EDS: Linux is Insecure, Unscalable 1112
daria42 writes "Large enterprises should not use Linux because it is not secure enough, has scalability problems and could fork into many different flavours, according to the Agility Alliance, which includes IT heavyweights EDS, Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, Sun, Dell and EMC."
What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting crowd (Score:4, Insightful)
We are the risk takers of our time (Score:5, Insightful)
In an industry where companies distort facts, thwart community efforts, it can be hard to know who to trust and what to believe. I think it is times like these when we the Open Source/Linux community can compare itself most closely with other changes and booms in society's history.
Think of all the doomsayers who like to say "The sky is falling" around times of economic uncertainty and social change. In the end, the ones who take the risks during those times, usually come out ahead.
I consider the Open Source community to be the "risk takers" per say of our time. I don't think that we'll end up on the wrong side of the fence when all is said and done. But if we do, so be it! At least we tried to make something better of the world. Something that gives rather than takes.
I don't think we should spend so much time reading articles like this that give us the attitude that the sky is falling. We should spend more time celebrating Linux and Open Source and leading the way to what will come next. We need to be leaders not Doomsayers.
If you want to read a good article on why open source is the right way to do things, read this Peruvian Congressman's letter to the manager of Microsoft in Peru [opensource.org]. Really great read.
"Heavyweights." (Score:5, Insightful)
Yawn.
Why is forking a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot says... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a fair summary. But really, Microsoft, I see you listed. Is Windows more secure? Is Windows more scalable? I mean, they know as well as we do about the possibilities of it splitting into multiple varieties, but aside from that...
I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)
OS vs. language (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another slandering of linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Securifying? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that pretty much says it all. This is a quote from one of the people we're to take advice from...
hard to believe (Score:5, Insightful)
The article, or at least the people putting forth their thesis (I call bullhockey, it's really more of an agenda) do much to discredit themselves with claims such as:
I don't know exactly what they mean by "splintered", but working in the Unix field now for twenty-plus years, I never experienced:
I don't find or see anything enlightening or new in the article, and walk away shaking my head when these kinds of observations get any press at all.
Hahaha! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yawn..
Re:We are the risk takers of our time (Score:5, Insightful)
Not scalable? Really?? (Score:1, Insightful)
Not scalable, my ass.
-HJ
( No, my ass is not scalable either. :p )
Who Comes Up with These Names? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agile for dinosaurs, I guess.
EDS, Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, and EMC are not names I associate with agility. It would be like IBM, Exxon-Mobile, GE, and Wal-Mart getting together and calling themselves the "Lightweight League of Business".
This is the same EDS that gets sued (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We are the risk takers of our time (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither do I. But Linux definately hasn't completely established itself yet in society. One could say that we are still trying to get in installed.
And no, its not always about taking a risk at the right time. But percentage wise, their are so few risk takers (people who put them selves out there and try something new, etc.) in the world, that usually what happens during a time of change is that most people duck and cover while these "risk takers" command and conquer and usually win out at least somewhat in the end.
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
MS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Desktop Linux has, for the most part, stagnated because KDE and GNOME won't merge into one mega-standard. Instead, we must continue to install both entire desktop environments just to comfortably run each other's apps. It's absolutely ridiculous the way the wheel gets reinvented several times over. If you're running GNOME, a KDE app, Mozilla Firefox, and OpenOffice, you've got at least four major libraries now sitting in your memory, all doing the same things but with different code, implementing their own GUI widgets. You're never going to have desktop standards that way.
Oracle? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this the general opinion of the Alliance, or just the opinion of one clueless spokesperson?
EDS - incompetent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:doubts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Forking isn't necessarily bad. Besides, everywhere I've ever worked uses a fork of unix.. Solaris, FreeBSD, HP-UX, AIX, all derive their origins from original UNIX forks.
securifying (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
For enterprises and organizations, yeah, forks are bad things. They take up time and resources to manage and maintain. What happens if an organization chooses the wrong fork for the base OS? That is a very tough call.
The really only useful choices that I know of, and admitedly I am not too hip to all the distros out there, out there are the ones that offer true support and will survive the software cycle.
