Linux Going Mainstream 618
Gossi writes "The BBC is carrying an excellent overview of the growing use of Linux, by many different fields. The article says it all, really, and is probably something you should show your Boss."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Linux Going Mainstream
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
With the way games are written these days (requiring massive amounts of time and money), game development will have to undergo some pretty radical changes before it will fit successfully into the OSS model and we continue to have the quality of games we have today.
Of course, the other path is that the PC is removed from the entertainment picture and consoles take over that role completely (woe be that day).
This reminds me of Popular Science (Score:1, Insightful)
If you read about it in 1998 (Score:3, Insightful)
Kjella
Re: Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Until Linux is a complete entertainment package
Sounds like all the more reason for corporations to adopt it.
not so suprising (Score:5, Insightful)
In my openion the main problem is people, in general, don't even knwo open source exists. And those that do only vaguely recall that they've hear about it somewhere. Hopefully its only a matter of time before people (especially in the US) catch on.
Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (Score:2, Insightful)
Technical professional?!! You are SO unbelievably clueless, I don't even KNOW where to start!!!
I mean, since when has Redhat been a webserver!!!
Those certificates are obviously not worth the paper they're written on!! Next....
Re:Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no obligation for the game development to fit into the OSS model. Games can continue to be proprietary if they simply intall and run fairly under Linux.
Re:Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus, to say that "If only we had Windows-like selection of games, then we'd be ready to take over the world" is sorta self-defating. The games won't come before the people come, and the people, according to you, won't come before the games are already there, thus nothing changes.
Fortunately you're wrong. What happens instead is that every day Linux improves. (with Linux I really mean Linux + the apps) And with every improvement it becomes acceptable for more people. And with every new person who uses it, there's one more reason to consider making a game available also for Linux.
Didn't quite get all the facts straight (Score:5, Insightful)
There are other GPL'd operating systems, and the BSDs are all open source, aren't they?
Large companies have been benefiting from Linux for years now. They use it to run large servers and networks.
Small companies have arguably been benefitting more: I know from my experience that it's easier getting Linux into a small company than it is into a large one.
"This is something that a lot of people in developing countries have. It is a natural for them to make do with little, and to produce something of value out of nothing."
This is just patronising.
How about pointing out that people whoever they are all benefit and can run the same software without the discrimination that high prices cause.
Some worry, though, that large corporations may be reluctant to share their Linux-based software with others. And that, say long-time Linux programmers, would violate the tenets of the open source philosophy.
More importantly, it would also be copyright infringement if they ever distributed it, and would cause them no end of trouble keeping their version of the code up to date.
But other than that, refreshing to read an article about linux that doesn't mention either Redmond or Utah.
the IBM ads (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that if your boss does not already understand the ways of Linux, perhaps reading an article on a Web page won't be enough to convince him.
Get a hold of one of the new IBM ads [ibm.com] and play it for him. Seeing a major, big name company back Linux with a TV spot would carry a lot more weight than someone's opinion on a Web page, no matter how eloquent that opinion is presented. But then, I'm not even employed right now, so I shouldn't be giving advice on what to show your boss. ;)
Still, it's hard for anyone to ignore the opinion of IBM. Or rather, it's a lot easier to ignore the opinion of an author at the BBC.
Re:how can it go mainstream? (Score:2, Insightful)
Good article and something else to say... (Score:4, Insightful)
I was doubtful three years ago but now I say for sure - Linux and Free Software has a future, and it is right here - in Gnome, in KDE, in OpenOffice.org, in all those new ideas, which pop-up instantly in mailing lists, forums, freedesktop.org, gnomedesktop.org. I like that creativity which grows and grows and seems to be unstoppable.
Linux is here to stay. Is also here to stay and be viable alternative for your desktop usage. Whatever you choose it or not, it's upon you. Because it is about the choice, not about pushing you to use it.
Re:Games.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Games.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so fast.
How many games do you know of, that run only on one architecture?
There are a lot of games out there that run on PlayStation, Nintendo, Xbox, and PC/Windows... and maybe the occasional Mac port. They're using portability frameworks to make sure they can reach all markets. In some sense, this could mean that the games world is actually ahead of the productivity apps world in making sure they've got portable code out there to work with.
If your game engine is already portable, it's not a monumental effort to make a Linux port available if someone decides there's a reasonable sized market for it.
Re:Seen IBM's new linux commercial? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're meant to generate interest in a product, not explain it, so that the PHBs then go to IBM and ask them about it, and IBM happily gives them the whole sales pitch.
