[Gllug] Discussion: Is Enterprise Linux a lock-in

Formi formi at blueyonder.co.uk
Tue Jan 20 09:58:50 UTC 2004


On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Simon Morris wrote:

> Read a good trade-rag yesterday with an article about Enterprise Linux and
> I'd be interested to hear the lists comments.
>

 Obviously I haven't read all the different trade-rags, the few I have
 don't qualify as overall good to me.


> Some of the points raised in the article.
>
> 1. RMS suggested that "all the companies that distribute GNU\Linux also
> distribute non-free software, which is unethical. Some even develop
> non-free software which is worse"
>
> 2. There was a suggestion in the article that the large recruitment of OSS
> developers by Linux vendors had drawbacks:
>
> "A drawback of direct commercial involvement [in Linux] is clear.
> Developers who are based within corporations are unlikely to support a
> project that is run by another competitor unless there is material benefit"
>
> 3. The cost of deploying "Enterprise Linux" distributions (RH, SuSE) is too
> high. Bruce Perens quoted: "The very aspects that made Linux desirable are
> under attack by Linux vendors bent on increasing shareholder value"
> Organisations are paying more and more for Linux as distributors demand a
> per seat cost and a service lock-in that withdraws support if the customer
> alters the source code
>
> The magazine was Jan 2004 Information Age
>
> Discuss :-)
>
> SM
>

 If deploying Enterprise Linux is cheaper in the long closed source alternatives.
 Where is the problem?

 Big companies are mostly about reducing costs to increase profit margins,
 and if they surely can cough up all the dosh for propietary software,
 they certainly can pay the costly "Enterprise Linux Editions".

 What Perens points out is what the game is all about, for the providers
 of the software and their clients. Pure capitalism.

 And what about the supposed "fact" thrown very often around that the
 software is only a small percentage of the overall IT budget.

 Probably running less resource hungry soft, and having to update the
 machinery with all the inconvinience this provokes, less often, should be
 "economically atractive", at least if we are talking about regular
 workstations.

 And we all know the other advantages in using OSS.

 RMS is a pure xtremist in my view, and I applaude him. But as long as
 we have lawyers and capitalism as it is today, his wishes won't come
 true for a long time, if ever.

 I would guess that most of the problems that the OSS is accused of,
 actualy come from external sources(1). And not from the commuinty in
 itself.

 (*ism of choice)

 Myself.

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug




More information about the GLLUG mailing list