From: pdcruze@ee.uwa.edu.au (Patrick D'Cruze)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.announce
Subject: Results of Voting on the Linux International proposal (LONG)
Date: 12 Feb 1994 09:55:29 +0200
Approved: linux-announce@tc.cornell.edu (Lars Wirzenius)
Message-ID: <2ji21h$qm4@klaava.Helsinki.FI>

Announcing the results of voting on the Linux International proposal.
Voting closed on the 5th February.

Votes received on the close of voting are as follows:

Yes votes	-	186
No votes	-	21

Total votes	-	207


Therefore it can be concluded that the general net community is in favour
of the Linux International proposal and that we will be proceeding in plans
to form the proposed not-for-profit organization and carry out its aims
and objectives (as was stated in the proposal document).

Listed below are some of the comments that were included within the votes:


COMMENTS INCLUDED WITH THE YES VOTES:

Having a definitive Linux product, with a good support mechanism, can
only be a good thing for the community at large.

Reason I support this:  a mainly Usenet-supported Linux (as it
presently stands), is fine for someone such as myself, but this is
obviously not the best long-term solution.  As far as I can see, your
proposal for Linux International follows the basic philosophy outlined
in the GNU manifesto:  create an operating system that charges nothing
for source, provides/makes available all source upon request, and
charges only for service.

I do vote for forming the proposed non-profit organization "Linux
International" as this is the only way to distribute Linux outside the
net while keeping the original intention of a freely distributable and
broadly developed unix.

I think Linux has to go and take commercial operating systems by the
throat and this is one way to do it.

I agree with your analysis of the situation, and I agree that it would
be bad for the world if UNIX did not win out as the operating system of
choice.

I believe that Linux International would help to further the Linux
movement. The thing that bothered me about getting Linux was that their
was no-one that I could go to for help, complaints etc. That's why I
bought it from Linux System Labs for $60.00. I didn't have internet
access at the time. I think that Linux International would show a
professional interest and sponsorship of Linux.

I believe that Linux is now the only lever we have left to stop Windows
NT becoming the ubiquitious, uniform operating system of the next 25
years.  It could be a boon to companies that sell solutions who at the
moment have to persuade their customers to spend hundreds of pounds on
flakey systems like Interactive Unix.  An organisation like Linux
International could raise the funds to support the WINE project whose
success is urgently needed for Linux to act as a contender against
WNT.

I believe that this is an excellent approach to spreading the word
about Linux.  I think that there definitely should be a "reference" or
base system that developers can count on being there (ie: the core of
most commercial Unix systems today is AT&T's SVR4).  This base system
should be defined by Linux International and should become Linux
Version 1.0.

It can only help get Linux spread and thrive.

The reason that I vote yes is that I feel that the more people that are
using Linux (and unix in general), the more I will benefit as a Linux
user/hobbyist.

We have an example of similar arrangement between the GNU and CYGNUS,
that works successfully.

We need to do it as professional as possible to make the appeal of a
hacker's os vanish. The broad audience (i.e. the windows & os/2 users)
wants to believe to be in business with professionals.

The formation of such an authority will represent a force to be
reckoned with, and which can easily challenge Microsoft and IBM.

I support this proposal because it will standardize the released
versions of Linux and promote it to a wider audience.

Promoting the use of Linux has to be a good thing. A lot of people have
put a lot of work into it and it would be a shame to see it go to
waste.



COMMENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED WITH THE NO VOTES:

I believe the Linux Review Group fills the most important function for
your LI - letting people know that there is such a thing as Linux and
where they can get it. If you want to do more, set up something similar
to Cygnus, but for Linux only. Just don't try to represent the entire
Linux Community.

My reasons are:
	More stability is needed in the TCP/IP parts of Linux.  More
	complete documentation is needed.  But most of all, a
	'Standard' set of Linux Installation Disks needs to be made.  I
think first a Consortium needs to be formed to agree on the 'Standard'
then the 'Documentation' needs to be done.