Pretentious? You bet! They're fscking IBM! They do their best to look even bigger than the 800 pound gorilla that they are so, that the PHBs, who are business people, are sure that IBM is the winning team; cuz that is who the PHBs go with: the ones they consider to be the winning team.
Re:Games.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem has to do with support costs more than implementation costs. Having full commercial support is hard enough across the Windows line, throw in Linux with umteen different kernel variants in wide use, different LIBCs, other dependencies and all that stuff and forget about it. You'll never get support for a $50 game when you have all those variables involved.
Should be obscure enough (Score:3, Insightful)
That ought to work, at least in England. The BBC article says that, "Linux is unique in that it is open source," so they've apparently never heard of OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, kOS, etc, etc. :-)
Don't show your boss, show your client. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you read about it in 1998 (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux has been becoming "mainstream" in a number of different markets over time. First it was low-end servers. Then mid-range servers. Then scientific computing (supercomputers, etc). Then workstations (ILM, etc). Then it was the embedded market. Now, its the corporate desktop. Come 2006, you'll hear again that "Linux is going mainstream" but it'll be a different market (maybe educational or public terminals?) Linux is becoming more suitable for more and more markets, and that's what the repeated articles about it "going mainstream" reflect.
Re:how can it go mainstream? (Score:5, Insightful)
For most software, the differences among Linux distributions are immaterial; if you port to one, it will run on all. In fact, in most cases, so long as the CPU is the same, the binaries will be compatible. For that matter, most properly written software will be portable, at the source level, among POSIX-compliant systems, meaning not only Linux but a wide range of other UNIX systems.
Except in the very unusual case in which different distributions use different versions of the kernel that differ in what system calls they support, and where your software makes use of these system calls, the differences among distributions are entirely a matter of what versions of what libraries they come with, and what other software. That means that software that compiles and runs on one distribution can always be compiled and run on another; the difference will be that in some cases the person doing the build will have to install a library or a program that did not come with the distribution. That is generally not a big deal. If your software requires something exotic, you can also provide statically-linked binaries that incorporate it for those who don't have the necessary library.
I've never encountered a problem due to differences among distributions. I have been using Mandrake on my own machines for the last several years. I have had no problem compiling software that I write on the Red Hat machines in our lab. In fact, I rarely encounter any problem compiling my software on our Suns. (When I do it is almost always because I am using GNU extensions that Sun libc does not support.)
The variety of distributions may seem confusing and chaotic to non-Linux people, and at the level of the desktop, I can see how inexperienced users would find the differences offputting. But it really isn't a problem for developing or porting software.
Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate middle management is not interested in facts. They are not interested in improvement. They are not interested in efficiency that is not accomplished by either making people shovel shit or firing people.
Middle management seeks to maintain the status quo, and to do nothing unless it is absolutely necessary. Incompetence, bankruptcy, waste, stupidity, anything is better than trying and failing.
They have failed to learn that the raw materials for success are failures. They have failed to learn this because they do not listen. They do not seek the advice of people who know better than they do. Faced with irrefutable truth, middle management will very often if not always follow the path of maximum stupidity.
Therefore, middle management will very often if not always refuse to allow Linux to be used to improve their business. No accomplishment, no fact, nothing will change this. Discussing Linux with a middle manager is nothing more than an amusing waste of time.
Re:Games.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I tried... (Score:5, Insightful)
They wouldn't even look at it. Our lead developer thinks Microsoft is the best producer of software and that
Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux needs a lot more work... (Score:1, Insightful)
Linux really needs an installer of sorts. An exe-like format for morons. And it needs to get a real system to distribute packages and make it a standard. Cuz downloading 1000s of libs blows
Re:If you read about it in 1998 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:games is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Desktop Conversions: I'm not sure about anyone else, but my company ( a multinational telecommunications company ) rolls out new desktops of MicroSloth crap at least twice a year, and spends the intervening six months trying to make the stuff they just did work - the same crowd that says "You can't have XP because it will bring down the network."
Network Migration: What the hell, guy, are you still running NetBEUI or something? Linux has done SMB (through Samba) for-freaking-ever (in computer years, anyway). Outside of that, even MicroSloth doesn't really attempt to take on Linuxs' networking pedigree.
