The Linux Uprising 406
ballpoint writes "Business Week is featuring a list of articles under the header 'The Linux Uprising' including topics like 'Red Flags for Red Hat' and 'A Bad, Sad Hollywood Ending?' touching everything dear to the Slashdot community. A good read to align yourself with what mainstream businesspeople are fed."
A bit dramatic? (Score:4, Insightful)
you guys never amaze me (Score:-1, Insightful)
intel making chips for linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux IS mainstrem (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because Ford (or whatever car comany) has market share, it doesn't make my buying a Honda "rebellious". It just might be the choice that fits my needs better.
Executives need to know that Linux isn't a rogue OS. It's a choice you can make that provides different features. For those whose requirements would be better by Linux, they need to know they are simply making another mainstream choice.
Business Week needs to catch up to the present.
gross margins (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the main issue in open source: using open software for your business is a no-brainer (unless there is no open source solution for your problem), however developing open source software and making a living out of it is not easy. I am not saying it is impossible, it is just pretty difficult.
I have the feeling that the next main contribution to Free/Open Source Software will come from a business person, not from a developer. We need to find a way so that people can make money producing (as opposed to "using") free software, without compromising the spirit of free software.
They still don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Implying that Free Software has a problem with people making money which isn't the case given:
Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software.
found here. [gnu.org]
It might be said that Free Software has a problem with how you go about making money off of software not the fact that you do.Re:I'm a business man... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can no longer play the "blame it on Microsoft game". You have to get up your lazy a$$ and do some research before recommending a m$ product next
Coz, next time you recommend a m$ solution, chances are your customer will ask ..Whats this linux thing We are hearing about ?
And if you say , "Oh its just some geeky thing used by hackers ." Chances are they might ask, "Oh yeah then how come IBM and HP and so many other big guns are supporting it ?"
Re:Hrmph. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The revenue growth isn't particularly impressive," says Paul McEntire, portfolio manager of the Marketocracy Technology Plus Fund (TPFQX ), which has owned the stock in the past. Moreover, he says, Red Hat's financial results don't persuade him that it can be solidly profitable in the future. Mostly, he worries that it would take only a little price competition from Microsoft (MSFT ), which goes up against Linux in the operating-system market, to see the return of red ink. Notes McEntire: "Microsoft hasn't really responded to the Linux threat yet."
Should Microsoft ever truly respond to the Linux threat, say by slashing their prices of Windows XP/Windows 2003/Windows Whatever in half, and slash the prices of Microsoft Office in half (much as they have already done in a recent promotion for Apple Macintosh users), it's game over for Linux on the desktop. Xandros is $100. LindowsOS is $130. Hardly anyone would be willing to switch to Linux, when for just $20-$50 more, they can buy the latest and greatest version of Windows, and avoid that steep learning curve and lack of "critical applications" that Linux tends to bring.
I especially see this coming as the other divisions of Microsoft, such as MSN and the XBox, while still losing money, are not losing as much money as they used to, and thus Microsoft would no longer have to rely on Windows and Office as their cash cows so much as they have done in the past.
Re:Hrmph. (Score:3, Insightful)
I use Linux/X11/KDE|GNome on my desktop because that's where all the apps I use are. If all your favorite apps live on WinXP, you should probably be using that instead, naturally. And, if/when everybody's favorite apps are on Linux/X11/KDE|GNome, that's when people will put it on their desktops.
It's all about the apps.
So was google (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the "Red Flags for RedHat" article was actually pretty good--after all, investors are cautious now, and for good reason; also, Linux distributions haven't been making money, especially when compared to sales of other server operating systems, and a lot of people are looking at the bottom line now, after getting burned.
So, yeah, RedHat is a great company with a solid product... but always, always do your research first. I think that's a very responsible position to take. If you believe in RedHat, buy some stock--but don't bet the farm on it, especially if you might need that farm someday.
The process not the product (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty weak... (Score:5, Insightful)
The notion that a company which went from a $2m loss to a $300,000 profit, which has a clear majority in terms of install base and which is the only company making money in its segment is headed for trouble seems like seriously flawed thinking to me.
It seems pretty clear to me that Red Hat has the rare gift of competent management. Maybe RH isn't going to see a big pop in the next quarter, but it's hard to see how the "next five years" view isn't looking pretty rosy. I don't see the fact that it's not back to it's stupidly high .com-era stock price as any sort of a reasonable warning sign.
