Martin Marques wrote:
Ric Moore escribió:
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:53 -0500, taharka wrote:
OK, that's not really true. Mark is a sharp guy, and gets open
source as
well, indeed, better, than most. But he's completely wrong on his
criticism of Red Hat (which Greg of the Fedora Project shoots down).
His
basic point? Because RHEL is a closed binary, it's proprietary.
Full article at,
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/ubuntu_founder.html
taharka
Going through my Fedora folder, I came back across this one. I have
never understood the comment. How is RHEL a "closed binary"? I'm having
a time making sense of that statement. No biggie, just curious as heck.
If RHEL was closed, CentOS wouldn't exist. :-D
So I would say that Mark really doesn't know what he's talking about.
As has been mentioned, this is not Business 101, but mud slinging 101
which clearly proscribes this tactic:
Define a term (any buzzword will do) with a negative connotation and
apply it to your opponent.
In this case, define 'closed binary' to mean that the CDs that are
'purchased' contain only binaries. Yes this ignores the facts, but is
simply a definition (SUN Marketing did this first). It is true that if
you walk into a store that offers a Red Hat box for sale, the definition
of 'purchase' means you walk up to the counter and pay for the box. It
does not need to mean anything else to be true. It does not need to
distinguish between the service agreement that you actually purchased,
and the box that it came in or the CDs that are also in the box.
Now imply that your definition (closed binaries) is a bad thing, and
your competitor does it.
It does not matter in the least that if you were to pay $0.50 shipping
for a UBUNTU CD you have met the requirements of the definition.
It is simply a tactic used often to sling mud on your competitor. It
only needs to be true within the limited definition of the statement in
which the accusation is made.
