Slashdot Log In
There Is No 'Microsoft of Linux'?
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu May 11, 2006 10:54 AM
from the because-seven-eight-nine dept.
from the because-seven-eight-nine dept.
SDenmark writes "Linux Format has an interview with Greg Mancusi-Ungaro, the director of Linux and OSS marketing at Novell. Asked if any company can become the 'Microsoft of Linux', Greg responds "Well, if we ever woke up one day and said 'Wow, Novell is the Microsoft of Linux' or 'Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux', then the Linux movement would be over." Is he right -- is the open source world free from such possibilities? Greg also discusses the internal Novell migration to Linux."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
not until.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:not until.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not until.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:not until.... (Score:5, Interesting)
And then old Bill will stand up. He'll look at all the Linux distributions spread out before him, he'll take out his wallet, and he'll say "Say, who would like be an exclusive parter with Microsoft?". And Linspire's hand will shoot up, waving back and forth wildly.
Linspire will still be a separate company -- well, a wholly owned subsidiary of MS. That will be the case just to keep that nasty GPL and FOSS legal stuff sandboxed away from all the proprietary code MS will still develop. MS will release the Linspire AD connector, and you won't see any code for that, I tell you what. Next we'll see Linspire Server. Then we'll see MS Office for Linspire (not Linux, just Linspire). And there'll be DRM and Trusted Computing added to Linspire in just the right places and just the right ways to make it illegal to reverse engineer (or even look at).
Windows is dead. Long live Windows!
Parent
Re:not until.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"touching up" the desktop side of things isn't the point. Never really was.
This is the "Caldera Fallacy". The main problem that Linux faces against Windows is that it doesn't have all of the 3rd parties that support Windows doing the same for Linux. A prettier wifi configurator isn't going to help so long as the wifi drivers aren't there to begin with.
Parent
Re:not until.... (Score:3, Insightful)
on a related note... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:on a related note... (Score:5, Informative)
Back in the day there were multible companies that made DOS and for the most part they were compatible with each other. Microsoft always had dominace but there were alternitives. PC DOS, DR DOS... Then when Windows Was released it was designed to run on MS DOS only (And had code that blocked other DOS varents causing some lawsuites in that case). So after time more and more programs used Microsoft Windows extentions to their application where there was more Windows then DOS. So the Microsoft of Linux would be like say Novel or Red Hat who has such a dominance on the Linux market that they feel free to add their own custom kernel and developers develop on it and Apps only work on Their Version. With no chance that it will work for other Distros with a more "pure" kernel. Of course this probably wont happen with Linux because of the open nature. But that is the Microsoft of Linux means. Getting so much control in the process and influence in developers that other products are forced to become toys.
Parent
What a great question (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is the microsoft of software, obviously. What does it mean to be the "microsoft" of something, though? I think it means to provide a very specific service: hiding complexity. I'm reminded of Neal Stephenson's analysis of what the Windows startup routine looks like to the user, as against that of Linux. If you're used to a blue screen that says "Here comes Windows! Aren't you happy?" then the screen output while Linux starts up is going to look broken.
What would it mean to hide the complexity of Linux? Ubuntu, Linspire, et. al. sorta do this, but note:
Hidden Linux is not Linux. It's very nature is to be transparent. Linspire and Ubuntu are still Linuces b/c it is still possible to get in there and fiddle with the code. What they hide (or rather, de-emphasize) is simply the 'invitation' to come in and fiddle.
So if being-microsoft means "making it easy to do the lowest-common-denominator things with software" then there will be one of those for Linux.
But if it means "achieving the above by limiting what the user can do, and what she can modify" there cannot be one.
Parent
Re:What a great question (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true, but it's a very pro-Microsoft type of thinking.
Refferring to the "Microsoft" of something would surely be more readily described as...
Something performing the following actions:
* Forcing people to do what it wants them to do (i.e. the threatening of OEMs).
* Locking people into using its solutions (i.e. proprietary file formats, APIs, protocols).
* Attempting to kil
Re:What a great question (Score:3, Funny)
MS is who you go to if you want to go Windows? Making microsoft the "microsoft of ..." Microsoft ? And I'm the one talking in circles?
What has happened to slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)
No Apple stories in three days
This is a tragedy!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re:What has happened to slashdot? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What has happened to slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:What has happened to slashdot? (Score:2, Funny)
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Is he right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially, the problem with this is its an analogy with too many unspecified terms
foo:Linux
There is no way to know what "the Microsoft of Linux" is supposed to mean.
