Feature: The End of the Tour 194
This is not about Open Source. The Open Source movement has taken a once-ridiculed development model and hammered it into a commercially viable bandwagon that the entire industry is just now scrambling to get onto. Open Source is to be praised for the control and flexibility it has brought to programmers and users alike. This is not about Open Source - it's about Linux. I make this distinction now because, while at the moment they are seen as something of a package deal, one is a revolution and the other is nothing more than a twinkling fad in the eyes of the computer industry.
The Linux community has done what only a handful of other organizations can lay claim to. It has posed a genuine threat to Microsoft's near monopoly over the desktop market. And those other organizations, like IBM, Apple and Netscape? They had hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal and they still failed. Well, it looks like the Linux community may just succeed, and for good reason too - they have more developers and testers than any single platform has ever had behind it. And more importantly, those developers and testers enjoy what they do. They enjoy what they do to such an extent that most of them are doing it for free. Microsoft cannot, and has never been able to, say that about its Windows platform.
To these millions of developers, testers, and users, Linux is far more than just a simple operating system. It's a way of life. It's a religion. It 's a holy crusade against the enemy in Redmond. However, on top of all that, and even underneath it, the people who use Linux do so because it's theirs. Linux is theirs, not in the Open Source sense that they are free to change and distribute it as they see fit, but in the sense that no one else is using it. Even with the community's millions of members, they are still a very small minority in the larger scheme of things and, although most will fiercely deny it, that's the way they like it.
This is meant for all the "world-domination" types who want to see Linux on every desktop in the world: You don't know what you're asking for. The day that 51% of the world's PCs run Linux is the day that you start running OpenBSD or some other, lesser-popular, OS.
And why will they abandon ship? They will blame companies like RedHat, SuSE, and Caldera for commercializing their precious operating system. They' ll claim that Linux's architecture is inherently inferior. They'll say it's not as scalable, not as portable, and not as secure as the latest-and-greatest OS. But while the reasons they give may have some merit, they won't be the truth. The truth is they'll abandon Linux because in their eyes, it will have joined the ranks of Windows as a sell-out. They'll leave because Linux isn't theirs anymore.
No one will notice either. The change will be gradual as more and more members of the Linux community move on to greener pastures. And as the tide begins to swell up against the old majority, a new community will spring up with it's own culture and icons. The elite will poke fun at "Linux Lusers" and their monolithic operating system. And why shouldn't they? Anyone who's serious about computing will be using the super-portable Hurd microkernel, right?
This doesn't have anything to do with Linux as an operating system. Linux could be the most perfectly stable, portable, scalable piece of code ever imagined and what I've predicted would still be inevitable. The Linux community isn't about using Linux - it's about feeling special. I know that sounds trite, but it's accurate. When Linux (and in particular its desktop environments, such as KDE and GNOME) have matured to a point where they are useable by the average joe, today's Linux users aren't going to feel as unique. They will seek other venues of being better than average. Some will call themselves "power users". Others will become sysadmins professionally. The rest will leave.
It bears repeating, so I will say it again: This is not about Open Source. Just because Linux is GPL'ed, doesn't mean it's immune to the sell-out syndrome that I've described above. People claim that because Linux is held under the GNU Public License that no one company can dominate it. This is true. They say that hackers like Alan Cox, Mandrake, and Linus Torvalds will continue to improve upon Linux at their own pace, regardless of what outside media and industry influences are saying. This is also probably true. The point, however, is that the Linux community, as a whole, will not stick around to watch. They won't want any part in the corporate-sponsored demographic-pandering mainstream beast that Linux will have become. GPL'ed or not, they're going to hate Linux.
This is not to say that Linux hasn't already revolutionized the computer world, because it has. What the Linux community has accomplished in the past few years can only be called "amazing" - It has been a watershed in the history of Free Software and an overall Good Thing (tm). Regardless, Linux is transient. The OS itself may continue on for some time, but the people who made it what it is won't.
It happens in art. It happens in music. And now it's happening in software. What was once an underground alternative is now becoming mainstream and commercial. The masses are coming for your kernel and you're calling them on. Once the door is open, it cannot be closed again and the Camelot of Linux will fall.
Stewart Rosenberger
foogle@adelphia.net
Foogle on Slashdot
moving on to different things (Score:1)
Good point.... (Score:2)
Its called the Bleeding Edge (Score:1)
Spyky
The Next Big Thing in Operating Systems (Score:1)
I've had some ideas banging around in my head (no snide jokes about the sound) about a completely object-based OS. It would in the style of the Smalltalk/Java virtual machine, but with multi-user access and completely network transparent.
