|
Jeremy Hansen wrote:
First, thanks for your response. I enjoy hearing differing views.
However I think we are at odds, and I think some of discussion is
is not making sense to me. For example; you say you don't want to start
http to have a GUI, but VA's GUI requires X -- which is larger and far
less useful on a server than http. Granted no GUI is most efficient
(but not necessarily easiest) of all.
I always like to improve piranha, and I believe GPL clustering solutions
are the best way to go. As far as I can tell, none of the
differences you list are very significant. You are certainly entitled
to "like it better", but that's not something I can relate to a customer
need and code. I always hate to see a Linux vendor produce a package
just for the sake of claiming that they have one of their own rather
than there being actual inovention. I don't like to see this even if
Red Hat was the culprit.
When I worked for DEC, one of the practices they had would be to sometimes
have 2 groups create the same product and put them in competition with
each other to see who wins. I always though this was a hugh waste of
resources, especially for the group that lost.
> I understand what you're saying somewhat but I still don't see why it is
> wrong for someone to develop the same thing but from a different angle.
It's not, I agree. I just don't see a significant angle to merit yet
another package rather than improve or add-on to piranha. I view the
competition as Microsoft rather than other Linux companies. How can
I view other Linux companies as development competition when the efforts
involve the community, including their employees? I sat right next to
Ted T'so, who works for VA, in a community clustering meeting being run
by Red Hat.
> I realize that Red Hat is in a position in the market where they must
> develop tools for the "IT manager". It seems to be their focus and
> honestly (and I'm probably wrong here but I might as go ahead with it and
> take the abuse) I think Red Hat is trying to somewhat secure themselves on
> their efforts in the whole "Enterprise", "High Availability" effort and
> probably doesn't like the competition in this area, especially from people
> at VA Linux.
I don't agree here. I personally critise Red Hat when I think they deserve it.
First; I did not know you worked for VA, so it was never a factor in my
position.
Red Hat's focus is the open-source movement and the user (ever listen to Bob
Young speak?). Competition is at the support, services, stability, and
packaging levels, not really at the engr level (unless you are breaking
the spirit of free software and releasing binary-only stuff). How can I
compete if I can simply take 100% of your code and make it mine? The only
winner in GPL competition is the user.
> I mean what you're saying certainly doesn't make sense for the "open
> source community". Both project are GPL as far as I know. There are
> 3,010,599 irc clients for Linux that have somewhat different approaches to
> the same goal. Why is there about 50 distro's available all based off of
> RPM but with slightly different approaches and different installs
> available.
I agree, but I'd also say that the value of 3 million irc client
choices is questionable. Everything in moderation. Ever try to pick a
stable email client? It would be nice if there were a "top 10" list
in each category :-)
I assume we aren't going to agree, which is ok too. :-)
--
Keith Barrett
Red Hat Inc. HA Team
kbarrett@xxxxxxxxxx
|
