Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Linux Approaching A Fork In The Road? 147

Posted by CmdrTaco from the yet-another-zd-yawner dept.
Hai|_ Hai|_ writes "Linux vs. Linux? ZDNet has an interesting article about the potential for a forking of Linux distributions into incompatible OSes. " Nothing we haven't seen before, the article just basically says "Linux could fork". Well duh, welcome to open source. The bigger questions are 'Will it' and if it did, 'Would it matter?'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Approaching A Fork In The Road? More

Linux Approaching A Fork In The Road?

Comments Filter:
  • For that matter, like the article points out and anyone who's been using linux for a while can remember. We have already seen one major fork in the distros, and that was the glibc and libc fiasco. Which if you can recall had created some incompatibilities with early adopters of the glibc libraries.

    Luckily though for all of us, these have all been worked out and things are better for it. But there were many times that I can recall numerous posts to various lists complaining and bitching about this or that not working with such and such.
  • What about the knife and spoon jokes...

    Linux may fork, but will it use a knife?

    T.
  • I never thought there would be such a lack of Linux hype that the pundits would drag up old issues like code forks.

    For these people, I find the simple answer works: Linux code can be adapted into some other OS, but then it wouldn't be Linux anymore (thank you, Linus, for owning the TM). Besides, look at BSD: the BSD code base has been forked all over the place, and yet BSD in all its flavors is still alive and kicking (despite even the Linux hype).

    Please, oh please, ZDNet: give us some new topic to have flamewars over, not this old hash! :P

    --
    : remove whitespace to e-mail me

  • You named some of the more important forks in the Linux road however it is worth noteing that these are all technicaly ports. One to very small machines andother to clusterd servers etc...

    The GPL prety much screws over people who want to creat an incompatible Linux. How do you fork something and add hooks to your own apps while leaving everyone else out in the cold ? You not only hide the source for that but you also don't document or obfuscate the documentation of your system.

    So you have some wild new whizbang feature that won't work on anybody elses Linux ? If it's realy good then the competition will just "borow" it. Look out for how many distributions include "Automount" and RuiserFS in the 7.0 versions.

    Or maybe you break something, like RedHat seams to do for KDE. No problem some smart alec will come along and post some "updated" RPMs that actualy work.

  • Redhat and Debian (for example) have different filesystem structures, different packaging systems, different versions of libc, and different utilities.

    Packages released for Redhat only (of which there are many) won't work on an out-of-the-box Debian system.

    But thanks to the miracle of open source, I can install RPM on my Debian system, fiddle with ld.so.conf, etc. until it works (or I hose it up so bad trying that I have to reinstall.)

    I can't forsee a situation where Linux gets all that much more forked than this.


  • You are right.

    Linux as the kernel, does not fork.

    The distros may go different ways, find different niches (HA, embedded, ez-to-use, etc.,) but as long as they use the kernel maintained by Linus, they all share the same ENGINE that drives the whole movement.

    It is like Linus and the kernel team have developed an all purpose engine. The distro people use the engine and put different accessories on it.

    Some distros use the engine and make it an oversized lawn mower. Some use it to power a mobile library. Some put the engine into a security wagon. Some try it in F1 chassis and see if it is powerful enough, and so on.

    IBM, by successfully putting Linux on its 390 mainframe, has shown the world that the Linux Kernel is powerful enough to carry out such a feat.

    The linux-cluster people, on the other hand, have proven that the Linux Kernel can be configured to be a cray replacement.

    The embedded folks, on the other hand, will try to squeeze the Kernel into powering everything from refregerator to factory automation.

    And there are more and more types of new applications for the Linux Kernel, and that only shows that the Linux Kernel is a GOOD THING [TM], with a ROBUST DESIGN [TM], and the more things Linux goes into, the less fields M$ can claims as its own.

    One day, the Linux Kernel will be used on satellites, and after that, Linux will be used on other space-endeavor, and who knows? China is heading towards its own space program, and perhaps they would be the first one who put Linux into outerspace.

  • the article even states that forking will happen
    but it will never last for long.
    Humpty Dumpty IS PUT BACK TOGETHER AGAIN

    <snip>
    In 1997, the use of libraries, which provide the
    functionality underlying much of the OS, forked
    into "glibc" and "libc" versions, used by
    different development groups, with other
    developers watching and commenting on the hazard.
    The two separate efforts eventually were merged
    back together into one set of libraries.

    "This is the exception that proves the rule. The
    merge of these projects back together again
    leaves us without a lasting example (of
    forking)," Red Hat's Young said.
    </snip>

    But one thing does bother me is that they kept on
    stating if Linus can keep all from falling apart
    That should not even be questioned!! He has kept
    it all running for this long and he is going to
    kept it going untill he moves on to a new project
    for himself. Linux survial does not depend on
    Linus but it would be ashame if he left it but he
    does not have to be there to keep it going. The
    only thing that we need a good leader for the
    devolopment of it. Alan Cox would be the next in
    line


    http://theotherside.com/dvd/ [theotherside.com]
  • In fact, the ability to create a fork is what characterizes any true free (open source) software project.
    --
  • >I mean Linux takes up most of a CD-ROM - I doubt it can be downsized to fit into your toaster as you seem to think.

    That's because it includes RPMs for the source as well as a plethora of applications for both console and X. The kernel itself takes up about 600k (give or take a bit). For a relatively simple embedded system, the bit of code running on top of the kernel isn't going to take up much space, itself. So.....yes, it can be downsized just fine.

  • Linux is going to fork? So?

    BSD forked, a long time ago; does anyone really care? Has the fork hurt BSD?
    Has it forced incompatibilities on all of the users all of the branches of BSD?
  • "How do you fork something and add hooks to your own apps while leaving everyone else out in the cold ?"

    Exactly--this kind of forced incompatibility is one of the things that the GPL is designed to prevent; I think that RMS said, `no one can impose an incompatibility on you, because you're free to remove that incompatibility'.