It would be a very cool environment to program in, making it easy to extend to other uses. I'm also thinking about ways to automatically distribute and replicate objects across the network, so you don't have to worry about reliability. I'd also include Eiffel's Design by Contract (if not Eiffel itself) to enhance correctness.
The point of it all would be to make the system do all the grunge work, allowing the developer to think about system design.
Too bad there's no running code, or even a written specification. I'd need at least a year of free time to work some stuff out.
One of these days...
...or maybe (Score:1)
100% agreement (Score:1)
Market share matters not (Score:1)
Most people who genuinely enjoy, and contribute to the Linux community do so because they're technically minded, and it's the technically best thing out there. If something appears which surpasses it, people might move. The reasons behind this are not likely to be related to market share, Microsoft, or anything else - indeed the only reason for a technically better thing to arrive is if Linux ceases to satisfy the needs of a sufficient majority of users that they feel the need to produce something better. Unlikely, when they already have such a solid base in Linux?
Mostly agree but... (Score:1)
You take a pot-shot at HURD. Well, all I can say is that if it works better I'll be using it!
Interesting article. Thanks.
I've already moved on, mostly. (Score:1)
It seems in the last year like the focus of the "Linux community" has changed. The sentiment used to be that Microsoft was irrelevant. These days it seems to be a primary target. As more anything-but-Microsoft people crowd into the room, it becomes a less interesting place to spend any time. I also use Microsoft OSes on a daily basis, at work and home (at work I run builds across a network that involve OS/2 and Solaris systems). Integration is the name of the game these days, and people who are willing to roll up their sleeves and learn how to make it all work together are gonna be the ones who get ahead.
I have used Linux off and on since I plugged in the first edition of Yggdrasil's Plug-and-play Linux (Fall 1993 edition). I've tried periods of "total immersion" at home, and I've bought a commercial Motif (SWiM), Applixware, and Wabi, among other products. I've run Slackware, RedHat, and SuSE systems. Right now the Linux box I still run at home has Slackware 4.0 on it.
I've essentially moved to NetBSD for my Unix fix these days. My fastest "Unix-like" hardware has that OS installed. It's a tigher system, more thoroughly integrated, and it's the "Classic Unix" environment I enjoy using the most. I grew tired of the "Linux for the masses" sentiment, dumbed down GUI administration tools, etc. I am not anti-GUI per-se (I use Windows 98 and it can't get more gooey than that), I am just opposed to mediocre half-baked attempts at GUI tools, and that's what I seem coming out of places like Red Hat.
NetBSD lets me install a clean tight base system, and build the packages I need from source out of a well-defined 'ports' collection. Another benefit I feel in using NetBSD is that there aren't 10,000 sites all over the internet trying to yank me this way and that and tell me how to run the system. I can crack open any Unix administration book less than 15 years old and just read and learn. The other BSDs haven't seemed like an option to me either, though I have little experience with them. I've watched the FreeBSD usenet newsgroups gradually fill up with newbies complaining that their sound card, modem, etc. isn't working. The crowd may be arriving on that scene. No thanks.
Anyhow, all I am trying to describe in this article is what is right for me. I've grown weary of advocacy people who try to run everybody else's lives.
Really, I just need to go back down in the lab and start working on some of the hardware/firmware projects I have planned. Mostly these involve stuff single board and single chip designs, (Motorola, PIC, some Z80, etc) running hand coded assembly language. I'm an embedded programmer and a hardware/firmware guy. The high level stuff is just for running my schematic capture, emulators, eprom programmer, and cross assembler. My best efforts at coding are a combination of solder, wire-wrap, and assembly language anyhow.
Wrong. Rebellion isn't the only reason to use Linu (Score:1)
I disagree strongly. I'm not using Linux out of any misplaced sense of rebellion; I have very practical reasons for wanting to use it.
When Linux becomes dominant, I will finally do what I wanted to do in the first place, the whole reason I got into it: I'll use my computer to its fullest, and help friends, families, and clients do the same. That very natural path was blocked by having Windows installed on my machine and installed in the computer industry as a whole. No configurability, no programmability, low quality, very limited control over the whole thing. And the squashing by Microsoft of any attempts to improve things. As a user, Microsoft has thoroughly alienated me in so many ways.
I never wanted to be fighting an OS war. I just wanted a computer that I could be doing things on. We shouldn't have to be fighting this battle to begin with. I mean, really. There are much better things to do, but it's taken so long to overcome the basic OS obstacle. We should have been able to take a good OS for granted many years ago.
When a good thing becomes popular in music, art, or computers, I celebrate it, because frankly it's rare. I don't cry "sell-out" unless something really is a sell-out. Some are, some aren't. I truly wish all good things were popular. (My own experience here is in music and the music industry.)