User Retraining: I would hope that your computer users are somewhat more savvy than, say, my grandfather - who converted to Linux eight months ago; or my wife, who converted over a year ago; or my Aunt Jill, who converted seven months ago and uses her home PC for work tasks. All in all I've had far fewer 'help me' calls from them since upgrading them. The hardest 'retraining task' was getting them to understand network logins and remember their passwords.
Consultants: LOL... Consultants won't recommend Linux conversion, on the whole, not yet. Mostly because their purpose is not to solve a company's technical problems, but to bill hours (and yes, I've been a consultant and I have been told that I 'solved a problem too rapidly').
When you combine all of these costs, double them, and then subtract the cost of troubleshooting and fixing SoBig, MyDoom, and the other litany of M$-based crapola, and, as the previous poster mentioned, the recovered gaming time (since you can't play a lot of the popular games on Linux) and reduced support hours, I think Linux becomes a clear win.
Re:Games.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now they keep their engines proprietary and duplicate a lot of each other's work.
Re:Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Times change.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ok (Score:1, Insightful)
Linux needs games (Score:4, Insightful)
A bit too optimistic? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Linux expansion on the server end is doing more good than some think. If a small, mid, or large company migrages to Linux servers then they are more or less forced to drop prorietary crap like MAPI and open the door towards accepting standards over closed-proprietary standards, protocols, etc. With this mechanism in action tat means more competitors, less vendor lock-in, and a healthier IT market all around.
I don't see Linux as a MS-killer, Apple-killer, but as a carrier of open protocols and standardization. If Linux can deliver this than most of the problems in the IT industry will disappear. As we've seen many times before its much tougher to make a monopoly without proprietary protocols, vendor lock-in, etc.
Right now I would say the fastest way to getting things more "open" in general would be OSX on the desktop and Linux in the server room. Its a shame Apple isn't seen a serious player in the corporate environment, especially with their prices so low.
GPL - You do not HAVE to share source... (Score:2, Insightful)
A BIG reason PHBs dont use GNU/Linux / FOSS is because misinformed geeks keep spreading the nonsense that if you use open source / free software then you have to make publicly available the source code to your applications.
This is NOT true.
You do not have to unless you are going to make modifications and then sell / distribute the modified code. If it is an in-house application and never gets distributed, there is no requirement AT ALL to release the source code back into the community.
PHBs would be far more comfortable using F/OSS if they didnt have geeks telling them how good it is that the company will become part of the F/OSS movement, and instead were told about the virtues of using F/OSS.
Re:"Show your boss"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides that, anyway, I find your comment somewhat surprising, given your relatively low slashdot ID.
Especially when you criticize linux permissions. They are dated but indispensable for a multi user machine, which can be your own laptop when your nephew comes by and want to surf a little. I don't trust myself to use my own windows box
Re:If you read about it in 1998 (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, its all a matter of what market you are talking about. Linux's support for server peripheral's is excellent, which is why it has "gone mainstream" in the server market. Its also not a problem on the business desktop, where IT purchases are planned ahead of time, and are generally conservative about hardware. The fact that Linux doesn't support Sony Minidisc players is utterly irrelevent on a corporate desktop. As long as it supports the integrated graphics and sound chips on the motherboard (and Linux almost always does) hardware support is not an issue.
This is why the predictions have so far failed to bear fruit.
If somebody predicated in 1998 that Linux was about to go mainstream in the home user market, they were full of shit. But the home user market is only a part of the overall computing landscape, and Linux has managed to become mainstream in many markets without making any inroads in the home market.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Government, yup (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's not like another popular operating system, who, for its own protection, we will only referred to as "M.S.W.", has a perfectly clean security record..
Re:Sun Microsystems? (Score:2, Insightful)
On another note, however, Gentoo on a dual 450 U60 is a great desktop!
But Microsoft *is* our local economy (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you spend a dollar with a local company working on Linux, that dollar stays in your economy," said Simon Phipps of Sun Microsystems.
"When you spend a dollar with a multi-national corporation as a license fee for a piece of software, that dollar leaves your country."
"It's about keeping the money in your local economy, developing skills and developing the local economy to be strong in its own right in a global context."
At first I wondered, "Wait a sec. Microsoft is an American company, right? So if other nations pay fees to M$, then the 'local economy' is... the American economy. 'We' are the economy that this benefits!"
Obviously Phipps wants China and other nations to recognize that if they develop open source software (presumably Linux based) then whatever money the government spends on software supports their own people.
One has to ask. "Where does Phipps live and work?"
