FW: NICHOLAS PETRELEY: "The Open Source" from InfoWorld.com, Wednesday, March 7, 2001

Wed Mar 7 17:00:40 EST 2001

Wouldn't this make life a whole lot easier for the development of Speakup
and all other packages.
I hope this turns into more then a pipe dream.

When commenting on this article, maybe include the original author in your
notes so that he gets a feel on how this concept would benefit our group as
well.

Here is his particulars:
Nicholas Petreley is founding editor of LinuxWorld.
http://www.linuxworld.com
Reach him at:
 nicholas at petreley.com

Stephen Dawes B.A. B.Sc.
Web Business Office, The City of Calgary
PHONE:  (403) 268-5527. FAX: (403) 268-6423
E-MAIL ADDRESS:  sdawes at gov.calgary.ab.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: OpenSource at bdcimail.com [mailto:OpenSource at bdcimail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:08 AM
To: sdawes at gov.calgary.ab.ca
Subject: NICHOLAS PETRELEY: "The Open Source" from InfoWorld.com,
Wednesday, March 7, 2001

========================================================
NICHOLAS PETRELEY:   "The Open Source"    InfoWorld.com
========================================================

Wednesday, March 7, 2001

Advertising Sponsor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What Makes a Guru?
Swallow your pride, because the answer is: He knows more
than you. Like InfoWorld "Window Manager" columnist
Brian Livingston. He’s been studying and explaining Windows
for power users and IT managers longer than just about
anybody. Any other questions? Brian will send the answers to
your e-mailbox. Subscribe at
http://www.iwsubscribe.com/newsletters/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WE'LL ALL BE BETTER OFF WHEN LINUX DISTRIBUTORS ACCEPT
THE INEVITABLE

Posted at March 2, 2001 01:01 PM  Pacific

I obviously spent too much energy raving about the
Debian approach to upgrading software and neglected to
reconnect the dots on the other issues that I had
brought up in past columns.LAST WEEK I suggested that
all commercial distributions adopt Debian as the
foundation for their Linux distribution. Gauging from
the response I received, most readers misunderstood my
rationale for choosing Debian as a prime candidate for
a Linux distribution standard. I'll gladly take the
blame for that.

Despite how I waxed rhapsodic over Debian's apt-get
program last week, this isn't about Red Hat Package
Manager (RPM) package format versus Debian package
format, nor about the apt-get program versus the
various RPM update programs available. This is about
all major commercial Linux distributors agreeing to
start with a common, comprehensive, standard Linux
distribution and add value above and beyond that foundation.

To have the maximum benefit to customers and
developers, here are the requirements as I see them:
This Linux distribution standard must be broad enough
to eliminate kernel, application, and package
incompatibility issues across all commercial
distributors who adopt this standard. It must document
strict installation and maintenance policies by which
all Linux software must be developed and packaged. An
independent group must maintain and provide this
distribution so that no single commercial entity can
manipulate the standard to its exclusive advantage.

Each distinct level should be maintained and provided
in such a way that customers have maximum flexibility
as to how and what they update within their individual
Linux installations. For example, customers should be
able to, with a minimum of effort, update only
security fixes or update everything, at their
discretion. All of the levels of development must be
freely available to both customers and developers.
Customers and developers must be able to update or
upgrade their base Linux distribution easily and
without cost, regardless of the commercial Linux
distribution they chose. All software package
dependencies should be resolved automatically when
updating any of the software.The independent Linux
distribution standard group should divide its work
into several levels. It should continue to maintain
and improve the current version, develop the next
version, and experiment with ideas for future
versions. In addition, the group should maintain a
repository of security fixes.

The software installation and upgrade process must be
safe, flexible, and reliable. By safe, I mean it
should attempt to guarantee that the software being
installed is free of Trojan horses or other malicious
changes to the original software. By flexible, I mean
the installation software should allow you to install
some software by other means, such as compiling it
yourself, without confusing the installation or
upgrade process for other packaged software.
Reliability is rather self-explanatory.

I'm sure I've neglected some important factors, but I'm
equally sure you understand that good standards are
never created by a single person. This is a starting
point, and I believe Debian GNU/Linux currently fits
the above description best and would be the easiest to
tweak wherever it does not compare well to other
distributions. But please don't fixate on Debian or
packaging issues. Of course, Debian has many
weaknesses, including even its packaging format, as
many readers aptly pointed out. If Debian offends you,
forget about it. The point is for all commercial
distributions to adopt the kind of standard
distribution I describe above, wherever it originates.

Look at the advantages. If all commercial Linux
distributors agreed to begin with a Linux distribution
standard and build from there, they would no longer
have to devote so much talent toward maintaining a
base distribution -- an effort that is needlessly
duplicated across all commercial distributors. They
could easily redirect a portion of their development
talent to improving the base distribution and devote
the rest of their talent toward the task of building
the kind of unique added value to their commercial
offerings that would bust the Linux market wide open.

If all commercial Linux distributors adopted a Linux
distribution standard, it would eliminate the need for
multiple packages for any single software product,
whether that software product is free or proprietary.
There would be no Mandrake version, Red Hat version,
or Debian version of the Apache Web server. There
would be simply Apache for Linux.