    When everything can interoperate, software-developers can't rely on lock-in, and they <EM>shouldn't</EM> have to rely on lock-in, anyway.

    Incompatibilities only <EM>slow</EM> progress.
  • IMO, a better subject line for your comment would be "No Forking Problem". Just my 2 cents.

  • "What's the forking problem?!"

    "Well... Pick it up!" (Yogi Berra reference)

    "I use a fork to scoop Hot Grits down my pants (I'd use a spoon, but there is no spoon)"

    I'm out. Anyone have more?

  • >What about the knife and spoon jokes...

    >Linux may fork, but will it use a knife?


    (From Robin Hood w/Kevin Cosner, meant with humor of course ;-)

    Why a spoon cousin...?

    Because it's dull, you idiot!
  • There is a single paragraph discussing forking without any proof behind it. The rest of the three-page article discusses Linux's impact on the market and how it has been gaining ground on NT and is upsetting the server OS balance. What's the problem here?

    Because it appears to build up Linux only to tear it down. Another reason is that if forking is inevitable then it will probably happen a lot smoother than the media is making it out to be. I personally don't believe that there will be a fork of the nature the article wants us to believe. Isn't the RT-Linux a fork? I don't see this as being disasterous to Linux or the server market.
  • We shouldn't underestimate the importance of having Linus as the figurehead and the central authority of kernel development. While I don't doubt that - if something bad were to happen to Linux - Alan Cox would be able to fill his boots as far as kernel development is concerned, he might not command the equivalent mind share. Would that make a difference ? Maybe.

    Other than that, a significant, tearing fork could only happen if some of the key developers were to do it. If it happened at a lower level, I wouldn't make a difference. What is the reality with forks now ? Forks have already happened and happen all the time - see all the realtime Linuces, different versions of Linux for PPC etc..

    And just because the kernel development might fork , it doesn't mean that they couldn't merge in the future. In any, I don't see Linux development diverging in the way of forks - convergence is much more likely and beneficial (like Linux and FreeBSD getting closer).

  • The next big wave in Linux has already begun.
    Commodity hardware (PCs) now has Commodity Operating Systems (Linux, FreeBSD, et al).
    Forget about PCs. That war has been won. The only remaining thing to do on PCs is for the applications to become as polished as Win apps. OEMs are finally delivering Linux hardware drivers. Some do it readily, some after being pressured, but it is becoming normal now to see Linux support at the hardware level for PC products.
    Linux fans, the next BIG THING in Linuxland is happening on two fronts - the embedded linux front, and the large scale, clustered, mainframe front.
    THE NEXT BIG THING, embedded Linux is so cool - it takes me back to the 70's and early 80's Heathkit days. Now you can get a working Linux on a SIMM circuit board ( http://www.openhardware.net/Users/TomW and as prveiously mentioned here http://www.ucsimm.com )

    Then, you have IBM's recent announcements about their port to the S/390, with a test system running +40,000 linux images. Let your imagination run a bit with that.

    So, forget about forking as a BIG DEAL. IT'S NO BIG DEAL. What you really want is *managed forking*.

    And because of the openness of Linux, it is being ported to such a variety of platforms, you will see obvious forking - because of the various hardware specific cpu ports

    For example, if IBM decides to stay with 2.2.13 for the next 5 years on S/390, and only does a few patches here and there, and maybe adds some machine specific enhancements, and it's rock solid, who cares about forking - it's Linux. You won't miss anything new in Linuxland on the S/390, like Plug and Play enhancements for PCs in future kernel releases - you won't need that on the S/390.

  • AGREE! RPM sucks! It's overcomplicated and unnecessary, when all that is really needed are good install scripts to accompany a tar.gz file.

  • stupid brackets disappeared

  • Actually, they wouldn't be so hungry if they hadn't forked in the first place. So in other words, fewer forks will let the philosopher eat more often.

  • They're just forgetting about glibc2. If everyone compiles their evil binary-only crud for glibc2, then modern linux installations can run the aforementioned binaries.

    How typical of ZDNet.

  • I can't begin to describe how much that article irritated me with its lack of insight. Linux isn't unix. Unix fragmented largely because it stopped being open source. Also vendors customized it for their hardware. Linux is open source and it is not tied to any particular hardware. Thus any changes that one group or company makes to the kernel is available to anyone. Changes to the kernel aren't really the issue however. Where the potential problems lie is in differences in the istallations. Where they keep config files, what libraries they have and what version these are. These are the things that can lead to binary incompatibilities. This is something of a problem, but it is not a true fork. Right now redhat is the dominant distribution according to market share. So you are more likely to see a product come out for redhat first than for other distributions. Where this will go in the future is hard to predict, but I'll try anyway. I think that the number of distributions will shrink in the future, or at least the number that anyone actually uses. Those distributions that are remaining in common use will be the ones that vendors will have to address when writing software. If you've got 2-4 distributions that make up 90% of the market, well "porting" to each of these and making a separate binary available for each is not a big deal. Then of course it is possible that some kind of standard that companies like redhat are actually willing to adhere to gets developed, making most of the incompatibilities disappear. I think the first scenario is far more likely.

    As for the article, I one of the least insightful things in it was the comment by one "consultant" who said that if unix hadn't been fragmented, windows might never have gained dominance on the desktop. Unix has trickled down from minicomputers and mainframes to microcomputers. Windows on the other hand is trying to move up from microcomputers to servers and other mid-range systems. Windows started out on the desktop, it was developed there, and it is cheap. It is designed to do the things that home and business users need a desktop computer to do. Unix on the other hand is not cheap. At least not commercial versions which were the only ones available when windows first appeared. Why would the average user be willing to pay several hundred dollars for a copy of SCO when he or she can just use dos or windows and get the job done for less? It wasn't incompatibility between versions of unix for different hardware platforms that led to Window's dominance. It was the fact that unix wasn't even a competitor to windows in the first place. It makes me wonder where the hell these people went to school.

