Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 02:40:33 -0800 From: jkh@violet.berkeley.edu (Jordan K. Hubbard) Subject: Re: Linux vs. BSD?! Message-ID: <199502211040.CAA25080@violet.berkeley.edu> References: <3i7ar8$ahv@marton.hsr.no> <3i9aa3$sbp@fido.asd.sgi.com> <3iae19$8do@agate.berkeley.edu> <3iakqv$aj5@fido.asd.sgi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <3iakqv$aj5@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
Larry McVoy <lm@slovax.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
> yet another mine is better debate, huh :-) I'll try and be nice,
>there aren't any winners in this sort of debate. But I think there are
>some points to be made, so here goes:
Sorry, I really didn't intend it as such. In fact, the Linux comments
were an afterthought and probably should have been left out as they
only distracted from the real thrust of my argument. Oh well, we move on..
>The NetBSD and FreeBSD efforts are certainly currently free source. The BSDI
>effort is absolutely not free source, in fact, you can't get it all or if
>you do, you can't redistribute it.
Ah yes, well, I really only talking about the current batch of free OS
alternatives. BSDI never set out to create a free OS as Linux, FreeBSD
and NetBSD did, so it's sort of apples and oranges to cite them as examples
of "what happens when the good go commercial." In fact, I've always regarded
BSDI's principle contribution as support and a committment to stability.
Nothing that the GPL or BSD copyrights have much effect over, really, and
actually a very good example of how the technology can be almost entirely
removed as the principle commercial component. BSDI's customers aren't
paying for the most advanced, cutting edge technology money can buy, they're
paying for simple, mundane "do the job day after day" technology and all the
support and documentation that actually makes it USABLE to them.
So unless the FSF becomes the "Free Support Foundation", I can't see them
as having that large an impact on the issues that are really coming up in
our faces these days. The technology is the easy part now, and I think your
unfortunate SunOS experiences may have colored your thinking just a bit.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I believe that if SunOS were released
in source form today, it would be a matter of great rejoicing amongst
the hacker community but of comparative insignificance to the majority of
its current customers. Why? Because they have no real reason to care.
Sure, some astute business types might see a market opportunity in taking
that technology and forming ANOTHER company to create some variant of it,
but to the end-user the bottom line would still be "Who do I give my money
to and how much support do I get for it?"
>The NetBSD and FreeBSD efforts do not have a company providing commercial
>support; that makes them not a good choice for businesses.
Not YET, no.. :-)
>My point is, Jordan, that as long as good people like you have control,
>things are fine. Sun was started with a bunch of great hackers, just
>like yourself, that had a vision and executed it. Then idiots like
>McNealy and Zander came to power, and he and his MBA coherts started
>making bad choices. There were people (me, for example) that felt
>that we should give the old code away, make it "open", and I worked full
>time for 4 months to try and make that happen. No go. Not open.
>Nothing that a bunch of good guys, like the engineers, can do about
>it when the MBAs get control.
I do understand this, but I'm also firmly of the opinion that Operating
Systems will become largely irrelevant in the next 5 years! The likes
of McNealy and Zander can make all the policy statements they like, but
they'll be about as effective as the captian of the Titanic shouting
rudder orders as the ship goes down. Who *cares* about operating systems?
Dweebs like us, sure, but when the base technology has reached a certain
baseline of functionality then more and more of what's important will
start moving into the realm of 3rd party applications (along with even such
"core" OS features as add-on filesystems and drivers). In fact, if you look
at the evolution of operating systems in general, you'll see a pattern
something like this:
50's-60's: Operating system provided by hardware vendor. Locked down.
70's: Operating systems begin to be provided by people who have nothing
to do with hardware at all (CP/M, DOS, etc).
80's: Operating systems start to become interchangable and begin swapping
standard components. People start talking about getting rich with
killer apps rather than killer machine/OS environments.
90's: Applications hold sway. OS starts becoming a thin and often laughably
featureless program launcher (Windows).
late-90's (prediction): Some backlash from Windows occurs, but OSs never
regain their former preeminence. A more stable marriage between between
better OS technology and less OS-specific applications layer stuff results.
