Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Software Linux

Linux, Inc. 393

Posted by michael from the amalgamated-and-homogenized dept.
An anonymous reader sends in a link to Businessweek talking about the business of Linux, and the increasing threat to Microsoft's operating system monopoly.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux, Inc. More

Linux, Inc.

Comments Filter:

  • Wonder why they left out.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @12:55PM (#11433617) Homepage Journal
    The software is making its way into everything from Motorola (MOT ) cell phones and Mitsubishi robots to eBay (EBAY ) servers and the NASA supercomputers that run space-shuttle simulations.

    Google. That would've helped to shake up the PHBs a little more effectively, given this is BusinessWeek.

  • You know... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BJZQ8 ( 644168 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @12:55PM (#11433624) Homepage Journal
    You know something must be up if BillG himself is shuffling off to South America to persuade the government to lose interest in open software...

    • Re:You know... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I live in Latin America. The sad thing is that everything runs on bribes down here from the garbage collector all the way up to the head of government. If Bill wants to make them lose interest in open source all he has to do is bribe the right people.

      • Re:You know... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MPHellwig ( 847067 ) *
        In Europe as in US the situation is just the same as in Latin America, only us wessies don't do it that public because of the taboo.
        But if you would look at some things that could not happen without bribe, in the EU the push towards Software Patents and in the US Bush (twice).

        So it is just the same shit , just not the same color.

      • Unpredictable consequences (Score:4, Informative)

        by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris.traversNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 21, 2005 @04:14PM (#11435918) Homepage Journal
        Not as bad as Indonesia. I have spent two months in Ecuador and the corruption there is NOTHING to what you see in Indonesia.

        It is true, though that if you bribe the right people, you can usually get some traction. However, things have unpredictable consequences.

        When I was in Indonesia for six months, there was a massive movement among businesses to switch to Linux. So, I wondered why, and I asked a few people. The answer really didn't surprise me, but it is of interest to this discussion.

        It seems that the Indonesian Government had begun a serious crack-down on the distribution of pirated movies and software (apparently due to presure from the US). Now you couldn't get Windows for $10 anymore, and nobody wanted to pay for it, so they were adopting Linux wholesale.

        So, in this case, you have to bribe a WHOLE LOT of people. And in the long run you still lose.

  • Dear Linux Community, (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Oh no! Not that!

    Love,
    Steve Balmer.

    P.S. I can buy any Linux business that becomes a real threat with the spare change in the cracks of my sofa.

    • Yeah Right..... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by big-giant-head ( 148077 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:05PM (#11433733)
      Not even M$ has the change to buy IBM and they are the biggest 'Linux' company out there.....

  • "threat" to MS? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dAzED1 ( 33635 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @12:59PM (#11433662) Journal
    ha. They are very capable of squashing serious deployment of Linux out there, and putting it back to the realm of hobbiest-only.

    The only reason they're not doing that is the simple fact that they are effectively a monopoly. If they let Linux get a small share, then all that Linux will do is take up some of the slack from people who would have a higher chance of not paying for MS products anyway. What it also does though is give them something to point to. "See! They have some of the market...we're not a monopoly" can be their response to a judge.

    Soon, hopefully, Linux won't be at MS's whim that much. But for now...they're letting us get any gains we have.

    • Re:"threat" to MS? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dillusionary ( 675442 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:04PM (#11433716)
      Don't be so foolish to beleive MS is letting anything.... It's not up to them, it's up to the product. If MS was even remotely able to let anything be done about it, it would have been done a long time ago, and Linux wouldn't be known. Linux is a solid product. They would serious need to convince companies like Cisco,IBM,HP to drop Linux. BUt that will never happen.
      • It's up to the product? Are you saying that Linux is a being with free will of it's own and will do what it chooses... not what the likes of Bill or Linus command of it?

        Also... I agree with the above poster, it is in Microsoft's best interest to have Linux in the world. Why? Simple, competition. It's the same reason they like having Apple around and have helped bail them out a few times.

        Should Apple and Linux suddenly implode one day, Microsoft will be in a very bad position because they would be accused

        • it is in Microsoft's best interest to have Linux in the world. Why? Simple, competition.

          Heh, it may be in the best interests of their user's, but not in the best interests of MS. MS would love to make Linux go away. If they wanted a token other player they would choose someone they can put out of business easily, not a nebulous, indestructible, opponent. They are already a convicted monopoly, so having competitors is not much help, legally.

          It's the same reason they like having Apple around and have

      • Re:"threat" to MS? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by anakin357 ( 69114 )
        I agree with your comment - "it's up to the product."

        The thing here is that most consumers of any product expect it to 'just work.'

        Want to know why Firefox is starting to make a small, but appreciable difference in what useragent is showing up in server logs?

        I'll tell ya.

        No end-user action required for installation of "bad stuff" in IE. Internet Explorer in it's default configuration is notorious for getting stuff without even clicking "Yes."

        That "Yes" button to install ActiveX controls is effect

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • > If they were capable of this and not doing it, they would be held to the fire by their stock holders for not exercising due dilligence with regard to competition.