I'm sorry, Linux is not analogous to Windows.
Jeez. (Score:1)
Now, Rosenberger says it was only because Linux was cool. Sounds like he has an artist in his family.
Puh-leeze....
You missed the point! (Score:1)
And so it is entirely just that as soon as there is something better (or even just something with more potential) than Linux, all the enthusiasts will begin to leave.
I'll be among them. But I don't see it happening any time soon, and when it does happen I don't think hurd will be it.
But is it a bad thing (Score:1)
It will be good to have many different approaches to computing, it is basically evolution in computers. To have any one OS dominate the desktops of the future would be terrible. To give an example, back in 1985 the Amiga had a preemptive multitasking 32 bit OS, the cards that you plugged in were auto configuring (like PCI). Now compare that to Windows and how long it took to go 32 bit even. If Windows had not dominated the market would it taken sooooo long to evolve?
Having competition is good for OS's as the consumer/user benefits in the long run. Personally I would love to have an open source QNX type OS, running as much as possible in a JVM.
Ice
Why Johnny Can't Dissent (Score:1)
future of linux (Score:1)
THe long term success of linux will be based on its utility as a tool. People will continue to use linux until something better comes along. Some seem to beleive that linux is the Ultimate Answer to OSes, that all we need to do is to continue to tweek linux and add new features and that there's no need for other OSes. This is so wrong, its as daft as that guy who claimed it was "the end of history" when the Cold War ended.
Sooner or later something better will come along and people will use it because its the better tool. The OSS-religous types are stuck with linux, I just don't see a new OS coming out of the OSS community, linux is now as much a part of their religion as the GPL. I hope im wrong about that and a truly modern OS will emerge from the OSS model, but I doubt it.
As a disclaimer I must say that I'm an ex-linux user myself. I used linux for 4 years, but Ive switched to BeOS. BeOS is certainly not the best solution for alot of
The UNIX model is not the ONLY way to make a decent OS. Sooner or later something will displace linux,whether its BeOS, Hurd, QNX or something else, i have no idea, but it will happen.
Linux will still provide for the bleeding-edgers (Score:1)
If the general public is using the main distributions, the B.E's will run Debian. Or BSD. Or a development kernel. Or some new system. But as long as things remain open, all the work will remain portable. As long as Microsoft Linux and AOLinux still allow you to open an xterm or modify the source, "power users" will be happy because they will have alternative extensions to mainstream Linux to work on.
Again, this is a Good Thing because the power users' systems and the mainstream users' systems will be compatable and their respective benefits can easily be incorporated in either direction.
Why It's OK (Score:1)
People seem to think that all the new GUI based admin tools and Windoze look alike apps and WM's are dumbing linux down. This may be true. But one of the best features of linux is you can DO WHAT YOU WANT. Don un WinWM or whatever. Dont use LinuxConf. The best thing about linux is that it gives you building blocks. It's up to you to put them togehter.
MS sells manufactured housing. Linux gives away free lumber and nails.
Well yes and...no (Score:1)
It happens... Go with the flow. (Score:1)
Don't think of it as selling out... (Score:1)
Seriously though, this editorial is right IMHO. The thrill of being different is a lure to many of the best & brightest, and if and when Linux hits the desktop market (don't hold your breath) there will be an exodus. Well, might as well enjoy it while it lasts.
As (the band) Tool says, "I sold out long before you ever even / heard my name..."
Software/distribution/kernel confusion (Score:1)
If the Hurd microkernel is better, I hope I'll still be able to use the Debian distribution and the Apache web server: or whatever's better than them by then. Probably you won't be able to see easily which kernel I'm using anyway.
The point is that Linux is already only a part of the open source movement. We tend to think of it the whole environment as "Linux". But really the kernel is just one more modular part of the whole.
Are We Entering the Age of the Migratory OS ??? (Score:1)
What Linux is proving right now is that alternative OSes are a viable option. People are beginning to see that there are more than two viable Operating Systems available to them (need I say what they are?). And if they can now consider a third OS over time, why not a fourth or a fifth? Maybe they'll see a pattern emerging?
Maybe we'll really be lucky and some of these people will see that maybe one OS isn't the answer and shouldn't be in the long run.
Moving on -- to DEBIAN! (Score:2)
And you know what? It's working. Debian already has the most reliable distribution, making Red Hat look like Bug Hat, and will swiftly become the refuge of all the hackers who feel that the "commercial" distributions are just too popular.
