The first editorial is an interesting take from ExtremeTech about Red Hat’s “dual play” in the Linux business, called “RedHat’s Astroturfing“. The second one, called “Creativity, reliability to drive telematics” is written by Paul Leroux, from QNX Software. Last by not least, David Berlind analyzes the pros and cons of binary compatibility between versions: Is it the holy grail or the red herring?
Editorial Time – Opinions on the Web
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
As regards the comment about the march being an “advert” for one company I would beg to differ.
At present the interests of Redhat and those of the community do not differ. On all the major issues Redhat are supporting the development of free software solutions (free as in free software not OSS). Until RH does stuff to the contrary personally I do not think they should be attacked.
If it had been HP or IBM maybe the article would have had a point.
That article is a complete mess from start to end, the author doesn’t miss a single occasion to be absurd.
I was trying to agree with the author about RedHat’s announcement on the libertarian free source Frisco march. I believe RH is wrong taking that ‘anarchist’ course of action (maybe they naively think at RH that those demonstrators won’t spill RH’s code also). But even there, this guy ends up concluding that RH is the ‘Microsoft of Linux’. That crazy march is just like this article, an infantile disorder.
I thought that linux was about choice. Forcing me or the government to use linux is not good, and definitely hasnt anything to do with choice. This is as becoming as bad as microsoft forcing manufacturers to pre install on their machines.
“Astroturf” is a play on the term “grassroots.” The idea is to fake popular, or “grassroots,” support by making it appear as if letters, comments, etc. come from a mass of unaffiliated individuals when in fact they come from a single organization looking out for its own interests.
That is not what Red Hat is doing. While Red Hat is most certainly trying to advance its own interests, it is doing it openly. It is not trying to hide that it is involved.
As a *home user*, I’ve certainly appreciated the ability of Win9.x to run 16-bit Windows and even DOS programs. BC meant that I could (and did) continue to use MS-Works for Windows version 3 (a 16-bit version) when I upgraded from WFW 3.11 without having to buy a new version of Works. It also increased the number and variety of apps available for Win9.x, and made it worthwhile to continue looking for old clearance and discarded software from garage sales, thrift stores, etc.
IT departments at businesses, though, usually have more exacting demands from their software, not to mention more money to spend than your average home user. So while BC might help smooth over transitions, it is probably not too high in their priorities. Unless someone knows differently?