Think of forking like windows upgrades. Both impart uncertainty about the future. Both require investigation about the best choice. Both carry risk. That is hard for an organization to simply move on. That is one of the reasons that Windows upgrades take so long some times.
just a thought
Re:What a bunch... (Score:4, Insightful)
here's some fun: http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:alliance
Of course, this is just the begining. This is a good sign that the powers that be are starting to shake in their boots. They will continue their volleys and increase the intensity and ferocity of their attacks as their empires crumble. Its actually kind of fun to see them twisting in the wind like this.
Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Each claim should be evaluated regardless of messenger. If the claims don't make sense, there's no reason to immediately dismiss them because you know you're right. Instead, address them. Yes, there are cases where Linux is insecure and unscalable. There are cases where it is more secure and more scalable.
We should adopt more balanced opinions around here. Unfortunately, what will happen is that people will counter the article's reactionary opinion with an opposite reactionary opinion.
This isn't very significant and not news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even when companies do well, they die.
Re:We are the risk takers of our time (Score:3, Insightful)
A Real Contender (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hard to believe (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy (Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun) finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there. We think Linux has the possibility of going the same route," said Rasmussen.
There are still a lot of folks buying AIX and HP/UX. Using Rasmussen's logic, all that has to happen is for Red Hat to announce that they have the "One True Surviving Linux (tm)" and the problem of forking is forever solved.
I agree with the parent. The problem of multiple Unix versions has been overblown by folks who clearly haven't done a lot of real application development on Unix.
That same bias, applied to Slashdot (off-topic) (Score:0, Insightful)
I just wanted to point out how people are so quick to find bias in others while ignoring the corporate bias of the very website they're getting their daily news from. Slashdot is a corporate-owned entity. Rob Malda is an OSTG employee.
Trying not to Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they cite an alternative that is better? I guess since Windows XP supports two processors (wow) they must be. Microsoft is also renowned for security (e.g. IIS, IE, Word, Exchange) so this MUST be what they are getting at.
I have to add that this comes across as a bit of a surprise from an Oracle backed group after seeing 5 years of Oracle adds on the back of the Economist magazine:
"Unbreakable Linux"
"Powerful Linux" - ok I made that one up
"Unbeatable Linux" - and that one but you get the point
I guess now we can look forward to Oracle adds reading:
"Unscalable Lnx"
"Breakable Li n - u x"
"Beatable linux"
And in other news, IBM disagrees.
Forking is not the Problem. Closed source is. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apache is a fork from NCSA.
Firefox is a fork from Mozilla.
Cinepaint is a fork from Gimp.
What do these have in common?
They are all successful forks because they are all OSS and that they share code/ideas.
In contrast, the Unixes are good examples of code that started open, but was closed. Upon doing so, each fork of ideas,API was bad news. A better one is SMB. It was developed by IBM, IIRC. Yet, MS forked it and created network neighborhood. Doing samba and other apps to interoperate with it, is very difficult.
So no. Forking in OSS is not bad. Forking closed source, or forking and then closing it (as would happen with BSD) does cause problems
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
For a large enterprise a fork IS a bad thing. So is a new version, a patch, an update, any change. If you have thousands of computers any change costs time and money. While upgrading and patching incurs the cost it is a "necessary evil", being on a flavor that die off and is being replaced (even if by something better) is very bad. It's a real risk and management in those kinds of organizations are (and should be) very risk-averse. This is definitely an area where MS has the upper hand and will have until there are heavyweight supported distros. That day is arriving, but until then, don't ignore the fact that this is a very real problem.
Re:We are the risk takers of our time (Score:2, Insightful)
As I read the article, it looks like they've backed themselves in a corner. Paraphrasing: "Only high-end environments are not appropriate for Linux".
And *that* is not even true. Some of the fastest clusters are Linux.
Re:Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, and it's probably petty of me, but I have a hard time getting past a messenger who uses a garbage word like "securifying" with a straight face. Such behavior is an outstandingly reliable touchstone for excessive levels of marketing-think, demonstrating an absolute and fundamental lack of credibility. If such a one tells me the sky is blue, I'd reach for my umbrella. I won't bother to look up. And I'd have a damn fine chance of being right.