Of course, some folks will also move to the *BSD's. FreeBSD in particular may be popular because a) all the popular Linux commercial software runs on it (so you can be "different" without sacrificing!), b) the "ports" collection is so huge that few people will miss any Linux-specific programs that are being created out there, and c) it has MUCH fewer bugs than the typical commercial Linux distribution these days. Especially in their "C" library -- glibc2 has proven to be a disaster of major proportions, with at least three incompatible versions (2.0.6, Red Hat's "2.0.7", and 2.1) out there, all of which are buggy in various areas, and all of which are HUGE. On the other hand, the FreeBSD kernel just isn't "fun" enough for the hard core hackers. It has too long a history and is too settled. All the neat research stuff, like logging filesystems, the "tree"-based file system, etc., is being done for Linux.
Of course, eventually the hard-core WILL move on to something else... but the availability of non-commercial distributions like Debian will delay that for far longer than you may think.
-E
I admit it. (Score:1)
Well, at least I'll admit it-- I'm attracted to Linux because it's cool, and by using it, I think that I will become cool and special.
Yes, I'm worried that the apeal and quality of the Whole Linux Thing will degrade as it becomes more popular-- when anything enters into a cultural mainstream, it loses something - that it was alternative, non-mainstream, and special.
I agree whole-heartedly with Syslevel's comments that "Integration is the name of the game" and his dislike of anything-but-Micorosoft attitude.
My futurological opinion is that many operating systems and variations thereof should be available. The truly innovative solutions are those which network and link these many platforms in intelligent ways. I want a powerful unix environment with lots of cool software. I use Linux.
My grandmother wants to balance her finances, read the news and talk about politics with people online, and send emails to her grandson. She doesn't want to deal with command lines and config files, but she also doesn't want to deal with DLLs and Active Desktops. Where is the start-up with enough balls to write a brand-new OS from scratch, which is simple, uncluttered and unbloated, well-suited for the simple everyday tasks that the majority of the people with the desire and means to own a computer want? Where is the diversity and variation? Why are people afraid of having more than one product in any particular market? Why is competition passe' (for all the talk of Big Business, take a look at the recent merger-mania. The only two banks here in MA big enough to have branches in more than a few towns, Fleet and Bank Boston, are merging)
If anybody has any happy news about companies doing just that, or even people studying this anti-competition phenomenon, I'd be less depressed if they'd share.
Where will the world go? (Score:1)
This attitude is quite common already. People make beautiful rosegardens, driven by their own motivation, but also makes the neighbourhood in general looks better, just as a spin-off.
The cool-searching guy is not in this category. But he has never contributed to the development of Linux, anyway.
To live and develop, Linux needs people with interest in creating things, without seeing any immediate income related to their work. The people must also have an interest in sharing their work with others.
Such people exist in large quantities. Their effort is called a hobby, and they are often well organised in similar loose structures as Linux-developers are. (Ref. charity, woodcraft, sports, painting, campers etc.)
The "this is cool - I'm special - this is a revolt - I'm attacking the richest man in the world"-boys and girls, may jump to the next cool OS. But they are all the next generation developers.
The conservatives of tomorrow (i.e. working with Linux) will be the revolutionaries of today (i.e. working with Linux), and more "conservatives" will join, as the establishment becomes "house-broken". But of course, new revolts will arise, and if the rebels or the contras will win, only future will show.
beside the point (Score:1)
Debian will always be Debian, Free Software will always be, uh.. forget I said that
Think about the small projects you're envolved in; you're favourite library, or favourite MUA, etc.
The masses think Linux, but it's always good to think of the little people behind the big celebraty.
Trite and not completely correct. (Score:1)
While I do feel a little special using Linux, this is not the reason I use it. The reason I, and a growing number of my collaborators in the physics comunity, use Linux is that it provides a robust and simple platform for all of our computing needs. Thats it. Linux is just a tool and it happens to be the best one around currently.
-Brett.
Re:dumb article. (Score:1)
I still firmly believe that as Linux becomes more and more popular, we'll see the percentage of these users skyrocket.
-----
1/2 true (Score:1)
it ceases to be a useful tool to explore new avenues, then the people resposible for the push will move on. And in a few years a new system will be made, become mainstream... and the cycle will repeat...
When a snake grows, it sheds it's skin...
:-)
OS mobility (Score:1)
When it came out several years back, Java promised to put an end to caring about what operating system you were running. Of course, we all know that this promise fell flat in reality, and that there are very few actual applications written in Java.
However, in recent months, now that the media hype has lifted and the technology has had a little time to mature, I've started to see the promise come true to a certain extent. For example, when the task at hand is doing Java programming, it doesn't matter to me whether I'm using Linux, Tru64 Unix, Windows, or even a Mac (and I otherwise wouldn't recommend using a Mac for programming unless you're an extreme masochist).
