Where Rob Enderle loses me

Referencing: 2004 SCO Keynote speech by Rob Enderle

I absolutely agree with a lot of what Rob Enderle has to say. His comments on corporate power, Groklaw group-think and his general view of SCO's lawsuits are, I think, right on the money.

I do have a problem when he starts complaining about free software. First of all, he ignores the fact that free only refers to freedom to copy and modify. There's no requirement that there be no money involved for services or support or whatever else you can provide, but Rob keeps talking as though there is no money to be made. That's just not true.

Rob also worries about collaboration, citing GM giving away trade secrets to Ford by way of Linux software. What he misses is that there is no requirement for either GM or Ford to do so: either can take Linux software, make whatever modifications they want, and just use it. If they aren't passing out Ford Linux , they don't have to share anything with anyone. But the advantage of choosing collaboration is that they don't have to solve every problem themselves and that their own code can benefit from other people's contributions. But that's their choice, not a de facto requirement of open source software.

cartoon

But the rest of what he has to say is worth reading, and worth thinking about. Groklaw will tell you it is not, but they are wrong. Rob points out that there is nothing pure or noble about IBM's involvement with Linux, which is something Groklaw et al. seem to want to ignore. He also repeats the warning that SCO's case is just the tip of the iceberg.

I of course remain in favor of open source, and opposed to software patents, long copyright periods, and too much corporate power. I disagree with his economic view of Linux, but agree that SCO has a right to pursue its interests, while at the same time protesting that in a better world they would NOT have any possibility of copyrights or patents on this software. That protest is, of course, a political opinion, not a fact. There is room for argument here, room for openness. I think Linux and Open Source could improve the world, Rob apparently is suggesting that it could damage our economy. He could be right, but so could I. I get the impression that he at least has an open mind and is willing to discuss all sides of this. I certainly don't get that impression from Groklaw or its supporters, do you?

To some who may read this, that last sentence will be inflammatory. I hope that those people understand that, by and large, I'm well aligned with Groklaw's positions - we agree on the basics. What I do not like is the one sided approach that allows no dissension - the group-think. I think Rob is quite accurate in his assessment of that, and he may be right in seeing some Groklaw supporters as victims.

But he's still dead wrong about free software.


Got something to add? Send me email.





(OLDER) <- More Stuff -> (NEWER)    (NEWEST)   

Printer Friendly Version

-> -> Where Rob Enderle loses me


12 comments



Increase ad revenue 50-250% with Ezoic


More Articles by

Find me on Google+

© Tony Lawrence




Tigers don't change their stripes and Ron Enderle hasn't changed his agenda. He's a Microsoft mouthpiece through and through and, in my view, is the computer world's equivalent of a Hollywood hooker: always available at the right price.

--BigDumbDinosaur

---August 13, 2004

That's funny thing about IBM. Ron Enderle says that there is no money in Free Software, but then why would IBM care about it so much?

IBM is a poster child for Linux acceptance, not because it is entranced by the concept of free software, but by the profitability of it. That's what the OSS guess keep harping about, that Linux and friends is actually something commercially viable and extremely competative with the likes of MS in terms of money-making potential. After all, isn't that the idea behind "liberty" anyways?

Look at from the perspective of IBM's management when it comes to making money off of closed source software. IBM has more code in it's name them most countries have ever produced. They have OS/400, DOS-S/370, VM, ESA/VSE, OS/2 Warp, etc etc etc. Pretty much every computing system/platform they have they have a specific operating system designed to run it. That's millions of lines of code and untold billions(?) of dollars that they put into that software technology.

And what happens when the stop making or marketing that specifc platform? All that code goes down the crapper, there is not much they can do as each application and OS is so system-specific. Then on top of that they have all this legacy software they still have to support. Hell they have some platforms that they still deal with that the technicitions that they've trained for it are dying off from old age or are going into retirement, and there are no replacements.

Right now they have 4-5 different OSes that they use to market to different purposes on different systems. All of them can be replaced with Linux. Research and code put into Linux is likely to benifit everybody in IBM instead of a specific division.(or in the case of VM make a good compliment to other tasks while running in a partition) Even if Linux is more inefficient at specific tasks, it can still be made to work well enough. Places like Google proves that the sky is the limit when it comes to scalability.

So what is the point to sinking millions of man-hours into code that your just going to have to throw away in five-ten years when you can take free software and give code/research away and still be more profitable?

That and combined with the fact that Linux is running close to 30% of all computers being used as servers using in servers is why IBM likes linux. They don't give a rats tail what OS they are going to give you just as customers will pay for it thru support contracts.

