Ex Red Hatter turned to the dark side?

[jdow]

From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring.com>

> On Thu, 27 May 2004, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> > Once upon a time, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at mindspring.com> said:
> > > On Thu, 27 May 2004, James Marcinek wrote:
> > > > Here's an interesting quote from the article:
> > > > > "A FORMER Red Hat employee now in the service of the Titan of
Redmond
> > > > > has been openly slagging off open source to anyone that will
listen.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris Sharp, director for platform strategy for Microsoft in the
> > >
> > > big deal.  the world is full of chris sharps.  they're called
"whores."
> >
> > I know a couple of people that work for Microsoft.  They are normal
> > people that like to eat, have a place to live, have nice "toys", etc.
> > You have no idea what this guy's situation is (or was when he was with
> > Red Hat), yet you viciously attack someone you've never met and know
> > nothing about.  What a nice guy you are.
> >
> > In short, STFU.
>
> i'm sure the world is full of perfectly personable whores who, for the
> most part, are normal people, have a place to live, have nice "toys", are
> fun to be around, throw barbecues on the weekends for their friends, etc.
>
> despite your nonsensical accusations above, i in no way "viciously
> attacked" mr. sharp.  i simply pointed out what was painfully obvious to
> anyone, even those who had never met mr. sharp -- that is, that he is
> clearly willing to say whatever it takes to make a living, even if it
> involves completely contradicting what he said in his previous business
> lifetime.
>
> in short, he's a whore.  what's the problem here?

I prefer the term mercenary. For some of us it's a little less emotionally
charged. For example, that you would call him a whore brings to question
whether you would employ his services as a whore.

Now, as for the Open Source (sometimes spelled Sores) model consider the
position Red Hat is in a little more seriously. They are selling something
that is otherwise free. Their income model is in support. Now, if the Open
Source software they are selling were done right they'd have precious
little support to sell. People would dialup a repository, download a small
starter kit (or "everything in sight"), run the starter kit pointing it
to a useful repository, install, and be up and running in a matter of
however long it took to dump the data onto the machine's storage. The
starter kit would run you through setup and bang you're done. Support
should not be needed. So where does Red Hat's income appear from all
this?

I happen to be specializing these days in software that even a George
Stephanopolous can be trusted to run live on TV. Support? We certainly
hope support is not needed once it's in his hands. However, we do
offer support and upgrades. But it all costs considerable money. It
cost me considerable time to develop it. I don't have a keep me alive
and in toys income from something real like "Do you want to double
size that order, Sir?" So we have to charge money for the software
and hardware we sell. I get screamed at by the Open Source people
for not making my work Open Source. I get screamed at by my mercenary
peers for not charging as much as I should per hour for my work. I do
need the income. I cannot go into a workplace as much as a 50 mile drive
away every day. I can drive. But not every day due to a medical problem.
So I need to telecommute. By charging less for my time I get a better
chance that employers will choose me. I make up some of the difference
with the feel good for winning awards from tradezines at the annual
NAB shows. (The interface George Staphococcus uses on his Sunday morning
show to play clips is MY software. Not many people get to brag like
THAT. But bragging doesn't feed me or place a roof over my head. I wish
it would. I'd have a slam dunk at a nice lifestyle. {^_-})

Open Source is needed. However, so is closed source. Both give you what
the other lacks. Ignoring the important case of Apple at the moment,
Windows gives you "the latest hardware works with it" while Linux gives
you an apparent (not proven) level of security from those who would
invade your systems that Windows has not approached. (Apple gives you
an approximation of both coupled with a GUI paradigm that I personally
find utterly unusable and a level of corporate arrogance that Larry
Ellison should envy more than he envies Gates.) Without Open Source to
show up Windows bad habits as "not necessary" the Windows community
would suffer. Without closed source to drive the open source community
only those things that intrigued a developer at the time would ever get
done. And a side note about Red Hat's position in this world. Somebody
needs to do the "stuff" in Open Source code that nobody else wants to
spend their time on. Red Hat pays a good team of developers to handle
"the original maintainer of this critical piece of software got bored
and is retired to race motorcycles up Mt. Everest" situations. And
SOMEBODY needs to pay them. Fortunately Linux is not perfect. So they
can sell support contracts. And we have the world as it is now, a
software ecology supporting closed source and open source quite well
indeed.

(And no, there is no way in the known Universe I could have developed
the application I described above on Linux since Linux cannot support
the hardware or software timing required. Linux is more oriented to
database and server applications. The application needs an OS that is
heavily influenced by the need to sell games.)

{^_^}