The dichotomy of open standards

It's been tried, Bob.

VA Linux showed that the viability of a Linux-only hardware vendor is still premature. They tried that and couldn't maintain a business of selling packaged Linux servers.

( They are now VA Software and sell a Commercial version of Sourceforge, a work collaboration tool and source management system.)

Besides, few of us can afford to go Linux only. It is far cheaper and faster for an individual or small business to pay the Microsoft tax and run dual boot or dual machines to maintain compatibility with their vendors and customers without having to figure out and configure all the Linux-equivalents.

Rufus

Afterthought:

Does the Microsoft threat preclude offering ready-to-install (vs. pre-installed) Linux distro? I think Dell and Gateway are missing a major opportunity here. Don't offer pre-installed Linux. Rather, offer windows installed, but
leave available partition space on the hard drive for the user to install the supplied Linux on if desired, creating a dual-boot system. And
instructions on how Windows can reclaim that partition, if Linux isn't desired.
(Dude! You shoulda got a penguin-friendly Dell!)
 
Bob Pawley:
> From the viewpoint of an observer outside of Dell and Microsoft I would
> say that - Here is a great business opportunity. If the Linux computer is
> this much of a threat to Microsoft, so much so that all Microsoft clients
> can't sell it, the market is then wide open for a new entrant selling
> Linux only.

It's been done - VA Linux, I believe. While VA was selling these, Dell was permitted to do likewise, and because of its greater overall volume Dell was able to undercut VA.

Now that VA's been dealt with, Dell was reminded of the advantages of being a Microsoft-only reseller (to put it delicately).

> That's the capitalist, free market strength.

It's not a free market, it's a monopoly-distorted market.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
Bob Pawley:
> > One wonders if the rhetoric is merely covering the inability to make a
> > good and sound business case.

Curt Wuollet:
> The labor part is sort of hard to define at the moment and support is not
> definable in contract language but experience in the OSS world has been
> very favorable.

Suppose you have two options: (a) a commercial vendor, whom you estimate to be 99% likely to be around down the track when you need them, or (b) 500 linux geeks, each of whom you estimate to be 1% likely to be around and capable of providing support down the track when you need them.

Naturally, I've arranged the numbers to slightly favour option (b), by a factor of about 1.5 (I was aiming for equality and then rounded up).

> the hard to use arguments

I really do need to do the python-MAT thing, don't I... it's on my to-do list. (Yes, I know it's just one facet; Joe's working on the point-n-click configurator, etc. But an easy VB-style programming language will help.)

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
C

Curt Wuollet

Hi Jiri, Bob

Jiri Baum wrote:
>
> Bob Pawley:
> > > One wonders if the rhetoric is merely covering the inability to make a
> > > good and sound business case.
>
> Curt Wuollet:
> > The labor part is sort of hard to define at the moment and support is not
> > definable in contract language but experience in the OSS world has been
> > very favorable.
>
> Suppose you have two options: (a) a commercial vendor, whom you estimate to
> be 99% likely to be around down the track when you need them, or (b) 500
> linux geeks, each of whom you estimate to be 1% likely to be around and
> capable of providing support down the track when you need them.

There's also the factor that's little mentioned: Getting ahold of someone at the company is easy. Unless your problems are more trivial than mine,
getting ahold of someone who knows anything about your problem is far less likely. My experience has been that problems are actually solved faster in the OSS world because you get to the right people faster and (this is very important) they are empowered to actually fix the problem. Having the source means you can enter a one line patch from email, recompile and go. On all but the most current systems, getting your problem actually fixed is unlikely for shrinkwrap software and even for current versions is a much bigger deal. It might be the nature of the problems or the fact that I look really hard before I call them, but, I seldom bother anymore. I just save the time and look for a workaround. With RTFM problems, your luck will obviously be much better.

We could provide equivalance by asking for untrained volunteers to ask you questions after 20 minutes of Muzak or advertising on hold. And if we charged a steep enough price, I'm sure you'ld go away before they really had to answer anything. And even if you hang in there, they can
delay you past their shift by requiring that you reload the software involved. But, we wouldn't do that. A simple email is very likely to reach the author or someone who understands the problem. I'm not sure how this will scale, but Linux is pretty big and it still seems to be hanging together. And it's strange that we hear very, very few horror stories about Linux support and the ones we do hear involve paid support. An interesting phenomena.

In short, I feel quite comfortable that we can compare favorably with the status quo on support. As with many of these objections, you can take the
fact that it's a different model as either a sign of hope or as a fatal flaw. I think that support is a sufficiently frequent cause of angst that
most will prefer the former. If you can muster 99% confidence that any vendor will actually fix your problem, I would be very impressed indeed.

Regards

cww
 
C

Curt Wuollet

On the afterthought

Believe it or not, I've seen EULA's from MS that prohibit having another OS on the machine. I don't know if that's still true, they forced a choice and I haven't had a Windows machine since. :^) I should find a MS license someplace and take a look. Oh, never mind, I'd probably have to buy it _before_ I can read the license. Perhaps someone will look at theirs for us.

I'm sure MS would apply the same pressure even if the Linux weren't installed. They went ballistic a while ago about people who were selling machines, (gasp) Without an OS!!!!. Had a big "Naked PC" campaign with a bunch of BS about how you would be held responsible if the people you sold naked machines to were to use pirated Windows. After all, that would be the only possible reason you could want a naked PC, Right? :^)

I'm not sure how they got my name but, they all but accused me of said piratical behaviour. I wrote to assure them that while I was building
naked PCs, the possibility of any of them running Windows, pirated or otherwise was very remote. They must track motherboard sales or something, perhaps BIOS roms. Or perhaps the mere fact that you build PCs implies that you are stealing from them.

