HackFUD

There’s an interesting phrase, and this short article isn’t about any kind of FUD at all, just a quick response to an interesting article I stumbled across, and felt I needed to just make a point about it;

Interesting, just nomenclature eh? Imagine this situation:

1. I buy a license for RHEL
2. I find a bug or want a new feature
3. Lucky for me, I have the source code to RHEL
4. I also have the technical skills to pay the billz
5. I fix the bug and add that new feature to my copy of RHEL
6. I no longer have RHEL, I have RHEL*

Can I get support for RHEL* from Red Hat? A candy bar to readers who answer, “nope, you’re out of luck, Red Hat won’t support you on anything other than RHEL (i.e. RHEL* != RHEL)”.

Which makes sense for Red Hat, when you think about it After all, anyone with the ability can make changes to programs, utilities, and kernels within the paid-for Red Hat distribution. Red Hat allowing its full support facilities and help desk access for any old randomly customised versions of that distribution would be an absolute nightmare for the company, so it makes sense for Red Hat to support only its one - known - distribution.

I suggest that perhaps the better alternative sequence of events Savio Rodrigues could follow would be this;

1. I buy a license for RHEL
2. I find a bug or want a new feature
3. Lucky for me, I have the source code to RHEL
4. I also have the technical skills to pay the billz
5. I fix the bug and post a bug report to Red Hat with the patch which sorted the bug.
6. Red Hat acknowledges the bug and either accepts my patch or writes its own.
7. A patched version of the software is released by Red Hat.
8. I had a fully supported RHEL. I still have a fully supported RHEL.

Q.E.D.

The above diagram, originally made available to Mary Jo Foley on her blog , appears to be what Microsoft has in mind as a strategy to overcome its personal monster, otherwise known as Linux.

Microsoft wants to have all the Free and Open Source Software goodness for itself, wrapped up in its Closed Source, Proprietary “candy”, and in so doing, hopes to starve GNU/Linux of the oxygen of FOSS.

It’s mistaken if it believes that strategy will succeed in usurping Linux as the base from which FOSS grows, and the reason is this : GNU/Linux’s candy - the flavour of Freedom, tastes sweeter than Microsoft’s proprietary and expensive “Stack”. It’s a combination of philosophy, perception, and server back-end suitability in which GNU/Linux will win all the way.

This strategy is typical Microsoft “embrace, extend, extinguish”. It’s an old, worn-out strategy which people are by now wise to (finally, after decades of being taken in by this), and it’s a sad, desperate move by an old dinosaur which is now slowly realising that its reign and power over the IT industry is coming to an end - slowly, but surely.

I’d write a much longer and more detailed article, but frankly, I’m not that concerned.

(Oh and sorry for not having more articles since the last one - I’ve been extremely busy for the last month or so.)