f



"Linux" vs "GNU/Linux"

Found this interesting transcript
<http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com/2006/04/unabridged-selective-transcript-of.html>
of a talk given by Richard Stallman while he was over in the West Island
recently. Among other things, he explains why he wants people to use the
term "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" when referring to the operating system:

        However after people started using essentially the GNU system with
        Linux added, and called it Linux, it no longer led then to the
        philosophy associated with GNU - the philosophy of free software.
        Instead of that, the people read the philosophy that was associated
        with the name Linux. The apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds who
        thinks that all software licences are legitimate and it is wrong
ever
        to violate them. So his views on this are more or less the same as
        Microsoft's. Now he of course has the right to promote his views but
        I object to our work becoming the main basis for promoting his views
        because it is attributed to him directly by labeling the GNU system
        as Linux. And that is why I ask people to call the system as
GNU/Linux.

        Give us equal mention. We need it. We need it not just because it is
        fair but because it will help people recognize what we have done so
        they will think about what we are asking them help us do. Our work
is
        not finished.

Now, who is this "we" he keeps going on about? He seems to consider the GNU
project as being somehow the centre of the free/open-source software
movement. That may have been true once, but it certainly isn't true now.
There are a whole lot of other groups working on other major components
that come standard in most of the main Linux distros these days. So the
idea that GNU deserves some special naming right just doesn't wash.

Certainly RMS was a pioneer. And he was prescient in sounding the alarm
about software patents long before anybody else noticed there was a
problem. Some folks working on Linux and related projects have political
aims similar to his, but a lot don't. I think forcing the use of the "GNU"
name onto such people would actually weaken his aims, rather than
strengthen them.
0
ldo (2177)
4/8/2006 12:33:35 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

16 Replies
700 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 1

Almost from the first publication, when Linus first posted his 10,000
line kernel, back in 1991, it was published under the GNU License.

There have been thousands of enhancements and upgrades to the kernel
itself, also all contributed under the GNU Public License.

To better support commercial applications, the C libarary used to
interface to the kernel was released under the Lesser GNU Public
License, which allows commercial developers to call functions in the
shared library which can then call the GPL kernel.

In addition, Linux supports "modules" drivers, which can also be
released under non-GNU licenses and in binary-only form, because they
are called as "plug-ins".

Richard has ruthless integrity when it comes to protecting the
interests of thousands of developers who have contributed $billions
worth of time, money, research, testing, feedback, and support for GNU
licensed technologies.

There have been several attempts by a number of different forces,
especially a Billionaire in Redmond, to try and break Richard's hold on
the GNU licensed technology base.  At one point, Microsoft, or some of
it's executives, made a rather substantial contribution to MIT, and
shortly afterword, Richard, who had been living in his "office", which
was a bit more like a dorm room, was asked to find a more permanent
residence elsewhere.  Richard still has an office at MIT, partly
because GNU is supported by a number of alumni as well as a number of
other organizations.

The problem is that "Linux" isn't just a kernel, it's a "distribution"
which includes libraries, development tools, languages, X11 software,
toolkits, and applications.  Each of these components is grouped into
packages (historically, a "package" was originally designed to fit on a
single floppy disk).  In many distributions there are as many as 3,000
packages, with over 291,000 files in my installed SUSE 10.0
distribution.  And I only installed about 1/2 the features available.

Of all that code, about 40% is probably GNU.  Another 80% in Open
Source, and about 20% is proprietary software (I added a few commercial
applications of my own).

When Richard Stallman, or anyone else talks about GNU/Linux they are
talking about the core kernel and libararies and tools that were
published under GNU licenses.

At one time, the Debian release was almost "pure" GNU.  Today, even
Debian has begun to add other Open Source licensed software to remain
competitive with other distributions.

Richard has a legitimate reason for sounding the alarm over software
patents.  Do you know how many $millions have been spent trying to
defend against patents filed and claimed as "original" that were
originally developed and released under GNU?

There are patents, granted starting in 1996, which were granted for
technologies introduced by Richard Stallman in Emacs back in 1976.

There are patents granted since the patent law was revised, that were
skunkworks projects of IBM back in the 1960s, like virtual machines and
using queues to schedule operating system workload.

There are patents being granted today for software technology that was
invented by NASA and DOD in the 1950s and 1960s.

The problem is that there are too many 20 year-old kids who think they
have "invented" technologies that are 30 years old, and too many
lawyers willing to ignore the public archives - because they can file a
patent based on the patent office archives, which didn't even START to
archive software patent applications until 1996.

