Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1993 13:07:23 CET From: <K11111I@ALIJKU11.BITNET> Subject: Re: A New Linux Foundation
>From: papresco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
>Sender: news@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu
>Organization: University of Waterloo
writes:
>Fact 1:Many people want to support Linux, but dont know how.
Absolutely *NO*. There are three ways of supporting Linux.
1) to give money
2) to contribute something (not just programming, also delivering technical
desctiptions and standartisation papers, testing, distributing, supporting other
Linuxers/users with professional hints, organizing,...)
3) promoting Linux to other potential users/programmers/testers
It seems to me like 2) and 3) works fine (with some exeptions). I think the
problem is that there are people out there programming 40 hours a week for
MS/Windows in a company under a bad-boss, with little joy and a lot of anger
(support, bugs, hurry, .....
..) just to earn money to live of. And you want to support them with money to
quit jop and program full time for Linux (also part time working students). But
how should these be organized?
>Fact 2:Other people are frustrated with a lack of organization in the Linux
> community.
>
>Earlier, I said we should set up a "Linux Foundation" and I outlined a
>specific vision of a charitable organization geared towards paying talented
>Linux developers for their work. Some agreed with me, and some >disagreed. I
>don't feel comfortable going ahead with something without the support of
>the organization.
>
>Therefore, I'd like to try again. I propose a new Linux Foundation, >unrelated
to the old. It will have a much broader mandate.
>
>1.What would the Linux Foundation be?
>
>An organization of users and developers dedicated to promoting Linux
>and increasing and supporting the Linux user base.
Sorry, but what do you mean with *What would L.F. be*?
Linux *is* allready an organisation.
Definition of an organisation by Kieser/Kubicek:
An organisation is, where
1) persons interact in a group
2) run for a goal shared by every member
3) use a formal structure
There is no doubt about 1. (Thanks to Internet)
2 is a little bit difficult: Linus told he want to learn abour the 386
(I dont believe), others want to use a cheap Unix because they use it in their
job and they miss something, so they write it, others want to learn programming
a OS, others want to throw MS out of business,.....
My goal is to get a new style of software-production-organisation
(with better software, no monopols, better working conditions for programmers,no
hyper-rich persons, no regulations (=laws) that support just the already rich
companies)
where people can work together self in a selfrelaiable and self-determinated
way.
In short, a new efficient fair style of working-togeter to produce use out of
computers for the society.
...so there are many reasons to join Linux, but there is a over-all-goal,
developing a UN*X.
3 points out the big lack of Linux. Linux allready has a structure, it is
selforganized (see Morgan, The Images of Organisations), and this structure fits
perfect for developing software, but it doesnt fit to deliver software to users.
There should be esta
blished an organisational Interface for users to get Linux and Support in an
satisfactory way.
As I am a little bit envolved in organisational-theory, my suggestions how to
organize Linux will be *my* contributions to the project. Thats the same as
Boston Consulting Group does (but not that cheap). (read: OS is not a real
OS/Linux Foundation)
Top to bottom organisational structuring (as in traditional org. the chief does)
does work by command, and thats very ineffizient (in teh software industry). To
influence the way people interact (=organize) by showing them a different point
of view and ma
›king suggestions is the only real way of organizing. And as a fact, there is
no chief at Linux.
And I also expect you to show me your point of view.
>2.What would the Linux Foundation do?
>
>Let me start by saying what it would not do:
>
>Restrict Linux development in any way.
>Make a profit for the members.
>Restrict Linux distribution.
>Decide who can and cannot use or sell Linux.
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes
>What it WOULD do:
>
>Anything else that would promote Linux.
>
>Some *POSSIBLE* ideas: organize databases of Linux developers, fund >raise,
develop pamphlets and marketing ideas, keep a
>database of current projects, promote corporate use of Linux etc. etc.
>
>3.How would it be run?
>
>Who knows! That's the exciting part about it. Everything about the Linux
>Foundation is up in the air. These issues have to be worked out in the
>first few months of it's establishment. I think the first thing we would
>do is set up a Linux Foundation mailing list. From there we would go on
>to a mandate and goals. After that we would start on specific goals.
>
>Opinions?
*****No Foundation needed*******
Imagine Paul is a Linuxer and I am an *user*.
Paul collects all the files necessary for a stable Linux, names it
L.F.C. 14/1.3 (L.F.C= Linux Foundation Collection) and puts it on a read only
well organized directory on a FTP server.
This collection of files is assembled by Paul in the Version 1.3 .
Thats the only version Paul supports.
It is the collection nr. 14.
Paul supports more collections for different purposes.
Paul runs a hardware and software compatibility list and he can tell me how
stable the version is (known bugs), for what purpose he assembled the version,
what files are included in which version (kernel 0.99pl4, printer driver
0.42,....) and what is exclu
›ded.
If I have problems by installing the collection, Paul will support me (He is the
experienced man, I dont have to ask c.o.l.).
If I find a bug, I report it to Paul. He will check the problem. Maybe it was
me. Maybe he can find the bug and report it to the author, or Paul gets a help
from c.o.l or the author of a Linux part.
So if I use collection 14, Paul is responsible for the thing, if something
does|nt work. Paul delivers full service for my Linux, and I pay him for that on
a voluntary base. If I pay him well, he will support me also in the future. If
he did bad work, I dont have to pay him anything.
We need no contract. Our relationship is a question of trust, which grows over
the time (like every relationship in business). We know that every contract
could be broken, and it is very expensive and cost-intensive to get justice (see
Intel vrs. AMD, Appl
›e vrs. Microsoft, IBM vrs. NEC). Why not avoid contracts?
Paul does nt know the whole OS, so he relys on the guys
which wrote all the parts he uses in his collection. So Paul pays them on a
voluntary base to get support from them if something goes wrong|and they can
continue their work.
There could be hundreds of different collections of Linux supported from
different persons. Somebody can assemble and be responsible for a
more stable collection (e.g. for commercial use), anotherone can deliver an
up to date collection (for developing, with in mind that there are a lot of
bugs).
It is up to everybody to assemble a Collection to meet the needs of a group of
users and to get money for that. If that happens, these people can pay also the
guys working on the kernel, the printer-driver, the TCP/IP, SLIP,..
The most important is to *deliver a useable product to users* to get money into
the cashbox.
I want
No central cash box (=lots of problems)
No central administration (lots of costs)
I think nobody will pay money to a annonymous Foundation.
What are your opinions?
ED