If such a person works in another company, I'll ignore him. If he works in my company, I'll avoid him. If, God forfend, I work for him, I'd slowly and undetectably undermine him so he's eventually terminated and never darkens my existence again.
So, here's a balanced and well-considered opinion: I can't hear his message because his asshat nature covers the ass he's clearly talking out of.
Re:What a bunch... (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally think that forks are what makes FOSS nimble and trim.
I can understand how those companies would not want that (my company is doing a project with EDS-- I won't comment!!!) since they live on bloat.
I think the corporate motto of software development is "Write once, sell everywhere." And forks get in the way of that Almighty Directive.
I say let them rot.
Re:Hahaha! (Score:2, Insightful)
If we want to play this game, than "Linux" has released SuSE 9.1, 10, 10.1, RedHat 9.2, Fedora Core 1, 2, 3, Mandrake 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 10, 10.1, Ubuntu Warty, etc. That certainly sounds like being "forked into multiple flavors" more than what Windows has seen.
I'm not going to comment on the security or scalablity comments, but let's call a spade a spade here.
In all fairness.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is on how many servers at Google, Amazon, and IBM. In addition, correct me if I am wrong, but a fair number of the top500.org systems are linux based systems (whereas MS does not rate top 100, the last time I checked). Finally, SGI has a new system running Linux with 2K CPUs. Not even Sun does that.
If ppl would netcraft systems that were hacked for CCs, they would realize they are almost all running windows. So MS has ~40 of the https space, but nearly 100% of all break-ins. Not a good stat to have.
Re:Hmmmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google doesn't really use any of the scalability features in Linux. In fact, they seem to go out of their way to avoid them and instead rely almost entirely on in-house technology for scaling.
It's a bit like saying that florescent lights are scalable because you can put thousands of individual lights within a building, or that IBM laptops are scalable because you can purchase them in units of 1000 running MS Windows.
Re:OS vs. language (Score:5, Insightful)
A large enterprise needs to be sure because it relates to securifying the environment.
Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there.
Clearly this guy was promoted to his level of incompetence long ago, and never bothered to keep up with the industry in which his company supposedly is a leader.
They said the same thing about Micros vs Mainframe (Score:2, Insightful)
newflash (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:2, Insightful)
They need to be know that in another 10 or 20 years there data, there programs, there userbase will still be able to do the 'same shit differnt day' day in and day out.
They will need to be able to access at the lest 7 years of data at the drop of a hat, ever min wasted trying to track down a slight differnce or problem in a fork could cost them big bucks.
As far as they see, forking is the worst thing that could happen, chose a dieing fork, and it coudl be game over.
"Losing to Linux" (Score:3, Insightful)
I think its that latter, which is interesting, because it belies a weakness in one of Linux' primary strengths: poor brand control.
Let me explain: In fact, 'some' distributions of "Linux" are very insecure, and forked, and quite bogus when it comes to Enterprise computing.
However, we all know this doesn't apply to "All if Linux"
It is interesting, however, that the argument is being made on "Enterprise" buttons.. the "insecurity of some distributions of Linux" is being used as a straw-man to divert managers' attention away from the very powerful fact of Linux in the Enterprise: any Enterprise which rolls its own Linux is going to have a superlative installation of the operating system.
As I have stated before, to me "Enterprise Linux" means rolling your own, plain and simple. Dufus admins may complaing "but this is too hard for us poor lowly administrators", but as I cut my teeth in big-iron Unix computing environments in the 70's, 80's, 90's and naughties, I have seen one kind of sysadmin to treasure and one to 'train', and the difference is on whether they can, in fact, assemble their own working installation/build from scratch, on a virgin disk/hardware configuration.
Whether or not a 'roll your own' is even 'thinkable' in a circumstance of computing use is, to me (and every Enterprise I've worked for/in) the standard which defines "enterprise" versus "personal/artistic" computing.
So, attacking Linux on its 'brand reality' and making overly generalized statements on 'the whole Linux scene' is to me a curious tactic, overlooking entirely that the best OS install for Enterprise is one hand-assembled by competent systems administrators.