Ironically, it has been Microsoft who has had to defend themselves by
pulling up exhibits of 30 year old versions of EMACS and 20 year old
versions of GNU applications, to prevent some whiplash lawyer from
getting a $1 billion judgement for something that a college kid claims
he "invented" in 2004.

Software patent laws are a rat's nest at best.  Because there was never
an authoritative archive, and because millions of usenet postings were
lost in the early 1980s and 1990s, along with millions original
revisions of public domain, open source, and DOD software, the patent
office is "shooting blind".

Some companies like IBM and Kodak have tried to focus on patent
"quality" citing as much prior art from as many public archives as
possible in their patent applications.  Even if the patent is
ultimately denied because it could be intuitively derived from the
available public standards and prior art cited in the application, all
of that intellectual property is now officially part of the patent
office archive.

I keep wondering how long it will be before someone tries to patent the
sorting algorythms used on databases, then demand $billions from all
the major database vendors - for technology that's over 60 years old.

0
rex.ballard (3732)
4/8/2006 3:23:04 PM
Rex Ballard wrote:
> Almost from the first publication, when Linus first posted his 10,000
> line kernel, back in 1991, it was published under the GNU License.

But you said it was YOUR work that led to Linux.  Who's this Linus guy?



> There have been several attempts by a number of different forces,
> especially a Billionaire in Redmond, to try and break Richard's hold
> on the GNU licensed technology base.  At one point, Microsoft, or
> some of it's executives, made a rather substantial contribution to
> MIT, and shortly afterword, Richard, who had been living in his
> "office", which was a bit more like a dorm room, was asked to find a
> more permanent residence elsewhere.

Though I applaud MS for making such a donation, and I even more heartily
applaud MIT for making such a decision, I have a strong feeling the two are
not related in any way.



> Richard still has an office at MIT

How do you know?




> Do you know how many $millions have been spent trying to
> defend against patents filed and claimed as "original" that were
> originally developed and released under GNU?

I don't.  Do you?



> There are patents, granted starting in 1996, which were granted for
> technologies introduced by Richard Stallman in Emacs back in 1976.

Which patents?


> Ironically, it has been Microsoft who has had to defend themselves by
> pulling up exhibits of 30 year old versions of EMACS and 20 year old
> versions of GNU applications, to prevent some whiplash lawyer from
> getting a $1 billion judgement for something that a college kid claims
> he "invented" in 2004.

Which MS patent suit?



0
nospam11 (18349)
4/8/2006 4:41:57 PM
In article <1144509784.248303.64770@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
 "Rex Ballard" <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:

>Almost from the first publication, when Linus first posted his 10,000
>line kernel, back in 1991, it was published under the GNU License.

You mean the General Public Licence?
0
ldo (2177)
4/9/2006 4:22:36 AM
DFS wrote:
> Rex Ballard wrote:
> > Almost from the first publication, when Linus first posted his 10,000
> > line kernel, back in 1991, it was published under the GNU License.
>
> But you said it was YOUR work that led to Linux.  Who's this Linus guy?

I was working with the HURD team when I first heard about Linux.  I
couldn't actually contribute because I had seen the AT&T kernel.

Linus released the source code and the hurd team got very interested.

My goal was to find a way to get a cheap/free version of something like
Unix, often referred to as *nix, which could be used for extremely
low-cost access to the NSF-Net.  I had learned that the federal
government had cut the funding for NSF-net, and that at least one
common carrier was offering to carry the NSF traffic for very low cost,
on the condition that they could subsidize the lines with commercial
traffic (I knew because I helped the director of Frame Relay sales for
MCI in the Rocky Mountain Region formulate a workable business model,
which he proposed to his superiors).

> > There have been several attempts by a number of different forces,
> > especially a Billionaire in Redmond, to try and break Richard's hold
> > on the GNU licensed technology base.  At one point, Microsoft, or
> > some of it's executives, made a rather substantial contribution to
> > MIT, and shortly afterword, Richard, who had been living in his
> > "office", which was a bit more like a dorm room, was asked to find a
> > more permanent residence elsewhere.
>
> Though I applaud MS for making such a donation, and I even more heartily
> applaud MIT for making such a decision, I have a strong feeling the two are
> not related in any way.

I think even Richard was better off.  At least now he get to sleep in a
bed instead of a foldable army cot.

> > Do you know how many $millions have been spent trying to
> > defend against patents filed and claimed as "original" that were
> > originally developed and released under GNU?
>
> I don't.  Do you?