Even more importantly, Java is nowheres near the only reason to ignore what platform you're on. All of the GNU tools run on Windows, BeOS, OS/2, NeXTStep, and reportedly even the Amiga almost as well as they do on their original Unix (in all of its varieties). Perl, Tcl, and Python and all carefully crafted programs written in them are platform neutral too. If you prefer C, as long as you stick to the standard library and maybe the sockets calls, that code will run virtually anywhere too with only minimal modification.
The point is that in this day and age, it is very easy to jump ship without having to worry about losing the ability to run all your favorite apps. This is good because it lets you choose your OS of the day based on nothing but the strength of its core features: performance, security, hardware support, etc. It's bad for those who really care about the OS itself, because it eliminates many of the traditional incentives for loyalty.
Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Re:Software/distribution/kernel confusion (Score:1)
However, bear in mind that the general public and the media do not see the difference. They simply see it as "Linux" for better or for worse. And it is the media, in particular, that will act as the catalyst for this transition from alternative to mainstream.
----
Nice article! (Score:1)
Anyway, as a self descibed OS junkie (I run Win 95, NT, BeOS, Linux, and NetBSD. Along with a partition for playing around) I figure I've got all my bases covered. Hell, I'll even be covered if Windows ever becomes hip!
The NBT (Next Big Thing) (Score:1)
The Next Big Thing that I've been predicting for the last 4 years is Personal Computing Devices. Things like the Palm V I have become inseparable from. I use it for _everything_. eMail, notes, document writing & reading, spreadsheet, and development of new Palm applications. Quartus Forth and RsrcEdit allow me to create applications 100% on the device itself without going external at all.
The device is portable and meets 95% of my computing needs while still giving me a platform to play on.
Sure, my laptop is a 3 pound Sony running RedHat Linux 6.0 that is light enough to take anywhere, but I find myself using it for only a couple of things: internet browsing when I want to see images and the creation of printed materials to be distributed to others (KLyx). The Palm V gives me computing power and the ultimate in portability.
OK, occasionally I have to take my Canon BJ-80 so I can print from the Palm V via infrared link, but 99% of the people I share data with have Palm devices also. And the uses for and users of the device are everywhere.
My wife uses hers to manage our household and farm and is never more than a few feet away from it. I walked into the kitchen when I arrived at home the other evening and she had it laid out on the stove among steaming pots and pans where she was entering notes on the jam making process she was involved in.
Personal Computing Devices are tools that real people can use to actually their day to day lives. The true power of PCs have never been realized by the masses. (I still see users close app1 when the want to access app2, then close app2 and restart app1 every day.) The power of Personal Computing Devices such as the Palm are self realizing.
These are the NBT.
Dave Bennett
Chief Information Officer
Inland Truck Parts Company
Re:Why It's OK (Score:1)
If all you have is a hammer, all the world looks like nails and lumber.
Ignore them, maybe they'll go away... (Score:1)
I use Linux because it's useful. It's got some features that I need, features I can't get anywhere else (ipmasq, small footprint, etc).
I use other OSes where I need 'em.
I actually started with the *BSDs - and still use 'em alongside my Linux boxes.
Then suddenly this horde of ex-Windows users and anti-MS terrorists come screaming over the hill, telling me I should run Red Hat, telling me to replace my desktop, telling me that anybody who still runs a 1.1.x kernel on a production system nowadays is crazy.
I still get sniggers from my local LUG whenever I mention I still use Slackware. Nope, not RH, not Debian, not SuSE. It ain't pretty, it doesn't have an IPO, but it works. And that's all I care about.
So would it be really a pain if all these annoying kids left?
Unix-like/OpenSource/GNU software is enough for me (Score:1)
* A CLI able to access all the resources of the machine.
* All of the system configuration and administration could be done over a telnet session and without a GUI.
* It would store all its info in ASCII text files. * It would be OpenSource and standards based.
* All the GNU tools could be easily ported over (resulting in a Unix like environment)
* Run on commonly available and relatively inexpensive hardware.
This is what "Linux" means to me even though technically "Linux" is just the kernel. Linux has been evolving since day 1. If in 10 years every line of code and even the architecture has changed, if it has the above it wil be "Linux" enough for me.
Re:Wrong. Rebellion isn't the only reason to use L (Score:1)
Plus, this article fails to mention different distros. Look how different RedHat is from Slackware. Will that change with a 51% market share? I don't think so. Linux is variety in itself. It won't magically become #1 and become galvanized as a one-method OS.
-Clump
customization is key, not mainstream-ness (Score:1)
Shameless plug - see LOMAC entry on freshmeat.net .