Anyhow, I own a couple thousand dollars worth of RH shares, so maybe I'm just believing what I want to.
This is quite easy to explain: (Score:1, Insightful)
Quality before credibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok that's it... people use things cause they're good, and cause they work. MAYBE the reason Linux works is because PEOPLE made it work... and PEOPLE use it.... and corporations are coming in now that it DOES work.... and not back when the kernel would segfault every 5 minutes.....
People hopping on the bandwagon now, are behind the curve. And some device they use is probably already running it, and they don't know it.
Now maybe that all these companies are recognizing linux I can get some drivers for my USB camera......
Score 5 Funny? (Score:1, Insightful)
No time to read the articles, just gimme the jist.
That's not Funny, that's Insightful!
Keep reading... (Score:3, Insightful)
Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it.
WTF?!?!
I've been using open-source software for years, and I've never signed anything like this.
What bothers me about this topic posting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you serious? IMO, this looks like FUD. Yeah, they talk about the "Linux Uprising" in the first article, and Tux looks like he's been living under powerlines in the top banner. Yeah, it's a bit of horse puckey how romanticized and incorrect they were in the first article (see: comments on Intel making "chips for Linux", "resentment for Microsoft", and "rotten economy" as reasons for Linux becoming a favored OS). No, they didn't address server benchmark testing or overall gains in stability and performance, but it's excusable....
Read McNealy's article. Read "Before Linux is on Every Desktop". Touching on embedded Linux? Sun support for Linux for the sake of a *nix OS, and the primary pros that come with such a styled system? From McNealy: "The operating system is still the underlying plumbing on top of which you build the real value-add -- the applications and services to run your business....Linux impacts everyone <in the OS industry>." Coming from a CEO of a very influential company in the tech market, this isn't something to thumb your nose at.
Yeah, there's FUD in the first article, but you really need to read all the articles before you recommend everyone to do the same with bad expectations.
Re:Linux IS mainstrem (Score:3, Insightful)
However! we're dealing with BUSINESS MAJORS!
These are the folks that thought classroom attendance was optional and a 'C' on the ole report card stood for 'Cool!'
If the editors hadn't used words like 'rebellious' & 'radical' they wouldn't read the articles!
Why??
Cause there's something shiny ...right..Over....There...
That distracts them!
Re:gross margins (Score:3, Insightful)
Q: Why do companies that use software participate in open-source projects, given that they're contractually required to make public whatever improvements they make to it?
A: It works better than consortia. Companies have poured millions into consortia to develop software standards. But they always go down in flames. And open-source projects win over and over again. Why? It's because open-source licensing makes things fair for all the partners. In the consortium projects, there's always the handshake with one hand and a dagger in the other.
Re:The Romanticizing of "The Linux Uprising" (Score:5, Insightful)
By then, it won't matter anymore.
Re:Chips for linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it.
WTF? That has to be one of the more dangerous pieces of bad reporting I've seen lately. Not only is it utterly inaccurate (you don't have to sign anything to use open source software), it also hopelessly confuses "code" with "innovation".
Re:The Romanticizing of "The Linux Uprising" (Score:4, Insightful)
They always find it interesting - despite the fact that it's about technology, the core story is a human one. It's about people who mostly have never met each other working together to achieve something totally amazing on a scale - nothing like it around.
So yes, some people use it because it's non mainstream. I expect when everybody uses Linux they'll go use some new ultra-cool OS with no apps or whatever. The story doesn't become any less interesting though.
Re:Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Businesses are finding that the administrators and lawyers they need to stay clear of MS's software audits cost money, too. And that their initial investments will be multiplied many times over by frequent forced upgrades. And that closed-source software cannot be trusted to work on behalf of the user only and not be riddled with spyware and other affronts. And that companies like MS cannot be trusted not to trap and manipulate their customers, thus setting them up for subsequent extortion.
In short, my use of Linux has a lot more to do with security, privacy, and control than cost (although being free doesn't exactly hurt, either).
Re:Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well.... not really. One of the strongest desktops around is Redhat 8, which is free. You can't get cheaper than free. Also, remember the reason those distros are so expensive - proprietary NTFS resize code and CrossOver. As of about 4 days ago, we have stable open source NTFS resizing. That slashes quite a bit off the price. Xandros is already selling a version without CrossOver that comes in at a far more reasonable price.