So the point is that yes, there used to be wolves in the forest and yes, they
occasionally ate OS people like yourself, but they've all since moved on to
bigger game. There's really no need to worry about a pack of MBAs decending
on FreeBSD and trying to make millions from it - the pickings just ain't that
rich! They know that their time is much better spent trying to write the next
equivalent of "Quicken" and selling it to Microsoft for gajillions of dollars.
>The GPL is an ace in the hole against the MBAs. You may not see it
>now, but in a few years, when BSDI or some other company is having
>success supporting some BSD, you will start to see my point as you try
>and get the source for some changes and they don't give it to you.
Actually, I would almost kind of hope that in a few years the likes of us
will be almost completely marginalized! Like I said before, who *cares*
about operating systems except for other OS geeks? In 5 years you'll
have your 100mb/sec interactive cable tee-vee hookup providing you
with all kinds of keeno services and you won't even know or care what's
really underneath (well, OK, YOU will but Joe Average won't! :-). All that
will come to matter is the content you're being provided, and the people
providing that content will be the ones getting rich.
Think of the movie industry - where's the real money: For the company
that produces the commercial film stock or for those folks that shoot
movies like "Terminator 2" onto it? I'll give you 3 guesses.. :-) :-)
>the guys in charge are now, and will remain, good guys. Bad
>assumption, money screws up people's morals. Some people, like MBAs.
Sir Lancelot: "No, no! I need my morals tested! Let me stay! I'll
fight them off! Really!" :-)
Again, I just really don't see that happening (drat!). Our morals just ain't
worth enough these days! I talked to Linus a bit about this, as he's
probably the one individual who has danced more with the devil (Novell) than
any of us has even been given the chance to, and I didn't get the feeling that
he was being offering money in sacks. Linus got a couple of nice ski
vacations in Utah out of it, and a couple of nice machines to play with,
but I don't see him riding around in a limo any time soon because of Linux.
I think your bitter experience with SunOS has left you with some fears that
are about 5 years out of date. I'm not saying that they're invalid, simply
dated.
>That's very cool. I like that a lot. Get BSDI to join in and you are
>going somewhere.
While this certainly sounds good in principle, I'm not sure what they would
be ``joining''. Our technology has always been open for the taking, but then
it's not our technology that they really need. They need more and more
aggressive marketing, strategic commercial partnerships, more native
applications, all the things that they can really only get for themselves
and has very little to do with us (though we'll happily buy and run those
native apps! :-).
>Really, Jordan, how do you counter the claim that if *BSD ever becomes
>commerically viable, and hence valuable, then I claim the company that
>is supporting it will lock it up. Just like BSDI. Explain a way around
Easy: Because they can't. FreeBSD has been released in source code
form for almost 2 years now, and is mirrored in at least 14 different
countries. This was never the case before with any commercial OS (still
existing, anyway) that I can think of.
So the MBAs can make any pronouncements they like, but how are they going to
enforce them? The users are always empowered to band together and do their
OWN versions that are, in all likelyhood, even better than the commercial
offerings (if only to spite them! :-).
In time, if the MBAs have any brains at all, they'll make some sort of
peace agreement with the free community and work out some sort of exchange
of ideas that enriches both sides - it would be the profitable thing to do!
That was my original point against the GPL - it precludes even this from
happening, and sometimes market forces can create GOOD as well as evil.
Since we've already got the source code out there and the Evil Ones can
only slam the barn door long after the horses have escaped, then we've
only left the door open for future creative partnerships. The world
of commerce and the world of free software CAN work in concert, just so
long as both sides are willing to handle it with finesse. It's certainly
my goal to do so, both now and in the future.
>that problem that is iron clad, and I'm a BSD bigot again :-) Not that
>you would want me :-)
Oh yes, you also give yourself far too little credit. I'd take you
in a hot minute! :-)
Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199502211040.CAA25080>