That's the whole problem, nobody else does either.  There are so many
"ambulance chaser" lawyers willing to file poorly researched patents
for kitchen table software developers - in hopes of getting quick and
cheap settlements from companies who either don't know any better, or
can't afford to do proper research.

Some companies like IBM are now focusing on "Quality" of patents.  They
are filing applications which cite thousands of examples of prior
related art.  Even if the patent application is denied, all of the
prior art now becomes a permanent part of the patent office archive.

> > There are patents, granted starting in 1996, which were granted for
> > technologies introduced by Richard Stallman in Emacs back in 1976.
>
> Which patents?

Microsoft's patent on a spell checker on an editor is a prime example.
Emacs had ispell back in 1982 - probably before then (that's just when
I started using emacs).

> > Ironically, it has been Microsoft who has had to defend themselves by
> > pulling up exhibits of 30 year old versions of EMACS and 20 year old
> > versions of GNU applications, to prevent some whiplash lawyer from
> > getting a $1 billion judgement for something that a college kid claims
> > he "invented" in 2004.
>
> Which MS patent suit?

I can't remember the exact suit and given that I'm really busy these
days, I really don't have time to research it.

It was some fairly small company with very little revenue or net worth
which was attempting to sue Microsoft for $billions in back royalties.

It's one of those I read in InfoWorld, or ComputerWorld, or one of
those other publications which sends me daily "news-flashes" (I get
about 100/day).

0
rex.ballard (3732)
4/20/2006 6:10:27 AM
Rex Ballard wrote:
> I was working with the HURD team when I first heard about Linux.  I
> couldn't actually contribute because I had seen the AT&T kernel.




Was this before or after you'd invented MULTICS ? 



0
4/20/2006 7:37:34 PM
Rex Ballard wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Rex Ballard wrote:
>>> Almost from the first publication, when Linus first posted his
>>> 10,000 line kernel, back in 1991, it was published under the GNU
>>> License.
>>
>> But you said it was YOUR work that led to Linux.  Who's this Linus
>> guy?
>
> I was working with the HURD team when I first heard about Linux.

Exactly what work did you do "with" the HURD team?



> I couldn't actually contribute because I had seen the AT&T kernel.

Plus, nobody asked for your contributions in the first place.



>>> There are patents, granted starting in 1996, which were granted for
>>> technologies introduced by Richard Stallman in Emacs back in 1976.
>>
>> Which patents?
>
> Microsoft's patent on a spell checker on an editor is a prime example.
> Emacs had ispell back in 1982 - probably before then (that's just when
> I started using emacs).

You'll need to be more specific.  What's the MS spell-checker patent #?




>>> Ironically, it has been Microsoft who has had to defend themselves
>>> by pulling up exhibits of 30 year old versions of EMACS and 20 year
>>> old versions of GNU applications, to prevent some whiplash lawyer
>>> from getting a $1 billion judgement for something that a college
>>> kid claims he "invented" in 2004.
>>
>> Which MS patent suit?
>
> I can't remember the exact suit and given that I'm really busy these
> days, I really don't have time to research it.
>
> It was some fairly small company with very little revenue or net worth
> which was attempting to sue Microsoft for $billions in back royalties.

MS and Autodesk lost a sizable patent judgement yesterday to a one-man shop:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0604200220apr20,1,5773744.story?coll=chi-business-hed




0
nospam11 (18349)
4/20/2006 10:41:28 PM
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:37:34 -0500, Guy Pendleton wrote:

> Rex Ballard wrote:
>> I was working with the HURD team when I first heard about Linux.  I
>> couldn't actually contribute because I had seen the AT&T kernel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this before or after you'd invented MULTICS ?

Or after he invented the Internet?
Sometimes I wonder if Al Gore and Rex are the same person?

-- 
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
 

0
flatfish4 (6248)
4/21/2006 2:17:32 AM
I got the source code to AT&T Version 6, it was distributed to graduate
students at MIT in the 1970s.  The copy I had was dated 1976.  No
restrictions but... best to be safe.

My boss at the time was Dan Yeung, a PhD from MIT.  He wanted me to
study the kernel, and give him a report - I had a week to learn as much
as I could and summarize what I could.  What a trip - some really
"creative" code.