Maybe (Score:1)
Total World Domination? (Score:1)
If some of the massive effort that so many geeks are putting into evangelizing Linux to the masses would be put into improving it instead, we would probably have a less popular OS---but we might also have a better one.
Sure, popularity helps Linux by attracting more developers, more money, and more projects. But it's as important as you might think. FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD have built very useful and robust systems in relative obscurity (with regard to the mainstream). And more of the BSD community seems to hold a new kernel patch in higher regard than a new press release, which is sure to attract geeks away from the increasing PR-happy Linux camp.
Linux can be successful without being popular. It doesn't need to become a Windows replacement in order to be useful to the geeks who use it today. And if you do want your favorite free software to become more popular: write code, not propaganda. Make the software good enough and eventually users will decide for themselves.
---mbrubeck
When's the last time you heard anyone talk about "the Windows community"?
it'll be a long time (Score:1)
The BSD OS'es seem pretty good, but I've been too involved with Linux for too long to just walk away casually; I suspect the millions of others who cut their teeth on Linux will feel the same. Even after Windows declines and all my AOL-lusing relatives start calling me with asinine questions about upgrading their Gateways to Red Hat 14.0, I'll probably still be hacking Linux.
Some good points there (windbag alert) (Score:1)
Well, here's some observations from someone who hasn't used Linux that long and does, at least in part, because of a dislike for MS, and also because it's cool. My chief reason is that I like that I can now get my computer to do what I want the way I want it to, and it comes with a boatload of *useful* software. It's the best tool for the jobs I want to do (where that calculation includes what I can afford to pay).
One of the key advantages claimed for the open-source development model is that development of completely new apps, as well as bugfixes and enhancements for ones that already exist is much faster than under the closed-source model. But now that seems to be becoming a bit of a problem for those who've been using Linux for a while. They remember the 'good old days', when real linux users could hack together some ingenious solution to almost any problem with a few lines of code.
The gathering (or, depending on your perspective, already gathered) critical mass of users and developers is resulting in an explosion of alternatives for almost every aspect of a linux system, and even things near the core of the system are being changed by some distributions (the one constant being, of course, the kernel itself). This is perceived as a "watering down" or a "dumbing down" of Linux itself, and is supposed to herald the departure of the bleeding-edgers. I don't doubt that this is true for at least some. But some of the reaction sounds like it's to the mere fact of change -- "things just aren't like they used to be, and that's in itself a Bad Thing".
It also seems inevitable that a bit of a brain drain will happen with *any* technology, because sooner or later, it will reach a point where any idiot can use it. The people who are now working on biologically-based digital storage (to pick a random example) would probably have been hard at work on steam engine technologies in the 18th century (not that any idiot can *fix* an engine, but you all know that just about any warm body over the age of 16 can use one). Moore's law being what it is, no doubt the day will come when Linux reaches the point where further attempts to develop it on the latest hardware will not be cost-effective (in the sense of resources, not just $$$) and things should switch over to whatever younger technology is there to replace it.
But even after a technology hits that 'magic level' where it doesn't take exceptional skill or vision to use it or improve it incrementally, there's still plenty of reason to use it. Internal-combustion engine technology is asymptotically approaching the limits of what can be done with it (and it's probably been like that for your whole lifetime, if you're a /. reader), but how many of you have used one lately for something and find it *indispensible* on a day-to-day basis? (even if you're a Critical-Masser, ICE's get your groceries to the store where you shop) And how many talented designers are still working on improving it? A lot of people in the pits at Daytona and Indy are there because they enjoy hacking away at cars just to get them to work better.
So, yeah, there will probably be a bit of a 'brain drain.' But I won't lose sleep over it, because there's still an influx of new people, and there will (for the future that I can reasonably plan for) be enough gray-matter devoted to developing the software I use.
I welcome the day (Score:2)
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Re:100% agreement (Score:1)
And to adress another point not mentioned in this comment but mentioned elsewhere -- Linux is not about being Anti-Microsoft, or about Microsoft bashing, or anything like that. Linux is about providing a high quality, open source operating system. Everything else is secondary. Operating systems are tools. Use what's right for the job (and sometimes, what's right may be NT, not linux).
Re:moving on to different things (Score:1)
Re:The Next Big Thing in Operating Systems (Score:1)
No, I'm not kidding. It's an interpreted object language, run on a stack-based VM. It has some pretty neat native types (automatic arrays, mappings, etc.), and allows you to do all of your work from within that environment.
Find it at ftp.imaginary.com - look around in there for the latest version of the driver. Get a lib and hack it a bit to get it set up.
--Corey
OS Loyalty (Score:2)
Because of the commonality between modern systems, I can run all the cutting edge Linux applications I need on my SGI box. So I get the best of both worlds.