  • As a Debian and not a Redhat(can you say 'MicroSoft') user, I'm constantly reminded that my distribution is not the main distribution used by the average stuffed shirt.

    The key to not forking, is avoiding distribution bias. Most software I download these days comes in RPM format. Can you say distribution bias? I yearn for the good old days of about two years ago when everything you downloaded was a tar.gz.

    John
  • Dude is just jealous of programmer wages

    __

  • It's okay because Microsoft has a grade A marketing team.... Same thing with Red Hat. They've bastardized Linux to shit but it's okay because they can market :)

    I don't think programmers have the control any more... it's all about what marketing thinks is a good idea. It can be a piece of shit, but if you have a good marketing team they'll make the customer believe it's the best shit you can buy.

    __

  • Linux is forking, but then it is not.

    That's what BigBusiness don't get. There are quite numerous distributions around and they differ quite notably in flavour. Take (for example) Corel, SuSE and Slackware. They're probably as different as it can get. Corel targets the Newbie. SuSE can be for Newbies also but can also be used for server and requires to read some manuals (at least when you use YaST-1). Slackware on the other hand comes with a rudimentary setup-program, uses a totally different boot-concept (BSD) and is rather for the experienced user.

    But guess what? You take the source of a particular program, compile and run it.

    It's kind of using either chili or pepper. It varies in flavour but it's hot all the same. =:-)

  • Now i can see that IBM sells its NetFinity servers but it is still pushing the AS/400 and RS/6000 series as the REAL servers! And I just dont see Intel based machines being able to take on the BIG tasks that a lot of heavy iron from IBM does. And I just dont see an Intel box working in the place of an Sun EU10K system (*droll*). Not just cause of the hardware, but also cause Linux is still not as developed as the other Unix's.......

    A lot (if not the most) of the code in the Linux-Kernel was written by hobby-coders. Just how many of them can afford one of those big machines you mentioned? Second hand intel-gear sometimes costs next to nothing, depending of how old it is. And we all know that Linux runs happy on a 486.

  • You mean just like the various BSD's have been
    doing for years. They seem to be doing just fine,
    thank you very much.

    Earl Higgins
  • Of course Linux is forking... it is forking all
    the time! From the init process is started 'till the shutdown process is running the kernel is issuing almost nothing but fork() calls.

    It is a feature!

  • If Linux splits it self all the time, then a system cannot be compromised since each time someone breaks in, the system immidiately splits and kills the compromised other part.

    Smart!

  • Why is this post scored a 0, Flamebait? Jesus Christ, there really are insane moderators out there.
  • I guess ZDNet couldn't find any Apple/Wintel articles this mornoing so they resorted to the tried and true "Linux will fork and thou shall all be driven to the unemployment line" crap
  • No it isn't. But then nothing ever is. There's always new technologies, new needs. There's still much to be done before Linux becomes a true alternative to the how shall I put it?.... the "not so geek-enabled?" One thing that I personally want to see is a backup and restore solution that's as easy to use as Retrospect.

    As far as users go, as the movie says, "Build it and they will come." Linux is still not quite "built" yet.
  • Andover will probably have a cow over my saying this, but don't take this site too seriously. It may be a snapshot of the "community" as you put it, but it's on the same level of quality (or possibly less) as three blind men describing an elephant. Slashdot itself has become irrevocably altered by the infamous /. effect. And most of the people who actually DO things and make the big decisions simply don't have the time to even lurk here, much less post on a regular basis. Slashdot can be and is a great resource, just as long as you take a good deal of salt on the side.

    Slashdot... it's not just for unix geeks anymore.

    Just to be curious, besides reading Slashdot posts, how are you pursuing your research?
  • Last night I had the "opportunity" to use a PC running xenix. My G-d! What a pain to work with and on! Let's all take a moment to be grateful for the GNU folks and for Linus... because trust me, GNU/Linux is way easier and more rewarding to use than Xenix, or AIX, or any of the so-called "real" Unices.

    Sorry to babble...

  • There are really only two reasons an open-source project could fork:
    1. Political/Ego:
      This would be a bad deal. Hopefully where it counts everyone can keep their egos in check.
    2. Technical:
      Forking the code because someone/somegroup wants to take a different direction with the project. Either from a design stand-point with the same goals, or a different set of goals for the project all together, the users still win. You can get either a competing product which gives the users choice (and lets face it, open projects tend to bend over backwards trying to maintain compatibility with rational standards and even competing products) or you get a whole new product attempting to fill a perceived need or niche.

    Essentially, the free software world has only itself to fear.

  • They spent about 9 years running "OS/2 is Dead" headlines and now they are going after Linux/Unix/Be. ZD has always had their lips pressed firmly against BillyG's ass.
  • There is a single paragraph discussing forking without any proof behind it. The rest of the three-page article discusses Linux's impact on the market and how it has been gaining ground on NT and is upsetting the server OS balance. What's the problem here?
  • The letter X is finished too. It won't survive the week.
  • You have a whole bunch of people wanting to make money off Linux. So the first order of business is to end the free distribution of Linux. It obviously hurts the bottom line. So you hire a whole busload of lawyers and lobbyists and you kick the legs out from under Linux. Slap a copyright on your kernel and then sue everyone whose kernel looks like yours (duh). Then you end up with several flavors and everything locked down tight as the proverbial fist.

    Never underestimate the power of lawyers and politicans to fuck things up.
  • You may like to check out the issue regarding forking (or lack of) in Linux compared to BSD Unix discussed in the infamous Halloween I paper, at http://www.opensource.org/hallo ween/halloween1.html [opensource.org], at the "Code Forking" sub-header.
  • The Kernel (which Linus maintains). 3.3.99-Pre2 is out....Great job ppl!