        Sometimes the best move is not to destroy your competition. They already learned that a couple of years ago.

        >Are you suggesting that they are NOT actively fighting Linux adoption in forign governments, domestic corporations, and domestic Universities?

        They are not fighting hard enough. They have huge resources. Trust me, what you've se
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Trust me, what you've seen is either lazyness or they are holding back for a reason.

          Microsoft is most definately not lazy, so strike that off.

          You can't come up with another reason, and neither can I. Know why? There ISN'T one!

          Two favourite ways MS deals with competing products is to either buy the company behind it and fold it in, or to crush the company behind it to get rid of the product. Neither works with Linux because the product is independant of any company: it cannot be purchased, or made to

    • Tech companies have opened their checkbooks to pay for administrative support, including a legal staff that scans every stitch of code to make sure it can bear patent scrutiny.

      I thought that you weren't supposed to do that for fear of triple damages. What am I missing?

    • They are very capable of squashing serious deployment of Linux out there

      How? They tried cutting their prices in half, and they still lost Munich. What other legal options are left to them?

      The only reason they're not doing that is the simple fact that they are effectively a monopoly

      Why does that make a difference in how they act? With the Pubes in power for another four years, monopolies are effectively safe from any prosecution. The only entity capable of bringing a company to court under monop

    • Your last line reminded me of something.

      Programmer #1: "Not a bad bit of programming huh? You know sometimes I amaze even myself."

      Programmer #2: "They let us get that market share. It's the only explanation for the amount of adoption Linux has seen.

      Programmer #1: "Easy? You call that easy?"

    • Re:"threat" to MS? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sgtrock ( 191182 )
      Man, take off that tinfoil hat of yours. You've got the brim FAR too tight and it's cut off circulation to your brain.

      As several followups show, Microsoft hasn't been able to make a dent in Linux's rise no matter what they do. In fact, it looks like the more that they attack it, the more interested people get in trying it out for themselves. Some of those people are PHBs who would NEVER have heard of Linux if it hadn't been for Microsoft taking out full page ads telling them how awful it is. Mind you,

  • Microsoft's operating system monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Stop saying that! They might own the desktop (tell that to mac users), but they have never owned the server room. If anything the server room has changed from being filled with proprietary Unix boxes to being filled with Linux boxes.

  • Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ICECommander ( 811191 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:08PM (#11433771)
    This 'threat' has been mentioned every year for the past couple of years. In order for linux to become truly something to be wreckoned with, Joe user must become accustomed to it.
    • And the more articles there are, the more Joes will hear about it.

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:00PM (#11434415)
      Read the article. For the most part it's not a prediction, but a report about the inroads that Linux has made over the last several years.

      People who don't think Linux is progressing are ususally thinking about the desktop segment, where Linux is weak.

      But servers are another matter. Server are where expensive hardware and support get sold, which is why Linux has such strong corporate backing as described in the article. Joe User is irrelevant to servers.

      As for the desktop, I'm afraid hardware support is a major barrier. I've run Linux as my primary desktop at home for years, and at work for the last 3 years, but it's frustrating when hardware you want to buy isn't supported. It's even worse when the hardware is supposedly suported, but after laying out the cash you find the drivers are only partially functional, and crash-prone. Reverse engineering just isn't sufficient. Best would be if companies provided open-source drivers and documentation, but I doubt they will.

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FatherOfONe ( 515801 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @03:26PM (#11435365)
      1998: First Joe user goes online and most of the servers he hits are running Linux. He doesn't care.

      ~2000: Then Joe user goes out and buys a Tivo (or Tivo like) product. It runs Linux, again he doesn't care because it offers the apps he wants.

      ~2001: Then Joe user buys a new cell phone and it runs Linux. He doesn't care because it is cheap and gives him the functionality he needs.

      1999-2004: Now over that time device drivers start to appear more frequently for Linux because of all the servers and appliances that need them....

      2002-2004: Major players (Oracle, BEA, Novell, IBM, HP, Sun, heck all but Microsoft start to support their software on Linux servers.... Even Crystal reports now runs on Linux.

      2004: Point of sale devices start to standardize on Linux....

      2000-2005: Standard desktop applications start to become common on Linux. Apps like DVD burning, MP3 playing, Office, P2P, Web Browsing and some games become part of a standard Linux install.

      2005-2006: Linux desktop market share grows to surpass that of new Apple Macintosh sales. This forces companies like Macromedia (Dreamweaver) to start seriously looking at offering a Linux version of their products.

      2007-2008: New devices will start to ship Linux drivers and software with their products. These drivers and software will be more common than drivers and software offered for the Macintosh. Companies like Macromedia and Filemaker will reluctantly start to offer Linux versions of their software, but they will be downloadable only. They will go to great concerns to "protect" their software from being copied.

      2010: The Linux desktop market share in the U.S. will be around 15 to 20%. Microsoft Longhorn will be released. At a 20% desktop marketshare OEM's will now start to offer Linux on every model of computer and have the quantity of scale needed to lower the cost of a new computer pre-loaded with Linux.

