Where Does Linux Go From Here? 360
With the success that Linux is currently enjoying Linux.com (also owned by SourceForge, Inc) asks the question, where do we go from here? With such a high level of success and greater corporate participation (on both the consumer and provider fronts) will the spirit of freedom and idealism remain true or will the ever-present corporate bottom line eventually take over? "Linux is surrounded by proprietary IT firms. Some of them view Linux as a profit maker, others as a threat to their profits. Both sides represent a challenge for Linux in holding to its ideals of freedom and openess. The first large IT firm to really grok Linux was IBM. It has a long and mutually beneficial association with Linux, Apache, and other FOSS projects. The company has learned the language and the mores of the FOSS world, and has made significant code contributions as part of those projects along the way."
Linux goes where Ferrari went! (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux is a Ferrari. It requires a real driver.
Mac is like a Toyota. A good, solid vehicle. Dependable and long lasting. Just don't expect to do any internal work on it like my dad used to do when I was a kid.
Windoze is like a Ford Pinto. It'll get you to work and back home again, just don't expect it to have any real power.
The Linux community must get away from trying to be Ford or GM (Genetically Modified?). Linux offers POWER! No apologies POWER! It ain't for your gran'ma.
Isn't it too early in the day (Score:5, Interesting)
There are several 'hobbies' that I partake of, and inevitably, in all of them, as someone is introduced to the hobby, they have great enthusiasm for it, try to re-invent the wheel, or loudly proclaim how great something is, despite it's aging status technologically.
Linux is proving it's point. IBM and others ARE contributing (to Linux and many other projects... Thank you IBM) but I think that the real point is that F/OSS is becoming popular, not *just* Linux. Where proprietary systems have been the bedrock of business applications, F/OSS is making strong inroads. LAMP anyone?
The problem is that you can't talk about how good it is without comparing it to Windows or other such products. THAT is the problem... comparing it. When you go to the hardware store to buy a hammer, do you notice if the head is round or fluted? Do you compare the steel quality of new mower blades before deciding on which to buy? A tool is a tool. Seldom, IF EVER, will you find yourself thinking "Oh noooes, I can't dig a hole with this shovel, it was not made by Acme"
Interoperability is the key. The interface between hammer and nail is a pretty open standard. The interface between dirt and shovel is a pretty open (if dirty) interface. The PROBLEM is not whether F/OSS and Linux is good enough.. it IS. The problem is that interface to content. The one remaining major hurdle is MS document formats. Once that interfacing/interoperability problem is solved, Dell will be making money shipping Linux configured desktop systems. The problem is as much user perception as it is anything else.
For about
Re:Linux goes where Ferrari went! (Score:3, Interesting)
OpenSolaris! (Score:1, Interesting)
To take things to the next logical level, OpenSolaris, of course!
(Did you expect "Linux"? Um, no.)
Re:not an enterprise operating system (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no standardization across hardware vendors for windows. RAID cards are always different, Hardware monitoring is always different... The old Compaq servers were the best but was 100% different from DELL and IBM. no standardization anywhere.
I would LOVEto see standardization like you speak of, but it does not exist. Not for Windows, not for Linux. the ONLY place I have ever seen it is OSX and SUN.
but then you are using their hardware and their OS... therefore they can make it happen.
and honestly, nothing is as beautiful as seeing 3 racks full of Mac rackmount servers and Storage vaults. it makes anything from dell,HP and IBM look like dog turds.
Re:Need some minor apps....Like Outlook (Score:1, Interesting)
I know that Accpac offers their accounting package for linux. SAP can run linux, but what about all the other software? Business needs and geek needs are quite different, and very seldom do the apps that work great on standalone computer convey nicely to a multi-user system. Some work has to be done to integrate database backends, program for multiple users, and for the good love of Christ, accept Kerberos authentication, or even authenticate against an LDAP backend, so if you can't get Single-sign on, you can at least have a common user name and password.