    Well just chaning the package manager, the installation GUI and the location of files (RH puts them in all the wierd places even now) just means that you have to compile code with those in mind! I mean Slackware has stuck it its BSD style installation and RedHat and others have moved to more GUI stuff in all their Admin tasks! The libraries and all are still found in all the distros and if they arenot install them :) So in reply i just dont see how a distro could make sure that it does not work with linux software! but maybe there is and i just dont know of it yet.
    just my .02$!

  • Xenix is a pain in the ass. I know, I have one box still running it. (port work)

    But that's where reality stops. Commercial unices are very good, moderatly freindly, and for the most part are rock-hard stable. AIX (not A/IX), Irix, Solaris, Tru/64, etc, all kick major ass.
  • When everyone started to make PC's, there was a lot of concern about people making incompatible PC's. Did it happen? Yes! IBM came out with the PS/2 and people were very concerned, because it used the proprietary MCA bus. How many of us still use the MCA bus? What about VESA Local Bus? What about PCI? What about AGP? The good ideas ended up in everyone's final products.

    Linux will follow a simlar pass. Proprietary things will eventually lose out as everything becomes more and more open. I'm sure that someone will start producing versions of Linux that are incompatible with the others, but since they are incompatible, people won't like them. Either that, or they come up with some nifty new idea, and then all of the other Linux's start using that idea.

    Everyone can start making their own Linux distros, but keeping them similar is in everyone's best interest. Linux will follow the same path as the PC Architecture. PS/2 style mice and keyboards are becoming the norm, but is everyone gnashing their teeth? NO!
  • In my opinion, it pretty much already *has* forked.

    The ZDNet article seems to view the differences in distros as a fork -- i.e., difference in package managers like .deb vs. .rpm.

  • This guy didn't even READ ESR essays before posting this crap. We could all do without his FUD. Forking in Linux is quite difficult because products that are compatible with all distros/versions of Linux will be most wide spread and survive. Also, I see no economic interest in forking linux too. So why should it fork?
  • From the now infamous Halloween I document...
    -------------------------------------
    Lack of Code-Forking Compounds Long-Term Credibility

    The GPL and its aversion to code forking reassures customers that they aren't riding an evolutionary `dead-end' by subscribing to a particular commercial version of Linux.

    The "evolutionary dead-end" is the core of the software FUD argument.

    { Very true -- and there's another glaring omission here. If the author had been really honest, he'd have noted that OSS advocates are well positioned to turn this argument around and beat Microsoft to death with it.
    By the author's own admission, OSS is bulletproof on this score. On the other hand, the exploding complexity and schedule slippage of the just-renamed ``Windows 2000'' suggest that it is an evolutionary dead end.

    The author didn't go on to point that out. But we should. }
    ----------------------
    Even Microsoft admits that Linux has a very low probability of forking! Nuf said.

  • Doesn't Linus Torvald own the trademark on the name "Linux"? I don't see this as a serious problem, but if it really got to BE one, seems like Linux could simply say "Do what you want with the code IAW the GPL. However, if you're not compatible with the LSB (or some other standard he prefers), you can't market is as Linux." How quickly would the distributors jump to ensure compatibility then?
  • But not necessarily in that order.

    I mean come on, aren't we all fed up with pundits pontificating on "The end of X" by now?

    Rich

  • I mean Linux takes up most of a CD-ROM - I doubt it can be downsized to fit into your toaster as you seem to think.

    I put a CD-ROM of Linux on top of my toaster and it melted down into the slot a treat.

    Rich

  • AMD claims a "4 year window" in the 32bit market until 64bit takes off. I don't think so. Just because Intel is focusing on Itanium, it doesn't mean that they won't be continuing to develop 32bit processors along side 64bit. In fact it will only make things more problematic for AMD because they will have to chase Intel on both 64bit and 32bit paths now. My guess is Itanium will be like today's Pentium Pro, a processor that had brief popularity but all others that followed had many new features as well as those found in the Pro. Bottom line, this article is a little to optimistic on AMD's side.
  • OK, suppose it would fork. I don't think this is such a big of a problem. After all we do have several distributions among which some are not that "standard". We have three different flavours of packages, yet nothing stops me from installing any of them on my machine. And if I really don't want to install packages I can always get the source.
    The issue is not if the Linux breaks into several incompatible distributions. Unless they are incompatible in the Microsoft sense of the word. Meaning that those distributions will not be able to share data between them.
    It doesn't really matter if that distribution is running a binary of StarOffice and the other is running another type of binary of the same package. As long as StarOffice for Linux1 and StarOffice for Linux2 will share the document formats then there is no problem.
    After all, how many of you have several phones at home ? Are they all the same ? Probably not, yet you can speak from one to any other.
  • Boooring again I read a few comments here.. took a look at a couple of paragraphs and realize that this is just editor and journalist laziness.

    You would think these guys could at least find SOMETHING worth informing us about? Granted most people are not aware that this so called 'fork' potential I have read an article similar to this on more websites including /. than I really care to mention.

    Again find something news worthy to publish then I may feel compelled to read ZDNet's articles and listen to the message they are spreading.. this just knocks their credibility some.

    Jeremy

  • I'm using Linux from 92, it is the thing I like the best, and I'll keep using it forever. I wasn't ever deceived, and I don't care if it is on "crest of the wave" or not.

    And since "these talented programmers leave school" they will use and develop what they already learned and liked, and they will steadily oppose the crappy software, open source or not.

    The market share of M$oftish software basically reflects the competition between people with enough money to buy computers and people with enough time/desire to learn how to use them. As more and more "talented programmers leave school" the shift will become more and more visible. And it is nothing you can do about it.

  • Maybe they were afraid that if they used proprietary hardware, their boxes wouldn't run Windows.

    Since the hardware manufacturers can change Linux, they no longer have that worry. The temptation to build proprietary hardware (for whatever purpose) re-enters the picture.

    Then you have the source for Linux, but it's only X-box Linux that won't run on anything else. So you've got the source, what good is it?