"microsoft of..." (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true (Score:2)
Open Source != Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is only a subset of what open source has to offer. There's much more to open-source than Linux. A pedantic note, maybe, but I'm tired of the "open source = linux" thinking that pervades the business realm and even leaks over into the IT realm.
Re:Open Source != Linux (Score:2)
Just like open source is only a subset of what Free Software has to offer.
-linux zealot
It Depends (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It Depends (Score:4, Informative)
No, its not. X11 is wicked fast. The problem isn't that X11 isn't fast; it's that your system isn't, by default, double buffered. X11 is a lean, mean, pixel pushing machine; it carries little overhead, and is very very extensible. Make no mistake, X11 is super-duper fast; that's one of the reason it's ran on a variety of systems far, far before Windows was a gleam in Bill Gate's eye.
The developers themselves have admitted that the X protocol is inefficient (especially as used by the toolkits),
Huh?
that Xlib is not suitable for modern applications (and it's now finally being replaced)
Huh? Partially true; but it works, and in enterprise, too.
and that the acceleration architecture is simply not suitable for desktop usage.
Double huh? XAA, maybe. EXA? No way.
Note that EXA is supported on a number of X servers, and that both the Nvidia and ATI proprietary servers provide high performance X render acceleration.
Not to mention the new AIGLX and XGL hacks/intermediate steps towards a new X architecture. These two are ridiculously slick, and I use both on a regular basis. Every system in my household, my parents household, and my office run Linux (except for the OS X boxes). Every one of these runs either XGL or some kind of composite window manager, and they "feel" faster in Linux than on XP.
Furthermore, exactly what GUI server do you think they use for video editing, or any of the other high-end workstation uses that Linux has?
Please take a look here [x.org]; Xorg's performance is something that has undergone careful consideration.
I have used Windows and Linux side by side on the same machine and the Windows GUI is always faster. On my T43, for example, dragging windows on Linux will sometimes leave trails, no matter what WM/DE I'm using.
Only if you aren't using a composite manager.
I quote:
Parent
As big, but not as controlling (Score:5, Insightful)
The only issue would be for proprietary software sold on top of Linux. That would hinder competition. But there will probably never be a proprietary killer app only distributed by one linux vendor on their own distro. And even if there was competitors today will be quick to create a similar application. Today it's not like the environment Microsoft grew up in.
Backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
By calling somebody "the Microsoft of Linux", perhaps they mean that one vendor is dominant enough to dictate industry standard practices, such as it once seemed would be the case with the Red Hat package manager. While it would certainly be possible for somebody to come along and push things in a certain direction, standards-breaking usually works against your best interests.
Besides, the Linux desktop revolution is pretty much over anyway, isn't it? The vast majority of those who want a *nixy desktop can just buy a Mac these days. There will still be a large cult of die-hards runing Gentoo as their day-in and day-out personal workstation OS, just as there were those in the late 90's who would cling for dear life to their OS/2 and Amiga boxen, but it seems like it's been a couple years since there has been any real appearance of growing momentum behind putting Linux on everybody's desk.
Linux these days is an incredibly well-respected enterprise OS... to the point that it has driven several "real" POSIX-compliant Unices out of existance. But as a desktop solution, it never really advanced beyond the playgrounds of serious geeks, and it doesn't really look to me like it ever will.
Re:Backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Vista. I don't want to be forced into "upgrading" to Vista the way I was forced into upgrading to XP just so the new versions of software run. Why don't I want Vista? The ridiculous hardware requirements and the wacky Microsoft licencing issues.
2. Security. I'm sick and tired of cleaning my system out of spyware and adware.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying that Linux desktop solutions are not good. Some of them are darn good. For certain users, it's a terrific choice.
I'm saying that there isn't the rising tide of interest in it that their once was.
Let's look at some of the forces behind people wanting a Linux desktop back around 1998 or so, and what has happened since then:
1. An affordable alternative to Microsoft.
Since Steve Jobs returned to Apple, the Mac has become more affordable while improving is several other important ways. Microsoft haters can pick up a $600 mini from their local store that does pretty much everything they want to do.
2. Better security
Okay, Microsoft still kind of sucks at security, but if you run an external firewall and keep your patches up to date, you're not nearly as vulnerable on a networked Windows box as you were eight years ago.