That being said, I wouldn't trust IBM any farther then I can throw them.

It just irritates me how stupid people are sometimes. People threating Rob with violence because he is anti-linux? WTF is that?! doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like the liberal rallies and bullshit things people do in the name of the enviroment, their sexual preference, or anti-religion BS.

I am very conservitive. I am intensely pro-capitolism. Pro-freedom (real freedom), pro-linux, pro-(real)religion (as apposed to money making/power grabbing scammers), pro-gun. I love the enviroment, babies, and beef hotdogs. The US government is the best government in the world, even though it sucks and it's getting worse and I trust it less then I do IBM (at least IBM follows a predictable pattern of behavior: try to make lots of money). I don't beleive that it will remain the best forever, though. Microsoft has every right to be as a-hole as much as they want in regards to liscencing and distributing their own product. I just don't have to buy their crappy software if I don't want to. So does SCO, it's their problem if they want to grind their business into the dust.

It's just too bad many good people are going to loose their jobs and investments in the proccess.

All in all that is why I like Linux, and why I think it will work. It benifits the society in general, more so then givin MS money would be, and is profitable for businesses to use and develop it.

--Drag

---August 13, 2004

You make some very good points, Drag. I particularly like

"there is no money in Free Software, but then why would IBM care about it so much?"

:-) Very true.

I don't know if agree with your comments about religion. I'm strongly in favor of both freedom of and freedom FROM religion,and I think our present government is very unhelpful with the latter. I also strongly support the rights of gays and lesbians. But that doesn't have anything to do with open source.

And you are right that we don't have to buy Microsoft's crappy software - at least not now, though if everybody else dies off or is killed by patents and copyights, that could change.

--TonyLawrence


---August 14, 2004


I like Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Atheism, Christianity, Spirituality, faith in mathmatics and the Scientific method, or Linux fanatic. These can all be religions to different people. For people their religion, their faith, is their reality.

Trying to seperate a religion and government is a imposiblity if your adopt my defination of religion. It's a reality and if government is a government of the people, by the people you can not ever have a real seperation because that's like asking a person to seperate the left side of their body from the right side everytime they enter a courtroom. Everybody is trapped by their belief system, whatever it is.

What I want is a government to follow the rule of law. And I want the law to be non preferencial towards religion or against religion.

That being said, being pro-religion is not the same as pro-government control in aid towards a specific religion. Most religions suck, if not all of them.

That and I'd fight for the right for Gay and Lesbians to be what they are as much as I'd fight for my right to be what I am.

It all ties loosly into open source. It's all about freedom, liberty and all that stuff. A overall philosophy that Linux (well not so much linux as much the concepts of free software, linux can die or be replaced by something else and I'd be happy as long as it's Free) is just one small part of due to it's promise of freedom from unreasonable control.

If SCO is realy wronged by IBM, I hope that they win. (but I doubt it)

--Drag

---August 14, 2004


Well, wronged or not, I think this was a bad idea. It's like a pedestrian having the right of way, so you just march right on out into speeding traffic. If you don't get killed, someone trying to avoid you probably will.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with lumping science and religion as both being belief systems. If you have that, and don't think government should be supporting specific religions, then government can't support science.

That's a problem we have right now: crazy people who think schools should teach creationism alongside evolution because (according to them) both are just belief systems. They aren't: creationism is unchanging and unchallenged by its followers, while evolution is something we learn more about, refine, and might even abandon entirely if we learned that it's all really from some other cause. Science changes as we explore and learn, religion learns nothing and only changes as people make up new beliefs. Guessing what's behind the curtain or trying to go look - that's the difference.

But we drift way too far..

--TonyLawrence







Mon Feb 14 20:50:56 2005: 20   anonymous




If Rob Enderle has had his life threatened, I'd sure like to see the email including full headers in which he was threatened because if I've learned anything about Rob Enderle, he's pretty much full of crap.




Mon Feb 14 22:00:02 2005: 21   TonyLawrence

gravatar


He's not entirely full of crap. As I explained above, he's way off base on some stuff, but I think he's right on the money on others. I don't like the Groklaw attitude that there's no value in his opinions just because he points out some things they don't like, such as the fact that IBM is no white knight to Linux.






Sat Jul 16 20:57:48 2005: 22   anonymous




Have you read Rob Enderle's speach he delivered at SCO Forum?






He's full of crap.