D
----
Re:The Next Big Thing in Operating Systems (Score:1)
How? It's open source, so the second somebody tries to improve it, or at least look at the code, they will find out about the backdoor or whatever. It seems to me that the properties of OSS make it *more* secure than other development models.
Using a scripting language instead of a shell is ridiculous. Do people write bash scripts in their GUI text editor, and run them instead of going to the shell? I doubt it. What you are proposing is exactly the same. I doubt anything will ever replace the shell, because it's so powerful.
There is what is known as "dirty Java" (I think that's what it's called, anyway,) that is compiled to native code. Perhaps something similar can be used for The Next Big Thing.
Getting back on topic... if another OS comes along that does everything Linux does and more, and has the community behind it developing, then I will jump ship.
I don't run Linux because it's trendy (which would be beyond pathetic,) I run it because it works well for me, and I can count on it being developed further. If everyone else bails on Linux, then I will have to too - it sounds like following the herd, but in reality, a community-based development model *needs* a horde of developers, or no matter what it's technical merits, it will fail as it will not go anywhere.
not eliete OS but elite distro (Score:1)
Linux is just the kernel... there's a wealth of software that's the actual "value" of and Linux OS (I mean, who has a Linux box that doesn't have any programs except init and mgetty?).
If I recall correctly, Debian is designed so that it's kernel agnostic (you can just drop in a hurd kernel rather than Linux). This is just speculation, but maybe in the future, all "operating environments" will be so modular that you can just pick and choose your kernel?
-floorpie
Why I use Linux? (Score:1)
I look forward to the further acceptence of Linux by the mainstream. That way all the lastest hardware (USB cameras, USB scanners, 1394 cards, 3D hardware) can be supported from day one, along with all the lastest and greatest apps (games esp).
At that point we will have best of both worlds (a rock solid, super configurable Unix-like OS, with support for all the latest and greatest hardware and software).
The whole anti-microsoft angle means little to me.
True to a degree (Score:1)
Personally I use Linux for a couple reasons. I don't like the fact that I can configure my system to my needs, not needs determined by some focus group in another part of the world. I also like the powerful tools like perl/awk/bash scripts. It's an excellent development environment, and it's stable. I have moral reasons as well, in that I disagree that any company(ies) should have control over something as pervasive and globally important as the OS that most computers run. This is too much power in the hands of too few.
That said, I already have a machine that I run NetBSD on, because it's nice to tinker with something that is a little more obscure and "ubergeek". This is just the pure geek in me, the same one who wanted to play with all styles of BBS' when BBS' were THE BIG THING, the same geek that spent his march break in G9 teaching himself the basics of C. I like a challange, and I strive to learn more, which is one reason I like Linux, but is not the only reason.
I think there are a lot of people out there like me. People who in another year or two might start using other OS' besides Linux, but like me who will keep their primary linux machine for most uses, and have other "play" machines.
I couldn't agree more (Score:1)
People want to use an os that gives them a woody. For now, that will be linux. The effect of this can be seen anywhere, even on our beloved slashdot. I kind of get the feeling that people in this community are in denial about Linux -- think of the Mindcraft fiasco. Why did everyone act so surprised?? Linux isn't the best operating system out there for every possible application. X, configured well, with a good wm still does not have the same kind of functionality, compatibility or even stability of an equally well configured NT box (I haven't got any mail in a while -- this should fix that up pretty fast). Now, don't get me wrong, I love linux, but I love it for the same reasons that most of you love it -- because it gives me a woody. When the majority of boxes around the world are running linux, when most people in our country would consider themselves computer literate, linux won't make all these people feel elite anymore when all of a sudden their gym teacher or the new intern at work has debian at home and can configure sendmail without using man. So.... if I ask for anything at all, I would ask that we stop kidding ourselves about linux and start to get an accurate perspective about it's place in the market.
Linux != god, please keep that in mind.
Oh and Linus Torvalds as the man of the century? Are you smoking crack?
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:1)
Re:moving on to different things (Score:1)
Er, sorry, I've finished up the "Thomas Covenant" chronicles lately.
But seriously, there are quite a few people who really don't care whether it's mainstream or not methinks. Or, say, are you telling me that there are no fans of classic rock anymore, and that such radio stations don't exist? And so forth. Switching operating systems is a bit of a bother just to satisfy a countercultural whim. Unlike primarily recreational areas like music, there are actual demands on people that limit their flexibility with OS choices.