Regards

cww
 
> Does the Microsoft threat preclude offering ready-to-install (vs.
> pre-installed) Linux distro?

Probably does. Remember, this isn't a legal thing with crisp (or even fuzzy) wording and lawyers on both sides arguing the details - this is a secret, shady, back-room thing. Even the new uniform, open, settlement deal still has plenty of discretionary money and other stuff that can make or break an OEM like Dell.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools
 
A

Alex Pavloff

Ralph Mackiewicz wrote:
> 2. If being able to make a business case for OSS is predicated on
> someone having ethical concerns about non-OSS solutions then it will
> be a long time (if ever) that OSS becomes mainstream. Put away the
> harp and take out your calculator. Business decisions are normally
> made on economic terms, not on dubious claims of immorality made by
> competitors.

From a recent post on the linux-kernel mailing list from Linus Torvalds (guy who started Linux, #1 guy doing the development).

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=linux.kernel.a68edn$jjp$1@penguin
.transmeta.com&output=gplain

(re: a big long argument about Linus using a non-open-source source control system for the Linux kernel)
---
"And I personally refuse to use inferior tools because of ideology. In fact, I will go as far as saying that making excuses for bad tools due to ideology is _stupid_, and people who do that think with their gonads, not their brains."
----

As it stands, there are no tools for Linux that compare to those for Windows. If you pro-GPL people want people to use your stuff, fine. Stop arguing with people on the automation list and use the saved time to write code and give us tools for automation that beat those available for Windows.

Alex Pavloff
Software Engineer
Eason Technology
 
M

Mark Blunier

> From a recent post on the linux-kernel mailing list from Linus
> Torvalds (guy who started Linux, #1 guy doing the development).

He's competent on technical matters, but that does not mean we should use his ethical standards.

> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3Dlinux.kernel.a68edn$jjp
%241%40penguin
..transmeta.com&output=3Dgplain

> (re: a big long argument about Linus using a non-open-source source =
control
> system for the Linux kernel)
> ---
> "And I personally refuse to use inferior tools because of ideology. In
> fact, I will go as far as saying that making excuses for bad tools due
> to ideology is _stupid_, and people who do that think with their
> gonads, not their brains."
> ----

Linus is wrong. If there is ever a reason for someone to refuse, it is because of ideology.

> As it stands, there are no tools for Linux that compare to those for
> Windows. If you pro-GPL people want people to use your stuff, fine.
> Stop arguing with people on the automation list and use the saved time
> to write code and give us tools for automation that beat those
> available for Windows.

It takes two to argue. If you stopped arguing with them, maybe they could give you tools.

> Alex Pavloff

Mark Blunier
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the company.
 
C

Curt Wuollet

Hi ALex

That's kinda subjective. I like the tools I use and the transform from logic to language is more natural for me than thinking of everything in terms of relays. Your point is taken, but Linus uses the same tools I do :^).

Regards

cww
 
C

Curt Wuollet

Hi ALex

That's kinda subjective. I like the tools I use and the transform from logic to language is more natural for me than thinking of everything in terms of relays. Your point is taken, but Linus uses the same tools I do :^).

Regards

cww
 
G
>Open : All the source-code (for sofware) readily available to all.
>Free : No cost to utilize in any way you choose.
>
My take on the continuum of meanings of the word "open":

Closed - it does what it does, and there's nothing you can do to change it

Open (pure marketing hype) - integrates cleanly with other products from the same vendor, or with products from strategic partners, but not with
anything else.

this is the definition used by vendors of product families, or vendors of licensed add-ins to proprietary code.

Open (ubiquitous marketing hype) - supports well-known protocols and interfaces

this is the definition used by vendors who claim that their Windows products are "open" because they support DDE and ODBC, or can talk to third-party OPC servers. this is properly called 'closed, but compliant with interface standards'

Open (as in "extensible") - has documented APIs for accessing its internals and extending its functionality, but they work the way they work and there's nothing you can do to change them

this is the definition used by vendors who provide SDKs for their systems and put embedded interpreters in their programs to let
programmers provide integration and application-specific functionality.
(if the embedded interpreter is for a system-specific proprietary language, it doesn't count.)

Open (to inspection) - you can look, but don't touch

this is the definition used by vendors who want to benefit from the popularity of the open source movement (or deflect criticism from
it) by publishing (some of) their code - but not licensing it in a way that allows programmers to modify or use it. requiring people to sign non-disclosure agreements before seeing the code doesn't count; that makes the code closed, and the signer a privileged party.

Open (for real) - the source code is available, and you can modify it

Greg Goodman
Chiron Consulting
 
C
And like so many offensive things, it doesn't bother me that much that people distort the meaning or that open has a paradoxical definition in automation. There will always be deceit. What really bothers me is that people accept this and do business with poeple who strive to deceive
them. I don't know if you'll see this, I've been being censored lately.
Regards

cww
--
Free Tools!
Machine Automation Tools (LinuxPLC) Free, Truly Open & Publicly Owned Industrial Automation Software For Linux. mat.sourceforge.net.
Day Job: Heartland Engineering, Automation & ATE for Automotive Rebuilders.
Consultancy: Wide Open Technologies: Moving Business & Automation to Linux.
 
Top