Re: Open Source Mythology -- http://opensource.org/halloween/halloween9.html

[Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bill Huey (hui) wrote:

> They are suing Linus Torvalds, they're harassing the entire Linux community
> because their corporate body can't compete or change with the times. It's
> the same reason why the BSDs have a substantially minor role in the open
> source community relative to Linux. Linux latched onto something, has decent
> leadership and the combination of which has fueled something that the BSD
> could never do. And that's work together without having egos get in the way
> of development and production/technical inclusion in that community. That
> IRC teenager mentality of running a project is why the FreeBSD-current is
> crap since they pissed on badly needed senior level talent need to do SMP
> and related work, empowering the least functional folks into single places
> of responsibility that they never should have had in a legitimate meritocracy.


How much of Linux's success was due to this enterprising, egalitarian 
spirit and how much was due to the serious heavy lifting done by 
corporate interests (IBM is one) to "help Linux along"? Remember that 
RedHat did/does a lot for Linux kernel development, even if you discount 
the new corporate sponsors.

> > I am really annoyed at open source advocates jumping in on an issue that 
> > doesn't concern them directly. What is worse i those who jump in 
>
> They're harassing and attacking the entire community, BSD and Linux, so this
> effects both my livelihood and others. Their claims look over extended,
> baseless and vague at best. They'll get murdered in court from what I
> can see.


Maybe you are right.

> > seem to completely mystified at what SCO is actually claiming. The 
> > actual text of the claim is quiet clear and easily understandable and I 
> > encourage everyone to actually READ it FIRST, then read the "rebuttal" 
> > posted by the advocates. In my opinion, anyone who claims SCO doesn't 
> > own UNIX and has no right to license it to IBM is smoking too much of a 
> > certain illegal substance. The issue is what IBM did or did not do.
>
> First of all, this isn't a court of law. It's stupid techical mailing list
> that we use to communicate with folks of similar interests. Arguing this
> isn't going to get any where since it's ultimately under the court of law
> and we as developers have little or no say this. It's also an annoying
> thread that's gotten out of control by constant "beating into the ground"
> senselessly. I'd wish you'd do the same as I, and just wait and see what
> happens. No sense in talking about it until then.


I'm not annoyed with court cases, I'm annoyed by the public reaction. 
Arguing this here _could_ change public perception and that in the end 
is as important as the hopefully logical, hopefully balanced, hopefully 
just decision that a court would make. Merit and logic make little 
difference in a world of "tribal tensions", cliques and pecking orders 
(e.g. your comparison between Linux and *BSD). I am only beating it into 
the ground for the moment :-)

> ok, back to work. :)
>
> bill