Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Profits considered immoral by open source community?

Filed under
OSS

The comment was made by Eucalyptus CEO Mårten Mickos to New York Times blogger Quentin Hardy, in a Bits article on the open source ecosystem that has grown up around Amazon Web Services (AWS) that was posted last Friday.

Hardy did a good job summarizing the various players in the sector: Open Nebular; OpenStack, Cloud.com, and the aforementioned Eucalyptus, and their overall role with respect to AWS. He zeroed in on Eucalyptus, which was a good choice, too--even though OpenStack and Cloud.com have a lot of PR mojo going right now, there's no getting around the fact Eucalyptus has garnered a lot of commercial success for itself. Eucalyptus, as Hardy pointed out, is also more integrated with AWS infrastructure.

And that close integration is the context for the comment Mickos made that I want to review.

"'Like Amazon or not, they are the de facto standard for cloud,' says [Mickos]. 'It's just that not everyone wants it. Some people in open source think it is immoral to make a profit. I don't.'"

rest here




More in Tux Machines

Leftovers: Gaming

Leftovers: Software

today's howtos

ACPI, kernels and contracts with firmware

This ends up being a pain in the neck in the x86 world, but it could be much worse. Way back in 2008 I wrote something about why the Linux kernel reports itself to firmware as "Windows" but refuses to identify itself as Linux. The short version is that "Linux" doesn't actually identify the behaviour of the kernel in a meaningful way. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the kernel can deal with buffers being passed when the spec says it should be a package. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the OS knows how to deal with an HPET. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the OS can reinitialise graphics hardware. Read more