If all commercial Linux distributors adopted a Linux
distribution standard, this would create unmatched
consumer confidence in Linux as a choice of operating
systems. If you become unsatisfied with your choice of
commercial distribution, or if your commercial
distributor goes out of business, you'll still be able
to update and upgrade the most important part of your
Linux installations indefinitely. Because the base
distribution is the same, you could even switch to
another commercial distribution and start taking
advantage of the new distribution's unique value-added
software without having to reinstall an entirely new
Linux distribution. All you would have to install is
the software that is unique to that new distribution.
And all you would stand to lose by switching is any
proprietary added value that was offered by your
previous choice of commerical distribution. Your
investment in Linux itself would be protected.

About now, it should become obvious that if the
commercial Linux distributors followed my advice they
would no longer be Linux distributors at all. They
would be distributors of support and value-added
software. What should be equally obvious, however, is
that this is not only a good thing, it is inevitable.

I am optimistic about the future of commercial
distributions, partly because I have already heard
rumblings about the possibility of many of them
collaborating on a single distribution standard. But
for the sake of argument, let's assume Linux
distributors ignore the need for a broad distribution
standard and continue to differentiate at too low a
level for adequate cross-distribution compatibility.
Sooner or later, one Linux distributor will have to
become the de facto standard. The problem for other
distributions is that the dominant one alone will have
sufficient resources to add unique value and support
its distribution. The others will be wasting too much
time maintaining those basic elements of Linux that
are largely invisible to the customer -- the software
that compromises the bulk of a base disribution. The
nondominant players will be duplicating this effort
with a fraction of the revenue that the seller of the
de facto standard enjoys. The "little guys" are
essentially throwing away the very money that they
could be using to make their offerings worth
purchasing. In the end, the only way they can avoid
this problem will be to adopt the de facto standard
commercial distribution and build on it.

Perhaps that is how it will play out. Maybe Caldera,
Conectiva, Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux or some
other distribution will become the de facto standard
and all of them will eventually build on that
standard. But I don't see how that can happen without
a bloodbath in the Linux market first, and that has
two serious consequences. First, it undermines the
perception that Linux is a good investment. Second, it
just shifts dominance from one player to another
without solving the problem. Just about every
commercial Linux distributor (except Red Hat,
obviously) sees Red Hat as the "enemy." Assuming
everyone but Red Hat collaborates on a standard to
beat Red Hat, there will by necessity emerge a
dominant player among those collaborators who won.
Then that dominant player will become the enemy, and
the cycle will start again.

The only way to avoid this situation is for everyone to
adopt a comprehensive open standard maintained by
people who are not driven by commercial interests. Lo
and behold, there lies Debian waiting to be plucked up
and honed to the task. This is one of the many reasons
why I picked Debian as a starting point, but it's
certainly not the only possibility. If you have a
better idea, go for it.

Get The Open Source via e-mail

Go to http://www.iwsubscribe.com/newsletters and click
The Open Source to receive this column every Monday,
free via e-mail.

Nicholas Petreley is founding editor of LinuxWorld
(http://www.linuxworld.com). Reach him at nicholas at petreley.com.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE LATEST IN LINUX FROM INFOWORLD:

* IBM offers 10 percent discount on Linux servers for small businesses
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/03/05/010305hnsmallbiz.xml

* Delphi deftly leaps to Linux
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/03/05/010305tckylix.xml

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

"The Internet could change from a World Wide Web to
geographically segmented entities. The American Web
would be completely visible to people connecting from
the United States, partly invisible on the more
restrictive French Web, still more restricted on the
well-policed Chinese Web, and almost completely lost on
the Afghan Web."

--George A. Chidi, IDG Correspondent, writing about
censorship of the Web in countries outside the U.S.

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/03/05/010305hnpriv.xml?0307weli

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SUBSCRIBE
To subscribe to any of InfoWorld's e-mail newsletters,
tell your friends and colleagues to go to:
http://www.iwsubscribe.com/newsletters/

To subscribe to InfoWorld.com, or InfoWorld Print,
or both, go to http://www.iwsubscribe.com

UNSUBSCRIBE
If you want to unsubscribe from InfoWorld's Newsletters,
go to http://iwsubscribe.com/newsletters/unsubscribe/

CHANGE E-MAIL
If you want to change the e-mail address where
you are receiving InfoWorld newsletters, go to
http://iwsubscribe.com/newsletters/adchange/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If your network's not secure, you're toast. Get practical
advice on how to run a tight ship with InfoWorld's
security guru P.J. Connolly, in the e-mail version of this
hands-on, technically oriented weekly column. Subscribe
now to SECURITY WATCH, or any of InfoWorld's e-mail
Newsletters. Go to: http://www.iwsubscribe.com/newsletters

Advertising Sponsor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What Makes a Guru?
Swallow your pride, because the answer is: He knows more
than you. Like InfoWorld "Window Manager" columnist
Brian Livingston. He’s been studying and explaining Windows
for power users and IT managers longer than just about
anybody. Any other questions? Brian will send the answers to
your e-mailbox. Subscribe at
http://www.iwsubscribe.com/newsletters/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This message was sent to:  sdawes at gov.calgary.ab.ca