I'd rather see Linux kept free but marketed and supported by third
parties.  They'd compete and offer the same (free) software, so it
wouldn't be commercialized; but the packaging and support would be the
subject of free-market competition.  I worry that Linux International,
as a non-profit group, wouldn't have the motivation to keep improving
Linux's marketability over the long term.

I am oppose to the Linux International Prorosal; there are enough
"non-profit" organizations around, and it turns out that none of them
has done anything good to promote their products.  Among them, OSF is a
very good example.  If there is no OSF, Mach might has been taking over
the world already.  "Non-profit" organizations are either taking the
label for personal good, or for game playing for companies (OSF is
one).

Linux has flourished in the climate in which it has grown.  I think
that stealth may be one of Linux's greatest assets right now -- stealth
in certain quarters.

I think that Linux will grow if there is a need for it, and die if
there isn't.  I don't expect it to die, but I intend to contribute to
its usefulness directly, and I think that Linux International would be
mostly a boondoggle, and might possibly waste contributor time.

If people are to get into Unix, they will also, with very little
doubts, enter internet in one way or the other, adhere "grabing"
culture, program POSIX and support Open Systems engineering. With GNU
public licensing mentality spreading fast they will also become
computing and programming litterates and make use of availble source
code and documentation.  None of this should require expensive
advertisement and administrative costs. This is an educational process
(and NOT a commercial one). Stop believing blindly in the merits of
free enterprise. Learning and getting into a culture is a matter of
personal efforts.

Unix or any of its many variations is not targeted for layman use (no
matter how good the documentation). As a development tool, of couse, it
(unix) is indispensible. What you failed to mention is that Unix/Linux
is not cost effective when a XXXXXXX$ person tries to figure out how to
setup a package as compared to to a more expensive ready to plug in for
PC386-486-pentium-$$$### model with optional &&&& attachment.

I don't see any reason why Linux should be marketed in the sense of
convincing lots of people to use it. I think this will just result in
needless problems. Unix is still harder to use than the mass market
operating system, unless you have a user interface like the NeXT, which
Linux doesn't. I don't see any need for the committee you propose.
People who like Linux/Unix will use it, others won't. Why try to
convert them?

I don't believe it's either needed nor viable as an alternative to the
various for-pay companies.  I also do not believe that any commercial
customer will accept a 'free-OS' due to culture and paranoia,
regardless of how good it is.


OTHER VARIOUS COMMENTS:

The FSF will not be too happy with this proposal unless it is made
clear that what is being sold is the support contract, not the software
itself. By this token, support contracts could be offered independently
of the software, so that the software would be sold at a certain price,
and the support would be an add-on. The possibility of selling Linux
copies without support, comes to mind and could be debated.

The name of the game is support, support, support. LINUX will only take
off in the business world if there is a number a suit can call to
request help; it would be nice if this support were not limited
(timewise) but not necesary;

A copy of the release of Linux from Linux International must be
available free to anybody who is willing to go with their own media (or
via Internet) to the server and make a copy.  This does not mean that
they automatically get support/easy to use installation format etc, but
that they can get the software free if they invest their own time.
Irrelevant of the costs involved by Linux International.

Not-for-profit?  I do not see why the organization has to be
not-for-profit.  I would personally be willing to invest money into a
concern such as this, especially if I had some way of having an effect
on the organization.

We've got the best designed OS in existence, the best Window
"subsystem", great widget sets, the best development  environment, and
a world just dying for "the right solution". All that's left for Unix
to win is to 1) make it cheap, 2) get applications ported to it, and 3)
bundle it all up and put a warm, friendly front end on it.

Since there are already people working on a Linux Journal, it may help
the promotion of Linux if Linux International were to distribute or to
involve in the development of LJ.



