[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch and linux 2.7

From: Paul Hedderly
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch and linux 2.7
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:36:41 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 07:51:57PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 17:44, Tom Lord wrote:
> > To their discredit, they have done so without adopting a free software
> > business model.  This is really quite stunning because, by Larry's own
> > public accounts, he got business model advice from at least one Red
> > Hat executive -- Red Hat being a company that has on several occasions
> > publicly reaffirmed its own commitment to a free software model.  It
> > seems to me that one of five conclusions follow:
> [...]
> (f) This is an overblown rumor with very little if any truth to it.

 (g) McVoy sought the advice of a RH executive, then ignored it

> I spent some time googling, and the closest thing I could find was this:
> "McVoy's hybrid model for his own company, Bitmover, was spawned when
> Linux developer Alan Cox came up with the idea of a central log for
> changes to the Linux kernel."

Bah. Alan should have patented his idea... then BM would be at his

> "In a paper entitled "The Sourceware Operating System Proposal," McVoy
> wrote that "software that is widely available and royalty free is more
> useful and valuable to the end user than proprietary software." (This
> would later become a mantra for Red Hat and other companies. The McVoy
> paper, in fact, was a key influence in the creation of Red Hat's
> business plan back in 1993.)"
> So it looks like you have it backwards.

And that McVoy believes that SCMs like Arch are "more useful and
valuable to the end user than" SCMs like BK...

Unless he's since changed his mind.

Hohum :O)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]