-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

I see this as a non-event. It sounds like actions geared towards software development houses such as Oracle and Adobe. A standard base they can work against, that ensures compatibility with distributions. For me, as an end user, I very much suspect I won't see any difference.

It is a non-event for progress perhaps, but a definate PR liability. With Ransom Love doing the talking, and with hints (from him) of per-seat licensing... or at least redistribution restrictions on UL, it could tarnish the reputations of better distros such as SuSE and Conectiva. Also it could hurt non-RH distros since it includes an RH compatiblity layer. Anyone in the mood for a repeat of OS/2? Rather then emulate RH they should either switch to an RH-style (a' la Mandrake) or stick to just following the LSB. This compatiblity setup of symlinks and such just says "It's okay to write RedHat only apps, we'll do whatever it takes to make 'em work." If MDK also joins - something they are considering atm - it could be a really good thing (tm) in that all the major non-RH distros would unify. However, by adding RedHat compatiblity this accomplishes little over each seperate distro making RedHat apps work... My $0.02... -Tim - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler tbutler@uninetsolutions.com Universal Networks http://www.uninet.info Christian Portal and Search Tool: http://www.faithtree.com Open Source Migration Guide: http://www.ofb.biz ============= "Christian Web Services Since 1996" ============== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE89tBiK37Cns9gJ0gRAgorAJ4m5XgKX57jIE5iAfKrcuIVekznvwCgjeC2 OVdh64ZEuqNWz2mDQeIfxoU= =5Mai -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Anders Johansson [20020531 03:10]:

Of course, Philip said he'd comment on it. I could be wrong. Which is it, Philip? ^

Two p please ;-) I said I'd answer questions as far as I could ;-)

The press release said the end user versions of the various distributions wouldn't be affected.

Yes, we are not talking about replacing the normal distribution but rather our business product SuSE Linux Enterprise Server. UnitedLinux, at least in its first incarnation, will be based on the next version of SLES which will be enhanced and modified to suit all participating parties. Philipp

On Friday 31 May 2002 10:38, you wrote:

Anders Johansson [20020531 03:10]:

...

Of course, Philip said he'd comment on it. <snip>

...

The press release said the end user versions of the various distributions wouldn't be affected.

Yes, we are not talking about replacing the normal distribution but rather our business product SuSE Linux Enterprise Server. UnitedLinux, at least in its first incarnation, will be based on the next version of SLES which will be enhanced and modified to suit all participating parties.

Thanks Philipp, this is the kind of info I like to get. It'svery nice to get input on SuSE's plans like this on this list, where goodwill towards the company and the distro is always high. I think users of the list will understand that plans in the IT industry can't always be made available in advance, and that they have to be fluid for companies to survive. But input letting us know how things are developing is good policy for both company and users, I'm sure. Best Fergus

Keith Winston [31 May 2002 07:44:44 -0400]:

Does this mean that the SuSE Pro version will also stay pretty much the same?

The genealogy is something like this: SuSE Linux -> SuSE Linux Enterprise Server -> UnitedLinux. 1) SuSE Linux, the normal distribution is the basis of all. 2)SLES is based on this, enhanced to suit the needs of a business environment and combined with a guaranteed two years of maintenance. 3)UL will be based on SLES, incorporating changes and additions as necessary to make it suit all partners. This means that any basic changes for SLES are part of SL and many changes for UL will be part of SLES.

Will there be per seat licensing (like Caldera) for any SuSE versions, consumer or UnitedLinux?

The SuSE Linux Enterprise Server already is, AFAIK (I'm developer, not a sales/marketing person), licensed per seat. The normal distribution, i.e. SuSE Linux Personal/Pro, will stay where they are in terms of license.

Some view UnitedLinux as pure marketing hype, others as an alliance with too many partners and doomed to fail.

It's not pure marketing hype, at least it's not as its intended. And it's also IMO not too many partners.

It's still too early for me to have much of an opinion so I'll just wait and see.