0
rex.ballard (3732)
4/21/2006 3:27:00 PM
Gee, that's really too bad.  Especially since there were plenty of
discussions of this technology on usenet back in 1985/6 on usenet.
Most PC applications were trying to use copy protection using dongles.
Several discussions of license management involved using "copy
detection" technologies based on assigning serial numbers, either
entered manually, or on magnetic media, which can be validated remotely
(in those days - by phone).  If different people tried to use the same
serial number twice, the piracy could be identified and tracked back to
the original pirate.

Sun License Manager used similar technology - which was published in
Open Source.

Appearantly this is another case of a trivial intituitive alteration in
the implementation being accepted by the patent office as original work
- simply because there was no record of those usenet discussions.

Google's archive of usenet newsgroups prior to 1995 is "spotty" at
best.  Most companies didn't archive usenet newsgroup activity, and
because space was limited and expensive, and usenet often generated 2-3
megabytes/day when a 300 megabyte drive was the size of a washing
machine and the media packs cost over $2000 per "pack".

Even magnetic tape cost about $50/megabyte and the tape drives cost
about $10,000.
I still have a few reels of 6250 bps mag tape, but no drive capable of
reading it.  I also have an archive on QIC-150 cartridges.  I think I
even have some usenet archives on 8 MM exabyte tape.  I tried
purchasing an exabyte drive and using it with Windows or Linux, but I
couldn't get the thing to read or write backups.

I did find a service that claimed they could convert that media to
CD-ROM, for about $200 per reel or cartridge.  I could pay $600 to get
the conversion done, but might not get anything usable.

It looks like the case here is one of "hometown advantage".  Juries
don't particularly like Microsoft, and don't particularly like the
heavy handed tactics.  The ruling might be more a judgement against
Microsoft in general than a ruling in favor of the merits of the patent
itself.

It's quite likely that Microsoft will get the judgement nullified or
mitigated on appeal.

0
rex.ballard (3732)
4/21/2006 4:18:32 PM
You missed the relevant question, so I'll kindly repeat it:

Exactly what work did you do "with" the HURD team?



Rex Ballard wrote:
> Gee, that's really too bad.  Especially since there were plenty of
> discussions of this technology on usenet back in 1985/6 on usenet.
> Most PC applications were trying to use copy protection using dongles.
> Several discussions of license management involved using "copy
> detection" technologies based on assigning serial numbers, either
> entered manually, or on magnetic media, which can be validated
> remotely (in those days - by phone).  If different people tried to
> use the same serial number twice, the piracy could be identified and
> tracked back to the original pirate.
>
> Sun License Manager used similar technology - which was published in
> Open Source.
>
> Appearantly this is another case of a trivial intituitive alteration
> in the implementation being accepted by the patent office as original
> work - simply because there was no record of those usenet discussions.
>
> Google's archive of usenet newsgroups prior to 1995 is "spotty" at
> best.  Most companies didn't archive usenet newsgroup activity, and
> because space was limited and expensive, and usenet often generated
> 2-3 megabytes/day when a 300 megabyte drive was the size of a washing
> machine and the media packs cost over $2000 per "pack".
>
> Even magnetic tape cost about $50/megabyte and the tape drives cost
> about $10,000.
> I still have a few reels of 6250 bps mag tape, but no drive capable of
> reading it.  I also have an archive on QIC-150 cartridges.  I think I
> even have some usenet archives on 8 MM exabyte tape.  I tried
> purchasing an exabyte drive and using it with Windows or Linux, but I
> couldn't get the thing to read or write backups.
>
> I did find a service that claimed they could convert that media to
> CD-ROM, for about $200 per reel or cartridge.  I could pay $600 to get
> the conversion done, but might not get anything usable.
>
> It looks like the case here is one of "hometown advantage".  Juries
> don't particularly like Microsoft, and don't particularly like the
> heavy handed tactics.  The ruling might be more a judgement against
> Microsoft in general than a ruling in favor of the merits of the
> patent itself.
>
> It's quite likely that Microsoft will get the judgement nullified or
> mitigated on appeal.


0
nospam11 (18349)
4/21/2006 10:05:01 PM
I participated in some newsgroup discussions.
That was all I was ALLOWED to do.

Anyone who had experience with the AT&T kernel was not ALLOWED to
contribute code.

0
rex.ballard (3732)
4/25/2006 9:32:51 AM
Rex Ballard wrote:
> I participated in some newsgroup discussions.
> That was all I was ALLOWED to do.
>
> Anyone who had experience with the AT&T kernel was not ALLOWED to
> contribute code.


I see.  When you said "working with the HURD team" silly me expected that to
mean you were recognized as part of the development team, were at the least
semi-formally assigned some tasks by a project leader, and were contributing
something tangible.