Right now, I could use warehousing software, logistics software, and automotive maintenance software. We're considering hiring a programmer to write it all, and even open sourcing the work. That's a step in the right direction for the community, but we have to wait until the budget is approved.
Re:not an enterprise operating system (Score:3, Interesting)
Standardization and unity (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't read TFA yet (I will), but what is missing in the Linux community is unity and standardization. It would be great if people could rally around a single distribution of a common software framework, so that there is consistency and compatibility between different distributions - or better yet - that a single major flavour of Linux that more or less replaces Windows.
I wonder, is that possible? A unified set of standards in the Linux world would give us reliable and secure computing, something that simply cannot be attained in the Windows world. Ease of use, stability, reliability, security and open source software, that's what needed to replace today's bloated and ridiculously insecure and unreliable Windows systems.
Re:To working.... (Score:3, Interesting)
ROTFLMAO, my bad...but dang that's funny. Yes, there should be a "not anti-linux..."
"Regardless, I'd like to see your proficiency on using Windows 95 or OSX 8. I'm sure everything was just so naturally intuitive when you walked into it, right?"
No, of course it wasn't. But it hasn't been since DOS/Windows 3x that I was constantly editing script files, and fussing to get just anything to work.
That said, I've only been using OS X for 5 months. And the time to transition to the new environment was quite short. That's not to say I don't have to haggle thru on some things. Or drop into terminal or run some scripts (ie: to view my hidden
"If instead of complaining about how utterly unintuitive an experience Linux was and took some effort to learn how that box in front of you worked, maybe it would start clicking."
Trust me, I spend several days trying to just get the wifi & sound working. Got sound 3/4 working and finally had to have a friend get wifi working. Fun fun fun...
If I had the time to waste I would. I simply don't...
"Additionally, driver support in Linux is pretty much at an "It-Just-Works" state, its a lot better than the days of Win 95 and even 98 when i used to get driver problems ALL the time."
I'd say it's in the "Windows 3x" days with regards on many driver aspects.
"Linux is providing us with a FREE, OPEN, community-driven alternative to computing. If you want to support a small group of self-interested organizations ultimately only interested in power over usability, then go waste your money, I'm saving mine and having an AWESOME and FUN time doing it!"
I guess part of the problem is I just don't have much time for FUN these days. I'd much rather go out shooting with my digital camera than sit for three nights working on a wifi driver installation.
Re:Linux isn't done yet (Score:2, Interesting)
However, for every anecdote, there are is a counter-anecdote. For my part, my switch to Ubuntu was not painless. I had to spend time getting things working. But overall I find Linux to be more powerful and more productive. The amount of time I've saved over the last few years using Linux is far greater than the initial time required to learn the new system and to get it working on my hardware. (E.g. system admin is easier without anti-virus to worry about, software installation from repositories is faster, not having to "fight" the operating system is more efficient.) So, for me, it has been a net positive.
With regard to your mailing-list anecdote, it would be trivial to find a similar-sounding anecdote for a Windows program (or even a Windows core component). The fact is that when it comes to computers, there will always be things that need extra tweaking, or things that don't work properly. On Windows, the vast majority of binary downloads will "just work," but then again on Linux the vast majority of repository installs will also "just work."
I'm not really arguing against anything you've said. We can all agree that Linux has faults. An overly technical "culture" and sometimes cryptic software installation is certainly not a good thing. But more and more, Linux is becoming streamlined and accessible. For many of us, it is already more productive than alternative operating systems.
A linux console of course (Score:1, Interesting)
If I were a Linux activist I would be pushing for game developers. MS's hold on DX is a BIG FREAKING deal and if platform wars get heavy they will wield more and more power by owning DX. Sue them or develop a competative suite of game development tools and API's that doesn't have that pieced together Linux feel. When convincing developers to jump ship, the lack of standardization in gaming development especially sucks a bit.
A media center/game console and maybe someday wifi hub. That way when internet costs 200 bucks a month we can start out own privately owned public network without regulation. Once a few more super wireless techs trickle down into mass use the idea we are locked into communication providers dwindles a bit as goes government regulation on our interpersonal communication.