He's incompetent or is at least very good at seeming incompetent. He thought, for example, that Apple was going to abandon the PowerPC architecture and move to x86 - this at a time when Microsoft move from the x86 architecture on the XBox for the PowerPC on the XBox II. The only reason x86 is used at all is because so much software already runs on it, there is no advantage from Apple's point of view to switch, and in fact, there is a serious disadvantage since no x86 can emulate a PPC at even molasses like speed yet.






He wrote a lengthy article saying that if he was on the SCO/IBM jury, he would find IBM guilty of stealing Unix code and placing it in Linux. Have you been watching the trial for the last 2 years?






You're naive if you believe that "Linux advocates" think that IBM is a white knight. Bruce Perens for example has openly said that IBM is quite dangerous to Linux. Groklaw contributors are not cheering on IBM because they mistakenly think that IBM is a white night. They are cheering on IBM because Darl McBride and his cohorts are the purest form of scum I've ever seen in business, and I've been around the block.






I don't believe Rob Enderle is naive to talk about white knights either he's just filled with crap.






If you think he's not filled with crap, list 10 predictions he's gotten right. From my point of view, he's dumbfoundingly ignorant.






If he's a professional marketing man, I can at least respect that and understand why he gets paid, but if he's indeed a bonafide analyst it's a mystery why anybody would listen to him. All you have to do is look at his track record to see how worthless he has been. Honestly, I prefer to think he must be a professional PR shill, because if he isn't, the ramifications are that this industry is controlled by complete idiots and it's just something I'd rather not accept being within the industry. I fear my head would simply explode.






Mon Feb 14 22:55:17 2005: 23   TonyLawrence

gravatar


Have I read the speech?


Well, yes, I have: that's exactly what this article was about. Did you read the article or did you just see his name and start getting angry?


I agree: he's in left field on certain things. He doesn't understand what Linux is. But a lot Linux people don't understand what IBM is, and Rob DOES understand that.


Prognosticators usually have pretty poor track records anyway, so I don't care about predictions. I also don't care when part of what someone has to say is nonsense: I take what is valuable and discard the rest. Plenty of Linux-favoring folk are full of nonsense too. Several big names in the Linux community are, in my opinion, nut jobs of the first water.


For that matter, none of us have a lock on any of this stuff. Plenty of people think I'm more than passingly strange, and I bet if you looked real hard you could find someone who'd be hesitant to endorse you for public office too. We're all a bit off, and if we weren't, life would be pretty boring.






Mon Feb 14 23:41:51 2005: 24   anonymous




> Have I read the speech?
>
> Well, yes, I have: that's exactly what this article was about. Did you
> read the article or did you just see his name and start getting angry?




Actually, many months ago I read all of his speech, it's your article I mostly skipped through. My conclusion was that Enderle was either drunk or high on cocaine when he gave that speech. If I had written that mess, I would have certainly later found embarassment in being tied to it. And no, I'm not being flippant or sarcastic. What was he thinking anyhow? Everybody uses free software, the freaking internet runs on top of it and was created with it. All I saw was a megolmaniac proving his stupidity.




Incidentally, I don't get emotional with regard to anything Enderle does believe it or not. I hardly care about who "wins" either. I'm more curious about the mechanisms of the industry having read about Edward Bernays and how people like him relate to present day.


> I agree: he's in left field on certain things. He doesn't understand what
> Linux is. But a lot Linux people don't understand what IBM is, and Rob
> DOES understand that.



No, I don't think he does.




Let me tell you what I think IBM is. IBM is a ruthless company that will sell you anything, including their competitor's products, as long as they make money doing it. They have no religious senses or not-invented-here mentalities because Lou fired all those useless idiots in the early 1990's and turned the company into the mean corporation you see today. IBM takes special care not to alienate their customers having learned the hard way that if they alienate their customers, their customers will leave them.




IBM isn't the company that Enderle left or was fired from or was forced to resign from or whatever the stupid story is. He doesn't understand the corporation at all. He thinks it's some dinosaur or relic. He's completely wrong, it's the strongest corporation today in technology bar none because they do this bizarre thing: they give customers whatever they want, for a price. IBM would sell Macintoshes, Solaris, Linux, Windows, Dells, Gateways, Intel x86's
anything as long as they made money. IBM doesn't care, as long as they make money.




> Prognosticators usually have pretty poor track records anyway, so I don't
> care about predictions. I also don't care when part of what someone has to
> say is nonsense: I take what is valuable and discard the rest. Plenty of
> Linux-favoring folk are full of nonsense too. Several big names in the
> Linux community are, in my opinion, nut jobs of the first water.