      2011: Joe user will go to purchase a new machine. Machines will now cost almost nothing, and software cost will be the lions share of the total cost. The machine with Windows will cost more than the machine with Linux. Joe user will ask if both will do the job, and they will. Both will run his legacy apps. Joe user doesn't care, and buys the cheaper box. Microsoft will be forced to SIGNIFICANTLY lower their price of Windows and Office thus killing their profits.

      2015-2016: Linux market share now soars to 50% and video game makers now target Linux first. Microsoft will start to lay people off.

      2017: Duke Nukem Forever for Linux is released ahead of the Windows version by a year.

      My point is this.... "IF" Linux gets a 10-15% marketshare of the desktops, the game is over for Windows. At that point they have a large enough marketshare that it will be very hard for any software vendor to ignor them. That is what scares Microsoft to death. A free competitor that is "good enough" cannot get that large for them to survive.

      My second point is that this isn't going to happen overnight. Heck it isn't going to happen in the next 5 years. But look at how far Linux has come in just the last 5 years. It use to be that Joe user couldn't even use a nicely configured Linux box, now he can. He can probably even install SuSe or RedHat. If you installed Linux back in 1996, then you realize how far they have come. Think about that. In less than 10 years Linux has come from impossible for a noob to use - to an almost complete replacement to Windows. Now factor in that a lot more people are working on Linux than Windows and you begin to see what Microsoft is worried about. Yes they have 60+Billion in the bank. Now you know why they are doing that. They will need that money.

      Their ONLY hope is to go after patents, and perhaps the "living room". If they loose this battle then they are in for a long and hard road ahead and they will need a HUGE amount of money to "get them by" until their next great idea comes along. I also expect them to dum
  • IBM is still migrating all corporate users to a SuSE based desktop this year. I'm betting my butter and egg money on it as I just went out this morning and passed the Linux+ certification exam. So let it happen - I'm ready, helping push the trend whenever, wherever I can.

    • Linux+ "certification" counts for next to nothing. You are much better off getting vendor certification. There are, of course, two main distros in the real world. RedHat and Suse/Novell. They are different enough to make saying you know both a stretch, let alone get in someone's office and say "I know linux".

      Invest some money in becoming a red hat admin or a novell certified linux admin, it is well worth it and you will reap the rewards. And a free tip. When interviewed don't start with gentoo's elegance a

  • wake me up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beforewisdom ( 729725 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:11PM (#11433809)
    I have seen headlines about the linux revolution for a few years now.

    I use linux at home and love it.

    Wake me up when linux breaks double digit market share in the desktop world and then we can call it a revolution

    • Re:wake me up (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Jason Hood ( 721277 )
      Word.

      However it is hard to deny that Linux/OSS is accelerating. I dont read slashdot to find out how fast though, too much hype, not enough numbers. I think we are a couple more years yet from takeoff. The kernel and the DEs still need work...

      dbus, udev, hal, better config tools, groupware products - all need to be refined. Linux (actually DEs) are still lacking in a few areas. I believe the desktop market has to take off before the server will. Sure people use servers now in large numbers but lots of co

  • Linux Desktop Thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jace of Fuse! ( 72042 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:15PM (#11433840) Homepage
    I've been really thinking about the whole Linux gaining footing thing, and as much as everyone around here just LOVES XWindows and loves to say it's as usable as OS X or Windows, let's face it, in the eyes of most users it simply isn't.

    Apple has taken FreeBSD/Darwin and built their own desktop environment around it. OS X is very usable according to most people. And even though there are many camps of people who will argue that Windows is more usable than OS X or vice versa, the one point most people will agree on is that OS X and Windows are both more usable than XWindows and the various window managers. I perosnally hate both KDE and Gnome, and thus use a mostly text BSD box, but I know I'm in the minority there, as well.

    Here's what I've been thinking.

    What's stopping someone from writing an entire environment like OS X from the ground up, around and on top of Linux, and creating an OS X like environment that is as complete and modern as either OS X or Windows?

    I know everybody shudders at the thought of obsoleting their beloved X, but even some OS X users install and use X when they still feel they need it, but I think I'm just being realistic when I think hanging onto X is just overall the wrong strategy for putting Linux on the desktop. (Counter arguments exist, and will likely be in the many replies, and I don't entirely disagree with them, but...)

    I really think this is an effort worth pursuing. A new desktop environment built to be the primary way that Linux is used. A Linux based graphical environment designed from the ground up to be a Desktop GUI, following in the footsteps of OSX/Aqua.

    To make things easier (here's where many will disagree with me) one could work on such a program primarily focusing on modern hardware and esspecially modern video cards. Let's face it, ATI and NVidia run the show now days anyway.

    These are just my thoughts, and I hope people will constructively discuss this possibility instead of throwing around a bunch of "No way, not possible, why bother, go to hell Apple/Microsoft lover" comments.

    I like BSD, and I like OS X. I would like to see something similar done with Linux.

    • Re:Linux Desktop Thoughts... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:29PM (#11434019) Journal
      What's stopping someone from writing an entire environment like OS X from the ground up, around and on top of Linux, and creating an OS X like environment that is as complete and modern as either OS X or Windows?

      Nothing at all. Get started, I wish you luck on that.

      IMO, something as polished as OSX or Windows can only be created in a corporate setting. There are too many egos wanting different things, it'd be impossible to get a team of 100 coders to all agree to work towards the same set of goals. One guy wants X, another wants Y.

      There comes a point when you need someone to say "we're going with X, like it or find another job."

      There's more than enough talent to get the job done, but not nearly enough leadership, or talented people who are willing to volunteer their time to take orders to create something - even if it's not exactly what they want to create.

    • What's stopping someone from writing an entire environment like OS X from the ground up, around and on top of Linux, and creating an OS X like environment that is as complete and modern as either OS X or Windows?

      So what's stopping you...?

      If it was an easy task, it would have already been done. There are some people trying to do right this ( the Y environment comes to my mind right now ) - but even if they succeeded in this task, the lack of any developed software for that platform would be the main draw
    • There have already been a couple of replies along the lines of "What's stopping you..." and "Get started..."

      Okay. Okay. I'm off to the book store. I'll have 3 days per week for the next year to do nothing and I have nothing better to do. I could at least READ, RESEARCH, and EXAMINE the possibility.

      Why not at least look into this?

      If nothing else I might learn a thing or two.
      • Some things you should ask yourself are how much your solution is helped by replacing X. Is your goal one that could be reached on the window-manager level, like KDE and Gnome? Do you plan on making a high- or low-level API? Are you going to make GTK and QT bindings available?
        • Some things you should ask yourself are how much your solution is helped by replacing X. Is your goal one that could be reached on the window-manager level, like KDE and Gnome? Do you plan on making a high- or low-level API? Are you going to make GTK and QT bindings available?

          Definately good questions, that at the moment I don't feel qualified to answer. I have much reading to do.

          But my gut instincts tell me I think I would prefer things be low level, and I would like to get away from GTK and QT anythin
    • What's stopping someone from writing an entire environment like OS X from the ground up, around and on top of Linux, and creating an OS X like environment that is as complete and modern as either OS X or Windows? My guess is time, money and the fact that the OS X developers only had to worry about a very small group of hardware configurations. It could be done, of course, but look how long it took MS to go from DOS (which they bought) to Win95..and they had resources out the wazoo!
    • You're taking aim at the wrong issue. Quartz might be better than X at certain things. But Quartz isn't what makes Mac OS X a great operating system, and it isn't what makes it well suited to the desktop.

      Your problem is with Gnome, KDE, & the distros. Dunno what you think X has to do with the problem.
    • I don't think its a fundamental problem with xwindows, I just think there are too many freaking distributions. Variety is great but the linux community (not me, the guys who do the real work, thanks guys) is too small to have decent support for 40,000 distro's. And LSB is not enough. I think REAL standardazation is the only way to get out the kinks, like when to set-up/fix something all you have to do is type one little line, but to find out EXACTLY what that little line is takes an hour, if its the first
      • there are only two distributions. Redhat and Suse. All the rest are irrelevant / hobbyist projects or catering to niche markets.

        Vendors concentrate on these two distros because companies standardise on them. They also have certification programmes to make sure your software is compatible with their OS.

        There is absolutely no reason for mandatory standardisation. The market is taking care of it.

    • Because it is not needed. People should fix what is wrong with X. (check out http://freedesktop.org/wiki/ )

      Are you a programmer?
      In case you are, what is fundementally wrong with X-windows?

      Why do you need a "from the ground up" re-write?

      I think that is a kneejerk reaction lotsa people have, when confronted with something better:"Oh, there is something better then our product x, so we need a -complete rewrite-"

      And lastly, I object to designing it "around Linux". If anything, it should be GPL, and promotin
      • Are you a programmer? In case you are, what is fundementally wrong with X-windows?

        I am, in fact. Rusty though I may be. I will definately have to spend some time researching before I even consider taking on any major projects.

        However, my problems with X (as well as many of my fears) are better stated by another reply, a reply to my original post that I think deserves to be modded up.

        It is here [slashdot.org].

    • Or just remain Linux (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Zo0ok ( 209803 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:58PM (#11434384) Homepage
      Cant Linux remain Linux. I can appreciate X becuase its the same as it was 10 years ago, and it will remain the same.

      There will always be typewriters, toasters, mobile phones, audio players, video players, game consoles and Macintoshes that will be better than Linux in some aspects and for some groups of people (that said, they could of course be made Linux-based, thats another thing).

      I want Linux because it compils and runs the huge amount of useful and fun open source toys, tools and server programs I like. I like that the VIM/gcc/make-development environment is constant. I dont need to upgrade to the latest version before I continue with my hobby-projects. grep, sed and friends are always there, and they always make the same great job. That means a problem solved today, is a problem solved in ten years. If you throw X out, thousands of man-years are lost, just because we want to copy a desktop innovator.

      For desktop purposes, BSD and Linux kernels would basically do the same great work. Apple chose the BSD kernel for license reasons. The Apple advantage is that they have great design, and full hardware control. That gives them the opportunity to create a superb user experience.

      Linux should continue to be the plattform of choice for geeks who just want their "problems solved", for once and ever. Then companies and people will find amazing ways to use the great technology - and one day you'll find Linux in your toaster, game console or car...

    • Here is the real answer: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by spitzak ( 4019 )
      This was certainly considered and many, many people tried. But nothing really came of it. It now looks like the way to progress is to modify X into a modern system.

      The biggest impediment was in fact the opposite of what you are claiming: using X gets you the modern hardware, and alternatives don't. Any and all advanced drivers are written for X, and the X driver interface was so complex and linked to how X worked that it was impossible to reuse them for anything other than X. Thus the very first thing any

      • Re:Here is the real answer: (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ratboy666 ( 104074 ) <fred_weigel AT hotmail DOT com> on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:48PM (#11434932) Journal
        Bah and Humbug...

        1 - The X protocol can be easily and widely implemented. There is a free reference implementation that (a) works, and (b) is free.

        It is *easy* to implement X on anything that has a frame buffer, or is scan-line writeable.

        2 - Drivers? Init the hardware and get going. Yup, you may have to figure out the reverse engineering. Suck it up.

        3 - The attempts to be "better" than X failed -- because -- (wait for it), they weren't better. They may have been more "Windows" like, or "Mac" like, but certainly not better than X.
        And that's all there is to it.

        What is "Better than X"?

        To start with, it would have to support the features of X. And NONE of the attempts (including the Current Mac OS X) does so.

        Not that it couldn't be done, it just hasn't been. (why is left to the reader).

        -- Network transparency
        -- Extensible
        -- Reference implementation
        -- No OS, device, or platform specific features, except as extensions.
        -- Good performance across a wide range of platforms
        -- Support for multiple visuals
        -- Good event support
        -- Easy porting

        And the final "killer" feature:

        -- Should be able to support legacy X (easy), and also (with efficiency) drive X as a back-end.

        The final point would be a testament to portability (Note to gentle reader: X does this already, with XNest: X in X).

        With all of this in place, I would certainly consider replacing X Native -- I would have nothing to loose. I could even start by "staging" NewGUI on X, and as applications used NewGUI, finally replace X.

        But, if X is being used purely as final rendering tool, it can only be replaced if an alternate rendering protocol is arguably better. And this hasn't happened.

        Instead, X Extensions tend to take up the slack, and we proceed.

        In other words, X *IS* the driver interface to render visuals. Unfortunately, Apple disagrees: putting X *on* OS X, instead of OS X *on* X. Making the Mac useless to quite a few people.

        If Apple were confident that OS X protocol were more efficient (less network traffic) than X, why not compete?

        Either (1) it isn't more efficient, or (2) the user base doesn't care about that feature. And, it's a major feature to lose. At least for those who use hetergenous platforms.

        Ratboy.

    • What's stopping someone from writing an entire environment like OS X from the ground up, around and on top of Linux, and creating an OS X like environment that is as complete and modern as either OS X or Windows?

      It can be done. IBM or someone could throw a ton of money into redeveloping Linux and either replacing X windows, or enhancing it. Enhancing it would be best as it would provide more readily for legacy applications. The problem is, what do they do then? Apple ships it with their hardware and pr

      • I just don't see a great business plan coming from this.

        Apple has all the things you mentioned except a generic platform to run on.

        They also have the benefit of having pre-existing applications.

        This "New OS" could have the generic platform, but not the apps, though that's a problem that could solve itself if the OS proved to be a desirable enough platform.

        I actually can see a business model coming from this, and I actually think I know what it would take to impliment it.

        But first the OS has to exist,

    • Re:Linux Desktop Thoughts... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:43PM (#11434876) Homepage Journal
      one point most people will agree on is that OS X and Windows are both more usable than XWindows...

      XWindows, or more properly "the X Windows System", is not the desktop. It's a low level GUI API, not much different in purpose than Windows' own Win32 and GDI libraries. Except for one difference. I've programmed in both bare Xlib and bare Win32, and Xlib is by far the better library. It may take a bit more "scaffolding", but it's much more sensible and easier to use for the moderately experienced developer. (Ditto comparing Motif to MFC, the latter being completely unusable without the help of Visual Studio's wizards.)

      Let's move up a step. You next mentioned window managers and desktops, so let's talk about them. The Windows desktop is perceived to be user friendly *ONLY* because it is familiar to people. The window manager portion of it is actually quite rudimentary and difficult to use. Usability features like snap-to and rollups are simply missing in Windows, yet standard offerings for even the most humble X11 window manager. Similar problems exist for on "desktop" side of things. Consider the "show desktop" button in Windows, which will minimize all windows, but tells usability to smeg off when it won't subsequently restore them. And where are the multiple desktops?

      I haven't really used OSX that much, so I can't comment on it. But in comparison to Windows, Unix/X11 + [KDE|GNOME|XFCE] is far more usable and friendly. But people don't know it because they haven't been steeped in it like they have been for Windows.