(No, I do not personally think there is any argument for "competent systems administrator" not to include in its definition 'able to assemble and consequently administer own OS build'
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uuhh, like Windows 9x and Windows NT?
Bullshit when it applies to Linux. Having two highly competitive desktop platforms like GNOME and KDE results in both getting better faster.
And it's nonsense to say that Linux programs don't usually use the same layout and menus. There's no significant difference between Windows and Linux in that regard. Some authors don't follow the standards, but most do. Certainly all the major applications do. And nit-picking one or two menu entries on some specific Linux program (which is no doubt your next tack) doesn't change that fact.
Anybody switching from the Windows 2000 GUI to the XP GUI is going to have MAJOR problems with figuring out where everything is on the Start menu. Instead of having things in a clearly defined place, you have to read an entire panel of SENTENCES to figure out where what you want to do is located. Which is why MS allowed you to switch back to "classic view".
Anybody who says Windows is easier to use than Linux is simply wrong.
Re:Have you ever read something... (Score:2, Insightful)
If they say Linux is good, then people start asking why Windows has been their choice for the backend on 2 major contracts ( in the $Billions with B ) one which failed ( British Inland Revenue ), and one that is on the verge of failing ( Navy/Marines intranet).
Agility Alliance (Score:2, Insightful)
this is exactly what makes Linux so great, you can install & run Linux on anything from imbedded devices as small as wristwatchs & PDAs to IBMs Big Blue, Linux can scale just fine if Big Blue can run it..
http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2005/03
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?New
and secureing Linux is not a problem...
Tripping (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Lightweights." (Score:2, Insightful)
www.opensolaris.org [opensolaris.org]
www.openoffice.org [openoffice.org]
Sun supports Linux, too [sun.com]
What were you saying?
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to add to this point: Windows users such as myself are spoiled because of this. I've tried to adopt Linux a couple of times, but these very problems that were mentioned made me throw my arms up in defeat. It really is hard to switch to Linux when a.) It's an uphill battle all the way and b.) Windows has actually achieved a decent computing experience. (If you're shaking your head, make a BSOD comment and watch how quickly you're corrected.)
Feel free to dismiss me as a newb or a dumb-shit or whatever. I have no problem with that. I didn't put hours and hours into Linux. Niether will a lot of 'desktop' people that Linux is going after. This is why I'm so critical of having to edit
I do want to mention something, though: Knoppix is headed in the right direction. I used it about a year ago and was stunned that a.) it auto-detected everything just fine, b.) I had no problem finding what I needed, c.) It more or less behaved like Windows. I wish I could be more specific, but it was the first time that I ever used Linux and didn't feel like I was lugging around a ball and chain. So I don't want to sound like Linux will never improve, obviously it is. I just hope one day a little more thought in the direction of "Microsoft's already trained 10s of millions of peoples how to use a computer..." happens.
Re:Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely agree. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore who wrote the message. Do you ignore who the author of the book was? Or who wrote the article? I don't lend everyone the same credence. It is very different for the criminal to claim he is innocent than for his supposed victim to claim he is innocent. The author makes all the difference.
In this case, it is merely amusing to note who the author is, because clearly, the claims are absurd. Linux has been shown to be capable of high security (an agency called the NSA helped us in this area, IIRC). It has also been shown multiple times that it is very scalable (Google, anyone?). This has nothing to do with my opinion of Linux, it merely has to do with basic standards of credibility. It is akin to standing in front of a Rolls Royce and claiming that it is a low quality, inferior car. This is amusing, but it is even more amusing when you find out it's a Chevy salesman making the speech.
Unfortunately, what will happen is that people will counter the article's reactionary opinion with an opposite reactionary opinion.
First, I'm not sure how the article is expressing a reactionary opinion; I don't know of anything it was "reacting" to. It seems more like a baseless attack to me. Secondly, just because someone disagrees with an article does not automatically render their arguments invalid or "reactionary", as you suggest.
Lastly, as a bit of concession, I do think balanced opinions are good. But that doesn't mean we should dignify this kind of propoganda. If someone (anyone, even the EDS) comes along with something that is measured, qualified and well-researched, then we can address it in turn. But this does not deserve serious attention. This is a classic marketing move - "The OTHER product is insecure, it doesn't work on a large scale, it is more expensive, and, oh look! We have an alternative right here!" Take another look at what this guy is saying and tell me honestly that there is anything remotely concrete in what he is saying.