A WIFI network hub, chained such as the old CB communication network and perhaps in law reception areas equiped with grid antennas and booster would seems to be to be an easier to scale solution to the millions of miles of cable out there. As fast as cable is, it's slow compared to even a crappy WIFI signal, plus you could host sites basically for free though you need some type of load balancing/distributed hosting model.
It's just, there is no reason to buy a PC, a game console and exist on a network with all that equipment mostly idle. You could almost give away a media PC as long as you got the users idle CPU cycles, especially right now with dual cores sitting there doing nothing.
It's like municipal wifi, but really better and vastly cheaper. The government/private corporations would still need to setup points for dead spots. I think pushing wifi to the next level first would also be wise to ensure a decent return, for now it's distance is still a bit low. However if you look at the 3G/WiMAX technology that more or less proves you could soon run a wireless user owned network. If they were really focusing on the technology better we would have seen breakthroughs like IBM's new 100x faster than wifi technology (though lets see the range on that). Still the bandwidth potential for wifi is high and the cost will likely only get cheaper vs rolling out new costly fiber lines. I'm sure wireless bandwidth also drops off when compared to terrestrial, but the cost advantage is likely more important since the average users bandwidth to the home is so low.
The install costs basically on land lines will eventually make them less and less appealing since they will only go up and wireless will only get faster. Why not make our cell phones mobile data routers on an open network. Monopolizing the control of the ad revenue alone would make you an endless fortune. Plus the customer loyalty and amazment of providing a new low cost communication medium.
It would also be WAY cheaper to own PCs since it consolidates several uses. Instead of Verizon paying for equipment the user does and since the devie is consolidated, but quickly depreciating people would upgrade them often, just as they do gaming consoles and PCs. The fact it gives you a free wifi network on top of everything just makes it the worlds most necessary gadget for anyone because who doesn't want to pay less for phone, tv, and internet service.
The solution to lower these costs is consolidation and self management. No extra costs from regulation because it's privately owned. No worries about censorship because the data in encrypted and anonymous. Instead of pretending TCP/IP isn't broken you'd also have the option to create a new secure network protocal.
The way I see it, how could a device like that not initiate an economic boom. It would change peoples lives like the internet, but really more so by showing them they can own infrastructure also.
Right now MS's Xbox is the closest thing but we all know they wouldn't be interested in a privately owned network nor will they even accept the idea of making the Xbox a PC. My thinking
Re:not an enterprise operating system (Score:3, Interesting)
Google for lm-sensors. I'm fairly sure that's at least a standard API, even if the backends aren't standard.
There's also SNMP and Nagios, which can be used to remotely monitor a system. I'm fairly sure you can tie these in to lm-sensors.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
Oh, man... wait... you were serious?
Just look at a typical Windows laptop. I have a tool for my touchpad, which is relatively standard only because it seems like Synaptic makes all laptop touchpads. I have a tool for my thumbprint scanner, a tool to update the Toshiba drivers, and while I've opted to use the normal XP wireless support (I think), there's that plus an Intel wireless utility... Even soundcards frequently come with their own system tray thing.
Now, maybe it's different in the enterprise, but it seems to me that hardware vendors are always creating their own little utilities before there's a standard, and are slow to adopt the standard once it exists, for any OS except OS X, and maybe Solaris (before Solaris/x86 and OpenSolaris).
I'll give you the fibre, mostly because I don't know anything about that, but then, consider that Google has an infrastructure basically built out of commodity desktop hardware. So, if you have to, you can always just throw known hardware configurations at it -- which is really what you should do with any OS.
Open Source Support (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps what is needed is "Open Source Support". A website who's focus is to help the newbie to Linux on the consumer end. The site would have volunteers helping via IM chat, email, and perhaps VoIP. Said site would only support the most basic of activities (ie: setting up basic configurations such as mouse, video, printer, basic networking, etc. Basic software installation. Etc).