      I spent a couple of years using FreeBSD/KDE at work (until they forced me to stop). The phrase "wow, how did you do that" in reference to my desktop was often uttered in my cubicle. This wasn't in response to the "cool" stuff of KDE, but in response to the ordinary everyday things I take for granted. Such as multiple desktops, "show desktop" that also restores, snap-to windows, rollups, z-ordering, etc, etc.

      As long as Linux/Unix has newbies from Windows-land, we will continue to hear whines of X11 being difficult and obtuse. But that's only because they refuse to learn the new culture. In many ways the X11 desktops certainly are difficult and obtuse, but they are a lot less so than Windows.

    • And even though there are many camps of people who will argue that Windows is more usable than OS X or vice versa, the one point most people will agree on is that OS X and Windows are both more usable than XWindows and the various window managers.

      I think perhaps these most people (if they exist at all) have either not studied user interface design, or not tried KDE 3 or gnome 2.6. Different does not mean unuseable. Designed for a different experience level does not mean unuseable.

      Overall you seem to be m

  • Unfortunately true.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:17PM (#11433865) Homepage Journal
    but with his wild long hair and odd behavior, he doesn't fit in with the suit-and-tie crowd. During speaking engagements, Stallman often adopts the persona of "St. IGNUcius," donning a robe and a halo made of a computer disk.

    Having RMS walk in in his St. Ignucius getup [stallman.org] is enough to make anybody lose their lunch...not just the suit and tie crowd.

  • A decent article, pass it on. (Score:4, Informative)

    by coupland ( 160334 ) * <dchaseNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:17PM (#11433876) Journal

    While this article includes nothing new for any regular /. reader, it's still a really good one. It avoids the all-to-common journalistic practise of balancing one positive statement with one negative statement. This article doesn't serve as a bullborn for FUD, it's entirely positive wrt Linux and the open source model. And it's written in a way that any shmoe can understand.

    So why would us slashdotters care about an article written for average shmoes? Well, because we can forward it to friends and family who have a hard time relating to this "Linux" thing they keep hearing us enthusiastically blathering about. I've already sent it to my friends and family, you should too. C'mon, get going.

    No, I have no stock in BusinessWeek, don't be so cynical.

    • It is BusinessWeek after all, so I guess we shouldn't expect much else. But it is a little funny to hear Linux repeatedly called "Linux Inc." ... only to have the author backtrack and say that, actually, it doesn't work like a corporation at all. Er, not like a traditional corporation, that is... yeah, that's the ticket, Linux is some new kind of corporation we've never seen before! (I guess that works for the kind of folks who can't think about anything but corporations.)

      It's also kind of missing the poin

  • A good thing... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by agraupe ( 769778 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:18PM (#11433883) Journal
    The GPL ensures that Linux will never cost money itself, and commercial adoption means that innovation will come in the area of user-friendliness. I'm not militantly Free, and I think that this a good step to making Linux a viable competitor in all areas currently dominated by MS. I am considering converting my entire family to Linux (I'm currently the only linux user) or Mac OS X when Longhorn becomes the only option with a new computer, because it will be different enough that either way will be a struggle on my part. Linux is becoming polished enough by big corporations that it is becoming a very strong competitor to MS for everyone. OS X though, still reigns king in my mind for ease-of-use and polish (except for games :()

    • Re:A good thing... (Score:2, Informative)

      by latroM ( 652152 )
      The GPL ensures that Linux will never cost money itself,...

      That's simply not true. There is nothing in the GPL about money. It's about software retaining its freedom. You are substituting "free software" with "linux" which is foolish because linux is only a kernel.

  • Threat? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:20PM (#11433907)
    I just had a knee-jerk thought. How is Linux a threat to anyone? Linux is freely available to almost anyone ... individuals or businesses.

    The "playing field" is even because of this universal availability. Those that don't take advantage of this MAY find themselves at a disadvantage to those that do.

    Linux isn't a threat because YOU choose NOT to use it in your business model. The real threat is a poor plan that doesn't use the tools and technologies FREELY available today.

    Did that make any sense? :-)

  • An observation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:22PM (#11433929) Journal
    I read somewhere an interesting theory that companies (and organizations) that don't try to compete directly with Microsoft (plan their buisness around beating Billy) and just concentrate on making a good product end up succeeding. (Imagine that!).

    One of Microsoft's tactics over the years is to bait companies into direct competition with them. Usually companies that take the bait lose.

    As long as LINUX continues to improve NOT because of MS but because people are interested in making better software, then I think success will continue.

    I'd imagine it's as if you were playing some game like raquetball or tennis and some dude is at the fence trying to get you to "compete" when you are perfectly content to play whatever you are playing, and get better.

  • willing to pay? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dioscaido ( 541037 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:23PM (#11433938)
    The turning point for Linux will only come when desktop Linux users become willing to pay money for software on linux; non Open Source software at that.

    With great OSS projects like Open Office, Gimp, and others, Linux desktop users have become accustomed a totally free desktop, and dislike free solutions that only provide binaries. This is not a very inviting environment for commercial companies to jump in, given the effort porting would take, and given Linux's penetration into the Desktop market (not meager, but not massive either).
    • With great OSS projects like Open Office, Gimp, and others, Linux desktop users have become accustomed a totally free desktop, and dislike free solutions that only provide binaries. This is not a very inviting environment for commercial companies to jump in

      Seems quite inviting enough for IBM (Eclipse), Sun (OO.o), and Novell (Ximian).
      • And how much are they charging for their applications?

        You cite three huge service companies. Their business model allows them to not make any money with their software in exchange for wide adoption and income through other means, such as support and services. And it's not even working out that great for Sun and Novell, who are both in economic trouble.

        The software market in general is hardly ready or willing to offer it's software for free. The Linux Desktop user seem to require it be free. Hence the
        • You cite three huge service companies.

          Well, there's no money in shrink-wrap anymore, anyways. Even shrink-wrap software shops make more money selling SA's with the software these days.
    • The turning point for Linux will only come when desktop Linux users become willing to pay money for software on linux; non Open Source software at that.

      Why would it be good for the users of a Free operating system to make themselves freewillingly again the slaves of the proprietary software makers? This may sound trollish but the whole idea which brought us the GNU/Linux operating system is the idea of freedom and cooperation which the proprietors want to deny. I myself will never buy any of your non-f
      • I'm not passing a value judgement on free vs. commercial software. But we're talking about a capitalist market here. Windows is a platform that offers hundreds of millions of users willing to shell out some money for their software. Linux offers a platform where the companies can give their software away. Hence you will see many more companies targeting Windows, and to a lesser extent OSX, in lieu of developing for Linux.
    • Where I work we have bought hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Linux software. It's all closed source proprietary stuff with slick manuals and customer support lines and so on.

      Claims that Linux users won't buy this stuff is false. They will buy it if it was available. In computer graphics it is available.
      • Notice I said Desktop User. Maybe I should have clarified further and said Home user. There's a few notable commercial apps for linux, like AliasWavefront's Maya, or the slew of commercial server products, but these aren't the kind of software a home user would buy.
  • it's as easy to use as Windows or Mac OS. Until it makes inroads to the typical user, Linux isn't a big issue.

    Linux has a very tiny collection of games that can be played compared to the overall market. And it has no exclusive games (none worth getting excited about anyway). Exclusive games are what get people to buy multiple consoles. Linux has no exclusive applications. Hardware is still a long way from being reliably plug and play on Linux.

    If Linux could make inroads even with the gamer market, th

  • The Threat of Linux (Score:3, Insightful)

    by njfuzzy ( 734116 ) <ian@i a n - x .com> on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:26PM (#11433968) Homepage
    Microsoft is not worried about losing their Windows dominance to Linux. They aren't worried, in other words, about losing 100% of their server OS business-- they are worried about losing 10% of it. That's all the fight is for now.

  • Linux is a threat to Unix, not MS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:27PM (#11433994)
    If you look at usage surveys you'll find the majority of people buying Linux are replacing Unix installs. Linux basically has been taking from Unix market share especially in niche markets. Linux has done more to kill SGI (irix) and place the hurt on Sun in the server and speciality workstation market.

    That being said, most of the *iux developers I know today, including myself, dumped Linux for Apple especially on laptops. Granted this was 3 - 4 years ago and OSX versus Linux of the day was no contest. However, I haven't known of anyone that's gone back from OSX to linux. Some have linux boxes they use as cheap test boxes, but I even converted my old x86 box into a FreeBSD server for my house.

    Still if I am going to pick between a Linux box or getting a Macmini or is it MiniMac...anyway, I think I'm going to spend the money on the Mac. Again it comes down to needs and software. iLife is a great set of tools for home use. Its easy to use, simple, and works. Linux has come a long way since I started using it circa Slackware 2, but it still has aways to go as well.

    I say this with a grain of salt: but the some in the rabid Pro-Linux community is still hurting the image. There are still those that want it in the realm of the uber-geek hacker. As the song "Every OS sucks" by three-dead trolls in a baggie says: "Linux or Lineux, I'm not sure how to you say it or install it or how to use it, but its for elitest nerdy smucks".

  • Open Source Sewers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bennomatic ( 691188 ) on Friday January 21, 2005 @01:28PM (#11433997) Homepage
    I've heard the open source model compared to public sewere systems. The spec is open to everyone, and while there's typically a fee for use paid to the municipality that owns the system, anyone can read the specification, make hardware that works with the system, connect up a home or business, and have functional water works.

    To draw the parallel, it seems like this would make Microsoft comparable to, say, Acme Cesspit Corp., a fictional company that might have invented and patented cesspits and the means and tools for keeping them safe and usable in a city environment.

    The public is crying out for a better system, which has been developed and is proving itself in municipality after municipality. But Acme is freaking out and suing or hiring thugs in towns where they dominate in order to maintain control of your bodily waste.

    A company like Acme could do well to embrace the open standard and move on to the next step, since even with an open standard, people are going to continue needing help disposing of their wastes.

