GNU-Friends.org: “Miles Nordin claimed that microkernels are dead already. But this is not completely true. The first generation of microkernels, which were in fact no real microkernels, are dead. But there is a new generation, which uses a radically different strategy than the original (so-called) microkernels. Thus, microkernels are still a research topic, and today they look more promising than ever before. By now, this is just something we claim, but read on, and you’ll find out why we do so.”

LinuxToday is reporting that “Representatives from SuSE Linux are anxious to help clear the air about some misunderstandings they feel have arisen around recent news regarding UnitedLinux. And to accomplish this, they have revealed plans for a developer’s release of the new distribution.”

LinuxWorld: “When Gobe Software announced it was adding Linux to its stable of supported platforms, I immediately requested a review copy. There wasn’t one at the time, but I was recently informed there was an alpha version I could look at if I wished.” Read more of this review here.

Andy Tai writes ” Taiwan will start a national plan to jump-start the development and use of Free Software, according to an report by the Central News Agency, the government news agency of Taiwan, Rep. of China. Due to high Microsoft license fees and also to improve the levels of software technology in Taiwan, this plan includes the creation of a totally Chinese free software environment for Taiwan users, free software application development, and training of 120,000 people for free software skills, as well as efforts at schools to provide diverse information technology environments to ensure the freedom of information. The source article is in Chinese so an English summary is available here.”

bryam writes: Openwave Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: OPWV), the worldwide leader of open IP-based communication infrastructure software and applications, today announced that it has contributed its Open Usability Interface server-side programming library and source code to the open source developer community through SourceForge.net (www.sourceforge.net) under a Mozilla Public License (MPL 1.1). Recognizing the power of the open source community, Openwave is contributing Open Usability Interface as a code base for developers for developing mobile applications that can be accessed through multiple networks and mobile devices.

official announcement at Openwave.com.

CNet offers its own take on a German government contract with IBM using Linux. ” The government isn’t mandating the use of Linux, but the deal makes it possible for hundreds of federal, regional and local governments to purchase IBM computers running SuSE’s version of Linux at a discount price.”

ZDNet Australia’s Technology & Business calls into question a total cost of ownership study pitting Linux vs. Windows done by a company called Cybersource. “Before you Linuxheads out there start bombarding me with hate mail, I’m not saying Linux has no place in the enterprise, just that there’s a tradeoff–the software is free, time isn’t. I’m also well aware that Linux is fighting a propaganda war against an enemy with vast marketing resources and the social conscience of a uranium mining company executive on a dirty weekend. But fighting FUD with FUD leaves you with as much credibility as The Enemy.”

– By Barry Fitzgerald –

I would like to say that I was ecstatic when I first read the speculation about UnitedLinux when the news was first leaked. I completely support any initiative that companies use to work together and collaborate on the creation of their products.
Also, I’d like to take this moment to applaud Caldera, SuSE, Conectiva, and Turbolinux for creating UnitedLinux with the LSB, FHS, and many other standards in mind. This is certainly a wise choice and one that will help the community a great deal as the GNU/Linux landscape becomes more diverse and Free Software itself becomes more important.

One thing continues to bother me about UnitedLinux: Why?

Why are they doing this? The obvious answer is “Well, duh. They want to cut down on their individual costs and distribute their labor.” But that’s already what they do. When you contribute to any given Free Software project, this is precisely what you’re doing. You’re cutting down on your own initial labor to get a product that you need by sharing the work of creating it. Every single component of UnitedLinux comes from a project of this type. The infrastructure for collaboration already exists and has been functioning quite well for a long time.

So, the stock argument doesn’t quite make sense. This has been knocking at the back of my mind ever since this announcement came out. UnitedLinux doesn’t actually solve the problem.

First, we must define the problem. The problem is that many GNU/Linux distributions download Free Software and, pursuant to the rights given to them in Free Software licenses, modify the code and distribute their “enhanced” products. Because the GNU GPL protects the community by requiring these providers to also distribute the source code, these Free Software projects have been able to take from the enhanced work, and many providers have had the ethical decency to submit their changes to the Free Software projects that they are modifying.

Again, this is all provided for and is an inherent right given by Free Software licenses. The same concept that allows this problem to occur also allows UnitedLinux to exist. UnitedLinux doesn’t solve the supposed “GNU/Linux fragmentation problem.” What it does is make sure that a group of member distributions can maintain compatibility with one another.

