Commercialism and Linux on CNN 32
sallgeud sent us a CNN story that poses the age old
question is commercialism good for Linux?
Its a pretty good summary type article of the issues. Talks
about the fears of a single distribution taking control,
tag-along software, and has several Linus quotes.
This excerpt bothers me: (Score:1)
Others have expressed concern that larger independent software vendors may port their software to a specific distribution and create a de facto standard among the handful of distributions. "We don't want to be forced to standardize on one distribution," said the University of California at Davis' Benson.
I understand (and to some extent agree with) the notions of e pluribus unum, and that diversity yields strength. But at the same time, I can't help but think that some low-level form standardization of standardization is necessary.
To wit: Redhat 5.2's stock XFree86 configuration currently uses a "~/.wm_style" file to specify the current/preferred window manager. "/etc/X11/xinit/Xclients" reads the contents of this file, and inits the X environment accordingly. However, Redhat 5.1 did it differently. And I'm willing to bet that Suse, Caldera, etc. etc. each do it their own way, too. Such low-level differences as this example aren't really significant enough to be any kind of marketing "bullet item", to differentiate one vendor's platform from another. But it is is big enough difference to make it difficult for 3rd party software to configure itself for any system in a generic fashion.
It depends on WHAT is beeing comercialised (Score:1)
=> GOOD FOR LINUX
It would be great to have the linux software in every store - Games, educational stuff, dictionaries, lexicons, cooking-books, whatever.
However, this is not true for the important libraries (Qt*), installers (Yast), standard daemond/services (httpd,ftpd,telnetd,sshd...)
and other programs which cannot be easily replaced.
This is also the reason against Corel- IBM- or Microsoft- Linux distribution (to name a few): They will surely try to "infect" the linux-core by offering their own implementations of some standard programs under a semy-free licence.
If they ever succeed to do so, and this software becomes a part of the "standard" linux distribution the licence will all-of-the-sudden become non-free again, dragging the whole distribution with it.
At the moment, Microsoft is probably in the best position to do so: by developing a (good) comercial windows emulator they could cause a big damage to development of the native-linux applications, earn a lot of money and position their emulator/library as a de-facto standard part of the desktop linux distribution. They probably wouldnt even have to pretend their software were free.
* I know "Qt" has a "Open-source" licence today, but it wasnt so a year ago...
I think it's good (Score:1)
-Andy
Commercial interest is a BAD THING - or is it? (Score:1)
| for acceptance, then we all have some serious
| social deficiencies to talk to a shrink about.
The thing that more commercial interest brings to the platform is more interest period - some from sources it wouldn't have come from initially. With more intersst in the platform, we have that many more voices with which to yell "Release specs for that video/sound/other cool card or we'll buy from your competitors!"
Having said that, I don't find the idea of proprietary kernel modules or the like very comforting, but as for applications like Wordperfect or Applix - why not use/welcome them? In the Linux environment, they have to compete on their own merits. It's fair. Ir's not hurting the platform. (I personally like not having to have another OS installed at all to get my work done!)
It's already been tried and failed. (Score:1)
But here's a scenario -- RedHat goes nuts and dumps lots of closed-source and otherwise restricted software into RedHat 6.0, in an attempt to leverage their 70% marketshare into proprietary control of Linux.
What happens? Free Linux temporarily loses marketshare and market momentum as RH Linux becomes just another commercial Unix. RH5.x derivatives and descendants, Slackware, Debian, and all the rest continue as free alternatives, as do versions of RH 6.0 that are stripped of the commercialized portions by third parties.
The worst that can be done is that Linux's market acceptance is disrupted for a while. The greatest victims of such a disruption would be the commercial Linux distributors -- that is, the greatest victims of closing Linux would be the people who closed it.
Sure, Red Hat might take an action that stupid. And after it goes bankrupt, the community will pick up the pieces and move forward.
A nitpick (Score:1)
Excuse me for getting pedantic, but linux's entire history isn't long enough to have "age old" anything. And the question of whether commercialism is good or bad for linux is fairly recent, and becoming more relevant since Big Business has discovered linux in the past year or so. No one seemed to question linux commerce back when it was just Slackware and Yggrasil.
But then, maybe I'm just an old fart who's getting crochety in his declining years!
--JT
This excerpt bothers me: (Score:1)
1. As an administrator I am very concerned about the success of the LSB and the wide gaps between different distros. You have clearly shown one example of this.