    Likewise, Microsoft would do well to embrace open source software and operating systems. People will still need great apps and services, and they'll be willing to pay for them. But if they weren't so dependent on the volume of money coming in from their operating system monop^H^H^H^H^H division, they might realize that letting go and moving on to other types of products and services might be a hundred times more profitable.

    Or, better yet, 100 times more beneficial to humanity. Minesweeper is a great game and I'm glad they include it, but nobody ever cured cancer by playing it.

    • The only problem is, as much as Linux is slowlu chipping away at their market share, MS continues to bring in more and more cash each year (from 2003 - 2004 their profits increased by 11 billion). What reason would they possibly have to drop their current model and embrace OSS?
    • I have a problem with your analogy. To improve the analogy, recall that Acme didn't invent the sesspit; there have been sesspits since the begining of time. Acme found a way to make sesspits with a cute interface (e.g. toilet) that people like to use, even though the parts you cannot see leak shit into the groundwater and is a breeding ground for all kinds of virii. But this is only a problem for plumbers and they don't don't control sesspit purchases.
      Acme then decided to patent what had been in the p
  • But is Linux really growing?

    I mean, Linux in early 2004 was a lot bigger than in early 2003, but does it look any bigger in early 2005?

    I see stagnation.
  • his focus on promoting HDTV and digital communcations, deregualtion of the internet,etc. I suppose there is no point in giving him any credit in any of that since he is a republican. Since this is a tech site, check the Cnet article [com.com]. I think that is more news for nerds.
  • It kinda makes me scratch my flea-ridden head... There's an endless stream of articles heralding linux as enterprise ready, Msft's achille's heal, etc. Yet when you look at novell and redhat's stock you see something much like this: \ What gives?

  • A spokesperson for one company whose CEO met with Ballmer says the implication of their conversation was that Microsoft is considering suing outfits that use the software and claiming that it infringes Microsoft patents.

    Microsoft acknowledges discussing legal risks with customers but denies trying to intimidate them. It won't say whether it believes Linux infringes on its patents.

    IINAL!

    I can't remember if this is from patent, copyright or trademark law, but isn't there a legal requirement somewh

  • Its always nice to read something with a touch of the warm fuzzies - But heres something to think about. There are obviously a lot of people who are fanatical about linux here on slashdot- I've been using Linux almost exclusively for several years now. Its heartening to see it grow and grow from year to year and there is increasing speculation that *this* year will be the year of linux on the desktop - I dont really want to discuss that here because thats such a non-quantifiable thing- it works for me - mig

  • Consensus vs Choice (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gidds ( 56397 ) <slashdot&gidds,me,uk> on Friday January 21, 2005 @02:26PM (#11434715) Homepage
    The first problem is working out where to start. Some say that X itself is a good protocol, and that you just need to build a new GUI system on top of that. Others say that the problem is just the widget sets, and that new widgets would solve most of the problems. Still others say (like you) that it's best to throw the whole lot out and start from scratch. So you'd need to get a consensus.

    But consensus is really the key. Why does OS X work so well? It's not just because they have a different window manager and widget set. It's because they build in consistency and uniformity from the ground up. That covers widgets, fonts, colours, textures, menu layouts, shortcut keys, toolbars, cut'n'paste, drag'n'drop, file locations, selection, high-level GUI metaphors like drawers and tabs, Dock behaviour, and so on throughout everything in the system. It's all been designed to work the same way (i.e. the way you expect), and to interoperate.

    It's not perfect, of course; some choices are questionable, and there's the occasional oddity. But in general, apps look, feel, behave, and work the way you expect them to. And I think it's this consistency which is the real difference from Linux: not just in the low-level look of individual components, but in the mindset and user experience too.

    The flip side of this is that it gives developers less choice. Using the system widgets (where appropriate) stops you getting creative in designing your own. Letting the user choose colours and skins may make your app stand out, but it detracts from the whole system. I don't want the choice of umpteen skins and looks -- I want ONE that WORKS PROPERLY! (Sorry for shouting, but I've struggled against so many apps whose authors seem to think that providing a choice of skin or other decoration is the answer to an ugly, awkward or unusable UI.) Similarly, using non-standard shortcut keys or whatever may be better for your app, but the lack of consistency reflects on all apps.

    So IMV the main problem with getting a decent UI which is easy for casual users is that it requires app developers to be disciplined and to restrain (or at least channel) their natural creativity and ego. That's why a corporate setting is probably the best bet for such a system; not because individual developers lack the skills, direction, or organisation (as Linux &c have shown), but because a decent GUI needs restraint, obedience, and submission to central authority.

    The only way such a system could be possible would be to have a very strong leader who knew exactly what he wanted and could take steps to ensure that apps complied, but who could also inspire lots of developers to join in -- a tough combination.

    In the meantime, while developers still consider the natural unit of functionality to be the application and not the whole system, I'll keep on using OS X!

  • Hm. (Score:2)

    by BJH ( 11355 )
    "Everybody knew things were falling apart," recalls Larry McVoy, a programmer who played peacemaker.

    That's not how I recall it - Larry was responsible for some of the biggest flamewars ever on the LKML.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Virtual" means never knowing where your next byte is coming from.

Close