3. "Free as in Speech"
The fact that Darwin, the BSD Layer of OS X, is open source is enough for most people. It means that Apple is wisely subjecting the underpinnings of their OS to peer review and gaining most of the wins of using open source. A few hard-core Stallmansits probably feel very differently about it, but Free Software bigotry is not really enough to drive a popular movement.
4. *nix at home
OS X and various flavors of BSD provide plenty of opportunity for that, and even Windows has emulation tools. A would-be BOFH in training could learn an awful lot of what they need to know about *nix simply by monkeying on a Windows PC.
5. New life to old hardware.
"Old" hardware these days is pretty darn beefy stuff. When you can buy an XP-capable used PC or an OS X-capable used Mac for under $100, there really isn't a compelling reason to squeeze a little more life out of that old 386 in the garage.
The value of the box that can't run one a modern commercial OS at this point is pretty much measured in the price and quantity of the metals used to build it, minus the cost of disposing of any hazzardous materials. (A number which is not always higher than zero.) Plus, when parts burn out, it's almost never worth the time and trouble to repair them.
So my point is, while Linux has made some great strides to become more user-friendly than it was back in the day, the emergence of OS X and the improvements of Windows have taken away most of the reasons for people to switch.
There is one home use for Linux which doesn't seem to be going away soon: Media Room computers!
Every Windows solution I've seen costs a fortune and works like ass.
I have a Mac driving my HDTV, and love it, but it's still a more expensive solution than a MythTV set-up would have been.
Parent
Re:Exactly. (Score:3, Interesting)
HELL, I think even Debian is up to that standard by now.
The type of Linux you speak of has been available for a LONG time now.
Now the Linux community has moved on to things like PVR-in-a-box or Studio-in-a-box.
Don't view success as negative (Score:2)
Different animal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to point a finger at RedHat... Hell, why not... Anyway I felt RedHat was moving to a point where I felt it was pulling too many proprietary stunts (the updater, the "enterprise" crap, the fragmenting with Fedora, etc) so I switched to Debian. [Disclaimer: this is not a denouncement of RedHat, this was my personal choice, RedHat is still cool, but my leanings are to Debian right now]
I don't know when or how, but if Debian ever starts to lose the balance I like, I'll just switch to Gentoo, or something. Or my own distro, or whatever.
It's not like we're literally going to wake up one day to find that the Kerel has been made proprietary and all the software we use will suddenly become closed source.
Microsoft of Linux as an analogy does not work.
not the same thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source is about keeping barriers to entry low. If a Linux company had 90% of the market, it would be because 90% of the market actually chose them freely, and they'd only keep that market share as long as they did a good job because anybody can take the system, fork it, and compete.
(I know that Microsoft advocates often argue that people chose Microsoft freely, too, but it's clear that that's not the whole truth. The great majority of their users probably doesn't have a choice, either because they don't know anything else, or because they are locked in in some way.)
Not a good thing for end users (Score:2)
One thing doesn't imply the other (Score:2)
It would be nice in a way (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I believe I could sum up my feeling on this subject by outlining a common issue I run into...
A classic conversation could be something like (not reproduced exactly):
Me: "How do I get my back/forward mouse buttons to work in Firefox (like it does in Windows)?"
Friend: "Er, what distro are you running again?"
Me: "Ubuntu...whatever the latest is"
Friend: "Ah. I don't know that one too well...try editing the X-config files"
Me: "Ah, that big scary file that if you screw up renders the pretty GUI bit useless?"
Friend: "yep."
Me: "Well, never mind. I'll pass."
I mean, just give me the one control-panel for crying out loud?! As much as I appreciate the freedom that comes with linux, sometimes it's just not just not worth the hassle! Maybe I'm not l337 enough when it comes to Linux, but I happen to also like standardisation when it comes to some things; system configuration being one of them.
So there you go. Rantings of a Windows boy. Maybe one day I'll "make the switch", but not until I get my god-forsaken 5 mouse-buttons working without manually having to edit random config-files.
Apart from that, it's all dandy! Thanks for listening.
Re:It would be nice in a way (Score:3, Informative)
The question can be reversed. Why doesn't Windows work like Firefox? Or, a different question can be posed: why don't you talk to your mouse vendor?
All in all... you choose to NOT ask those questions. Now, F/OSS is flexible enough to provide you with an answer -- but you don't want to apply it.