Regardless, just because some companies charge a lot for Linux now, doesn't mean that this is what Linux costs. The fact is that Windows could be given away for free, and it wouldn't hurt Linux one bit in terms of development speed - how many free software hackers do you know who do it because they are too poor to buy Windows?
Re:I'm a business man... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, though, the article is filled with stupidities, such as the following:
WTF - Intel makes chips for Windows || Linux? Since when? They make chips for PC manufacturers / assemblers. Microsoft only recently began (XBOX) selling hardware w. Intel cpus. I mean, why don't they pay a few bucks to have a geek proof-read their articles before looking sooo stoooopid...Re:Pretty weak... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a pathetic figure for a company with international exposure.
Re:The Romanticizing of "The Linux Uprising" (Score:3, Insightful)
Presently, people run the underdog Linux on the reigning champion x86, which uses the US standard 120V power supply using the worldwide standard A/C supply. Once Linux because too mainstream, they'll keep running Linux, but run it on obscure processors, or run obscure programs on it,
Factual errors, bigtime (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when did Intel start "making chips for linux" (Well, I guess technically ever since the 386, in a way.)
Since when did the GPL become synonymous with all of open source? (Not that they got the GPL all that accurate in the first place.)
Ha! MS cannot really lower its prices. Here's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
McEntire doesn't get it.
Most of the Linux distro revenue comes from professional servers and technical workstation users who want paid support. These users couldn't care if MS gave away their products. They would consider switching to, say, IBM's AIX or Sun's Solaris if the price was right and the apps available. But not to Windows.
The fact that this guy is not aware of this simple market reality and yet manages a stock portfolio is really scary. Keep away from his Marketocracy Technology Plus Fund.
Now, on another hand, your argument about Linux on the desktop makes much more sense:
I especially see this coming as the other divisions of Microsoft, such as MSN and the XBox, while still losing money, are not losing as much money as they used to, and thus Microsoft would no longer have to rely on Windows and Office as their cash cows so much as they have done in the past.
Now that's a valid argument. It would not hurt the server sales but it would certainly hurt the Linux desktop numbers.
However, keep in mind that Microsoft depends on the value of its stock in order to retain employees with stock options. Now take a look at MS'S SEC filing [sec.gov], especially Note 9, "Segment information". Their operating systems and applications account for more than 86% of their sales income (financial activities excluded). The other divisions, entertainment and consumer electronics, are barely showing up on the radar screen. Even if they were profitable, they really couldn't scale up to the Office+Windows income. A sustained price cut on Windows and Office would hurt MS's income very badly, send their stock price down, and bring down their option-based financial Ponzi scheme. So they just cannot afford to do it.
See Bill Parish's report [billparish.com] for an overview of MS's financial pyramid. Recommended reading to understand what makes the Redmond Beat tick.
Pretty Pictures (Score:3, Insightful)
But this is pretty typical BusinessWeek - the stories are consistently of a quick glance-over quality, rather than any sort of accurate and/or compelling analysis. If you pick up the print edition you will also notice LOTS of pretty pictures, which is true to the light-on-content feel of most of BW's articles.
Most businesspeople just read it for a quick glance at emerging issues - so the very existence of the article is a pretty important step, and exactly how accurate the content is is in comparison, for now, somewhat irrelevant.
Re:Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is the parent post rated so high?
I think the parent poster does not understand linux. Linux will not just disappear because of competitive pricing. Linux would not disappear even if someone purchases every Linux distribution out there.
Linux is the result of people interested in creating and sharing information, regardless of the prices or costs of alternative operating systems.
I think, if Linux or free software some how relied on money/market share/stocks/etc it obviously would have failed so far.
Re:The Romanticizing of "The Linux Uprising" (Score:4, Insightful)
Maturation is what is generally refered to as a "Good Thing."
KFG
Re:Yet another ignorant but nice story about Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, not it's not. That in-house stuff is one of the major sources of open source. Consider, for example, Samba, which started out as an in-house project to serve files from a Un*x machine to windows machines. He released it because releasing it was the easiest way to get free support on the software.
-Miko
Re:I'm a business man... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Wintel" -- When Microsoft releases a new OS -- lots of Intel chips are sold in the MS push. The most common way people get a new microsoft operating system is via new hardware.
Intel needs Microsoft to drive the hardware sales. Microsoft needs intel to get chips specs and support on optimizing their operating system for the next generations of intel chips. Microsoft also enjoys a market controlled by intel-compatible PCs.
