pay for electricity, gas, food etc. so it's not like you are independent or isolated from rest of world or into crowd in bad way. Balance is ruined not because of money(which is good in original meaning) but because people treat money like goal of life not as tool to live better and|or help others.

RaptorX · 03-26-2011, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posixculprit

So basically Red Hat is evil because they are making money and because they are the top dog in the enterprise linux yard. They suck because they are successful. Son.. I am disappoint.

First of all, how can you be disappointed from a point of view?

Second, I am 100% sure that the one with a *very limited* view is you, due to the fact that you failed to see that the main point of that well articulated, well written, good explained post was very far away from the nonsense you are spouting.

He didnt say (or hinted for that matter) that the success of the company is what is wrong with it. If you read carefully in the first few lines he says that "They have completely abandoned their roots and have become a money-making machine."

I can see what his problem is, and i can relate to it but sadly that is what most companies become after a while. I would argue that when he creates his own company some day he will walk along the same path.

The thing is that you start with something in mind, but after you gather certain amount of customers you see the reality... you will have to do what THEY want at some point, even if that is not what you really want and instead of getting mad at them you would "compensate" by making money out of that what you hate doing... then that becomes the circle of those "money making machines".

Is not necessarily bad though. Is called changing direction. There are those who dont like it and there are those who love it. I assume that kabars_edge is in the first group.

--EDIT

Quote:

Originally Posted by szboardstretcher

Essentially, any succesful company ends up going through this cycle, at different profit levels.

Code:

Start.
[   0$] What do the customers want?
[  1M$] What do the customers need?
[100M$] What do we feel like giving the customers?
[  1B$] Scru the customer, we're a worldwide entity. They'll deal with it.
[Bankruptcy]
[-10M$] How do we get back to giving the customers what they want?
Go back to Start.

exactly my point... at some point all companies have that change in direction, be it for good or for bad.

kabars_edge · 04-07-2011, 09:52 PM

While we have digressed into a holy war here, I've returned to clarify my position. I have no problem with any open-source company making money. I hope the Codeweaver's of the world continue to grow and make all the money they possibly can, and I'm happy to shell out my $60 a year to them to keep my XOver Office updated. My problem with Red Hat, Novell (Suse), and Microsoft is not that they make money, it's that they hoard information that a.) wouldn't negatively affect their business if they released it, and b.) that same information would greatly benefit both their companies and society at large. Do you think if Red Hat open sourced their entire library of code we would quit paying for support? Absolutely not. Those that pay for support now would continue to pay for support, and those that do not, well, they might start; but if not, nothing changes. Additionally, if these big companies open-sourced more of their code, then you have thousands of skilled programmers perusing those lines of code instead of just dozens, or even less. The entire 20,000 lines of code that fully integrates the SUSE Enterprise Desktop into a Windows environment was written by just two guys. Yes they are brilliant, but they are human, and I'm positive that there are mistakes in that code; as with any code. Wouldn't it have been nice if they had a couple hundred programmers from around the world giving it a skim to ensure the purity of it? I have to believe so. So to wrap up, I have no problem with people or companies making money, I just have a problem when their greed exceeds their willingness to give back.

Free as in speech, not as in beer.

Now on to the next battle boys, the auditor's are in town this week.