  • who cares what M$ do? it sucks yes, so better if Linux doesn't ape it
  • We currently have HA linux, and embedded Linux. We also have Real Time Linux, but I think the improvements in that will probably merge again. This doesn't matter though does it. Anything good in one will make it to the other. The GPL enforces the possibility of meging as well as forking.
  • I don't understand why people in the media wish to rehash the isuue of Linux forking. We have seen some really huge growth in the community lately and I still see cooperation (it seems) between the major Distro's to keep things from getting out of hand.

  • FUD (Score:1)

    by pe1rxq ( 141710 )
    Just another FUD just like that other nonsense about security

    The fact that you can fork means it will adapt to demands instead of following the will of just one person/company, if I think that somebody is going into the wrong direction I can take his source and go the 'right' way. The users can decide which is the right way themself and eventually one version will stay, it is just evolution!

    Anyone notice they use $-signs to express markets? They probably never did get that 'free' part....

  • I think Linus should be transported (not with truck) to safe place where no trucks endanger his daily life. Maybe he should also be hidden from public and Microsoft too.

  • as many of these talented programmers leave school and college and start their own software houses. They already have done, companies called SuSE, RedHat, etc. The developers of the large Linux projects such as KDE and GNOME already do work for the above companies. So Linux may fade into obscurity, but I doubt it. I think your intelligent toaster may one day be running it. After all, how many users would put up with the message, "Your bagel has performed an illegal function and will be burnt", or the black toast of death.
  • That way your browser's filter_bullsh!t() function gets called (probably blocking this post as well). :-)

    Seriously, I really don't think Linux or any other free Unix-type OS will be fading into obscurity anytime soon. There are growing pains, to be sure, but not on the level MSZDNet is saying.

    I'm not saying that Linux will have the market- or mind-share that Microsoft enjoys now (90%) but it will be significant - maybe around 25% with other Unix-type OS's about the same level.

    Microsoft will probably be at no greater than 50% in 5 years.

  • Consider, Linux can handle SCO binaries. Solaris software can be ported with little more than a compile. Many Windows and DOS programs will run )Wine and DOSEMU). For a bit more money, NT, Win98, and all of their software will run under vmware. Linux is able to mount MANY other OSes' filesystems.

    From PC based server to mainframe to handheld, to embedded device, just recompile and you're ported. Try that with any other OS (BSD might do it, I don't know, but certainly no closed OSes).

    The reason for that is that the community wants it that way. Even if someone does fork Linux significantly, someone else will want to make a patch to allow for compatability.

    At this point, the only significant vendor that seems to actively fight this unforking is MS with it's 32 bazillion poorly documented API entry points and a lawyer behind every tree. (If you don't think they're poorly documented, then why cant the NT (Win2000) and Win98 development groups manage to agree on them).

    I really don't understand the article's claim that the backup software failed because of library locations. The libraries can be anywhere as long as the ld.so.conf is correct unless the software is linked against absolute locations for some bizarre reason.

    [rant] I just have to get this off my chest. Caldera is the most MS like of all distros based on the horror stories I've heard. It even has a sort of registry (with all of the problems that entails). I'm all for making configuration easier for beginners, but come on![/rant]

  • I mean come on, aren't we all fed up with pundits pontificating on "The end of X" by now?

    Yeah! It's a very flexible windowing system, and has stood the test of time.

  • Duh, he was obviously talking about the letter X.

    X! Sheesh. Forget X, if we're going to get rid of a letter, let's start with the bloody useless C. It has two pronunciations, both of which are handled already by another letter.

    Look to the Indonesian national language, Bahasa Indonesia: they've done a smart thing and reassigned C to the 'ch' sound. We should just follow through and reassign X to 'sh'. And while we're at it, annex Y and use it for 'th'. Bingo: we've gotten rid of three useless letters and made "h" mostly unambiguous.

  • At the LinuxWorld Expo in NYC at the start of Feb he said that from a technical perspective virtually everything about fragmentation is good. Unix gave it a bad name. But the problem lies in being different just to be different. However it is important to be able to create a version customized to your needs, one size does not fit all, yadda, yadda, yadda. Just so long as your changes are recirculated and you don't introduce gratuitous incompatibilities, fragmentation is simply not an issue!

    It was...a unique answer. :-)

    Cheers,
    Ben
  • It looks like a troll-moderator or astroturfer-moderater has moderated the parent down, presumably because it is unflattering to Microsoft.

    This is inappropriate.

    Someone with moderator priveleges today please correct this.
  • Linus owns the Linux trademark. The way I see it, if Linus tacks on some type of compatibility designation like "Linux 1.0 Compliant" for certain distros then many will feel like they have no choice for consumer type OSes than to follow Linus' lead.

    You can still fork the code for embedded products or linux appliances, but if you're marketing a Consumer or Server OS then you'd better not be the oddball who isn't Linux 1.0 compliant.

    LK

  • Whatever happened to a little depth in journalism? You would think that before someone would undertake writing an article like this, they might actually do a little research...!

    It seems patently obvious to me that the writer has neither heard one of Eric Raymond [tuxedo.org]'s recent talks, nor read the essay Homesteading the Noosphere [tuxedo.org] -- or at least if he did, he completely missed the part about "cultural taboos in the hacker community." As a writer myself, I'm completely put off by this shoddy, "let's get a few sound bites" type of work trying to pass itself off as print journalism: if you want to write news that way, get a job in television, where depth and research quality always play second fiddle to the terse and pithy.

    Oh, and a little technical competence is probably in order too: Linux is a kernel. Library layouts are a feature of a particular distribution (although the LSB is trying to fix that) -- different distributions can do whatever they want with them without forking "Linux". If the article was supposed to be about incompatibilities among distributions, write about that... but a little checking among sysadmins would reveal how easy many of those issues are to overcome; and if there really is a compatibility problem running Legato on Debian, how about actually talking to someone from, say, either Legato or Debian about it instead of a third-party admin having a problem using it?