Recently, Intel has been making moves away from Microsoft (and Microsoft away from Intel). I might be tempted to point to AMDs upcoming 64bit chip as the source of alot of the friction. But the fact that intel has decided to completely support Linux as a first class operating system also bothers Microsoft.
I basically think the authors point was fair.
Re:Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Should Microsoft ever truly respond to the Linux threat, say by slashing their prices of Windows XP/Windows 2003/Windows Whatever in half, and slash the prices of Microsoft Office in half (much as they have already done in a recent promotion for Apple Macintosh users), it's game over for Linux on the desktop.,/P>
That's ridiculous. If Microsoft slashes Office and Windows prices in half you wouldn't believe how quickly Wall Street would abandon their stock. Reducing prices to compete is a loser's strategy and bound to fail in the long run. Let's presume that Red Hat and Xandros go out of business (despite the fact that Red Hat has a big service revenue business). IBM and Sun, tasting the blood in the water, would buy them and match Microsoft's price drops dollar for dollar. Who do you think can go on without making much profit longer, the open source world or Microsoft? IBM could sell Red Hat software at a loss for decades as long as they kept pulling in the big bucks in service revenue. Microsoft has no such luxury. Once they slash the prices of their major products they will be hastening their own demise.
Re:Not All's Well that Ends Well ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Blame the Linux "activists"... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want to be too negative about it, though. Some of the attention they've brought to Linux has probably been good for attracting resources, though I worry that some has probably scared away resources, too.
A lot of us Linux users don't see ourselves as activists battling anybody. We just use it because we like it, not because we hate some Evil Empire. We don't get much press, though, because we're surrounded by noisy "M$ sucks!" activists screaming for attention.
It now seems appropriate to mention.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. I mean, this is a story in business week
predicting their demise basically. How can you stop
a compeditor that doesn't have bills to pay, or
debt? I mean, I was worried back in the day. I was
sure they'd come up with some way of simply taking
advantage of strong political ties to make Linux
essentially illegal. That doesn't even matter
anymore. Money is getting invested. Huge companies
are in. I used to flat out laugh at the
"world domination" types on here because it just
sounded so silly. My argument was always, who
cares about the rest of the world. How can they
stop something free? It's turning out to be their
achilles heel. Microsoft can't buy Linux out.
Microsoft is moving too slowly to make something
that can compete on cost. They've spent a fortune
on trying to market their way out of this
inevitable approaching death, and people just
don't buy it anymore. I'm not saying that
Microsoft will fade into the distance. That's just
not realistic. But they will have to give up the
childish name calling and get onboard at some
point. The sooner they realize they need to give
up the server market and embrace Linux as much
as they can, the less money they'll bleed down
the road. If they don't, they'll lose the server
market within a short time, then they'll slowly
lose the desktop market. It's all right there in
that article. It's what I see. I can't be the only
one. Imagine all the PHB's reading that going
"wow, that geeky guy telling me about Linux years
ago was right. We need Linux now". I don't even
feel silly saying that. I would have a year ago.
Scott McNeilly in a Penguin suit speaks volumes.
It's only a matter of time now.
Re:I'm a business man... (Score:5, Insightful)
Java, C, PHP, ASP - they couldn't give a toss. Well designed site that works and lets them sell things/get their prescence on the web, that's what they care about. The choice of technology is irrelevant - in fact, that's what they're paying us for.
Scott on Drugs? (Score:2, Insightful)
His interview was filled with wonderful contradictions like:
- IBM & HP are stupidly throwing away all their UNIX knowledge and going all for Linux. We wouldn't do anything like that.
vs.
- The OS is just the plumbing which upon you build the real value-add.
Eh...what's really happening here, Scotty?
Is this one of these "Let's build a completely portable programming environments so that we can sell more of our proprietary hardware!" moments?
Re:the gist is... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it."
How is it stupid?
One, free software are free to use. It's just when you make derivative products from it where you come into contact with the GPL.
Two, not all free software are GPLed. Some significant examples, in fact, form the core of successful commercial products.
Three, there's nothing to actually sign. However, the effect is similar, so we can probably overlook that.
Four, "giving away your innovations" is a little oversimplified. It's theoretically possible that a competitor just downloads your sources, improves it a bit, and ships, but see how the best example of this - early versions of Mandrake - is near death but Red Hat is thriving.
The reason I'm bothering to list all of this on Slashdot is that this is, in fact, a bit nuanced, if not confusing. Is it possible that our political fervor is undermining us? Everything wrong with this statement comes from misunderstanding the GPL.
Look at Apple. They used BSD code, and are contributing their changes back even though they don't legally have to. They do that for good PR and for the potential of getting "free" bug fixes. In this case, free software is beneficial to all parties involved. I guess RMS never thought that would actually happen (without being legally required to by license). Perhaps relying on the fact that open source is good development practice is enough?
Visionaries as some of these prominent folks are, they've unfortunately "hijacked" the word "free" and made it so confusing that mainstream journalists cannot understand it anymore. They may be "stupid", but are we getting too smart for our own good?
Re:Red Flags for Red Hat (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Did someone say Steak?! (Score:1, Insightful)
they put it back. (Score:3, Insightful)
Q: It seems strange that social and psychological factors are more important incentives for creating open-source software than money.
A: I worked for Pixar for 12 years. During those 12 years, every piece of software I wrote, except for one, hit its end of life before I left the company -- the projects were canceled or never deployed. Nothing survives. Now, programmers are like artists. They derive gratification from lots of people using their work. Writing software that just gets put away feels like intellectual masturbation. All of the good comes from someone else participating.
I'm glad that you were not refering to the efforts of free software writers. Who'd have ever thought of a bunch of softies as wankers? I'll leave that piece of filth about the de-bugger alone as they might be against the law in Southern California.
Not so bad at all really. A better analogy, and one I can tell my daughter, would be to compare such work with an Egyptian Slave's job. You eat and work on beautiful objects but your work is secret and in the end it gets locked up in a tomb with a dead man and perhaps yourself never to be seen again by anyone you know or care about. Not very satisfying at all, especiall when you cosider that your work is paid for and props up the nasty structure that enslaves everyone you know. Nah, jerk off works better.
"The Raw, the Cooked and the Half Baked" why does that ring a bell?
Re:the gist is... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know. You know. Why is a professional journalist still confused? You can sit there and conclude that he's stupid, or you can entertain the thought that perhaps we're not communicating as effectively as possible.
There are also people whose job it is to smear free software, and the GPL happens to be the easiest thing to confuse people with. Otherwise, free software is just like stuff on the shelf, only you don't have to pay. Easy.
Re:I'm a business man... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Wintel" -- When Microsoft releases a new OS -- lots of Intel chips are sold in the MS push. The most common way people get a new microsoft operating system is via new hardware.
Yes. True.
Intel needs Microsoft to drive the hardware sales.
Okay, now *that* is silly, unless that you're going to claim that this is entirely via virtue of massively inefficient code on the part of Microsoft or something.
Intel needs [operating system vendors] and [application vendors] to drive the hardware sales. It really doesn't matter who is doing the selling. As a matter of fact, Linux makes it much easier to migrate to Intel's higher end server chips, which throws Intel into paroxysms of joy.
Microsoft needs intel to get chips specs and support on optimizing their operating system for the next generations of intel chips
Sort of. I really doubt that Intel is going to withhold instruction set information from anyone. Zero benefit to them. Still, to some degree, *Microsoft* depends on *Intel*. Not the other way.
But the fact that intel has decided to completely support Linux as a first class operating system also bothers Microsoft.
What do you mean by "completely support"? Intel doesn't provide support for *any* operating system that I know of. If you go home, call up Intel and say "I'm having trouble installing Windows", they're going to tell you to piss off. Operating systems support CPUs, *not* the other way around.
What do we OWE MS and Sun? (Score:2, Insightful)
Building more what? That's the really big question. Since when do consumers OWE it to their suppliers to figure out how they can continue to be billionaires? We have already made Gates the richest man on earth. Now - because his business model and current products have a limited future - what are we supposed to do - continue to buy inferior products at a more expensive price so that his business as it is will continue to survive?
What's ironic is that the OSS developement is often labeled as communistic and it's developers as dirty hippies who can't make it in the real world.
Consider the cell phone industry. Originally the phones were considered new technology and commanded a very high price for the phone itself. Now, the standard phones are basically given away because we know what the phones have to do and we can make them cheaply. Companies make their money on the monthly cell-phone service charges. I don't see articles being written about the demise of the cell-phone manufacturers because thier phones are being given away - or the end of cell-phone innovation because the one I got for $300 5 years ago now is free.