| 1 |
On 10/21/2013 03:33 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am 20.10.2013 13:18, schrieb Daniel Campbell: |
| 3 |
>> On 10/20/2013 06:02 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Am 20.10.2013 12:52, schrieb Daniel Campbell: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 10/20/2013 04:24 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> Am 20.10.2013 08:34, schrieb Daniel Campbell: |
| 7 |
>>>>>> hm, Redhat is one of the companies investing the most money into linux |
| 8 |
>>>>>> kernel, userland, graphics... if you 'don't trust them' you are pretty |
| 9 |
>>>>>> much 20 years too late. |
| 10 |
>>>>>> Investing money does not make them any more qualified or deserving of |
| 11 |
>>>>>> making decisions. Red Hat is not the sole user of Linux. They should |
| 12 |
>>>>>> consider themselves lucky that they are even able to profit from |
| 13 |
>>>>>> something that's free. |
| 14 |
>>>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>>>> You're right, though. They've been around for a while, and I've never |
| 16 |
>>>>>> trusted them or any other corporate interest in *nix. There's always a |
| 17 |
>>>>>> catch when dealing with a business. |
| 18 |
>>>>>> |
| 19 |
>>>>> 'have been around for a while' - replace that with 'are financing more |
| 20 |
>>>>> core developers than anybody else'. |
| 21 |
>>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>> That's less reason to trust, not more. That's like citing the popularity |
| 23 |
>>>> of something as proof of its quality, when oftentimes it's the exact |
| 24 |
>>>> opposite that's true. |
| 25 |
>>>> |
| 26 |
>>>> So they spend a lot of money hiring developers. The more important |
| 27 |
>>>> question is what is their agenda? What do they tell those developers to |
| 28 |
>>>> *make*? You don't hire people without a business plan in mind. |
| 29 |
>>>> |
| 30 |
>>>> |
| 31 |
>>> without Redhat, there would be no linux. gnu software would be massively |
| 32 |
>>> lacking and X would be without drivers. |
| 33 |
>>> |
| 34 |
>>> So calm down. |
| 35 |
>>> |
| 36 |
>> Linux was created and released in 1991, built with GNU tools. Red Hat |
| 37 |
>> didn't come along until 1993. Linux and GNU would both still be here; |
| 38 |
>> their quality without Red Hat involvement is speculative at best. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> no, it is not. Several of the most important Kernel devs are or were |
| 41 |
> Redhat developers. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> So you just showed that you have no clue at all. You should stop right |
| 44 |
> there. |
| 45 |
I do "have a clue", but there is logically no way to say, for sure, that |
| 46 |
Linux and GNU would be worse off without Red Hat's existence. Why? |
| 47 |
Because we only know what happened _with_ their existence. The assertion |
| 48 |
can't be validated or even tested without somehow going back in time and |
| 49 |
preventing Red Hat from forming. It's an empty assertion. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
>> I maintain that motives matter more than money and that they (motives) |
| 53 |
>> should continually be audited, especially when receiving contributions |
| 54 |
>> from a company. They may already be; I don't know. |
| 55 |
>> |
| 56 |
>> Re: drivers, do you expect me to believe Red Hat is responsible for |
| 57 |
>> every X11 driver out there? |
| 58 |
> no, but they paid a lot of developers working on several drivers. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> For example David Airlie is employed by Redhat. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> Look him up. |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
The "no" is all I need to see. You said "X would be without drivers". So |
| 65 |
unless Red Hat employees wrote every line of the X driver code |
| 66 |
(unlikely) or produced every single X driver available (proven false), |
| 67 |
the assertion is false. |
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
>> How many of this list?[1] What of radeon and |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> radeon? David Airlie again. |
| 72 |
> |
| 73 |
>> nouveau? nvidia's own driver? xf86-input-wacom (and linuxwacom)[2]? I'm |
| 74 |
>> sure Red Hat has contributed plenty to X11, but your statement is |
| 75 |
>> flat-out false. |
| 76 |
> |
| 77 |
> nope. Your statements lack any connection to reality. |
| 78 |
> |
| 79 |
> since you like links, think about this one for a while: |
| 80 |
> |
| 81 |
> https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/560928-counting-contributions-who-wrote-linux-32 |
| 82 |
> http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2012/04/linux-foundation-releases-annual-linux-development-report |
| 83 |
> |
| 84 |
> |
| 85 |
|
| 86 |
My statements reflect the truth that Red Hat contributed to, but did not |
| 87 |
single-handedly *build*, the GNU/Linux operating system. Without their |
| 88 |
existence, there's no proof that the same drivers (X11 or otherwise) |
| 89 |
wouldn't be written by some other people. Like I said, speculative at |
| 90 |
best. On both sides. |
| 91 |
|
| 92 |
Your links truthfully reflect that Red Hat contributes the most changes |
| 93 |
of any company. A majority of something does not magically make it |
| 94 |
perfect or good or whatever other mythical ideal one can conjure. |
| 95 |
|
| 96 |
The links prove that Red Hat guides a lot of the changes. Taking a look |
| 97 |
at the pdf[1] from 2012, Red Hat's contribution percentage, compared to |
| 98 |
other companies, is rather high (11.9%, p.10). Almost double the next |
| 99 |
highest contributor (Novell, at 6.4%). Why would a company invest that |
| 100 |
much effort into something open and free if there was no agenda, no |
| 101 |
business plan, no grander scheme or vision? |
| 102 |
|
| 103 |
I'm sure some of their work is good. Nothing's all bad or all good. But |
| 104 |
a company should not be trusted simply because they throw money at |
| 105 |
something or have the most people working on something compared to other |
| 106 |
companies. That's reason to be *suspicious*. A business does not throw |
| 107 |
money at something unless they plan on capitalizing on it in some way. |
| 108 |
|
| 109 |
[1]: http://go.linuxfoundation.org/who-writes-linux-2012 |
Archives