LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - News
User Name
Password
Linux - News This forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 08-02-2019, 08:03 PM   #31
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,643

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762

Quote:
Originally Posted by average_user View Post
Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._the_Holocaust. This is not history forum.
Good link..., however, also, interesting that IBM was not listed on that link you referenced.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...black-ibm.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ibm-and-nazi-germany/
a few quotes from this article:
Quote:
"This is the proof that IBM enabled the Holocaust. The connection to New York is now proven," Wolfe, a former U.S. infantry officer who ran de-Nazification programs during the U.S. occupation of postwar Germany, said in a phone interview.
Quote:
"This negates all the excuses," said Malcolm Hoenlein, a vice president of the New York-based Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. "IBM has to look at what its role should be in light of these revelations."

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 08-02-2019 at 08:11 PM.
 
Old 08-03-2019, 03:35 AM   #32
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Let's try to stay in 2019.
 
Old 08-03-2019, 06:45 PM   #33
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,643

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeebra View Post
Let's try to stay in 2019.
Sure, because the history of a company/individual etc... does not matter.
 
Old 08-04-2019, 05:52 AM   #34
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Sure, because the history of a company/individual etc... does not matter.
Sure it matters, but the farther you go back, the less. I don't think the WW2 era is relevant to this discussion. I think for IBM, the 80's is somewhat relevant, the 90s very relevant, and the time after most relevant. We're talking about IBM takeover of Red Hat which is computer related, Red Hat goes back to 1993, but generally it makes more sense to only go back to 2000.

Anyways, IBM have changed alot over time, the company from the 1990's is not very relevant to today, although the major rebuild and change of IBM is relevant. For me, although Red Hat seems way overpriced, buying the company seems to fit with the general change and strategy at IBM. IBM has alot of resources and have built up a solid holding over the past decades, and I think paying the huge overprice for Red Hat makes sense for IBM.

I don't know the strategic reason for IBM to buy Redhat, but I'd guess it has something to do with the direction IBM has taken and the technology and knowledge available at Redhat. Combine that with the general development of the IT marketplace and I think IBM is positioning themselves in that market quite well by buying Redhat. The price is absurd, but it's probably worth it and IBM can afford it.

I'm alot more worried about Microsoft buying Github despite their "we come in peace" statements.
 
Old 08-04-2019, 01:33 PM   #35
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,643

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762Reputation: 1762
I have a feeling the value was based partly on having greater control on Linux in general.
 
Old 08-04-2019, 03:27 PM   #36
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
I have a feeling the value was based partly on having greater control on Linux in general.
How so? I'm with you on being sceptic about such events, but how exactly can they control Linux? You know the Kernel can be forked right? It has happened to many projects before.
 
Old 08-05-2019, 07:34 AM   #37
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,417

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Good link..., however, also, interesting that IBM was not listed on that link you referenced.
IBM is listed. See the entry for Dehomag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeebra View Post
How so? I'm with you on being sceptic about such events, but how exactly can they control Linux? You know the Kernel can be forked right? It has happened to many projects before.
It can, but it won't be. A forked kernel, would effectively create a new OS and a schism. There would ultimately have to be a choice and one branch of the fork would die off.

There has been Xfree86/X.org and there has been Libreoffice/Openoffice, just two examples - how well have those worked out...?

The kernel fork would be all of those disasters and more. One could equally say "just use the FreeBSD kernel" - that's been tried as well and the result was something obscure, which ultimately ended up "on ice". Lack of developers will kill most projects and here the corporations have the advantage, because they can provide the right incentives to entice the right people and then let the "competition" decline into obscurity. The corporation backers/sponsors will ultimately decide who works on what
 
Old 08-05-2019, 08:00 AM   #38
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
IBM is listed. See the entry for Dehomag.

It can, but it won't be. A forked kernel, would effectively create a new OS and a schism. There would ultimately have to be a choice and one branch of the fork would die off.

There has been Xfree86/X.org and there has been Libreoffice/Openoffice, just two examples - how well have those worked out...?

The kernel fork would be all of those disasters and more. One could equally say "just use the FreeBSD kernel" - that's been tried as well and the result was something obscure, which ultimately ended up "on ice". Lack of developers will kill most projects and here the corporations have the advantage, because they can provide the right incentives to entice the right people and then let the "competition" decline into obscurity. The corporation backers/sponsors will ultimately decide who works on what
Nah, the OS is GNU. Any fork would still work fine with that and not change anything in particular. It would depend on the developers though, the most viable future kernel in a fork scenario would be the one with the best and most developers including seniors. It could also become a two kernel future, and both would work with GNU, unless one of them did something weird and make itself obsolete.

In any case, with big corporate influence a fork could happen, it would be natural. I just think the whole scenario is unlikely. I'm just trying to say IBM cannot control the Linux Kernel.

Last edited by zeebra; 08-05-2019 at 08:01 AM.
 
Old 08-05-2019, 08:20 AM   #39
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,417

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeebra View Post
Nah, the OS is GNU. Any fork would still work fine with that and not change anything in particular.
Let's try to stay in 2019.
 
Old 08-05-2019, 08:38 AM   #40
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
Let's try to stay in 2019.
How about 2019? The reality is that GNU is the most important system in the world. Most the things you do with your "Linux system" are GNU operating system functions, the rest of just general free software developed by others.