My mistake ;-)



0
nospam11 (18349)
4/25/2006 1:44:53 PM
Some of us didn't want to have certain of our contributions formally
acknowledged publicly.  We had other jobs, other responsibilties, and
personalities and quirks that might have damaged the GNU project more
than they helped.

By participating informally, through usenet newsgroups, mailirng lists,
and other informal ways, we could contribute ideas, concepts, and
information which was original, without having employers, clients, or
families adversely impactetd by our activities.

Keep in mind that actual formal coding is only one part of any large
software project.

There are those who provide high level designs, reccomendations,
proposals, and approaches.

There are those who provide low level designs, flesh out the details,
answer questions, and make suggestions on how to improve existing
implementations.

There are those who test software and provide feedback.

There are those who promote and reccomend open source software, to
groups, to organizations, and even to industry influencers.  Open
Source projects don't "sell themselves", they are promoted and
reccomended to friends, colleagues, coworkers, supervisors, and
eventually trickle up to executives.

The software and promotional and support efforts invested in Linux
probably amount into the $billions (US),  millions of staff-hours, and
have generated value add in the $trillions.

Open Source is the heart of e-mail, web sites, tcp/ip and impacts
nearly every major economic transaction conducted electronically.

On of my little gifts was enrollement.  The ability to create
possibilities for potential users, to create opportunities for them to
exploit, and to encourage them to take committed action toward
fulfilling those possibilities.

I do this as a profession, as an Information Technology Architect, (I
have been an ITA since 1990).  It's also a hobby for me.

I've participated in a number of mailing lists directed toward
publishers, web-masters, and at the professional level, have worked
with other architects to design solutions for on-line commerce,
e-business, and business-to-business as well as enterprise integration,
often using Open Source as a strategic project accelerator.

Imagine having the ability to evesdrop on the musings of a $300/hour
consultant, as he just casually engages in a simple excercise to create
opportunities to generate $millions or even $billions in revenue, at
the same time spending relatively small amounts on the initial
investment, and allowing to structure follow-on investment based on
revenue being generated, while still maintaining the constant control
of expenses and investment such that profitability could be maintained.

Now imagine you are one of 200 or even 2000 or even 8000 people
observing this conversation - being conducted between this consultant
and a handful of questioners who are asking very pointed and specific
questions.

Now, suppose that 100 or 200 of those "lurkers" started posting their
results, and started asking questions as to how to take it to the next
level?  They have really funny names like Yahoo, Amazon, and Lycos.  At
first, these are unheard of names, but before long, they became huge
names.

Suppose that archives and summaries of these reccomendations were being
sold by publishers (not myself), for prices in excess of $10,000 per
viewer.

Now, suppose all that the $300/hour consultant were only asking that
you donate a total of 1/10th of 1 percent of all profits after your
first $million to the Open Software foundation, or some other Open
Source project.

If you observed this, would you possibly consider trying out a few of
the suggestions which he had offered for "free"?

I've been offering this service for about 15 years now, on a number of
different forums.

Keep in mind that this is not my primary source of income.  I often
spend as much as 80 hours/week consulting privately with clients who
engage me to provide far more detailed and customized support, often
from concept to production-rollout.  In many cases, I come in as a
"fireman" - helping to successfully complete "troubled" projects using
a combination of Open Source, Java, and employer based intellectual
capital.

When doing all of this, I have to be very careful to participate as a
"guy in a diner", not as a representative of a corporation.  I also
have to be careful not to violate intellectual property rights of
clients or partners or employers.

0
rex.ballard (3732)
4/26/2006 4:49:09 AM
Rex Ballard wrote:
> Some of us didn't want to have certain of our contributions formally
> acknowledged publicly.  We had other jobs, other responsibilties, and
> personalities and quirks that might have damaged the GNU project more
> than they helped.

If you didn't have such a compulsion to publish all your dirty laundry, you
wouldn't have to worry about your 'quirks' offending the GNU people.  In
other words, we really didn't need to know you were a male lesbian for 5
years.




> By participating informally, through usenet newsgroups, mailirng
> lists, and other informal ways, we could contribute ideas, concepts,
> and information which was original, without having employers,
> clients, or families adversely impactetd by our activities.

So you weren't coding or designing or testing; you were "behind the scenes"
so to speak, doing the work that eventually led to Linux?