Below are the names of all who voted FOR the Linux International
proposal:

			lam836@cs.cuhk.hk
Jonathan 		jonathan@netsys.com
Ronald Holt 		rholt@netcom.com
neil miles 		etlnlms@etlxd20.ericsson.se 
John Brady 		johnb@aisb.edinburgh.ac.uk
Dave Edick 		dosadi@mills.edu 
Han-Wen Nienhuys	 hanwen@stack.urc.tue.nl 
Mario Camou 		camou@csid.gmeds.com 
Birgitta M-L Lonnroth 	lonnroth@cc.helsinki.fi
Davor Cubranic 		cubranic@whale.st.usm.edu
Andreas Zisowsky 	zisi@cs.tu-berlin.de
joe sloan 		yangming@ucrengr.ucr.edu
Jef Spielberg 		splg_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
L.G. Ted Stern		stern@amath.washington.edu
Sten Eriksson 		stene@dsv.su.se
Christopher Shaulis 	cjs@netcom.com 
Eric M. Breault 	breault@aladdin.mc.ti.com 
Jeremy Laidman		jeremy.laidman@cowan.edu.au
Karsten Ballueder 	kballued@charon.physik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE 
rm1ajy2 		rm1ajy2@greenwich.ac.uk
Jim Lynch 		jwl@sedist.cray.com
			t2262dj@cd1.lrz-muenchen.de
Jay Lawrence 		jjlawren@dcs1.uwaterloo.ca
brandywine 		sfiedler@cs.arizona.edu
David Simmons 		simmons@Dune.EE.MsState.Edu
Edward Baichtal 	edwardb@netcom.com
Thomas Weber 		thwe@stud.uni-sb.de 
Richard Gooch		rgooch@atnf.CSIRO.AU 
Florian von Samson	fsamson@nyx10.cs.du.edu 
Andrew J. Piziali	andy@piziali.lonestar.org 
Jan-Piet Mens		jpmens@ingres.com 
Nick Andrew		nick@kralizec.zeta.org.au 
Matti J Lehtiniemi 	mlehtini@beta.hut.fi
Cesare Mastroianni	cece@dist.dist.unige.it
Daniel Garcia		kender@esu.edu 
			dweiss@philips.oz.au
Paul Ives 		ives@drealm.drealm.org
Dan Shearer		ccdps@lux.levels.unisa.edu.au 
Sven Dirks 		svendi@svendi.syd.de
			MFINE@delphi.com
Al Smith 		wbuj@chbs.CIBA.COM
Grant Smith		grant@kcms.ipgis.co.za 
Ian Tanner		ibtanner@okanagan.bc.ca 
			Ziga.Kranjec@IJS.si
Stephen Bruce 		bruces@werple.apana.org.au
Georg Vollmers		georg@egalize.han.de 
Markus Kohler 		kohler@dfki.uni-kl.de
			bertn@foppema.si.hhs.nl
Wolfgang Schreiner 	Wolfgang.Schreiner@risc.uni-linz.ac.at
Michael Fuchs		mfuchs@t524i4.telematik.informatik.uni-karlsruhe.de 
Stuart Boutell		stuartb@spider.co.uk 
Christian Laforte 	laforte@info.polymtl.ca
Robert  Blair		reb@sgi3.hep.anl.gov 
Kayvan Sylvan 		kayvan@satyr.Sylvan.COM
Eric Maryniak		ericm@dutw34.tudelft.nl 
Bernhard Strassl 	bernhard@trick.ani.univie.ac.at
			RKOHLI@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
Kai Schwermann		kai@thomoko.swb.de 
John T. Johnson		jjohnson@netcom.com 
Andrew Martin		MARTIN.A@fs.reid.wlu.edu
Chris Fletcher 		chrisf@pipex.net
Alfred Keller		xak@pax.eunet.ch 
Craig Yates Unisys Bern	yates@lgx.unisys.ch 
Michael Rayment 	mike@cs.mun.ca
Jason John Griffin White jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU
Pieter van Prooijen 	pieter@and.nl
calamaro 		calamaro@dist.dist.unige.it
Joe Morris		 jmorris@rock.concert.net
Daniel L Moore		mooredan@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Rich Hart		rich@page-cadsvr.den.mmc.com 
Stuart McLean		mclean@lis.pitt.edu 
William Magro 		wmagro@baron.ncsa.uiuc.edu
David Jeske 		jeske@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
Jens Hartmann 		hartmann@dkrz.d400.de
Jens Henrik Jensen 	recjhl@unidhp1.uni-c.dk
Mike Arras 		arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de
Danny ter Haar 		danny@uwalt.hacktic.nl
Dan Egnor		egnor@ugcs.caltech.edu 
Miguel Alvarez Blanco 	miguel@pinon.ccu.uniovi.es
Chris Royle 		car1002@cus.cam.ac.uk
Amrik Thethi 		at@setanta.demon.co.uk
Paul Crowley		pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk
Michael Andrew Iverson	iversonm@camelot-o.eng.ohio-state.edu 
Kari Alho 		kta@cs.hut.fi
Ken Rice 		rice@ecn.purdue.edu
Badrinarayanan Seshadri	badri@sofia.tn.cornell.edu 
Darren Hiebert		darren@hunan.rastek.com 
Mario Camou		camou@csid.gmeds.com 
Ketil M. Malde		ketil@ii.uib.no