The support agents would be volunteers. The website would provide email alias & accounts. And even an option to "tip" your support representative via "Paypal" or perhaps other means. The site would avoid any more complex issues (ie: setting up your own web server, etc). Not saying a support contact might not help someone. But any such request could be politely declined.
It'd be an interesting idea. Not sure if it could be pulled off, but if it could I think such a site would do wonders for helping people migrate to Linux. (Which would then entail much more support on the corporate end for drivers, development and enterprise activities.)
- The Saj
Re:Same old, same old. (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that's not a business. Who, in their right mind, would devote thousands of development hours cobbling something together, then cast it into the wind where basement developers use "what they want, and [get] rid of what they don't?"
Ok, well even if we all agreed with you, that would be a reason why Microsoft wouldn't make their own version of Linux. However, my point was that *if* Microsoft were to make a version of Linux, the Linux community would have nothing to fear from that. If Microsoft good changes to the kernel, the Linux community could get the code for those changes and use it themselves, and there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stop it.
it's laughable to imagine that there's any kind of business potential in releasing things into the wild where they're instantly ripped apart as you've described.
Yeah, tell that to the companies who are profiting from OSS.
Re:Same old, same old. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm, let's see...
And of course the usual suspects like Sun and IBM.
Free Software can most definitely be an important part of a business strategy. For example, the company I work for uses it to leverage testing resources of the community. We also get bug fixes back from the community. We think it makes a lot of sense for a large community to share core development responsibility, the sort of stuff you find in university textbooks that is not proprietary in any way.
In the future, companies aren't going to make money selling operating systems, word processors or basic compiler implementations. They're going to make money modifying the OS to run well on custom hardware, selling plugins to do fancy document formatting and developing new compiler optimizations that make all of this run well on their proprietary computer system.
Re:Isn't it too early in the day (Score:3, Interesting)
Inquiring minds want to know...
Or are you suggesting running the free Windows tools under Linux?
Re:Pretty much. (Score:2, Interesting)
Develop software to sell the hardware and provide the full experience with Sun One product suite etc.
Re:KDE (Score:3, Interesting)
It's because linux geeks perceive KDE as pandering to the windows crowd and people like GNOME for the simple fact that it isn't trying to be a windows clone. I personally don't like GNOME and prefer KDE, not because it is more "Windows" like, but I like the look, feel, and layout better. Some distros are KDE-friendly. After all, you can get kubuntu (although I think regular ubunutu install cd should give you a choice during install of KDE or GNOME, but I can understand the desire to conserve CD/DVD space.
Re:ugh (Score:3, Interesting)
Just what is wrong with having 3 variations of Ubuntu? They're all Ubuntu, i.e. they're binary compatible with each other. If you make an Ubuntu package, that package will work on Kubuntu and Xubuntu as well. The package manager will install any dependencies you might need. The differences between the Ubuntu editions are smaller than differences between Vista Home, Vista Professional, Vista Ultimate and whatever the other 3 Vista editions are called. Just like a
Now, I'm not arguing that that
Other options (Score:4, Interesting)
#6. Develop for something other then the x86 desktop, ie. cell phones, portable game devices, game consoles, etc.
On my own, I've tried #6 and #5. I've made a little money on #5 and no money at all on #6. Still, gotta keep trying or just accept working for the man.
Next step, consumer devices. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a good thing. Consumers are many and varied and most of them are non-techies. To sell to non-techies you have to really nail the (user interface) experience and lessons learned during the next 5 years will eventually trickle back the desktop domain.
So "Linux on the desktop" will i.m.o. not be something that will happen until Linux is in most of our tiny devices (iphone/ipod clones, nokia phones, portable media centers, wearable GPS devices / personal network hubs and whatever other gadgets of today and tomorrow.. ). So my guess, 5-6 years before we start seeing Linux widening noticeably on the desktop, but at that point the current obstacle holding Linux on the desktop back will have vanished and then it will be the final time we see an article on
Re:Take over? (Score:3, Interesting)
Companies must redistribute the mods they make to the kernel, but that doesn't mean their mods are helpful...