Random config files? No, but you may want to pay someone to make the modifications for you. F/OSS doesn't mean "free as in beer
I'll give you a different reply (Score:4, Insightful)
Mostly though, you should understand that compiling programs from source is simply a stupid idea in both Linux AND Windows. No one in their right mind would try to manually compile Firefox for Windows and then try to sort out dependency issues by hand - unless they specifically wanted to spend the time you obviously don't want to spend (neither do I, for the record).
In Windows, you'd download a binary installer, which contains what you need in order to run Firefox. Guess what? The exact same creature exists in Linux. For your RedHat system, it's called an RPM. No unzipping, no untarring. You install software in the exact same way that you would in Windows - either double clicking what you've downloaded, and letting the system handle it all, or you go through a control panel type applet (in Linux, this is your package manager).
You can whine about the "usual replies" all you like, but the fact is, if you can't install Firefox on any recent (last few years) Linux system, you're going out of your way to do something wrong. RPM/APT/YUM/whatever work for major software. They also work for very obscure packages only 5 people on the planet use. You *might* have to play around with source/dependencies if you're trying to run Joe Bob's Personal Fun Program, but again, guess what? Software like this exists for Windows too. Source only, and here's a how-to for compiling it, and here's how you resolve DLL requirements.
I've never seen anyone run into a "graphics lib" requirement for Firefox that hasn't been handled in the background by the package manager, unless they're a) running Gentoo, or b) trying to prove a point that "Linux is hard" by intentionally doing things the wrong way.
Parent
IBM IS the Microsoft of Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:IBM IS the Microsoft of Linux (Score:3, Funny)
Re:IBM IS the Microsoft of Linux (Score:3, Funny)
Or something. My head is spinning....
Re:IBM IS the Microsoft of Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
If they really wanted to be the "Microsoft of Linux," it would be pretty trivial for them t
Re:IBM IS the Microsoft of Linux (Score:3, Informative)
But I think that they've figured out that they can make money hand over fist selling services (particularly consulting) regardless of what OS people are using. At the end of the day, I'm not sure they really care a whole lot what OS everyone uses.
I work for IBM Global Services, and in the last couple of years I've worked on Solaris, AIX, various flavors of Linux, including an embedded Linux, Windows and PocketPC.
IBM Global Services couldn't care less what OS the clients want to use. We acquire and dev
Re:RedHat WAS the Microsoft of Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
RedHat (and SuSE) are both focusing on enterprise deployments in traditional Unix shops, which is smart because they can charge a lot of money and still come out as the cheap option. The companies that focus on desktop Linux end up burning through their capital and becoming one sacraficial lamb after another. (Yes this will happen to Ubuntu eventually
Re:What movement? (Score:2)
Linux more about Open Source than Free Software.
Re:What movement? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What movement? (Score:5, Informative)
Or is it just a kernel that was inserted into an OS that already existed for years prior?
Parent
Re:What movement? (Score:3, Informative)
How about "a kernel that was combined with some excellent, already existing free software tools to create an OS".
Re:In a nutshell... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is a kernel. There's absolutely nothing stopping a large company from putting a proprietary desktop on top, maybe an active directory server, some nice business friendly stuff and selling it as a specific version. Other distributions would either have to (a) ship the proprietary binaries, or (b) try to copy them (quite a difficult task - look at how long samba has been going and it still has issues).
Parent
Kernel, schmernel... (Score:3, Insightful)
Spoken as a true GNU/RMS zealot. Linux is *not* a kernel. It was one in 1991, today it is a system, composed by a kernel and a huge lot of applications and drivers that were laboriously adapted to run around that kernel.
To all the people who think Linux is just a kernel, I say, have you ever tried to migrate a large application, let's say, from HP-UX running csh to AIX running ksh? I have and I know how hard it can be. If it were easy, then why do configure files in automake routinely top
Re:In a nutshell... (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to go back to school, since when does a desktop environment have a kernel? Your desktop environment is based on Microsoft Foundation Classes, but rest assured it is an operating system. If it weren't it would need one to operate. You cannot run KDE or GNOME without an underlying OS. Window's is an operating system an overview [u-tokyo.ac.jp] of the windows kernel architecture proves you are confused.
Re:In a nutshell... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're a hardware manufacturer, the relevant part of Windows is the OS. If you are an app developer, you are likely only interested in the API's. These aren't particularly OS specific as evidenced by WABI, Merge and Wine.
To most end users, Windows is more like Java than the Linux kernel.