    I'm really surprised actually; Charlie Babcock has some of the best print credentials [zdnet.com] of anyone writing for ZDNet, yet this article read like something written by a fresh journalism school graduate writing TV news in Missoula. <CONSPIRACY>It almost makes me wonder if there is an agenda of some sort in play here.</CONSPIRACY>



    This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.

  • Debian, Redhat, LinuxPPC. I'd call that three "forks". Yes, they share code, and aggressively, but the fact is that, in any *practical* sense, Linux has been "forked" since Linux68k first showed up. That's what, close to a decade now?
  • There may be one kernel tree now, but at times they've been separate, at least briefly. Anyway, consider all the architectures that "linux runs on" that aren't in that tree. Psion handhelds?

    I don't see a fork as a big deal, but it's silly to act like we haven't had one. ;)
  • Two out of three Dining Philosophers think the world needs more forks, and thus await The Great and Destined Forking of Linux with bated breath. And growling tummies.
    --
  • Standard responses to follow:
    a) It hasn't happened yet
    b) If it does... will it matter?
    c) Windows already has 9+ versions

    Did I miss anything? We should have a FAQ for this!
  • Chris Dibona's job title is "Linux Community Evangelist".

    -B
  • I beg to disagree. Unless I'm much mistaken there's still one kernel tree:
    % ls /usr/src/linux/arch
    alpha/ arm/ i386/ m68k/ mips/ ppc/ s390/ sparc/ sparc64/
    %
    (from which you may deduce I'm running 2.2.14...)

    Still. The question is really, "who cares?": if it's open-source then there's nothing to stop people porting, or just staying "un-forked" to make it easier. After all, we don't use
    #ifdef __AIX__
    in our code now, do we? ;^]
  • In my opinion, it pretty much already *has* forked. But the question should read, "Does it really matter?" As long as the vast majority of software comes with source code, and the OS has a standard compiler, then fragmentation is not a problem. Unixes have been fragmented for years. But since you simply downloaded the source code, did a "make config; install", it didn't really matter. And for the same reason, it won't be a problem with Linux as long as two things happen. Source code to major components must always be available to be rebuilt on "non-standard" systems, and software must be written with portability in mind.
  • The kernal itself forks every time somebody recompiles it for their machine. The OS (with all the trimmings) forks just about as quickly. This is not a problem.

    Because Linux has a bunch of different uses, there is a forking tendancy. I don't want palmtop Linux to be the same as mainframe Linux. If you're good at one, you can't be good at the other.

    The important thing is to have a common ABI. If the same software runs on two boxes, I don't care whether they are two different flavors of Linux, or even if they are both Linux!

    The value of an OS is proportional to the size of its user base, since that defines the developer base. The size of the user base depends on ABI level compatibility--the ability to use the same program on different machines. Thus, the tendancy here is for the ABI to stay similar, because changing your own ABI cuts you off from the pack. Tendancies towards forking the ABI will come from two ends: those wishing to sabotage Linux (that is, other OS vendors), and those who extend the ABI to showcase some feature that only they have. The former can be recognized and fought; the latter will eventually extend the ABI, but allow for non-compliant software in the short term.

    If ABI forking becomes a problem, the solution may be to have a centralized ABI authority. Such a group would define several ABIs (such as Linux Embedded, Linux Desktop, Linux Server), and define what services are available and how to access them. The group would then define a reference platform that provided those ABI services and only those ABI services. Any app that could run on a given reference platform gains a "logo" approval, and any platform that supports the reference ABI gets the same (whether it's Linux or not).

  • But that doesn't mean that the threat of forks is significant. Many small forks can, and will, happen. The danger arises only when more than one of them commands a large audience.

    Will the Linux community follow two different forks en mass? I am not so sure.
  • Many people think that Unix's revival is all due to Linux. In a sense, they're right. But it's not so much Linux per se, or even open source; it's the fact that Linux has brought Unix unification.-- from anther ZDNET article, 21st Century Unix [zdnet.com]
    If Linux is forking, then why is it acting as a unifying force on Unix? I mean, Linux has been a positive development for Unix, increasing compatibility.

    The only thing that I can think of is that the commercialization of Linux might cause some compatibility problems in the short term. But, I mean how serious are they? It's like if you install Redhat you get a Gnome desktop as default, most of the others use KDE, but you can always switch to whatever Windowmanager you like by editing .xinitrc (I like Window Maker, myself) and installing the proper stuff off of the disk if it is missing.

    I mean if you install the proper libraries into Debian(in the required directories), couldn't you get the program in the article working? Of course, if the program was closed source you might have a problem figuring out what was wrong, but then that's more of a closed source problem than a Linux problem, I think.

    Closed source Linux vendors may, in fact, just use distribution X as a standard, and if you are using distribution Y (which doesn't install certain libraries by default) it might cause a headache if the people at the closed source vendors tech-support hotline don't know what they are doing and can't tell you that you need ncurses or whatever. So, this means good training to the closed source vendors tech support, not that there is a problem with Linux. If I had a problem like this, I wouldn't be complaining to Linus but to the person who sold me the incompatible closed source software.

  • To see the lack of forking in OSS all you need do is look at the older generation of projects. The great Emacs/XEmacs revolt led to two completely incompatible.... oh okay then, two occasionally incompatible versions of the editor. While the code was different beheath the surface they can still use each other .el files on most occasions. That split is probably the most famous in OSS, most other projects result in the killer App destroying the competition rather than two competing forks.

    fetchmail and sendmail, both had competitors, and especially with fetchmail there were chances for a fork when the philosophy behind it changed. Thanks to the massive climate of "don't branch on pain of death" with pervades OSS it didn't happend (read the Cathedral and the Bazaar for more on that).

    Compare this to the world of closed source Unixes and the fatanstically non-interoperable plethora of mail tools that have come out for Windows over the year.

    Splits happen when there is a clear difference of opinion that is supported by a significant proportion of the development community. This differs with the "upgrade or die" philosophy that keeps many vendors afloat.