If they wanted to solve the problem, the best way to do it would be to feed their changes back into the projects directly. If they all agreed to use the projects as they were distributed by their official maintainer, then the entire reason for UnitedLinux ceases to exist.

In thinking about this, I may have stumbled upon the real reason that UnitedLinux exists. Each one of these companies feels that its products must differentiate from the competition on key levels in order to succeed. This is true to some degree, but in a Free Software world, this is dubious when you’re discussing core components. Fragmentation in the core components could cause various problems and has done so in the past. We’ve seen this in changes to GCC and the GLIBC that deviated from the form of the official projects.

The real differentiation must occur in the applications and services that each company provides to their customer. UnitedLinux’s existence is a nod to this fact. Interoperability is really important for everyone involved in this community. However, UnitedLinux is not quite ready for complete interoperability. Its companies want to provide interoperable differentiation of the core components solely to those willing to become a member of UnitedLinux.

This leads me to a very problematic conclusion. If UnitedLinux functions by taking Free Software code produced by Free Software projects, modifies that code and then calls that code standard, is that an attempt to circumvent the original project? Again, this is within UnitedLinux’s rights; however, are we being fed a diet of “interoperability for all” when the real intent is to replace the projects that are the sole source of production for these distribution vendors?

Surely, the Free Software project members can take from the UnitedLinux code base and add the changes to their projects, right? Yes, but that changes the social relationship. And further, if the two groups don’t agree on the changes that were made, we’re back to square one. In this scenario, interoperability is not served because the original project and its UnitedLinux fork are themselves incompatible. Therefore, anyone seeking compatibility with UnitedLinux must use UnitedLinux’s code base and thus contribute to UnitedLinux’s fork. Assuming that many people will not do this, but rather continue to use the original project’s source and binaries, it may even compound the problem.

In the above scenario, both code bases will achieve significant marketshare, and we’ll essentially split down the middle on our core components. This would be devastating. The only way to avoid this is if UnitedLinux seeks to provide its changes back to the projects on a timely basis. Is UnitedLinux willing to do this? I’ve scoured the site looking for the answer and have not found anything except for a statement in a UnitedLinux white paper indicating that code will be available in the fourth quarter of this year. This does not qualify as “timely.” Therefore, this question must be addressed factually by somebody from UnitedLinux.

Are these distribution providers trying to take control of the Free Software projects that they use? Only time and the actions of UnitedLinux will tell. However, if the above question is not answered satisfactorily, meaning that UnitedLinux will feed its changes back to the original projects with those projects in mind, then we should be suspect of their motives. I applaud collaboration; but if it comes at the expense of the community, then we all lose.

About the author: Barry Fitzgerald is a member of the Free Software community from somewhere in New England. In his spare time he is a member of the DotGNU Steering Committee and works with Free Software in general. The content of this commentary is of a personal nature and does not in any way reflect the position of the DotGNU Steering Committee, nor anyone that the author knows unless they happen to agree and he doesn’t yet know about it. He has previously been a member of the LinuxFromScratch community and has built GNU/Linux systems from source code using almost all of the components UnitedLinux seeks to use.

“Commentary” articles, which usually run on weekends, are contributed by Linux.com and NewsForge.com readers. The opinions they contain are strictly those held by their authors, and may not be the same as those held by OSDN management. We welcome “Commentary” contributions from anyone who deals with Linux and Open Source at any level, whether as a corporate officer; as a programmer or sysadmin; or as a home/office desktop user. If you would like to write one, please email editors@newsforge.com with “Commentary” in the subject line.

Oreillynet.com has the story about ADEOS (Adaptive Domain Environment for Operating Systems). “Purely in the abstract, ADEOS is an interesting addition to the tradition of abstraction layers like VMWare, and even the chips built by Amdahl Corporation many decades ago to let its emulated 360 mainframes keep up with IBM’s changes.”

Anonymous Reader tells us about this story: http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0603.g obe.html. “If you’ve been watching Linux struggle to gain a bigger footprint on the desktop, you’re aware that the other half of the malignant monopoly — Microsoft Office — poses a major barrier to migration away from the Windows platform. Recently that particular barrier has come under serious assault. Sun’s StarOffice 6.0 is hot, gaining respect and positive reviews in both the mainstream and the Linux press. Moreover, it’s not the only game in town.”