> Keep in mind that actual formal coding is only one part of any large
> software project.
>
> There are those who provide high level designs, reccomendations,
> proposals, and approaches.
>
> There are those who provide low level designs, flesh out the details,
> answer questions, and make suggestions on how to improve existing
> implementations.
>
> There are those who test software and provide feedback.

Yep, that's how systems and software gets created.



> On of my little gifts was enrollement.  The ability to create
> possibilities for potential users, to create opportunities for them to
> exploit, and to encourage them to take committed action toward
> fulfilling those possibilities.

Page 3 of the AA 12-Step manual?



> Imagine having the ability to evesdrop on the musings of a $300/hour
> consultant, as he just casually engages in a simple excercise to
> create opportunities to generate $millions or even $billions in
> revenue, at the same time spending relatively small amounts on the
> initial investment, and allowing to structure follow-on investment
> based on revenue being generated, while still maintaining the
> constant control of expenses and investment such that profitability
> could be maintained.

Who is this business consultant Superman?  Where could he be?



> Now imagine you are one of 200 or even 2000 or even 8000 people
> observing this conversation - being conducted between this consultant
> and a handful of questioners who are asking very pointed and specific
> questions.

What I wouldn't give...



> Now, suppose that 100 or 200 of those "lurkers" started posting their
> results, and started asking questions as to how to take it to the next
> level?  They have really funny names like Yahoo, Amazon, and Lycos.
> At first, these are unheard of names, but before long, they became
> huge names.

Uh oh... you're the man behind Yahoo, Amazon and Lycos!??!?!?!
Hallelujah!!!

(Are you weenies nessuno and Chris Wilkinson listening?)




> Suppose that archives and summaries of these reccomendations were
> being sold by publishers (not myself), for prices in excess of
> $10,000 per viewer.

Such a deal...



> Now, suppose all that the $300/hour consultant were only asking that
> you donate a total of 1/10th of 1 percent of all profits after your
> first $million to the Open Software foundation, or some other Open
> Source project.
>
> If you observed this, would you possibly consider trying out a few of
> the suggestions which he had offered for "free"?
>
> I've been offering this service for about 15 years now, on a number of
> different forums.

What services do you offer on alt.motss?



> Keep in mind that this is not my primary source of income.  I often
> spend as much as 80 hours/week consulting privately with clients who
> engage me to provide far more detailed and customized support, often
> from concept to production-rollout.  In many cases, I come in as a
> "fireman" - helping to successfully complete "troubled" projects using
> a combination of Open Source, Java, and employer based intellectual
> capital.

Here he comes to save the day!!



> When doing all of this, I have to be very careful to participate as a
> "guy in a diner", not as a representative of a corporation.  I also
> have to be careful not to violate intellectual property rights of
> clients or partners or employers.

Just stick to violating intellectual reality and you'll be OK...




0
nospam11 (18349)
4/26/2006 2:10:35 PM
I think this round goes to DFS.

Rex thinks he gets credit for a project if he reads a web site,
and tells a buddy.  He promoted the site, and wants credit !!!!!

Well, I been on the several presidental committee's, helped in
national security, and was the main reason linux is where is it today.

Wait, linux is not doing that well.  Best keep undercover about my help

on that one.

0
4/26/2006 4:22:19 PM
On the other hand, from about 1993 to 1998, it seemed like every time I
got really vocal and let people know who I was and what I did for a
living, I'd end up with some pointy-haired-boss who absolutely insisted
that we should put a news feed server to serve millions of users - on
Windows 3.1 (not even Win32s), or put a system to clear million of
stock trades on Windows 95, or that we should replay those 5 Solaris
boxes with 3000 Windows NT boxes.

After a few too many of these little "coincidences" you just figure
it's best to remain relatively anonymous, contribute in the ways you
can, as covertly as possible, and look for opportunities where your
boss looks like Mick Jagger, thinks Unix is great, and figure Windows
is a dumb terminal with pretty pictures.

Then you find some company that's even bigger than Microsoft that
openly endorses Linux and Open Source, and you join that company.  Then
you can tell them up front that you participate in the Open Source
community.  Your assignments are structure so that you can participate
more openly, and at the same time, you can provide high-value solutions
which won't "infect" Linux or your company's projects.

Every once in a while, I get some client who thinks that Windows XP
would make a really great database server - and no $25,000/CPU price
tag.  At which point, I can walk away due to the proposed illegal
nature of the engagement.

These days, Linux is a critical element of nearly every engagement.

0
rex.ballard (3732)
4/27/2006 2:48:25 AM
Reply: