Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

Ian Murdock: Linux is a Process, Not a Product 284

Posted by michael from the apt-get-install-clue dept.
securitas writes "Debian founder Ian Murdock says that Linux is a process, not a product. He also says that the product mentality 'misses the entire point of Linux and the open-source development model.' Because Linux is made up of many different components developed on independent timeframes, Murdock posits, to refer to Linux as a product is to strip it of its dynamism and closes its inherently open nature. Instead, he says that Linux should be viewed as a shared platform and infrastructure technology, and that business models should reflect that or else Linux risks becoming proprietary, closed and just another cookie-cutter piece of software."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ian Murdock: Linux is a Process, Not a Product More

Ian Murdock: Linux is a Process, Not a Product

Comments Filter:

  • What a coincidence (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) * on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:08PM (#6590662) Journal
    Funny, I just got done reading something else that sounds famailar: Science is a process [indiana.edu]

  • I can see Darl McBride typing now... (Score:5, Funny)

    by RevMike ( 632002 ) <revMike@gmail. c o m> on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:09PM (#6590668) Journal
    #kill -9 Linux

  • Reminds me of XML (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ann Coulter ( 614889 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:11PM (#6590686)
    XML is argued to be a data exchange format, not a data storage format. This article about Linux being a dynamic project has a similarity with XML. It is interesting how people now consider the dynamic nature to be the core of interest, instead of the actual tangible aspects.

    • Re:Reminds me of XML (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pieroxy ( 222434 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:18PM (#6590769) Homepage
      The problem with Linux is that everyone is calling everything Linux.

      If anything, Linux is not a product. RedHat X.Y is a product, based on linux.

      This improper terminology is hurting the acceptance of Linux pretty bad. The first thing is that when a newbie wants to start out on Linux, he has to ask a friend, he just can't go to the store and buy Linux... If he does, there's always the risk of him going to a nerd shop and buying a Slackware.

      Then good luck to you dude, you'll have a hard time installing and configuring!!!!

      Windows has a properly defined terminology and marketting.

      IMO this is a critical thing to improve. Please, people, stop saying "Linux is easy to install and configure", but say instead "[Gentoo|RedHat|Whatever distro] is easy to configure and install"

      M .02
      • Can someone enlighten me on why I've been modded redundant?

        I hope meta-moderators are not on the same crack moderators are....

      • free software is easy. (Score:3, Informative)

        by twitter ( 104583 )
        [praise of Microsoft] ... Please, people, stop saying "Linux is easy to install and configure", but say instead " Gentoo, RedHat, Whatever distro, is easy to configure and install"

        Well, it's not that hard. Anyone who can do a Windoze install can do Red Hat and the Red Hat is easier. Of course there's worlds of free help available through your local LUG. If your want your hand held and can't find a friend to do it, you can wait for an install fest or ask around for someone like me who will go to your hou [hillnotes.org]

    • I think what you meant to say was:

      XML is argued to be a data exchange format, not a data storage format. This article about Linux being a dynamic project has a similarity with treason. It is interesting how liberals now consider the dynamic nature to be the core of interest, instead of the actual tangible aspects. Why do they hate America?

  • I find that the process of creation is only half of the beauty of Linux. The other half is the wide flexibility to use the elements of Linux to do new things. There is no preconcept to the use of the collection of components which give rise to solving an ever widening range of problems and interests

    • Re:Even more than a process (Score:4, Interesting)

      by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@nOSpAM.etoyoc.com> on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:22PM (#6590815) Homepage Journal
      There is also a mindset one enters into with Linux. First off, you cease hording golden copies of CD's. Indeed, you find yourself increasingly relying on the network for the latest version of a package.

      A linux installation is less of a building construct than an organism that constantly is refined and renewed. Like the human body, we change out every cell in our body every 7 years or so.

      The Tao is the path. The Tao is not the destination.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Ummmm... no. (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Theobon ( 691491 )
          The human body is just a bunch of cell order in such a way that combinds to form one self contained entity. It preforms usefull tasks. Anything that grows, adapts, and replacates can be consitered an orginism. And linux does just that. It is not diffrent than memes. In fact many consiter the open source mentality to be a meme. In my mind, saying Linux is a product is like saying the human race is a single entity. There are thousands of forms and each installation of each form on each computer is diff
        • What's wrong with you. You are a bunch of cells that are arranged to be born, reproduce, and die. Along the way you buy things and pay taxes.
        • " It performs useful tasks." ...like the Matrix Screensaver!
        • That's like saying capitalism is just a way of allocating resources - an oversimplification, in other words.

  • The Process of Invention (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BrynM ( 217883 ) * on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:12PM (#6590708) Homepage Journal
    Reading the commentary below this article is interesting. I'm betting the /. discussion will be just as heated. This post [com.com] in particular was interesting to me:
    Since IBM doesn't have a distro then they're not going to disagree. The issue was the fact that the label "Linux" is being applied to multiple things and maybe the one that the press and the general public apply/associate it with is not really the "correct" one. (At least not in the opinon of the commentator.) Your example shows the error that most people have with the thinking: If me and a bunch of friends get together and bake cakes for a charity, the cake is the product of our efforts and is being offered as such to the consuming public. It is no different than the cake made by Sara Lee... In your case, you're emphasizing the end product, the cake, rather than the process of friends gathering to do something (bake) for charity. The fact is that you could gather together and bake a million different things for charity it doesn't always have to be a cake. Or, you could take that friends gather together part and the charity aspect and wind up with a home built instead of a cake baked. What really is the more important part to be emphasized in your example? The cake or the charitable act of friends? BTW, the author never claimed that other OS's don't have processes involved in their creation it's more that the process is internal and hidden (like Sara Lee's cake baking) as opposed to an open and community process. The other "fact" is that this Linux "process" can be used by the community to come up with a multitude of things besides the simple "cake". (Yeah, I'm blending your analogy in here all over the place. :-D )
    I think it's very important to note that the process of making Linux is just as available and useful as the end product of a Distro (Suse, Red Hat). I would say that I have learned more about computing in the past couple of years by having access to the process and participating in it than I ever did by just using a produce. To me, this makes Linux worth it's weight in gold.
    • "participating in it than I ever did by just using a produce"

      Oops. Though I do use produce, I meant to write:

      "participating in it than I ever did by just using a product "

    • Re:The Process of Invention (Score:5, Informative)

      by MuParadigm ( 687680 ) <jgabriel66@yahoo.com> on Friday August 01, 2003 @03:04PM (#6591180) Homepage Journal
      Interestingly, this "cake" metaphor was used in an article on USAToday's website just a couple of days ago: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog y/maney/2003-07-30-maney_x.htm

      "SCO claims it rummaged around in its closet and found that since the mid-1990s it has owned the rights to certain core source code for the waning Unix operating system. SCO says it then realized that the Unix code somehow got copied into the core of Linux, an increasingly popular "open-source" operating system developed and modified by thousands of independent programmers and owned by no one.

      [... snip para. ...]

      This whole thing is not unlike finding your grandmother's recipe for Bundt cake, realizing it's similar to the recipe in a number of cookbooks, suing the biggest cookbook publisher, then sending letters to everyone who makes a Bundt cake saying they should send you some money or risk legal action. Not a good way to make friends."

      What's really nice about this is that it means some of the mainstram press (do you really get any more mainstream than USAToday?) is finally starting to criticize the SCO FUD.

    • We were having a wonderful discussion over there. I should have thought of copying it and having my "cake" and eating it too. :-D

    • To me, this makes Linux worth it's weight in gold.

      Seems like a strange way to measure value. How much does Linux weigh? GNU? OS X? Windows?

    • To me, this makes Linux worth it's weight in gold.

      Begs the question, just how much does Linux weigh anyway?

      Perhaps it weighs more now that it's an organism and not a product, we have to count all those hefty developers.

      Perhaps it weighs less, because now it's not a product so you can't count the weight of the CDs.

      Perhaps it weighs next to nothing, as it is just a collection of electrons.

      Perhaps this whole article, and especially this post, are just plain silly.

  • What!? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 )
    He ... says that the product mentality 'misses the entire point of Linux and the open-source development model.'

    That's GNU/Linux, you insensitive clod!

    And, it is a product, it's an actual thing that I can put on my computer and use. It's developed through a process.

    Christ, every time some open source guy smokes a bong and gets all philosophical, do we really have to make note of it?

  • Its both and more (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mobileskimo ( 461008 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:15PM (#6590740) Journal
    A product, a process, a community, a method, a team, a concept, an idea, and most importantly, many alternatives.

  • He makes some good points (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ACK!! ( 10229 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:15PM (#6590743) Journal
    I think he completely misses some of the good points of having distros unifying the various projects as a unified product but ...

    His comments are good because perhaps they can open the business people up to the concept that linux in and of itself is not an OS. It is a kernel with literally thousands of projects built around it to flesh out the total package of the OS.

    It is a very hard concept for people accustomed to having their OS as a single product shrink-wrapped and delivered onto them from a single company.

    It has its flaws but its a very good article.

    For those using linux and for that matter commercial Unix in the IT world, how many bosses actually get the projects as opposed to product conception of Linux?

  • I wish non-geeks would understand this sorta thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JessLeah ( 625838 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:15PM (#6590746)
    ...however, we can't even get most people past the notion that "Linux" isn't the name of an operating system, much less that the "product mentality" doesn't apply to everything.

    Most people think that "Linux" is the name of an operating system, and most of those assume it's made by a company. The majority seem to think that "Linux" is an operating system made by Red Hat. Even one ORA book-- to wit, the one on Mastering Algorithms With C, with the pink cover-- noted that its code was tested on "Linux 8.0" (!!!).

    We don't need to discuss amongst ourselves the fact that Linux isn't a product. We need to teach others-- including Gartner-Group-reading "IT Manager" types and the PHB corps-- what Linux is, and what it is not.

    I have hardly ever seen a major publication (of any sort!) refer to Linux as anything except "an open-source operating system", or the like. It is not an operating system-- it is a kernel. (It is not even "open-source"-- it is "free software"! Not to wax RMSish...)

    Until this changes, we cannot honestly expect anyone (outside of our own circles) to understand any of the points brought up by Mr. Murdock.

  • Hey SCO? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:16PM (#6590747)
    How do you sue a process?
  • While some of the later points in the article are interesting, most of it really seems to me to be marketing hype.

    Linux is a dynamic system. Updates and new software are made available all the time. There are flavors of Linux for many different niches, yet it's still GNU/Linux. Cool.

    Windows is also a dynamic system, at least for those who don't disable the automatic updater from automatically hosing their system. Updates and new software are made available all the time. There are flavors of Windows for

    • While all OS's are "dynamic systems" in that they change and evolve over time, it is the *BSD and Linux's that are truely evolutionary.

      Why? Because they have the ability to mutate and are subjected to survival tests.

      Mutate you say? Look at TiVo. That was an obvious mutation/adaptation of the OS to fit a particular need. The great thing was that the mutation found it's way back into the mainstream and improved the "species".

      Compare this to Windows XP Media Center edition. First off, it only came aro
      • Sorry, not going to buy the mutate/adaption - the install was modified and additional code was written by developers to make it work for TiVo.

        Same thing happened as NT evolved for workstations and servers, or when the Windows codebase was ported to handhelds in Windows CE.

        Yes, Linux, *BSD, and any other open source operating system can have that modification done by the users, rather than the owners, but the OS's don't just wake up and say "HEY! we're gonna run on a Toaster today!"

        Again I say - all mo

        • Yes people are doing lots of interesting things with every tool out there. The issue is when you look at something like TiVo it wasn't the OS evolving to fill demands. In that case, it was an idea that used an OS to create a demand.

          The point I got from the article was that if you focus too much on the end product you could lose the real advantage/power of Linux.

          The distro's do a great job of addressing the needs of the server and desktop worlds by providing a "finished" product and running their own pro

  • Left field! (Score:2, Redundant)

    by dacarr ( 562277 )
    Linux is a process, he says. Well, I *could* just 'kill -9 (pid of init)' and make my machine at home promptly stop, but why in tarnations would I want to do that?

    Then RMS says linux is the kernel, and the product is GNU/Linux.

    Other consideration, off topic here: if SCO really does have their way, are we going to run something called SCO-GNU/McLinux?

    • /* Then RMS says linux is the kernel, and the product is GNU/Linux.
      */

      Man that really bugs me. Linux does not live or die by GNU alone. It is a system, and yes, GNU is part of that system, but so is Xfree86, so is GNOME, KDE, etc. The biggest tying knot of them all seems to be the GPL, which, by its very nature gives credit where credit is due: The GNU Public License. It seems rather childish for RMS to stand up and shout "Well, if it weren't for ME you wouldn't even have your ball to play with!" RMS,

      • Re:Left field! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Bas_Wijnen ( 523957 )

        Linux does not live or die by GNU alone. It is a system, and yes, GNU is part of that system

        Wrong. GNU is an operating system. It's a replacement of the proprietary unix operating system. GNU was meant to be a system, Linux was not. Linux is a kernel, which needs an operating system to live. Theoretically (and perhaps even practically) Linux can run with some other operating system. But it usually doesn't.

        It seems rather childish for RMS to stand up and shout "Well, if it weren't for ME you wou

        • See my other posts. Fuck being polite. It's impolite to tell Linus to rename his OS, which incorporates GNU components, just to satisfy some megalomaniac zealot's idea of "recognition". GNU/Linux is not the proper name, Linux is. You want to call it "GNU/Linux"? Go right ahead. I won't or can't stop you. But stop with the so-called "moral high ground" because you nor RMS has it. Quit bitching and get HURD out so you can call it whatever you want.


    • "If SCO really does have their way, are we going to run something called SCO-GNU/McLinux?"

      No. It will be called: MS SCO Linux GT (Gnu Technology).

  • Huh?!?! (Score:2, Funny)

    by powerlord ( 28156 )


    ... to refer to Linux as a product is to strip it of its dynamism ...


    Umm ... yeah ... Debian ... exactly what I picture when I think of a Dynamic Constantly Moving and Developing Product.

    ::scratches head::

    • Re:Huh?!?! (Score:5, Informative)

      by rknop ( 240417 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:29PM (#6590885) Homepage

      Umm ... yeah ... Debian ... exactly what I picture when I think of a Dynamic Constantly Moving and Developing Product.

      Well, it is.

      Debian is not a product. Debian Stable (currently Debian Woody) is effectively a product. But Debian is a project.

      Debian Stable may only have a new release every couple of years, making it seem very stodgy and safe and conservative and slow. But the Debian project really is dynamic, constantly moving, and constantly developing. Try installing Debian Unstable, and you'll probably find it's a little more constantly moving than you want....

      -Rob

    • Re:Huh?!?! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cherberos ( 262597 )
      I have to agree with rknop. Debian Stable is pretty static, but there are those moving targets, such as the unstable branch (which can be a hell to setup, when mixing several sources), or the other distro's, based on Debian (to name 2: Knoppix and Libranet (my favorite)).
      Never caught the purpose of this 'HURD' thingy though. Isn't that some hardcore Stallman stuff?

      • Re:Huh?!?! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by qtp ( 461286 )
        Never caught the purpose of this 'HURD' thingy though. Isn't that some hardcore Stallman stuff?

        I'm sure a lot of people thought the same about Linux when it started. It does provide the same functionality as other Unix like systems, but it is based on a different design philosophy. It is completly non-monolithic

        Almost everything is running in userspace as a server, (except for the microkernel), it promises greater scalability through its massively multithreaded and highly granular design.

        Yeah, it is St
  • >...to refer to Linux as a product is to strip it of its dynamism...

    Somehow, I don't think he really meant dynamism [dynamism.org].

  • Open development is a process... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:20PM (#6590796) Homepage
    ...I am not so sure about Linux.

    I think any "product" of open development that is sufficiently successful will eventually be killed by competing anti-open interests (software companies, adjacent industries, governments, etc.)

    As a result, individual products like "Linux" will probably come and go. However, the death of any open product simply means that the labor pool of the open development process will have or will soon move on to construction and maintenance of a new product which will in time, due to the superiority of the process (IMHO), again compete with proprietary interests, etc.

    As such, open development is likely to evolve into a lifestyle or an ideal which leads those who embrace it or participate in it to make use of a series of "open" products over time. These types of "open products" are developed, marketed and used quite differently from products originating in the traditional marketplace and the use of "open products" comes at the expense of the traditional marketplace (to use RIAA/MPAA logic).

    Thus, I tend to believe that if open development (and open content, etc. etc.) continues to grow in popularity as a philosophy and preference, there will eventually be some kind of sociocultural clash on a larger scale between the "open" and "marketplace" (i.e. closed) worlds.

    I am not an economist but it seems to me that open development and traditional more closed/proprietary marketplaces represent fundamentally different economies that coexist peacefully now only because open development hasn't been large enough in the past to warrant the expense or dischord necessary to displace or destroy it. However, as more and more talent/revenue/ideas/sales/young minds are "lost" (RIAA/MPAA again) to open development, I can't help but think that this will change.

    It seems to me that we are seeing the beginnings of this already with the grumbling of large interests like Microsoft about the "evils" of the GPL and open source.
    • I think any "product" of open development that is sufficiently successful will eventually be killed by competing anti-open interests (software companies, adjacent industries, governments, etc.)

      I don't think so. Look at Apache which reached an all time high market share today of just over 63% across all domains. Or Sendmail. Or BIND.

      Open source is strong not because it stands against the large business interests, but because it stands in line with a larger number of business interests.

      Lots of people w

  • Six of one, half dozen of another... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by airrage ( 514164 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:22PM (#6590814) Homepage Journal
    I'm unsure how I feel about "thinking" about anything in the context of what it really is, rather than what I think it should be. I was once stung by a bee -- and "thinking" to the contrary -- did not make me hurt less.

    Here are the pitfalls of this article, and in fact, the entire class of so-called opinion pieces concerning technology:

    And it gives its users greater control over the evolution of the underlying platform, putting the user firmly in control of product release timelines and rollout schedules. In short, with Linux, the balance of power has finally shifted back from company to user.

    I'm not sure how this is supposed to happen. I'm a small-business, since technology in general is not under my core-competence I have zero systems people. I can't code nor change anything about my system, I don't care to read the manual I accept the default settings plus whatever basic user configuration is possible.

    They need business models that preserve the magic that has made Linux what it is today.

    Here is finally the thesis statement of the article. In paragraph 15. Yes, this is what we need. In fact, this statement is so bland I could use this for business -- not really thought-provoking:

    "Poop needs business models that preserver the magic that has made Poop what it is today".

    To do so, I reiterate, is to miss the entire point of Linux, because Linux is fundamentally different from traditional operating system products--both technologically and, for lack of a better word, culturally.

    What is a traditional operating system? Is that like family-values? Is Linux some sort of all night-pill popping raver? I think Linux let's me access data on my harddrive. In fact, I'd say it's really not that revolutionary since it's, from a developer standpoint, UNIX. I'd say the old-school 70's UNIX culture is quite similar to the current LINUX culture.

    At stake here is not just the commercial viability of Linux distributors but the Linux ecosystem itself.

    Now here is the real kicker. I'm told that with LInux everything is compatbile I'm not locked into anything (see pro-Linux marketing). Now he's saying that's not the case, that I could be just as locked in. I guess it was always a possibility of Linux-LockIn(tm), but they lied to us?

    Final thoughts: I hate articles like this that sort of re-heat and serve slightly tough on the edges. I think UNTIL you start thinking of LINUX as a viable contender to an average user you will continue to think of Linux as a process -- like flushing the toilet.
  • in the software business.

    If we fcused on developing a solid proicess for development, we would end up have less flaw in our software.

  • reminds me of Bruce Schneier (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mrgreenfur ( 685860 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:30PM (#6590900)
    who said that security was a process not a product. and that encryption wasn't the ultimate answer (as he wrote for hundreds of pages in Applied Cryptography)...

    offtopic yes, but perhaps points to the fact that computer theories, are often in a continual state of improvement and need constant attention.
  • If you class linux as a product then they've released more OS updates than Microsoft could ever compete with :)

  • Corporate Inroads? (Score:5, Funny)

    by JUSTONEMORELATTE ( 584508 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:33PM (#6590918) Homepage
    He might be on to something here:
    Linux should be viewed as a shared platform and infrastructure technology
    "So you see, Boss, we're not buying a new product, we're buying a shared platform and infrastructure technology."
    It's synergrrific!

    --

  • Not exactly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by madgeorge ( 632496 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:34PM (#6590939)
    He makes some good points, but ultimately he is wrong in his assertion that Linux is a process. The process he's referring to is actually the process of open source development. Linux does describe something tangible beyond a collaborative process, namely a very distinct operating system kernel. There are other distinct kernels, and there are other open source projects that have everything to do with the identical process by which Linux is developed but absolutely nothing to do with Linux proper.
    • I agree with you 100%. There' s much value in the realization that Linux is an operating system undergoing constant change and input from many, many developers - all with their own unique ideas about what the OS still needs.

      In the end though, the process must result in a "product" - even if the product is really just a snapshot in time of the development going on. Otherwise, you'd just have thousands of people writing code for the sake of learning/enjoyment/self-fulfillment, and not ending up with a sing

  • "...or else Linux risks becoming proprietary, closed and just another cookie-cutter piece of software."

    Apparently, this guy doesn't understand the process he's writing about.

    Weaselmancer

    • Umm...he created one of the largest open source projects in existence, with hundreds of developers and packagers working to create a complete distribution...

      Its called Debian. You may have heard of it.
    • Apparently, this guy doesn't understand the process he's writing about.

      I really wonder why anybody would moderate that a flamebait. Insightful would have been more apropriate. I believe the risk is nonexistent. Today there are branches, some more popular than others. Clearly Linus' official versions are still the most popular. But still some of the development happens in other branches and eventually returns back to the mainstream. If the mainstream starts evolving in a direction which a major number of

  • The production of free software appears to me to represent, an emerging, new mode of production.

    Are we now in a period where the new process of producing value, (essentially use value since free digital stuff has almost no exchange value,) has crystalised and we are just starting to realise that it has the potential to become the dominant mode of production?

  • More products should be viewed as a process (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RandomWhiteMan ( 685768 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:41PM (#6591003)
    I have a lot of friends who use Linux, so I know all the parts about how it's open source, anyone can improve upon it, etc. I think that putting that in the realm of quality would at least cause more businesses to come around. I'm in a manufacturing plant working on outlining our quality system, and it is all about looking at a process for continually making our product better. This is exactly how Linux is made better, not just the kernel, but all the open source software for it. It's like you have a workforce of everybody who uses Linux, and they're all working to make the product better through continual revisions. You mention that to any Quality engineer in manufacturing, you've just sold him on Linux. Yeah, Microsoft releases patchs all the time. These though are coded by what, about 10% of the people out there who improve the code of Linux. This makes Linux far more robust and able to handle different situations. Then add to that the fact that these "patchs" are marketed and priced as a new OS. Once companies, and home users, start realizing this, they'll start converting. The problem is that most people don't know what Linux is, or think you have to have a computer science degree to even use it. Once Linux starts getting away from that image, and people start understanding what kernels and distributions are, that's when we'll see an end to Windows
  • Linux is a Product created from an Open Source Process.

  • He's right, unfortunately (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:49PM (#6591065) Journal
    I think a lot of people who say he misses the point, are in fact TEHMSELVES missing the point.

    Linux, as a collective and generalised OS, is a process.

    Debian Linux, RedHat, Slackware, etc. etc., are products. Furthermore, they're comprised of dozens of sub-products, so to speak, each with its own lifespan and schedule.

    The general entity called Linux is a procedural entity, or a way of putting together a bunch of products (the kernel, the utilities, the startup scripts, etc.) such that you can make a product with them.

    Now this is all fine and dandy. Unfortunately, there are two conflicting results to this:
    1) By pushing Linux as a product, you're pushing specific distros which are in effect, proprietary bundles. (Source code notwithstanding, in a professional environment, a bundled distro is _treated_ as a proprietary distro--partly for good reasons!) This is damaging to Linux as a process or concept.
    2) Companies don't want to run processes on their computers. They want to buy products.
    3) Due to the process nature of Linux, a resulting product (say Debian) is a snapshot in time of all of the subproducts travelling along at different rates. This makes it a big pain for the vendor (and to a lesser extent, the user) to keep current in Linux. This is effectively fallout from Linux "versionitis," and there are no easy ways around it.
  • Can this rant try harder to alienate/befuddle most of the computer using population?