"From a corporate perspective, we are not confident where Linux is right now today. A large enterprise needs to be sure because it relates to securifying [sic] the environment. We see some of the same things occurring that did to Unix -- it could splinter into many different types of languages. We are quite cautious about Linux and its deployment," said Rasmussen.
"We are concerned about security on an open standard environment like that. We are also concerned about some of the scalability issues that we are seeing on our clients on a global basis. Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy (Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun) finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there. We think Linux has the possibility of going the same route," said Rasmussen.
"Quite honestly, in the notion of costs, as we look at what we are structuring with our alliance partners, we are not seeing a compelling cost advantage that would lend us towards Linux -- given the other things I have mentioned," said Rasmussen.
Jim Hassell, managing director of Sun Microsystems Australia, argued that Linux was no loss to the Agility Alliance because it could use Solaris 10 instead of Linux rival Red Hat.
"If you test Red Hat against Solaris 10 against whatever else... we would say that Solaris 10 beats it hands down on functionality and everything else," said Hassell.
I'll bite. (Score:5, Insightful)
The claims can be easily disproven. Unfortunately, while companies enjoy First Amendment protections, they are virtually immune to slander/libel. A pity, as there'd otherwise likely be enough money to be made from such a suit to keep every Linux user and developer fed and housed for the rest of their lives.
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt cast back on MS et al (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has already damaged their reputation to the point that MOST IT professionals understand that anything MS says to them is most likely a lie. They may buy MS products for other compelling reasons, but always with the understanding that MS is a sneaky company.
Aren't they apprehensive, even a little, of having NO goodwill among their customers? If the technology competitive landscape changes (eg: the power of the monopoly weakens) their customers will be eager to jump ship.
Misconceptions about Linux forks vs Unix forks (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Unix forked in large part because every vendor had their own proprietary hardware which required that every application be ported and tested on each platform and that end uses had to buy and support the applications that they used on each flavor of Unix that they used. For better or worse, there are essentially only three Enterprise ISA's now for Linux, x86-32, x86-64 and Power. Instead of splintering, in two or three years, there will be only two, X86-64 and Power. Applications that run on one Vendors GNU/Linux/x86-64 box will run on every vendors box.
2) Unix vendors introduced unique product differentiation and because the source was not licensed under the GPL, each vendor was forced to implement features their own way, usually in a way that was incompatible with every other vendors implementation. Because GNU/Linux software is licensed under the GPL, that simply can't happen. If one vendor has a feature, they can all have it, and since it is the same source, it will run the same way.
3) This is a corallary to point 2, but in the past, not only did all Unix vendors have their own window system, they didn't support the other systems, so if you had a Motif application, it wouldn't run on a Sun system unless you bundled Motif with your app. In Linux, if you install all the window system toolkits, and given the cost of disks and memorythere is no reason not to, every windowing application you buy will run. In addition, since Linux is Unix, in the Enterprise, there is no real reason to install desktop apps on the client. Install them on App servers, and make them available to clients using NFS. This is vastly preferable to the Windows install everywhere approach.
4)Finally, if it were not enough that GNU/Linux/x86-64 is becoming a single platform, a huge number of Enterprise applications are written in Java so underlying architectural differences simply don't matter anyway.
In summary, the Linux will fragment like Unix did is a truly stupid argument that ignores that fact the Linux bears no similarity to traditional Unix other than supporting the same API's.
Re:What a bunch... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, I can vouch for that - I recently had to set up an XP machine (the last version of windows I touched was 2000 and the last version I seriously used was 98). It caused quite a lot of frustration trying to work out how the hell to add shortcuts to the top level start menu whereas in Win2000/98 you just right clicked and added a shortcut. XP is now down in my book as completely unintuitive - Linux is much easier and less frustrating to use.
IT Mafia (Score:2, Insightful)
Trust us, youz don' wanna use Linux, or else YOUZ MIGHT FIND YA SECURIDY SEVEEEALY THREATENED. Aight? Capisce? Good. I'm glad we seem ta have come to a undastandin' hea.