2. As a user I want to be able to use any distribution and be able to feel confident that any commericial app will work on the box. To be honest I mostly use free software so this isn't a huge problem. Though with Loki's emergence on the scene I can definitely see a lot more games coming out for GNU/Linux in the near future. Clearly, I can't just play free games. If the commercial vendors decide to only support one distro then, yes I have a very big problem with this. I want to be able to use any distro. Sure, I could probably configure the distro to work/look like the supported one, but I should not have to go to great lengths to be able to play a game. This is where I think the LSB can come through for all of us. The commercial vendors should not be allowed to dictate what the most popular distro is. Otherwise we will have another Windows product on our hands with absolutely no sense of freedom.
Almost like tabloid journalism (Score:1)
Anyway, I have been using GNU/Linux since
I agree with you that for a single user making changes on your system like adding newer glibc libraries is not a huge burden. I don't like having to do things like that, but it is doable.
As an admin, I most certainly would not want to have to keep track of the 3-4 distros to make sure things will work. This would only add up on the 4 different commericial UNIXs I already maintain.
I know many companies that use GNU/Linux and have developed policies in which they only support one distro (usually redhat). As a user I know the importance of choosing your favorite distro. Thus, I wouldn't want to take this away from the people I support. The LSB, if it works, should take care of this, but I definitely think these are issues the community needs face at some point. Especially with the rate of commercial vendors getting involved. On a side note, this is where the FreeBSD developement process is superior.
Why such fear? (Score:1)
First of all, I think it's only logical that people make money from Linux. Money isn't the great corruptor, greed is.
Second, even huge commercial interests standardize Linux into something of their own, they can't actually force the community behind it to walk along. Which is what people don't get - if you try to restrict it, all the people who have worked so hard to make it so great will walk away, move onto other projects, & it'll basically end up like Windows. Something that was once great, groundbreaking and innovative, but dies a long and painful death.
No matter how corporate or business minded the big boys are (IBM, Compaq, Oracle, whatever) they know they'll be shooting themselves in the foot if they alienate the Linux programming community that way. Anyhow, even if they create a set, commercial distribution, they'll never be able to reverse the "freeness" of the original Linux kernels and the various Open Source software that's already out there. People will continue to work on those and leave the propietary crap to the ones who created it. At least, that's my opinion.
Commercialism, Despite my fear, is probably good. (Score:1)
I suppose that in a couple of years I'll look back and see that commercialism was good for linux just like it was good for the net (well except for spam). Linux needs commercial software to attract commercial interests. We all know here how great Linux is, but it's a tough sell to decision makers. Money aligns the interests of software companies and customers in that a software company wants to keep your money so they will work hard to that end. The FSF does not care about your money so if it comes down to your needs or the community's needs, the community wins. This doesn't fly in commercial settings where a paying customer has an implicit power over the vendor in the form of future revenue to define the path of the product.
That kind of relationship is what ultimately strengthens both commercial and free software. Just because we're not selling the stuff does not mean we dont benefit from the competion. Apache,KDE,GIMP, and Samba all directly benefit from competition, the difference is we want mind share and they want dollars. All of these free packages have becomre more powerful in response to their commercial counterparts. The commercialization of Linux will hopefully only make the software better.
-Rich
Commercial Linux and Open Software community (Score:1)
Most of the posts that I have seen about dangers of commercialization of linux are IMHO missing a very important point. Open Source is not about Linux. Linux is just one of a few Open Source operating systems however much we like it. Linux kernel is GPL'd and therefore cannot be made proprietory by anyone or anything. The so called "dangers" that people are talking about basically all come down to the fear that commercialization will kill the spirit of the "Linux community". But "Linux community" is basically just a very big and friendly user group around a particular OS, while "Open Source community" is a world wide organisation of people who love what they do and are ready to share the products of their labour with anyone who might like it. Yes, I think that if/when Linux goes to a full commercial scale we will see that some true patriots of Open Source and/or Free Software will turn away from Linux and maybe Linux community will change a lot like the Internet community has changed after it became what it is now. But I also think that commercializing an open source GPL's OS is a really big step for ( let's not be scared of big words ) Humanity and Civilization as a whole. I think that if/when Linux goes full-scale it will start a new era of economic relations.
Just imagine this for a second that when Microsoft came out with Windows95 it made it open source from the beginning. What would happen? As MS ( and all the rest of them squares
I hope that commercial linux is a door in this direction. It is a step to the times when people will actually do things for the good of the community ( and community is basically just other people isn't it ) instead of personal profit. Getting back to the situation at hand, linux is going commercial and probably in near future we will see some linux distros which are full of proprietory stuff and a lot of proprietory software. But isn't this a good test of what Open Source community is good for? If some corporative shmucks can make software better then we do than it means that we are just not as good as we think we are. If some Big Bad company makes a linux distro with their own DE, then one of two things. Nobody is gonna use it and use KDE/Gnome instead or it is better then KDE and Gnome. As long as I understand, one cannot make Linux proprietory enough for us not to be able to run any software we like on it. And after all. Linux is just a small ( although very significant ) part of The Movement. If Linux should make one more step to better times and die on the way, we should not grieve, but get back to coding and debugging and testing and documenting and all the stuff and then the rise of the next star of Open Source will rise and shine and move us one more step to the big Future.