    Nope.

    There are two clearly divided camps in the Linux community: one tries to maintain it as an exclusive geek club and the other tries to promote it to general use. It's pretty clear which camp this claim of not being a product is from.

  • Because Linux sure as heck isn't finished yet...

  • By any other name (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CDR1313 ( 151522 )
    Linux is...

    A kernel
    A distribution surname (redhat linux, suse linux yellow dog Linux Gentoo Linux ...)
    A trademark owned by Linus Torvalds
    A community
    A threat to Micro$oft
    Free as in Beer
    Running my Computer right now

    Now it is a process. A rose by any other name...

  • It Doesn't Matter (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Angry Pixie ( 673895 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @03:00PM (#6591132) Journal
    Linux may indeed be a process and not a product, but that doesn't matter if you're not a Debian. If you are a business trying to make money off of Linux or you are a consumer looking to purchase Linux, waxing philosophical about Socratic nature of Linux is a waste of time.

    It's not my fault for not getting it, it's your fault (vendors, advocates, press) for calling the resulting OS and application suite Linux, when technically Linux is only the kernel. If you want me to think of Linux as a process, rename all instances of Linux products and OS distributions to something equally snappy like, PixieOS!

    Because when I as an informed consumer am standing in CompUSA with Windows XP in one hand and SuSe Linux in the other, I'm looking at products, not processes.

  • right on, Ian (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Quickening ( 15069 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @03:00PM (#6591134) Homepage
    sad how many people here don't get it. Ian succeeded in describing what is different about this "linux thing", and one of its major strengths, and many posters here dismiss it with "market-speak". No, sorry, it's much more. Right now we are going thru a new product analysis (hint: initials are BMC) and while I was initially excited that it would run on linux, we find it is only supported for RH7.2 or RH AS2.1. So lame. Instead of this wonderful free, open platform I can modify and optimize, the server turns into just another black box with an expensive (min. $1500) yearly license. Of course at my company, "not supported" is verboten. Very disappointing, and hard to even relate to said company why they shouldn't try to lock it down like every other proprietary platform. These days, we business users are just unpaid (in fact, we pay dearly for it) QC for all the companies we buy broken software from, so locking it down is also preventing us from contributing fixes and improvements.
    Thanks again, Ian.

  • Great Concept, Ignores The Issue (Score:4, Interesting)

    by digrieze ( 519725 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @03:04PM (#6591179)
    This is the best descriptive model I've seen for LINUX, unfortunatly, it ignores the reality of the very real end user. Currently the LINUX end-user is a system-savvy hobbiest or professional, a minimum of one or two levels above the average computer owner (the guy or gal that's still trying to figure out emoticons in AOL-IM or get the time set on their VCR).

    This isn't denigrating the average user, it just means most don't lose sleep over the slow adoption of TCP/IP v6. They have little interest in memorizing their monitor refresh rates at various resolutions when DOS (with various windowing programs) and WINDOWS both had easy ways to switch on the fly. Why bother learning the intricacies and simplicity of pipes when all they have to do is hit an icon?

    Personally I think they'd be better learning how to work the silly box but the simple fact is this is no longer the era of the ALTAIR,PET/VIC-20/C-64, Apple II, Atari when the purchasers of "home computers" were assumed to have a good basic knowledge OR DESIRED SUCH. Today purchasers just want to get a letter written or look something up on the internet.

    Reality says if LINUX is to go further than UNIX did we have to get past the buzz and give the users something more than nine-tenths finished. Patches have to be as easy as wintel or mac machines (forget recompiling, just run the executable) and programs need to be complete and usable as delivered, including example templates, complete help files (written in ENGLISH!), and even online help (ala the much hated though immortal clippy).

    The issue is not the developers, where LINUX is now strongest. The issue is the "mom & pop" end user that want's another toaster. Steve Jobs understood that with the original Mac, Bill Gates still does, the question is when will Debian, Red Hat, Suse, etc. catch on.