If you don't use Windows or Mac or some other system like that, you depend on GNU. That's unless ofcourse you think Busybox is so 2019.
 
Old 08-05-2019, 09:48 AM   #41
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,417

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
While glibc, coreutils, bash, etc, are important, none would be of any use without a kernel, all the functionality it provides (such as networking stack, firewall, support for protocols, file systems, etc) and of course it's device drivers to support modern hardware and multiple architectures. Android is an example of Linux without the GNU userland.

As time has moved on, we have alternative lbc libraries, alternative compilers such as LLVM/clang, but currently no viable Linux alternatives except for the BSDs.

Binary packages for "Linux" are built for the Linux kernel ABI/API and not for GNU or the GNU/Hurd kernel.

I would be interested if you've seen systemd for GNU lately?

https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/
Quote:
systemd is a suite of basic building blocks for a Linux system
Corporations are already in the driving seat when it comes to Linux:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/board-members/
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/abou...dvisory-board/

So when it comes to "IBM cannot control the Linux Kernel", that horse has already bolted. While it does not have absolute control, it is among those well known tech corporations who are funding and steering the project. Its Red Hat acquisition only extends that.

Last edited by cynwulf; 08-05-2019 at 09:52 AM.
 
Old 08-05-2019, 10:30 AM   #42
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Some people use Ubuntu and don't even know or care what is behind their system.

But what is your point in saying stay in 2019? I have... You just seem to be arguing to argue here. I just said let's stay in 2019, to avoid a world war 2 discussion on a thread about IBM buying Red Hat. It's not really that relevant. Sure, it's a tiny sidenote and noteworthy.
 
Old 08-05-2019, 10:47 AM   #43
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,417

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
In 2019, there is a corporate dominated OS called "Linux", which pretty much runs the WWW, "the cloud", supercomputers, etc - not to mention being the "core" of every Android device and numerous IoT devices.

The big players in Linux are IBM/Red Hat and those other big tech corporations which are listed at the Linux Foundation site which I linked to - and who's representatives are sitting on either the board of directors or the TAB.

gnome and X.org are mainly Red Hat backed and funded projects - same goes for systemd.

My "2019" statement was in reference to: "Nah, the OS is GNU ... The reality is that GNU is the most important system in the world".

I don't think this holds true anymore. It might have made sense 10 years ago, but certainly not anymore.

Last edited by cynwulf; 08-05-2019 at 10:48 AM.
 
Old 08-05-2019, 11:16 AM   #44
zeebra
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Mageia, Slackware
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
In 2019, there is a corporate dominated OS called "Linux", which pretty much runs the WWW, "the cloud", supercomputers, etc - not to mention being the "core" of every Android device and numerous IoT devices.

The big players in Linux are IBM/Red Hat and those other big tech corporations which are listed at the Linux Foundation site which I linked to - and who's representatives are sitting on either the board of directors or the TAB.

gnome and X.org are mainly Red Hat backed and funded projects - same goes for systemd.

My "2019" statement was in reference to: "Nah, the OS is GNU ... The reality is that GNU is the most important system in the world".

I don't think this holds true anymore. It might have made sense 10 years ago, but certainly not anymore.
I disagree, just take glibc as an example. This discussion is either way irrelevant. Both GNU and Linux are mutually dependent on each others, and both can have replacements for the other one.

As goes for the rest of what you said, I agree on "corporate Linux" etc. I just don't see how it is relevant at the moment. Sure, it is worrysome, but so are many other things that have happened in the GNU/Linux world. SystemD is one of those things, "open source" in itself (an old discussion), the GPL v3 discussion etc. I think Linux has taken a semi-bad direction the last 10-15 years and the larger open software world, but it's not that bad, many things are still good. GNU is holding the fortress and have not taken a wrong step the last 10-15 years, and in my book is what is keeping freedom and openness alive.

It's a philosophical discussion, but it is said that the "Linux gang" don't give a dang about freedom. That's over generalized ofcourse, but it's also quite true and quite problematic. If the ideological part of GNU/Linux does not survive, it will all be in vain, it will all become worthless. Despite some negatives, it is still holding up and still going strong and we are still able to have freedom and openness. That's the most important thing.

I don't think IBM buying Redhat will change that. I don't even like Redhat, I think it is one of the least freedom respecting actors in the GNU/Linux world.
 
Old 08-06-2019, 03:46 AM   #45
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,417

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeebra View Post
I disagree, just take glibc as an example.
Not a great example. There are viable alternatives to glibc such as musl libc, which are not encumbered with GPL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeebra View Post
This discussion is either way irrelevant. Both GNU and Linux are mutually dependent on each others, and both can have replacements for the other one.
However the replacement for libc and gcc are very real, whereas the replacement for Linux, is at this stage, purely theoretical.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Will Red Hat Acquire Docker? LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-25-2015 07:34 PM
LXer: HP: Time to Acquire Red Hat for Cloud Computing Push? LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-17-2011 04:20 AM
LXer: Red Hat At $1 Billion LXer Syndicated Linux News 3 12-02-2010 05:23 PM
LXer: Red Hat: Will SAP Acquire Linux Leader? LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-24-2010 02:40 PM
Red Hat to Acquire Netscape Enterprise Solutions ekaqu Linux - News 1 03-30-2005 02:14 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - News

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration