Ask Bruce Perens About Linux and Open Source

A lot is going on these days, ranging from the endlessly amusing SCO soap opera to plenty of mostly positive news about Linux and Open Source adoption by both corporate and government users, not to mention an increasing number of commercial applications being ported to Linux. And, of course, LinuxWorld is right around the corner. Bruce Perens is certainly as appropriate a person as any to help us get a handle on the current (and possibly future) state of Linux and Open Source. We'll send him 10 of the highest moderated questions, and post his answers as soon as he gets them back to us. As usual, one question per post, please, and don't bother asking questions that can easily be answered with a couple of minutes' worth of online research.

Any background moves?

[leandrod]

Are you aware of any background moves by the major players in this farce that could bring a speedy resolution? Or, do you have any hopes for a speedy resolution?

Why?

[Dark Lord Seth]

Isn't Mr Perens a slashdot regular himself or something? Wouldn't that more or less defeat the whole purpose of holding a slashdot interview, then send him the question he can read himself and then making him answer them while he could have answered them by just replying?

Turning the tide

[daeley]

In recent weeks, we've seen a concerted attack of FUD regarding open source in general but Linux in particular; all signs point to this being but the first in a series of new battles. I think it's been too easy for a lot of people to scoff at SCO's brazen and seemingly suicidal behavior, mistaking what is in fact a serious threat.

With that in mind, what are some ways you think open source/free software users and organizations can counter these attacks and, much more importantly, attack back?

Unasked Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any questions you think people should be asking you, that they never do?

viable business models

[JimCricket]

Open source really turns the business of software upside-down. Some open source-related companies have done well, others have not. In your opinion, which business models are the most appropriate?

Re:Linux replacing Windows on the desktop

[leifm]

I work in support as well. I don't think there is any chance of Linux replacing Windows on the desktop overall. I think we'll gain some converts with NGSCB comes along, but not many. There are just to many applications only avail. on Windows, and people are used to how Windows works. I agree with Tim O'Reilly, who is basically saying that the next generation of apps are going to be internet based, and Linux is on the forefront of that. He often refers to Amazon.com and Google as examples of heavily used "applications" that are based on OSS. I think it'd do the OSS community well to continue building the foundation for the next generation of computing, where (hopefully) the network provides the useful applications and individual machine platform is irrelevant.

The Desktop: when?

[10Ghz]

When will we see REAL support for Linux on the desktop? The Kernel is ready, the desktops are ready, the distros are ready, we have tons of apps. Only thing missing is real support from the OEM's. Sure, they support Linux on the servers, but few offer Linux-desktops. And those who do have very limited selection and they are hidden deep deep. No OEM pushes Linux on the desktop, not even IBM.

Do you see any change occurring in this space? At what pace can we hope to have some REAL support for the Linux-desktop? I dream for the day when Linux will be the default OS OEM's offer with Windows being the optional extra.

Re:Linux replacing Windows on the desktop

[An Onerous Coward]

After watching my Mom struggle with various Windows offerings, I think the question should be rephrased, "Based on the ability of most users out there, is there any chance that we'll ever have a truly intuitive computer interface?"

Right now, I don't think there is one, even for someone who understands the concepts of files, directories, and applications.

Re:Direction The Open Source Community Should Take

[nicholasharbour]

I'm not sure what perins will say but I would like to know who you think will be the ones abandoning software? If all open source development were consolidated into a few big projects only a few people would actually get to hack. What would be the fun in that? I say ignore what you read on freshmeat, the author obviously don't understand the spirit of hacking. Personally I like the fact that free software isn't being controlled by any authoritative figure. Most of us who contribute are told what to code at work and when we come home we like to play with stuff that interests us. If you have to ask bruce parens what you should do with your spare time I think you should seek help.

Re:What if SCO Wins?

[An Onerous Coward]

One point: If SCO's licensing scheme becomes ubiquitous, Linux is dead anyways. SCO doesn't have the right to distribute Linux under anything but the GPL (unless their ridiculously expansive concept of "intellectual property" stands up in court, which it won't). Nobody will work on Linux just to increase SCO's revenues, and we all know how well they maintain their own Unix offering, so they won't be doing it in house.

The legal alternatives, I guess, would be HURD or the *BSDs. Maybe a GPL'ed fork of one of the BSDs.

I'm confident of one thing. If SCO wins, the current community will be brushing off their old copies of MINIX before contributing to SCO/Linux.

Re:Hinderance to Adoption

[Alethes]

As long as people can get proprietary software they're already familiar with for free (illegally), then they have no motivation to look for legally free alternatives.

I'm not Bruce, but that's my opinion. :)

Doing anything else woudln't be practical

[kaltkalt]

If we did a "post questions for bruce perens and he'll answer what he feels like here" thread, it would be a total mess. He'd feel obligated to answer a lot of questions, and that would mean short answers for nearly everything. Doing it this way, with the highest modded questions being given to him, and then giving him time to respond, is the best way to do it. Besides, it's the way all slashdot interviews are done. I'm sure we've done plenty of official interviews with people who read slashdot regularly (in fact, didn't one of the DoJ lawyers admit to reading slashdot quite often?). Only the best questions (i.e. mine) should be given the time to be modded up to +5 and then sent off for answering. Letting the interviewee pick the questions lets them censor themselves, and that's not good... in fact that's bullshit. "hey bill gates, read this thread and answer the questions you want!" Would you expect any good questions to be answered (even though bill, unlike bruce, is probably adverse to most of our questions... hostile witness if you will).

Re:Do you understand dselect?

[IM6100]

Every time that I've installed Debian on a machine I've been dragged by default into the Dselect pit as part of the install.

Has that changed in the approx. six months since I did a Debian install?

Re:Wag the dog

[rgmoore]

When will software choices be made by virtue of technical merit, and not political views?

What makes you think that software will ever be chosen exclusively by technical merit? Even if you exclude "political issues" there will always be factors like price that will have significant impact on decisions about which software to use. And neglecting the importance of those "political issues" (presumably mostly licensing) is extremely foolish. The ability to modify software and use it legally in the way that you want to is a very important real-world consideration, and deriding it as a secondary political question is a mistake.

Or, to put it a different way, people will make decisions based on technical merit rather than political views when those political views are no longer a relevant factor. Since they currently are and are likely to remain so for the forseeable future, the answer is no time soon.

Desktop Breakthrough's

[Bruha]

The 2 largest barriers for Linux hitting the desktop in large numbers seem to be adequate drivers and desktop applications/games. We've seen breakthroughs such as Nvidia's graphics card and Nforce2 chipset support along with Transmeta's WineX allowing more DirectX games to be played on Linux.

In the forseeable future do you think that these barriers will continue the trend or will they be broken and things will get better for the Linux crowd?

Re:Bruce?

[mal3]

I hate to say this given the forum, but the reverse is also true. Open Source also does not equal quality. We have alot of people out there advocating solutions that maybe aren't the best option just because they're open source. If someone gets burned using a open source product that's not up to snuff it brands all of Open Source software. When you advocate make sure you're advocating good solutions not good licenses.

--Mal

Re:BSD

[Arandir]

It's important to remember that Linux got a huge boost in popularity when BSD was being sued by USL. It was the wrong lawsuit at the wrong time.

As a FreeBSD user, I'm still ambivalent in the attitude towards BSD gaining popularity via the SCO FUD campaign. One part of me thinks it's great, but another part is embarrassed to be profiting at a friend's expense. It's not "fair" that people will be choosing BSD based on the childish rantings of Daryl McBride. But neither is it "fair" that people choose Linux just because the media tells everyone that Linux == Open Source.

Re:Bruce?

[ichimunki]

I kind of disagree. I think what you're pointing out is the major flaw in the whole Open Source movement's approach as compared to that of the Free Software movement-- and I know some people think they're interchangeable, but I feel like there are at least two prevalent strains within the larger GNU/Linux and BSD user communities.

The Open Source people want to concentrate on all the fiscal and technical reasons to use Free Software. By framing the argument as monetary, you get into this long debate about things like Total Cost of Ownership, and you have to spend hours splitting hairs and qualifying everything in order for Open Source to "win". Same with technical issues. A lot of Open Source software lacks features that proprietary software has. But the Open Source zealot goes on about "shallow eyeballs" or whatever and makes claims that the software improves more rapidly or is more secure or of higher quality because what right-minded programmer would want to show the world his or her crappy code and so on... but bugs do get into release versions. Software is found to have security holes. It's a part of designing complex systems. It's easy for someone to, as you say, "get burned", especially if they've had their expectations raised by this kind of advocacy.

The Free Software zealot, on the other hand, simply says: "So what if the software is not as feature-filled as proprietary software XYZ? So what if there's a bug? At least with Free Software I have the freedom to add that feature or to fix the bug. That's something proprietary software XYZ will never allow. Therefore, the choice is simple because freedom is too important to give up for a couple bucks or a nifty feature." That's a sort of advocacy that won't get users burned later because they'll be aware that they may be making tradeoffs... but at least they'll understand why.