  • Process is a bad choice of words (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Serapth ( 643581 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @03:08PM (#6591204)
    I think calling linux a process is a huge mistake. Granted, its an argument of semantics, but that doesn't make it any less important.

    In my mind... calling linux a process, models exactly what Open Source is. Open Source is a process... or more accurately, open source development is a process. Linux is one possible result. By calling the whole of Linux a process, muddles the lines between what open source is and what linux is. In essence, it derides any non-linux related open source process. Hope that made sense.

    To me, open source development is a process.
    Linux is a platform.
    RedHat/Mandrake are an implementation of that platform, which was developed using that process.

    To show it in different non linux terms:
    Closed source development is a process.
    Windows CE is a platform
    PocketPC 2002 is an implementation of that platform, which was developed using that process.

    In the end, calling Linux a process... well... it muddles an already confused concept! In my mind, I dont think the revolutionary concept is in any way linux, it is the way in which linux was conceived!

  • Greatest strenght (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ratfynk ( 456467 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @03:52PM (#6591588) Journal
    Try to create a modified OS environment that does some specific function with any other OS other than Linux. First thing that happens is that you run afoul of the software license, if you do not pay to use it, and then you are really restricted in what you can do.
    That is the great strenght of Linux and GNU you are perfectly free to use it as a dev platform in anyway you see fit. If your version is worth while then it will survive. It is the perfect dev platform for really advanced embeded systems. The ideal thing is to create a killer device which becomes a real product. At that point the software becomes secondary, and if you need to bow to Redmond or where ever so that your system can work then you are at a disadvantage when the company whose OS you use decides that your device is something they really have to own. Patent devices not software. Give the really inventive people freedom from rediculous constraints. GNU/Linux is the way of the future. Let MS patent every concievable system function software sequence and
    and eventually new American tech will grind to a halt.
    Look how long affordable 64 bit systems have taken to reach the market. This is purely the doing of IBM, Intel and Microsoft. But then again what does a home user need 64 bit for. Of course there are no applications that a MS wants to think of. The RIAA would have kittens if 24/96 recording became easy on the home computer. Also small art schools would be able to do too much. Budding digital artists using Maya and like tools would get too good too quickly. Advanced scientific tools available to all schools and teachers.
    Oh hell you cannot have little people doing things that only rich guys can do.


    This is the reason why high tech is going off shore, not that we are stupid just that we are stupid enought to let the major corporations control the future of tech. The real cost of advancements in computer tech has been the software. GNU/Linux has thrown a wrench in the works and eventually will open up 64 bit tech in the Orient and Europe. This will happen so fast that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel will not even know what happened. American government intervention on their behalf (like what happened with tron) will not help the giants this time. Compete or die is going to be the answer from the government in future. As so it should be.

  • How about... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tomster ( 5075 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @04:21PM (#6591872) Homepage Journal
    Linux is an ecosystem, not a product.

    Linux is a philosophy, not a product.

    Linux is a culture, not a product.

    Linux is a development methodology, not a product.

    Okay, mod this "-1, Sarcastic" if you want. But I don't find the article to be particularly illuminating or useful. Linux can be viewed in many ways depending on your perspective and assumptions. Declaring that Linux is "not a product" is about as useful as saying the United States is "not a nation". Yeah, you can get some people's attention, but you're not saying much.

    How about looking at the value of the "Linux way" of doing things? How about comparing the "Linux way" to other ways? Other people are trying to answer these questions, and those discussions are much more interesting to me than a simplistic "Linux is a process" label.

    My curmudgeonly 2c worth....

    -Thomas

  • This attitude is why Linux will fail (Score:3, Insightful)

    by c0d3h4x0r ( 604141 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @07:59PM (#6593271) Homepage Journal
    The problem is that most people/customers/users want products. They want stuff shrink-wrapped, polished, completed. They don't want some vague notion of a never-ending work in progress or an ever-evolving platform. They want discrete, well-defined units and releases. It's true of everything from Twinkies to CDs to operating systems, and it's why this common attitude among Linux zealots is counter-productive to their hopes for widespread adoption.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close