Re:Tell that to Google... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here where I work, we're moving from one set of tools and database to something newer. The question arose, "But how will we look at old data 15 years from now?" (A valid concern in patent defense.) The answer, "The tools have been ported to Linux, right?" Done and done.
What surprise with Sun and Microsoft in the group (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess we should feel reassured that they have only our best interests heart.
Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Agility Alliance... AGILITY! (Score:2, Insightful)
These guys epitomize the "steamroll iteration N+.001 to the suck^H^H^H^Hcustomers for big bucks and do it again next year" business plan. They couldn't innovate their way out of the stone age.
And they call themselves AGILITY alliance, "solution for the Agile business"!?!
Aah, yeees, it's the Rational RUP thing again: we can't make it work for us, that's why we can tell you how to do it right
EMC? Uh oh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Google may or may not use Linux scalability features, but the ability to scale their application is based upon Linux. Having open source, being able to modify to suit and not being dependent on an external party should not be undervalued.
Would Google have been as successful had they been based upon Windows? (it's a rhetorical question)
Re:Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess someone should tell Google about that....and really soon!!!
Game over! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don't we try that?
Re:What a bunch... (Score:2, Insightful)
And when I used Windows, between Office, Visual Studio, Internet Explorer and plain ol' Windows, I had four different implementations of most of the common controls, too, "all doing the same things but with different code, implementing their own GUI widgets".
And that's from one bloody vendor.
Your point?
Re:Slashdot says... (Score:3, Insightful)
From the large enterprise and government perspective Linux splitting into multiple varieties SHOULD NOT MATTER. Let's say a huge organization goes with IBM using Linux. Linux breaks into multiple camps. IBM can keep the client happy no matter what because they can take their version of Linux as far as they want. And if the client isn't happy he can take his version of Linux with him and have someone else maintain it.
The only reason Unix splintering was bad was because each flavor was strictly controlled by a different group. Linux is owned by everyone and no one. Feel free to hire a company to add features to your version.
Re:What a bunch... (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure what they mean is what used to be knows as "Unixification" and now they are expecting there could well be "Linuxification".
This link describes it very well
http://www.ranum.com/editorials/divide-conq
But the main point is Linux can be the best OS in the world (like Unix was), but as Linux vendors need to de-commoditize there product they will most likely need to "add-on" functionality to set them apart. Once this begins, its IBM, SUN, etc all over again. Great products, but if the same applications cannot flawlessly run across all platforms (without a major headache).
Then linux is done in the business place. Software developers will stop writing any applications for it because each flavor of linux requires different code and the economy of scale just isn't there. This is what happened to unix and there is certainly reason to worry this could happen to linux.
MS doesn't have to do anything. Just sit back and watch the Linux community canabolize itself.
Re:Linux gets a pass (Score:2, Insightful)
Smear Campaign (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone who is still computing with a setup unchanged since the stone age is not going to give a damn if something forks. They already have their stable configuration and they're going to keep it.
What such organizations worry about is SUPPORT. Can they get a company to continue to support their configuration throughout time eternal or can they do it on their own by having access to the sourcecode.
Linux quite adequately handles the solution to the "old mainframe problem". It's the latter solution.
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I'm really surprised to find those two on the same boat. Despite that, does anyone think their reaction toward Linux would be any different ?
Both Microsoft and Sun are fighting deadly battles against Linux. They intent to take no prisioners.
On second thought, I'm not surprised. If there is anything that would unite Microsoft and Sun, that would be fighting Linux.
Also note they are created EDS to fight, among others, IBM. IBM is a heavy Linux supported and, by attacking Linux, they are also attacking the services IBM is selling.
Don't expect to see any changes on that quarter.
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait... maybe people are using MySQL on linux instead of Oracle to get the job done... Who'd have thought!
big problems for linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Over recent years windows has gone from 95 (super super crap) to 98 ( super crap ) to windows me ( ok but still crap) to XP on the desktop market. XP maybe slow in some situations but it works pretty well. There are still all the issues with worms and other issues with stupid users but at the end of the day windows has improved significantly and thats not going into the server market where its improved even more.