Live long and Prosper.
Strength in diversity (Score:1)
Having a diverse software ecosystem creates a robust and resilient playing field. Dinosaurs can coexist with monkeys, afterall I believe a few (rare) places still use punch cards. Given the rapid technology churn and obsolescence, there is a need for at least a stable foundation for beginning firms to practice on before hitting the brutal business world.
The biggest problem is getting enough funds to help educate the poor consumer as to the reality of buying software as currently there is no real ombusman role. While marketing adds to the cost, it is a way to help publicise good technology that would otherwise not survive. Perhaps there is some call for a social contract? If a for-profit corporation uses GPL software, perhaps it be suggested that they donate 5% of net profits/benefits to a charitable organisation of the author's choice (e.g. FSF).
LL
was commercialism good for the internet? (Score:1)
Or just use lynx. Who needs pictures, after all? :)
Good for what computers do best...GAMING (Score:1)
That would be nice (Score:1)
The really cool thing about it is that, with a little work, experienced users could put the power tools back in as they were needed.
Hmmm... maybe I should just shut up and work on building one.
That would be nice (Score:1)
"Responsibility for my career? I'm just a freakin' phone monkey!"
Intruiging (Score:1)
While my "work" box runs Windows, my other boxen are on linux. This is my choice, and I am content.
But it seems now that linux's two camps - the "hobbiest linux" and "world domination linux" people are duking it out. But what are they fighting about?
It is probably for the best that linux become a mainstream, commercially viable desktop OS. And if it takes one distribution to this, is it truly a bad thing? For most users, one linux means their neighdor down the street can answer grandma's question. Your local ISP can help Mom get on the internet. Ease of use, not very configurable, but rock solid would describe this.
Hold off the flames a moment...
For the rest of us.... there are distributions. We can run our servers on anything, our desktops on anything, recompile our kernels, modify anything, and be constantly making a better linux.
Would it be so bad to have a "consumer" and "hacker" linux? I don't think so, and I believe it would help the linux movement immensely.
"Responsibility for my career? I'm just a freakin' phone monkey!"
better ?: Linux's effect on commercialism (Score:1)
How far will the "open" and/or "free" approaches to projects and products eventually reach into the mainstream marketplace?
Commercial interest is a BAD THING (Score:2)
Parrallels (Score:2)
The same will happen to linux, many more poeple will have access to it and use it, there will be better applications. On the other hand things that we don't like will also happen. You have to take the good with the bad I guess.
Almost like tabloid journalism (Score:2)
In short, I think that the press is digging for "juicy" stories where none exists, kind of like how Fox tries to turn all of their shows into bad soap operas.
Symbiotic relationship is possible.... (Score:2)
I mean that, IMO, the Linux community should recognise that there will be a need to steer the way that the commercial people use Linux, and that the commercial side will need to learn how to work with the Linux side, and recognise that Linux developement will/should ALWAYS be controlled by the developer community.
I think that this is the way to go, and that anyone who tries to fork Linux off for their own commercial purposes should be encouraged not to do it - this would be divisive, and as we know from past history, anything that fragmented Unix was detrimental to Unix.
The commercial side MUST be discouraged to do this.
(Hope that made sense! Just been to a pub lunch
Typically content-free CNN report. (Score:2)
IDC?
Minolta?
If the enquiry of the piece was ``Will
commercialism help or hurt Linux?'', why are you
asking representatives from the commercial world?
What kind of response do you think you are
going to get?
One that will please your editor, no doubt.
Stupid journalists.
``Commercialism'' will not hurt free software;
what will is the perception that proprietary
software is acceptable or even necessary. In this
respect, it is more important that RMS continue
to do what he does ( I mean promote free
software, not the GNU/Linux debate) than it is for
Linus to go on blessing kernels.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
You know something? (Score:2)
Every time I get worried about a big mean corporation snatching up Linux and turning it into a proprietary thing, I go back and review the GPL. I have to hand it to RMS and the FSF for having the foresight to develop a license that anticipated corporate interest in free software.
Commercial Market Balances Free Market (Score:4)
Primarily, I see the free market as diluting and dispersing resources in a way that allows developers to be creative in the most unencumbered manner, but does not focus and group resources quite efficiently.
The commercial market focuses resources, but eventually tries to move towards one or two solutions, which hinders creativity (and innovation).
Nurturing both is an excellent way to foster new innovation while focusing resources where and when necessary.