Subject: Re: [lord@regexps.com: Re: [lord@regexps.com: Re: arch advocates]]
From: Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:45:15 -0700 (PDT)



Red Hat's (by policy!) passivity is a bug.  It's not a neutral stance
nor is it legitimately viewed a stance of non-interference.

They are not "not leaders" simply by virtue of their size, resources,
position in the press, etc.

I agree about employees -- that's why I'm not (quite) panicing about
RISKS.

The gcc steering committee is ...um... too heavily constrained to be
worth talking to, experience has taught me.

Linus (the publicity construct) is a bug -- I've never met him
personally so I'll assume he's a nice guy and quite smart and has done
a lot for free software.

Michael (the publicity construct) is nearly the same bug -- but I have
met him and there's plenty he (or more accurately, his "office") could
do to not be a bug.

Is RH aiming for "cheaper and better" for their customers? -- I
honestly wonder how safe it is for me to be frank about that: the
expected outcome is that they would sick the lawyers on me, regardless
of the accuracy of what they say.  (This "bring out the threat of
litigation bug" isn't RH-specific: it seems to permeate US business
culture, at least in the regions I've toured.)

-t




   Mail-Followup-To: fsb@crynwr.com,
     lord@regexps.com
   Cc: fsb@crynwr.com
   From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
   Date: 29 Aug 2002 11:21:35 -0700
   User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
   X-UIDL: TFn!!BP-"!4BG!!_B?"!

   Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com> writes:

   >    >    Red Hat does have internal projects as well.  But if you can get the
   >    >    well known free software projects to switch, Red Hat will probably
   >    >    also switch.  The reverse is not true.
   > 
   > I think that's just superstition.
   > 
   > Get the authorized decision makers on-board for the general direction,
   > on the basis of good analysis of the technology, then dance the dance
   > of "hey, let's all go *that* way" at a leisurely, happy pace: that's
   > my goal.

   You may be making the mistake of thinking that Red Hat, the company,
   is a technology leader.  They are not.

   They do technology packaging and technology consulting, but I don't
   see a lot of evidence that they are trying to take the world in the
   direction of new technology.  In the direction of a new business
   model, maybe.  But most of their arguments seem to be ``do more or
   less what you do today, only cheaper and better.''

   Some Red Hat employees are technology leaders.

   The ``authorized decision makers'' you should be trying to convince
   are people like the gcc steering committee and Linus Torvalds.

   Ian