I personally see linux as a better server operating system than a desktop system even though I use it every day as my desktop at both work and home. Taking that into account its still a rock solid stable desktop (Slackware current) and I dont have any problems running it on my laptop.
So often there are big projects in the opensource community that fill real gaps but the lead programmers get to a point where they are happy and leave it at that. Its then taken up by other coders and the project is dead in few months or years because its become a mess, people have not realised how much time is involved in writing good efficient, secure code.. they got to the point where they are happy with it and so on..
One of the problems with where things are going with linux is that we will have redhat/suse and a few other distributions all running corporate level software.. and then there will be distributions like slackware, gentoo and others that will be used more in the technical enthusiest market. All of the different distributions have their place.. so do the different versions of windows.
At the end of the day you can have a secure user level windows box and linux / open source box with a web browser and you can almost bet that the windows box will be trojaned before the linux/open source one..
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Err actually I was thinking more like: (note: Examples may not necessarily contradict what Linux does.)
"Let's have one place where the network connections are and call it something cute like 'network neighborhood'."
"Let's have a place called 'control panel' where every system configuration option is, then we'll have categories under it for more specific aspects of the computer."
"Let's make sure copy and paste work properly in the right context regardless of what the target app is."
"Let's make it super easy to install a driver or piece of software. Step 1.) Run Install. Step 2.) Press [OK] a few times. Let's also create a place under Control Panel where they can uninstall ANY app installed to the machine."
"Let's standardize on particular apps to do particular jobs by default, then let the user pick alternatives later." (anybody who's been confused by all the K-words in their equivalent of a start menu knows what I'm talking about.)
If you're hitting reply because you want to argue the details, don't, taht's not what I'm pushing here. With Windows, a user doesn't have to have that broad of knowledge to get started with. Once you learn a handful of basic things (like where Control Panel is or that ctrl+c means 'copy'), you're rockin and rollin. Linux distros need to take on this philosophy. Don't believe me? Ask Apple about it.
Forks are bad (Score:3, Insightful)
I worked on a product in the early 90's running on Unix. We supported a large number of different unixii, placing an enormous build, test, develop load that just should not have been there.
Our build script would test the version of unix for all sorts of bugs unique to each type (being system s/w, these bugs impacted us hugely). Our source and makefiles where littered with ifdefs to get around them on different systems.
We are well on the way to heading down the same path now. Release systems are different (.rpm?, .deb? etc), OS's are subtly different - system files move, boot scripts are organised differently.
Windows isn't perfect - there have been lots of changes as time moved on (e.g. registry, APIs, MSIs etc) but my app written for 9x still installs and runs on XP. Thats pretty impressive.
Forking is bad, bad, bad. It might not be the death of linux (there's always geeks like us who run it, and solid use cases in corporates) but its an impediment to development, to products, to consumer acceptance.
For example - I was just on a group [viaarena.com] where VIA were lambasted for only releasing some drivers for about a dozen varieties/versions/installers of linux. Cmon - thats a major effort and I take my hat off to them. But its no-where good enough to cover the broad scope that you need, and indeed my FC3 machine was not in the list.
Dont fork.
You are making alot of false assumptions. (Score:1, Insightful)
If linux is less valuable to you because you would require time to be productive, then do not use it. There is no obligation involved here. Linux was written for the people who wrote it, and it serves them just fine. If other people benefit from that, great. If you don't, then go away. Whining about how people aren't making your perfect custom OS just for you, for free, because you want them to isn't going to help anyone.
Nobody cares what windows users want. Linux is for linux users. If you would like to be a linux user go right ahead. If you want free windows, hit up your local warez dood.
And finally, yes I truely don't care. I am not being defensive, I am telling you that your high and mighty opinion is still only that, opinion. You might think linux serves no purpose unless its exactly what you want, but plenty of people find it serving its purpose just fine. Its for those people, not you. And I am not from the community holding linux on its shoulders, I dislike linux and avoid it as best I can. I come from a unix background, and thus find linux to be ackward, nonsensical and poorly documented. But for mom's desktop, it beats the hell out of windows.