    OSS can result in forking but doesn't tend to result in popular forks. And even when it does it doesn't have to lead to incompatiability between the branches.
  • here's a copy online

    X-ING A PARAGRAB [poedecoder.com]

    Didn't read it, so i don't know how relevant it is to this particular thing... but it's not offtopic so please don't mod me down i'm a karma whore... heh.

    --
    linuxisgood:~$ man woman

  • Nobody is yet making money off Linux. All above companies are losing millions on Linux products.
  • From now on, I think we should simply assume that, whenever any Slashdot article's headline ends with a ?, it should be assumed that "No, of course not!" is implied after it.

    Examples:
    The End of Unix? (No, of course not!)
    Linux Approaching A Fork In The Road? (No, of course not!)
    Do Geeks Have A Political Voice? (No, of course not!)
    Hmm, maybe that wasn't such a good idea...

    --
  • 2000-03-20
    15:35 GMT
    Dr Evil Submarine Base
    Somewhere in the Marriana Trench.

    Dr Evil:
    "... We will subvert the Open Source movement, fork Linux, go IPO with Dr EviLinux(tm) and make millions of dollars!! BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!"

    [Stunned and embarassed silence around the table]

    Number Two:
    "[Clearing throat] Er... Dr Evil, sir... You cannot really fork Linux... It's controlled by that finnish guy Linus Torvalds... And the largest Linux companies in the world are actually more sought-after on Wall Street than (gasp!) our own Evil Corporation(tm)!"

    Scott Evil:
    "Yeah, you idiot! And any moron knows that Linux is protected by the GPL anyway! If you do something good with Linux, you have to release the code, and all your competitors can then incorporate it in their own distros! You are just an imbecile!"

    Mini Me:
    [Jumps on table and slaps Scott]

    Scott Evil:
    "OUCH! [incensed]I am going to kill you, you little piece of sh..."

    Dr Evil:
    "Zip it Scott! Mini-Me, I said no slapping while Daddy is working! Number Two! What is that [quote with fingers]Evil Corporation(tm)[quote with fingers]?"

    Number Two:
    "Well, you know, the software company that has some problems with the DoJ roght now? [whispering] The one that is based in Seattle? 65K+ bugs in their last released product?"

    Dr Evil:
    "Riiiiiiiiiight... That Evil Corporation(tm)"

    [Thinks for a little while]

    Dr Evil:
    "Very well, then, I'll just have to come up with another plan to conquer the world and make plenty of money. Something which involves large nuclear weapons or some such. This time-traveling is so embarassing -- you just cannot keep up to date with all these latest technologies. Come Mini-Me! Daddy is going to teach you how to torture small animals while he thinks about all this"

    [Dr Evil & Mini-Me exit stage left]

  • OK so if today all the linux developers go NUTS and decide to support some other OS doesn't the fact that the source code of their code is available provide the best garuntee for a business ?
    I mean any software company could tank, at any time. But if an OSS software project loses its developers all you need is time before some other developers take off where they left off (IF in fact the software does have any market potential or penetration). In every example given in the article the potential to enter the market of developing linux software or maintaining its software is freaking huge!!!
    Intel is now a dominant hardware manufacturer, and Linux runs easily on it. Even the old guard hardware manufacturers like IBM and Hewlett-Packard sell Intel-based product lines.

    Now i can see that IBM sells its NetFinity servers but it is still pushing the AS/400 and RS/6000 series as the REAL servers! And I just dont see Intel based machines being able to take on the BIG tasks that a lot of heavy iron from IBM does. And I just dont see an Intel box working in the place of an Sun EU10K system (*droll*). Not just cause of the hardware, but also cause Linux is still not as developed as the other Unix's.......

    "Cream rises to the top. You don't find the cream unless the milk is out there."

    Penguin says :
    I'm the cream of the crop... i rise to the top.
  • Let's look at situations where forking has managed to get past a missing/closed-minded maintainer, or just been used to introduce revolutionary ideas:
    NetBSD designed for portability.
    OpenBSD designed for security.
    FreeBSD designed for performance.

    Emacs and XEmacs, both the same interface, but each with a separate design philosophy for the various developers.

    Forking of Windows into the "professional" (NT) and "home user" (3.1/9x/WM).

    Exactly which of these have caused great turbulence for the people involved with those programs?

    None. Although the NetBSD people are a bit touchy about Theo, still ;-)

    Once we are allowed to compete on our merits, opensource darwinism allows the best to be created. We've seen what monocultures do before, and will likely do in the future. Heck, nature has forked people in the past. Why do you think we have different skin/hair colours and other differences?
    ---
  • The distributions have been forked for quite some time. This may be an issue for end users who don't ever want to have to compile a kernel or install upgrades to libraries. But the underlying source has not forked. In fact, with the remerging of egcs and gcc, one of the biggest potential forks has disappeared.

    For developers, as long as the kernel, compiler and libraries don't fork, does it matter if the distributions release at different times with different versions? Does it matter that they focus on different audiences? Not really. I'd probably have trouble finding a program compiled for one Linux distro that I can't make run on another one. I might have to get different versions of libraries and recompile the kernel, but would it be impossible to make it run? Probably not.

    So, is there anything wrong with Corel, Redhat, Mandrake, Caldera and others fighting it out for desktop market share? If they are perceived as incompatible, it may slow acceptances of Linux among end users. And it will hurt their individual market shares. But to developers, it isn't going to slow the progress of development on the tools that brought us to free software in the first place.
  • Maybe they were afraid that if they used proprietary hardware, their boxes wouldn't run Windows.

    Actually, it was DOS that they were afraid it wouldn't run.

    Since the hardware manufacturers can change Linux, they no longer have that worry. The temptation to build proprietary hardware (for whatever purpose) re-enters the picture.

    (knock knock knock) HELLO! McFly! Have you heard of Wintel? Does the term "duopoly" mean anything to you? The hardware may be "open" in a sense, but Intel holds patents over a very large part of it.