And that's also my POV. Yes, we've known a bit longer about it, but only time and development will show. Philipp

Ben Rosenberg wrote:

* Philipp Thomas (pthomas@suse.de) [020531 09:10]: :: ::>Some view UnitedLinux as pure marketing hype, others as an alliance with ::>too many partners and doomed to fail. :: ::It's not pure marketing hype, at least it's not as its intended. And ::it's also IMO not too many partners.

It's gonna be pure marketing death of ya'll keep letting Ransom Love speak for the group here. I read a lot of comments on LinuxToday (which doesn't have as bad of a moron factor as /.) and a lot of people hate that guy to the point they don't want to touch the other partners distributions as well. It's like "guilt by association". That guy is bad news for the Linux community and linux in the business world. I haven't heard of ANY big business's adopting Caldera. I am very surprised anyone at SuSE agreed to let him or tolerate him speaking on any form of this agreement. I took the higher ups at SuSE as being more intelligent. This guy is a crackpot.

And? Why should we not let him use SuSE Linux (SuSE makes the UBL)? Should we test each customer/partner for "eligibility" somehow?

Ben Rosenberg wrote:

He's not going use SuSE Linux.

He is: "UBL". Guess who makes it, guess who pays to get it.

He's the CEO of Caldera. I was making a comment about his fitness to speak for the UnitedLinux group.

Well, there's not much anyone can do in this country to make somebody else stop talking, at least not legally...

Nevermind..this is just to funny.

Ok. As Chris and Mads want. We should move this silly discussion over to the lx-talk list. It's going off into really weird directions.

It's actually all covered in this one sentence: "The four partners will each bundle value added products and services with the UnitedLinux operating system and the resulting offering will be marketed and sold by each of the four partners under their own brands." So all it will mean is more efficient R&D, to everyones advantage. -- Steve ________________________________________________________ HTML in e-mail creates out-security, and more spam. By using it you teach others, less knowledgeable, that it's safe to use.

I don't know how you read that into my statement when I clearly said: "..the resulting offering will be marketed and sold by each of the four partners under their own brands." Do you see unitedlinux there? On Thursday 30 May 2002 22:40, you wrote:

begin steve's quote: | It's actually all covered in this one sentence: | | "The four partners will each bundle value added products and | services with the UnitedLinux operating system and the resulting | offering will be marketed and sold by each of the four partners | under their own brands." | | So all it will mean is more efficient R&D, to everyones advantage.

wrong. under the agreement, the four companies are *prohibited* from producing a unitedlinux desktop distribution. to quote gerhard burtscher, in response to a question from me, "There will be a separate version for consumers, as it is today, but this is not labeled 'UnitedLinux'. That's a separate story here. 'UnitedLinux' is enterprise only."

there will be no isos and no binaries, and the circumstances under which the source will be "made freely available" remain somewhat clouded.

-- Steve ________________________________________________________ HTML in e-mail creates out-security, and more spam. By using it you teach others, less knowledgeable, that it's safe to use.

"Fault of my quoting skills.." What kind of shitty attitude is that?? Maybe you have a valid reason to be unhappy with unitedlinux. I have no interest in a "desktop unitedlinux". But it does present a more united picture to corporations. Which they say they like, and if they are happy with it I'm happy for them. That will result in more involvement and development for Linux. The corporate world is not going to jump on a free environment because it's free. Only because of a perceived value. Like Windows had/has. Standards is what makes people feel safe to develop for it. So maybe unitedlinux will become a $200 O/S. Good for them! I can still build my own from source if need be. I can even pay for it. What a novel idea! Give an exchange for a valuable product. If distros must charge to stay in business that's better than loosing them. Don't you think? On Thursday 30 May 2002 23:07, you wrote:

begin steve's quote: | I don't know how you read that into my statement when I clearly | said: | | "..the resulting offering will be marketed and sold by each of the | four partners under their own brands." | | Do you see unitedlinux there?

no. which is the fault of your quoting skills. because the unitedlinux distros are all to carry the brand "powered by unitedlinux."

now. again. each and every ceo of the linux companies involved in this thing said to me, personally, today, in front of many witnesses, that there will be no desktop unitedlinux. indeed, the whole announcement was nearly identical to the announcement caldera made when it brought out caldera 3.0, only now three other distributors have signed their name in blood to it. to get a unitedlinux product, you will have to pay lots of money for it.