			V119MATC@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
			rothstei@mcs.kent.edu
Jake Vogelaar		jxv3790@hertz.njit.edu 
Christopher M Richmond 	cmr@kepler.unh.edu
Bernd Kratz 		ben@ws-01.iset-kassel.de
Vinod Menon		vinod@eeg.com 
Kevin S Ho		ksh@charybdis.prl.ufl.edu 
Christopher Shaulis	cjs@netcom.com 
Alec			alec@leo.acf.nyu.edu 
Douglas R. Floyd	dfloyd@lonestar.utsa.edu 
Dean W Bettinger	dean@cat.syr.edu 
Alireza Setayesh	nicom@world.std.com 
Guenther Thomsen	thomsen@cs.tu-berlin.de
Steven Wahlberg		stegu@hit.fi
Salvador Pinto Abreu 	spa@khosta.fct.unl.pt
Thomas Gfuellner	thomas@hauberl.greenie.muc.de 
Abdallah Chatila 	ba080@info.polymtl.ca
Zack Evans 		pyd001@cent1.lancs.ac.uk
Jurgen Botz		jbotz@orixa.mtholyoke.edu 
			jalbert@MIT.EDU
James V. Silverton	jvs@helix.nih.gov 
John Green		john@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca 
Zenon Fortuna 		zenon@resonex.com
-=| Bantolph |=- 	bantolph@draco.unm.edu
Black Bob 		blckbob@foley.ripco.com
			S345002@insted.unimelb.edu.au
Gal Shalif		gal@simpson.dcl-see.co.il 
Habibie Sumargo 	habibie@fiu.edu
Dave Truckenmiller 	trucken@cs.umn.edu
Kosta Kostis		kosta@live.blues.sub.de 
M.J. Lush		mlush@mrc-crc.ac.uk 
Ralf W. Stephan		ralf@ark.btbg.sub.de 
Kai Poehlmann		kai@kaihh.hanse.de 
Mark D. Roth 		roth@dynamic.slip.uiuc.edu
Asaf Kashi 		kashi@lees.cogsci.uiuc.edu
Jan Persson		dat93jpe@ludat.lth.se 
Robert Pamer 		robi@finchley.aszi.sztaki.hu
Herbert Weinhandl 	weinhand@grz08u.unileoben.ac.at
Max Buchheit		buchheit@ccrs.emr.ca 
			VIGNANI%MSIE03%CRFV2@CSPCLU.CSP.IT
Thomas Uhl 		uhl%sun1@sun1.rz.fh-heilbronn.de
Warwick HARVEY		warwick@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU 
Wolfgang Schreiner 	Wolfgang.Schreiner@risc.uni-linz.ac.at
Hartmut Schwab		hschwab@dic.k8.rt.bosch.de
			adrian@per.dms.csiro.au
Harvey J. Stein 	hjstein@MATH.HUJI.AC.IL
Asi Kotiharju 		akotihar@delta.hut.fi
Kai Altenfelder		kai@genepi.sh.sub.de 
Volker Lendecke EIFFEL	lendecke@namu01.gwdg.de 
Irina Athanasiu 	irina@pub.ro
			steiner@dfki.uni-kl.de
Cornec ESLOG		cornec@stna7.stna.dgac.fr 
Detlef Lannert		TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de 
tiger			jchen@houston.wireline.SLB.COM 
Raghu Krishnamurthy	aicrelay@uunet.UU.NET 
			ssilva@NMSU.Edu
Thomas Boutell		boutell@netcom.com 
Andy Oram		andyo@ora.com 
Andy Puchrik		asp@PUCK.ASSABET.COM 
Matt Welsh		mdw@SunSite.unc.edu 
Ulrik Pagh Schultz 	ups@daimi.aau.dk
Gili Granot		gil@cs.Technion.AC.IL 
Mike Dowling		mike@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de 
Theodor Ivesdal 	theo@hsr.no
Ralf Muehlen 		muehlen@rz.uni-sb.de
Martin Maechler		maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch 
Florian Wagner 		gelee@cip.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de
Kevin Maute		kevin@rapid.com 
Paulo da Silva		paulo@parossi.westfalen.de 
A. Sridhar 		sridhar@utdallas.edu
S. Venkatesan 		venky@utdallas.edu
Erlend V Boe		erlend@cee.hw.ac.uk 
Daniel O'Callaghan 	danny@austin.unimelb.edu.au
Thorsten Gau		gau_t@gauhh.hanse.de 
Frank Kemmer 		s_kemmer@ira.uka.de
Wai Ming Ho 		tauq7@central.sussex.ac.uk
Christian Henry		henryc@io.org 
Peter Averkamp		petav@argon.e20.physik.tu-muenchen.de 
Michael Firth		mfirth@cee.hw.ac.uk 
LD Landis		ldl@ldl 
mike 			mrf@cnj.digex.com
Michael Berry		mberry@wimsey.com 
			krauss@igd.fhg.de
Greg Butenko 		greg@rcupi.e-burg.su
David SHERMAN 		David.Sherman@labri.u-bordeaux.fr
			pell@lysator.liu.se
James E. Leinweber	jiml@stovall.slh.wisc.edu 
Dane Jasper		dane@nermal.santarosa.edu 
Ian 			I.P.Morris@soton.ac.uk
			uka.frelih@uni-lj.si
			gt0804b@prism.gatech.edu
Maurice Siu 		taui0@central.sussex.ac.uk
Herbert Xu		herbert@greathan.apana.org.au 
N T Clifford 		ntc@meteorology.edinburgh.ac.uk
J.H.Petersen		J.Petersen@qmw.ac.uk 
Zoltan Hidvegi		hzoli@konig 
Roland Ryf 		rryf@stud.phys.ethz.ch