Probably, but who pays them for their opinions? What particular people do you have in mind anyhow? Stallman who is a certified nutjob, or Eblen Moglen perhaps? Try Linus Torvalds - think he's a nutjob? I don't really care about the "movement", the technology is all that matters.




Anyhow, Rob Enderle is supposedly an analyst, if his predictions aren't correct, what exactly is he getting paid for? His pleasant personality? His job is to predict and to explain market trends. Rob isn't bad at doing this, he's utterly incompetent at it. If he can't do his job, yet he's still paid to do this job, it either means he's a marketing shill, or the Peter Principle isn't a principle but a law that has more serious consequences than screwing over the IRS.




I see Rob Enderle quoted a lot, which is rather bizarre since he's got such a terrible track record. When I say he's full of crap, I'm being fairly polite in my estimation. Enderle doesn't seem to have any comprehension of the industry much less the particulars within the industry. Ever met a real analyst? Compare and contrast.




> For that matter, none of us have a lock on any of this stuff. Plenty of
> people think I'm more than passingly strange, and I bet if you looked real
> hard you could find someone who'd be hesitant to endorse you for public
> office too. We're all a bit off, and if we weren't, life would be pretty
> boring.




PowerPC is the next chip within 10 years. I do not work for IBM, but it's pretty obvious they are positioning themselves for this. I believe IBM is planning on using Linux to take over the desktop since it runs on any hardware you can think of.




Let's see how good I am at prediction.




Tue Feb 15 09:16:38 2005: 27   TonyLawrence

gravatar


Let us hope that IBM does take over the desktop. I'd be happy enough if we kicked Microsoft out of the server market, but pushing them off the desktop would be ecstasy








Thu Feb 17 19:53:27 2005: 36   anonymous


If IBM takes over the desktop it will slowly but inevitably lead to the same dissatisfaction that many people currenly have with Microsoft.



Thu Feb 17 22:15:04 2005: 38   anonymous


Having hit coder's block, I started to surf the web to shake my mind back into gear and ran across this link
(link) where Rob Enderle made the following claim:



"I'm currently reading a science fiction book that refers to Bill Gates, and I was watching a movie recently in which one of the streets is named Microsoft Way, which happened to be on the moon."



I have a simple question: is it true, and if it is, what film?



I'm not much of a movie buff (at least of recent films) but somehow, I would think I've heard of this since science fiction films that deal with our solar system are rare indeed.



If it's not true, it's it somewhat surprising how casually and needlessly Enderle lies?



Sat Feb 19 16:05:01 2005: 43   BigDumbDinosaur


First of all, he ignores the fact that free only refers to freedom to copy and modify.

I've always felt that the use of the word "free" in this context is an unfortunate choice. Perhaps "copyfree" would have been better. There are far too many people who to misunderstand the GPL and exactly what it is that is "free." In modern English, when something is referred to as "free" it is usually assumed that what is meant is "free of charge." However, we all know -- or should know -- that there is no free lunch, especially when it comes to computers.



Sun Apr 10 17:48:58 2005: 322   anonymous


You are all mouthpieces for religion and must consider that your religion is based on false promises in our world as well as a great many hypocrisies. Essentially however, I do not contend your views because I believe in an equalty of people as well as the right to the freedom of expression. However, I would ask that you consider your spelling, grammar and syntax before posting your views becasue it is quite accosting to have to deal with. If you are to say something, say it properly or do the world a favour and save yourself some trouble by staying out of expression. One or two occaisional erros is acceptable, but it is an insult to your readers, if a foolhardy page such as this even has reader as I am sure that most, like I, happened upon it by accident, to not revise your work and guarantee quality, for it is with quality that you gain credibility,



Sun Apr 10 19:10:21 2005: 324   TonyLawrence

gravatar
Huh?

First of all, there are multiple opinions expressed here, by multiple people, so I have no idea what you are complaining about. If you have a different opinion from what X said, just say so, but saying all these opinions are "religious" is asinine.

Spelling? I don't correct spelling errors in people's comments unless they are so egregious as to be confusing. I'm not going to correct yours, for example.

As to your comments on "quality", this is an opinion page. 'Nuff said..






Fri Jun 15 09:13:32 2012: 11102   TonyLawrence

gravatar


Eight years later.. well, something did a number on our economy, but it wasn't free software. Quite the opposite, actually!

------------------------
Kerio Samepage


Have you tried Searching this site?

Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates

This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more.

Contact us





There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation and naming things. (Phil Karlton)

All this modern technology just makes people try to do everything at once. (Bill Watterson)







This post tagged: