IMHO, it was at first unusual for Linux to be given credit in the "real" OS stakes: I remember the first time I saw Linux in the UK, on a Computer Shopper cover CD. I can't remember what the distribution was, but it was incredibly flaky.

However, what Linux has proved, more than anything else, is not that Linux is a viable OS, but, far more importantly, that Open Source developments are a viable option for companies these days.

It will be interesting to see if, ultimately, businesses do perform a complete about-turn on their strategies and, rather than going for licensed software, with maintence contracts etc., have maintenance in-house for software which, for the most part, has a bug patch written for it before the user finds the bug.

Probably in the embedded market. That's one reason you won't hear too much about them. Look at http://www.linuxdevices.com [linuxdevices.com] for a few examples.

I've been following the Forbes series for the last few days. It's nice to read some rational, non-baised information about Linux in a respected publication like Forbes.

But since Forbes is an US publication, and there doesn't seem to be anything done is the USA that doesn't have something to do with promoting some company's agenda, I have to wonder if Forbes has a alerior motive for publishing this? Is Forbes owned by someone who doesn't like Bill Gates, for instance? Or who has shares in Red Hat? It is so uncommon to come across truly unbiased factual information in the US press these days I find it hard to believe that there isn't something behind this...

This is a far cry from what MSNBC reported not too long ago about Linux failing as an OS. It's nice to see a *credible* news source fill in an objective series of articles, and not just print anything that Redmond dictates.

Actually reading through the articles (Shock!) gives a very positive image of Linux and the various Linux projects overall. Galeon, Gaim, even Pine, have all got nice, positive reviews. KDE take a bit of a kicking, but then its a review, and someone has be the winner!

Some hackers out there might want to take note of the sorts of things the Forbes reviewers found important; things like a clear user interface that doesn't shove big, glossy, eye-candy in your face, basically. They all rate intuitive, uncluttered user interfaces as a priority.

Oh, and before anyone starts flaming about "Point and drool" or some other nonsense along those lines; remember that they liked Pine.

well you are worng in a way. The forbes market wants to make money, and they will go to any extent to do it.

I work in a company that does not have anything to do with OS's etc and many sections were using proprietry software.. but in current scenario, though we are till pretty comfortable, managers are looking at linux farms for computing needs and servers, and 3 years from now this would have been unthinkable.

Another misconception is that business houses run away from open source. This is not entierly true. Of course most of staff in such companies breaths on proprietry office solutions, and this will remain the case for a long time to come.

but look at the brighter side.. server share is growing and growing. And if you want to check what is forbes running on here [w3.org] it is... and yes its apache :-)

Linux Today has covered these pieces over the week. Interestingly, the piece about browsers on Linux was inexplicably missed. I refuse to think it's because Galeon came first, and Konqueror next to last in the comparison. A couple of attempts by me to alert the editors to the missing article have gone unheeded for _some_ reason, however.

Write more good software instead, adoption by the mainstream and the industry will follow automatically.

Allow me to rant for a while.

For example, if I were to make music, I'm stuck with Microsoft or Apple. Yeah yeah now people will say, there is software X and software Y which you should use. But guess what! The user interfaces generally suck, or the program is some 0.0.5 beta. So with a crashing beta you're better off using the other solutions explained earlier.

Something like Buzz for linux would be the ultimate bomb. Unfortunately GNU Octal [gnu.org] seems to have died, at least the web site hasn't been updated for ages. CheeseTracker is good, but there aren't enough effects available. Also, it is mono.

So, for example those software look promising. But they really don't help you if you need the solution TODAY and not next year.

According to Linux legend, a revered teacher and researcher told Linus Torvalds that he "would not get a high grade" for his creation.

The "revered teacher and researcher" in question is Professor Andy Tanenbaum [www.dina.dk].

His book "Computer Network" is a bible in networking for many people. Yes, what he thought about Linux is proven wrong but we still respect him.

Btw, my favourite quote of the above conversation is:
"As an aside, for those folks who don't read news headers, Linus is in Finland and I am in The Netherlands. Are we reaching a situation where another critical industry, free software, that had been totally dominated by the U.S. is being taken over by the foreign competition? Will we soon see President Bush coming to Europe with Richard Stallman and Rick Rashid in tow, demanding that Europe import more American free software?"

It has already proven that there's an free OS(a software) that has not been totally dominated by U.S., we yet to see Bush(well, if not old Bush. :) coming to Europe with Richard Stallman and Rick Rashid. :)

I really enjoyed this article. Although I consider myself somewhat of a Linux "guru," I actually learned a lot, if not about how Linux works, then about how it is perceived by those outside the community.

One thing that particularly struck me is Forbes' recommendation that "Linux not be depended on for mission-critical applications." In my business, I've always been willing to bet a lot on Linux's performance, and never (yet) been disappointed. After reading this article I may look into the offerings of Sun and HP, just to be on the safe side.

It goes to show, you can work in an industry for 20 years, and still learn something. I look forward to more informative articles from Forbes.

Compared to other article on linux in the past by all the news sources out there, this set of articles are reasonably objective. One particular quote from "Retail Therapy" struck me as sign of people's frustration with MS's attempt to extract/extort more money from consumers.

Microsoft is helping me make the decision to look for alternatives, Roberts says.

I have no actual proof of the following statement, but is it possible that people view MS differently than pre law suit? Has a significant percentage of the population taken the view that Microsoft is a poster boy of Corporate America gone agro against consumers?

MSNBC didn't say that, if you read the article. In fact, MSNBC was relatively positive about Linux. You were trolled by Taco's headline.

I even learned a few things from the article... After reading their browser review, I'm going to be giving Moz and Galeon another try. (Previously, they were slower than NS 4.76 on my 64M P133 laptop - And FAR slower than Opera.) If Forbes is to be believed, they've really chopped down on the bloat. (The fact that NS7PR1 is far faster than NS6 could be a sign of these improvements...) Of course, what may be faster on a fast machine with lots of memory could be slower on a low-power machine. Some apps respond better to extra resources than others.

Seemed their most flawed review was Pine. (The most cross-platform as opposed to the least as they claim, and it IS capable of launching external viewers for attachments.) But I was impressed by their claim that text-only wasn't as bad as one would think and is in fact faster than GUI mailers. What next, Forbes extolling the virtues of bash? :)

See my point now?

Not really. People are finding it exceedingly difficult to make money off OSS and its not a surprise that companies like TurboLinux are facing difficulties.

Ironically, companies with commercial Linux offerings face the same kind of troubles that M$ does in trying to compete with Linux. They cannot be cheaper than a free download, so they will have to offer better added value in their service offering and packaging than anybody else in order to survive. And they will have to offer attractive prices.

The other side of the coin is the cost of using Linux. Linux can be a very cost effective solution and that, if anything, has the potential to convince large companies to adopt Linux as part of their IT infrastructure. That's why I'm happy to see such well written articles about Linux in a major business publication like Forbes.

If you can convince IT managers that Linux is a viable alternative (and many are beginning to see it as such), this can only benefit Linux and the currently ailing Linux companies. Now that the dot com bubble is over and done with it is time to evaluate things calmly and realistically. And Linux is still looking pretty darn good.

Ok sure, I can buy that--(Nor do I think it ridiculous that Forbes might have an alterior motive for publishing this extensive series on Linux.), however when you say:

there doesn't seem to be anything done is the USA that doesn't have something to do with promoting some company's agenda

That statement just seems a bit silly.

Out of curiosity, in your travels here, where did you go and what as you say coloured your opinions? I'm always interested in how peoples opinions form. For instance, in the experience of a friend who lived in Pakistan for awhile, he said that talking to many Pakistanis who had been to America and back, they thought America was debuached and immoral and full of loose women--of course what did they do when they were in America? Visit a stripclub, see a porno theater, etc--all kinds of things not available in Pakistan, yet hardly representative of the average in America either.

where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit

I think that the viable options are for the companies that use the software. For example, the option to use Linux for an OS on a server is cool: no forced upgrades, no unneeded bells and whistles. For PostgreSQL or MySQL: no having to pay more in licenses just because your user base or usage has increased. Etc.

P.S. I hope you didn't get flamed, it is a good question.

Netscape 4.7 wouldn't do anything, either. But I fired up the ole trusty {cough cough} IE 5.5 and there's a drop-down menu under business, the last entry being a big Microsoft logo that happens to end up directly above Linus Torvalds' highlighted name in the article.

I'm sure it's a conspiracy.

(P.S. I'm at work and use Mozilla 1.0 at home.)

I think it's important to recognize that in the market Forbes targets, the word Cult doesn't have the same negative connotations that it does in the rest of society. The Cult of Personality around someone like Bill Gates, or a Cult Brand like Apple, which has a core of devoted customers it can depend on no matter what, are things execs lust over.

The strong beleif and devoted following connotations of the word are much stronger with this crowd than the blood sacrifice, shaved head connotations. But then, if someone is willing to shave their heads and perform blood sacrifices for your product, well, nothing says "Success!" quite like that... ;-)

And really, success is what Forbes is all about.

As several other responders here have stated, it's the companies that use the software that are making profits.

This straw-man argument keeps getting posted here. I think it is obvious to even the biggest OSS supporter that a company saying "here is some source code to a program that many people (not just you) want, give me $1000, and incidentally the license allows you to give the code to anybody else" is not going to make any money beyond 1 sale.

It is totally bogus to claim that OSS supporters say that you can make that money that way, and then try to ridicule them because of this false claim.

There *are* other ways for software to appear:

1. Ignore making money and make the software because you want to, as a hobby, or because of a philantropic desire to help the world. Admittedly this is the main source of Linux software today.

2. Sell OSS software that only ONE person wants, ie highly customized solutions. Actually it has been normal to give the source code with such customized solutions throughout computer industry history.

3. Sell OSS software with a modified license that does not allow the person to give it away.

4. Or (unbelievable but true) sell software EXACTLY LIKE YOU DO FOR WINDOWS. Anybody claiming this is impossible should check out the special effects industry where I work, where virtually every major piece of commercial software is available for Linux, and (GASP!) people PAY MONEY FOR IT (so none of this crap about people not paying for software on Linux, if it was available people are going to pay!)