Let's examine your post (Score:4, Insightful)
I use Office 2000, which uses normal looking widgets. However, I have seen Office XP/2003, which uses the exact same widgets Windows has, but with some outlines drawn around them.
Visual Studio? The same. And it didn't even do it before Visual Studio 2003.
Internet Explorer? Here, you're either trolling or confused because Internet Explorer uses native Windows widgets.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Windows apps all use the same native widgets. And by the way, even the apps that draw their own widgets aren't loading entire GUI libraries into memory to do it, like in the OSS world, which was another part of my point. Why do I have to load up four ways to manage button widgets in RAM just to get work done because people want "choice"? I just want to get my work done without losing all my memory to the reinvented (and reinvented, and reinvented) wheel.
Again with the self absorbed bullshit. (Score:1, Insightful)
Second point, I don't care about linux replacing windows. Neither do the people writing linux. That's a dream of lonely dorks that circle jerk on slashdot all day, and it will never come true. And you don't want linux to be better, you want linux to be more like windows, and hence worse.
I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am telling you that I DO NOT CARE IF YOU DON'T LIKE LINUX. Which part of this is hard to understand. The universe does not revolve around you, there is no desire to spend hours and hours working hard to provide you with what you consider the perfect OS for free. If you don't like linux, don't use it. Plain and simple. Linux has no UI features, random GUI applications do, they have nothing to do with linux. And again, I have no linux-is-great pitchfork. I do not like linux. I certainly dislike it less than windows, but its worse than every other Unix system I've used, except unixware, and hp-ux. I am simply telling you the facts, linux is developed by linux users, for linux users. If you do not like what linux is, then nobody who matters cares, and nobody is willing to make linux crappier for you.
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
In the context of Microsoft's applications the 'normal' progression is that they create new controls and ship them initially with Office - that then make their way back into the common GUI stack (or at least parts of them do). That's why it's called the.. wait for it... 'Common Controls' library.
That someone feels the need to create an application like Winamp or Sonique (which, admittedly are hardly a good context in which to apply design guidelines) or MusicMatch (which is) or even WMP which looks different than anything else is not Microsoft's fault, and in many cases the same apps are simply using the controls differently. Case in point is the music listing view in MusicMatch - that's just a control called a 'ListView' drawn in a certain way. But it is still a control being loaded and driven from a common library.
The bottom line is, like so many other people, you fall into the mistake of thinking (or wishing) that the only applications people use in Windows are an office suite, MP3 player, browser and email client. There are quite a few applications out there (probably a million!) that simply use the common GUI control library and share the same standardized 'look'.
Your point?
Hope that helps.
don't split your resources (Score:3, Insightful)
This is important because the real problem with forks is resource contention. Suppose there are 1000 competent Windows OS developers in the world. If Windows is forked then only a fraction of these developers will work on each branch. Neither fragment will be able to accomplish as much as the entire unified team.
Gnome and KDE are an excellent example. There are active development teams working on both systems, and there are application developers that have to choose one platform or the other. Neither desktop gets the full support of the community. I don't see how half the developers are going to be more than twice as productive in order to accelerate the rate of positive change for either desktop.
PS: Are you really complaining about the layout of the Start menu? I'm surprised that you managed to successfully install Linux if you can't figure out how to fix such a basic GUI element. I stumbled onto the Classic switch pretty quickly during my first session on XP.
Re:What a bunch... (Score:3, Insightful)
The point for me isn't that on Windows they don't need to load extra libraries, it's the fact that it's so inconsistent (and often really ugly).
On my Linux machine, I run Gtk apps pretty much exclusively. Firefox and Thunderbird use Gtk as well, though they add another layer of abstraction on top. Ditto for OpenOffice, which I don't have open all that often (it's usually quicker and easier to use AbiWord or Gnumeric anyway).
I'm still not seeing how Linux is any worse than Windows in this regard. I'd say it's better, but I'll be generous to your argument and stay it at least isn't worse. I don't care that these other apps are written by different companies and that it isn't Microsoft's fault. Or maybe it is: maybe if they had an established intuitive GUI stack that didn't encourage people to reinvent GUI concepts (no,