    Besides, proprietary hardware has been found to be a Bad Idea. Like Communism, it just doesn't work. Linux's popularity will have no effect on that.

    Then you have the source for Linux, but it's only X-box Linux that won't run on anything else. So you've got the source, what good is it?

    It's a lot of good. It gets merged into the kernel and the good stuff is kept while the crap is thrown out. Then it's just plain ol' Linux that now supports X-box. Of course, it's improved faster than the forked version, and the people who were doing the forked version realize that the kernel proper with X-box support is moving faster and just start sending patches to Alan. He approves many of the patches and the X-box people are made maintainers of the X-box part of the code. They also submit patches to the regular kernel and everybody benefits.

    That's what good it does.

  • I see no reason why Linux should 'fork' at all into incompatible OS's...

    The nature of the GPL is such that any any alterations to code (including the kernel) have to be released, making it possible to keep any strands that shoot off included in Linus/Alan's 'official' kernel, or not if they were pants.

    Yes, Open Source software allows for people to take code where they want to, but in the case of Linux, where there are obvious focal points (Linus Alan etc) for what is or isn't the 'official' kernel, it seems unlikely to me that it would happen.

    Even if it did, I don't think it would really matter, porting software between platforms that would inevitably be very similar would be no great hassle on the whole.

    --
  • Either the old fork will be useless to anyone and no one will use it or the new fork will be useless to anyone and no one will use it. The other fork with either be useless to anyone or someone will find some use for it. In the latter case, they have the source code and there should be no problem with them maintaining it.

    Forks are only important in closed source software.

  • Duh, he was obviously talking about the letter X.

    Most of the time you can use Z (xenophobia == zenophobia) and for other cases just spell it out (ecksray and eckscrement).

    With only 25 letters in the english alphabet there would be more time left to teach our children useful stuff like how to troll slashdot.
  • Linux advocates, such as evangelist Chris Dibona at VA Linux,

    Slightly off topic but I found it funny that they refered to Chris Dibona as an evangelist.
    From Dictionary.com:

    evangelist \E*van"gel*ist\, n. [F. ['e]vang['e]liste, L. evangelista, fr. Gr. ?.]
    A bringer of the glad tidings of Church and his doctrines. Specially:
    (a) A missionary preacher sent forth to prepare the way for a resident pastor; an itinerant missionary preacher.
    (b) A writer of one of the four Gospels (With the definite article); as, the four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
    (c) A traveling preacher whose efforts are chiefly directed to arouse to immediate repentance. The Apostles, so far as they evangelized, might claim the tittle though there were many evangelists who were not Apistles. --Plumptre.

    I can see Chris now, all gussied up in his ceremonial Tux outfit, watching over his Linux flock, lined up in the pews of the Church of Linux and Open Source Advocates.

  • Why is it that articles of this sort talk about the perspective of investors, corporations and IT managers (Microsoft collaborators mostly)? Linux has managed very well indeed without these assorted "people" and will continue to do so, fork or no fork. Berst and Wall Street have so far had a perfect score of "zero" when it comes to Linux, and I suspect this is more of the same.
  • Is that when you create a copy of a process or is that spawn?

    :)

  • I mean come one... NT 4.0 why is it that some stuf wil work with service pack X,but not with Service Pack X+1... or something equally annoying... It seems that MS cant even keep a tree clean and that one product for them can branch....

    Since you mention NT... &nbsp ver. 4.0 is what? &nbsp Basically an updated 3.51 with a Windows 95 GUI. &nbsp But are they really compatible? &nbsp No. &nbsp And worse, why create yet another 32-bit operating system for Win95 ver. b/c and Win98 that is not recognizable by NTFS, MS's own earlier 32-bit operating system?? &nbsp Fork. &nbsp But that's acceptable I guess and gee... maybe not really a fork and....

    As long as Linus maintains the kernel, then a "fork" will not happen. &nbsp You will have differentiation between distributions based on what apps ship with them, how the distro gets installed, and what stuff shows up as icons on your X window manager, but "forking" (in the negative connotation that this article portrays) ain't gonna happen.

  • My theory is that it's to divert media (and pro-Linux posters') attention away from the story on WebTV's Melissa-like bug:

    Hee hee... YES! &nbsp I did hear about that over the weekend but seems that Sony took the hit for it in the press rather than the makers of the OS that powers the backend...

  • Interesting that this morning the FUD is going fast and furious - first "Linux is insecure" and then "Linux is forking".

    I believe that several Linux-based IPOs (like Caldera's) are supposed to debut this week, if not today? &nbsp Think there's any relationship between that and the FUD-cranking???

    ;-)

  • Guess I'm confused... so, if Linux is going to fork in an incompatible way, then what is Linux? The Kernel? The API? The Installer? The GUI or lack thereof?

    The way I see it, all of the above have already forked. One of the biggest anti-linux criticism that Linux lacks application support. Mix this arguement with the idea of forking, and there's not much else to say: if a distribution strays too far from the Linux middle of the road, they lose all application support... unless the good will of 10,000 open source developers will lead them to port their products to an incompatible distribution.

    -CSErwin

  • Linux is not forking! (Score:3)

    by mjuarez ( 12463 ) on Monday March 20, 2000 @05:37AM (#1190890)
    Linux, the kernel, will not fork in the foreseeable future, since Linus is maintaining his
    status as mantainer of the kernel source. And, anyone who doesn't have THE kernel maintained by Linus isn't really Linux.

    However, the different distributions, such as RedHat, Caldera, Slackware, have already forked, and have been forked for at least some three years, if I remember correctly. The distributions will have to get in-line with some standard, such as the Linux Standard Base (LSB), so that compatibility among distributions is guaranteed, but that is another entire matter.

    This is not to say that compatibility among distributions of packages or applications should not be important. It IS very important. However, Linux, the kernel, is not forking anytime soon. The different distributions, usually based on some
    GNU/Linux combination, have already forked, and a long time ago at that, so what's the big deal?

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close