-- Steve ________________________________________________________ HTML in e-mail creates out-security, and more spam. By using it you teach others, less knowledgeable, that it's safe to use.

On Friday 31 May 2002 05.07, dep wrote:

begin steve's quote: | I don't know how you read that into my statement when I clearly | said: | | "..the resulting offering will be marketed and sold by each of the | four partners under their own brands." | | Do you see unitedlinux there?

no. which is the fault of your quoting skills. because the unitedlinux distros are all to carry the brand "powered by unitedlinux."

now. again. each and every ceo of the linux companies involved in this thing said to me, personally, today, in front of many witnesses, that there will be no desktop unitedlinux.

Quoting from your story on linuxandmain <quote> Each distribution will continue to market its own brand of Linux, with the "powered by UnitedLinux" seal affixed. They will share a core development group, however. The new distribution will be based on the latest stable Linux kernel, glibc-2.2.5, and include gcc-3.1. "We will include in 'UnitedLinux' desktops, both KDE and GNOME, but will not include something like OpenOffice or other tools," said SuSE's Burtscher. "Because this is something where we think the customers should have a choice and all the four partners should be able to differientiate and do dome value add-on, but the basic functionality like a desktop will be there." However, Love stessed that there will be no desktop "UnitedLinux." "Each of the parties has the ability to create derivative works that meet the workstation-client market more specifically," he said. "They will not be branded 'UnitedLinux,' because this initiative is to satisfy the ISV and OEM. We want to get applications to the platform and we believe that will start at the server level first. Each of us will continue to provide workstation products as well." "There will be a separate version for consumers, as it is today, but this is not labeled 'UnitedLinux'," said Burtscher. "That's a separate story here. 'UnitedLinux' is enterprise only." </quote> I *still* read this as saying that the UnitedLinux idea is a sort reference implementation of an expanded LSB. an "überLSB" if you will, being a superset of the actual LSB. The final quote, by Burtscher, is especially telling. He says there will be a version, just not called UnitedLinux. I read this as saying that SuSE, Caldera, TurboLinux and Conectiva won't be throwing away their trademarks, but will use them in conjunction with this standardization move. Of course, an official (or semi-official) clarification would be nice //Anders -- `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Whoever wrote the original message with all the attachments: NEVER attach anything to the list. NEVER! If I have unwittingly sent any of this further, I most humbly appologize. --doug At 09:55 05/31/2002 -0700, SteelHead wrote:

please don't bill

...

-----Original Message----- From: dep [mailto:dep@linuxandmain.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:07 PM To: SuSE Mailing List Subject: Re: [SLE] OT : Unified Linux

It was I, and I was having a "spammed on" day. Humble apologies. Bill ! -----Original Message----- ! From: Doug McGarrett [mailto:dougmack@i-2000.com] ! Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 5:57 PM ! To: SteelHead; dep; SuSE Mailing List ! Subject: Re: [SLE] must you Spam the list? ! ! ! Whoever wrote the original message with all the attachments: ! ! NEVER attach anything to the list. NEVER! ! If I have unwittingly sent any of this further, I ! most humbly appologize. --doug ! ! At 09:55 05/31/2002 -0700, SteelHead wrote: ! >please don't ! >bill ! > ! >> -----Original Message----- ! >> From: dep [mailto:dep@linuxandmain.com] ! >> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:07 PM ! >> To: SuSE Mailing List ! >> Subject: Re: [SLE] OT : Unified Linux ! >> ! ! !

* Forrest Halford (halfordf@colorado.edu) [020602 07:10]:

I agree

As far as I am concerned, this also includes HTML attachments.....

Guys, this is all in the FAQ. Plain text and pgp/gpg is allowed, pretty much everything else (including html) is removed before delivery. Messages containing just a mime attachment are bounced. -- -ckm