Do not misunderstand me. I love Linux. I want it to grow and expand and compete effectively with Microsoft. Especially because I want poorer nations to have a solid alternative that works - and works well. Even discounted M$ software imposes a burden on Third World nations.
My only point is that is struck me as odd that an American(?) like Phipps working for Sun Microsystems would invoke the "we want them to invest in their own nations' economies" argument.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linux needs a lot more work... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux needs a lot more work... (Score:5, Insightful)
And then you complain that managing 1000s of libs is a pain in the neck, saying "it needs to get a real system to distribute packages" -- after admitting that you use Slackware.
Worst. Critique. Ever.
Re:Linux needs a lot more work... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're thinking of this, you really have to ask yourself why you want widespread linux adoption at all. If you're just going to create an equally crappy system to replace windows with, what's the point? We already have a crappy system on 90%+ of desktops.
And it needs to get a real system to distribute packages and make it a standard.
Compared to windows which has er.. no package management at all. Just a haphazard bunch of proprietary binaries putting their files wherever they want, overwriting whatever libraries they feel like, and having no versioning system. That isn't package management.
In windows can you do 'apt-get install application'? Using your logic I could say that therefore windows isn't ready for the desktop because it doesn't behave like the rest of my systems. Windows looks massively inferior from where I'm standing.
I think before you boot your slackware system again you have to repeat the mantra: "this is not windows, this is not windows...".
Re:If you read about it in 1998 (Score:4, Insightful)
And I think you will agree that once a manufacturer's sales drop slightly because of lack of support for a popular OS, it will ll write a driver pretty damn fast.
Omission (Score:2, Insightful)
Scary or ludicrous? (Score:3, Insightful)
"So it's not just cost-based, but also the concept of open source software. They just like the idea of saving the people money, but also giving back to the people what they created."
So now government will get in to the business of writing it's own code and releasing it to the public? Just think about that and reflect upon what projects have governments undertaken that you personally would hail as successful, efficient, and inexpensive.
Didn't we the public just spend a decade crying for how government should be more business-like e.g. outsourcing? But we should change that for things like the software that makes government "run"?
Re:"Show your boss"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't so thrilled with the Open Office spreadsheet and didn't even know there was a Kspread.
The irony of Linux's growth (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ok (Score:3, Insightful)
The board told the CIO (and the CTO and all other officers) that the corporation had not met it's goals so every body had to cut their budget by some amount (don't know exactly how much).
You know what they did? they fired people that's what. The biggest cost is salary so they got rid of people. They are still paying through the nose for compaq servers, MS sharepoint licenses, exchange, SQL server, vertias net backup, and a dozen more commercial software for which there are inexpensive and OSS competitors to.
You are living in a fantasy world if you think some Middle Manager is going to advocate switching technology, it's easier to fire people.
Re:The irony of Linux's growth (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but that's the good thing about the front-ends to many Linux/Unix software these days.
A lot of them are basically "front end" programs to either existing software, or to system calls or directories.
So although you can use a graphical tool, it's usually just calling or displaying something you can do via the command line. It doesn't replace the CLI equivalent - like so many Windows programs do.
Also what it means is that several front-end interfaces can be used to invoke the same actual program. But as they're actually accessing the program (or directory, or whatever) itself, it reduces potential incompatibilities.
OK, I can't speak for "Joe Sixpack" or "Joe Hardcore-Programmer", but I know that personally I like being able to use a GUI for quick or easy access to something, but can switch to the CLI for more low-level control over what I'm doing.
TiggsRe:Government, yup (Score:3, Insightful)
It is when you maintain a standardized environment. If anybody put Linux on their desktop computer, I would try as hard as I could to get that person fired. They arent there to play, they are there to work. And their work doesnt involved compromising my security or environment with non-standard applications.
Nobody there is trained to work with Linux, so nobody can be responsible for making it secure. And if nobody can take that responsibility, it doesnt get used.
Accountability? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even worse, what if a government agency develops some software which it releases. Will it be held responsible should there be a flaw which adversely affects other users? In this day and age there is no doubt that someone would try to sue esp. if it's a government agency. And let's face it, a government agency is fundamentally accountable to "the people" for its actions.
Lack of liability is already bad enough. Moving to oss would seem to exacerbate the problem. And should you doubt any of this, ask yourself, when you've bitched about a really thorny problem with some oss software how often have you had the response that "Hey, it's free. Don't like it then take a hike." That is not an option for a responsible agency with a critical need, nor is it a response they can make.