Total yes votes = 186


Below are all the names of those who voted AGAINST the Linux International
proposal:

Magnus Y Alvestad 	magnus@ii.uib.no
Tom Collins 		esvax::collinst@esvax.dnet.dupont.com
Michael Shields		mjshield@nyx10.cs.du.edu 
Raul Deluth Miller 	rockwell@nova.umd.edu
Shao Ai Wu		m-sw2360@HAPPY.CS.NYU.EDU 
Jeff Randall		JRandall@uiuc.edu 
Michael K. Johnson 	johnsonm@SunSITE.Unc.EDU
Wim van Dorst 		tgcpwd@urc.tue.nl
Francois Genolini 	genolini@westminster.ac.uk
Ruediger Helsch Ramz  	ruediger@ramz.ing.tu-bs.de
Navid Haddadi		nhaddadi@wiffle.usc.edu 
Lindsay Patten		lindsay@cybervision.com 
Bill C. Riemers 	bcr@physics.purdue.edu
Erik Troan 		ewt@SunSITE.Unc.EDU
Winfried Truemper	truemper@FileServ1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE 
Klaus Weidner		klaus@snarc.greenie.muc.de
Vince Skahan 		vince@victrola.wa.com
Nigel Gamble		gamble@inca.gate.net 
Stephen Harris 		spuddy!sweh.womble
			mark@isscad.com
Peter Busser		peter@globv1.hacktic.nl 

Total no votes = 21


--
Mail submissions for comp.os.linux.announce to: linux-announce@tc.cornell.edu
PLEASE remember Keywords: and a short description of the software.