I *need* to be able to develop software that'll run on *nix-type boxes, like Solaris and Linux. Arguably, if I need to write a GUI for a mixed environment like that, obtaining a Mac and using MacOS is not exactly a good choice; nor is using Visual C++ on a WinNT box, unless it's loading something cross-platform like Tk. It also happens that much of the diversionary software that I have, like Alpha Centauri, needs to run on MS Windows variants. I might add to the stable (e.g. OpenBSD if I opt for an always-on net connection -- because OBSD is subject to serious code auditing, *if* it supports most of my hardware) but that again would be based on a functional requirement, and would be an addition instead of a replacement. It'd still require serious thought.
Point being, it's easier to switch radio stations (e.g. 'tween an oldies station and a classic-rock station: *no* recent music
How fitting... (Score:1)
Take what you can use and let the rest go by. -- Ken Kesey
As for the essay, Who cares what those people do. They're not contributers to the community, they're lame. The developers who contribute use linux because it offers them what they're looking for. Until something else offers more, then this is where they'll stay.
The point the author seems to have missed is this:
Once something better comes around, who cares what happens to linux. Linux should go away when something better comes along. Why would he want to save something that's not worth saving. He makes it sound like it's a Bad Thing (TM), but it's not.
Someone should rewrite this with an optimistic tone and submit THAT to slashdot and see how the comments differ.
Re: BeOS (Score:1)
I still use Linux on my PowerMac, but on my PC I'm being dazzled by BeOS and loving it. I like Linux for some reasons, but overall I think I like the BeOS... Linux is not the best, it's just one of the better ones.
A Perfect OS? (Score:1)
What would a perfect OS be capable of? IMO a perfect OS would be reliable (like many of the Free Unices), would be capable of doing the task at hand well, and have a general intuition about it. That's why the Open Source model is ideal.
Of course now we look at Linux in comparison. I'm going to argue that once it can meet the simple criteria above, it becomes perfect. Of course perfection then is subjective.
For some in the Linux community, I'm willing to argue that developing Linux, "being cool" or "bleeding edge", or whatever has been said or will be said is inaccurate. In certain cases, Linux is already the perfect OS. Like I said, it's subjective, so I'm not going to detail them, I'm just willing to say that a Grand Unified Perfect OS, an end-all be-all is not the answer.
If I have an OS that lets me pick and choose what I need in the END so it can BE what it's meant for, then isn't that already the end-all be-all?
I will probably join a flock or Hurd when the time comes, but I will probably also keep a box or two dedicated to their task using whatever OS happens to be on it.
The Linux community is based on more than bleeding edge, but bleeding edge will always have a special place in the heart. As such, today's Linux community will still use Linux years from now, if only for that claim that can be made to your grandchild that you had a part in this. We faced up against a Bad OS in general (perfect OS for some, so I'm bypassing the argument), gave the world a better OS (Linux) and continued giving (other projects). Maybe that's why the Microserfs who have actually converted to the Redmond Religion do it. They have such a stake in it.
In the end, searching for a Grand Unified Perfect OS is pointless. It's snark hunting. The Grand Unified Perfect OS cannot be, because people will always have needs individual to themselves. That's what the custom installation of Linux allows me, that's why MS fails me. As long as Linux can do this, someone will always find a need for it. Bleeding Edge or not.
Well, all considering.. (Score:1)
Now, if you listen (or read..whatever)to what a lot of you are saying, you'll see mention of "When something better comes out, I'll move on"
Well, don't you think that somewhere in the back of your mind, you're saying, "once everybody's using it, the quality can't be as good!" (as ze author suggests)
That's exactly what he's talking about, the progression will happen, it's just a matter of when. Yes, we're all technically minded, and love to use something that's welldesigned. But we also love our individuality. It makes us.. well. us.
I don't think there's ever been something that escapes this phenomenon (though I'm probably wrong on that count, and just can't think of an example)
In plain words, I think some of us make us pretty dang inhuman, when, well.. we're not.
My two cents, plus any other random change I have in my pocket,
-V
FUD (Score:1)
I hope it comes true... (Score:2)
kernel, Slackware, and it was a blast. I felt
that the Linux community back then was very
different. They were trying to improve the world-
open standards, viewable source, nifty utilities,
and most of all having FUN. And they weren't
just doing it for their toy operating system...
they were making it available for everybody,
recognizing that Linux wasn't the only non-MS OS
in existance and making sure their benefits could
be passed around.
Then, I got myself a sparc and set about learning
Solaris. During that time I rarely booted into
Linux on my PC, and kinda lost track of the scene.
When I came back to it a couple of years later, I
wasn't pleased with what I saw. The whole
attitude had changed. It wasn't just "run this
OS because its neat", or even "run this OS because
its not made by Microsoft". The theme was "run
Linux because Linux is better than absolutely
anything and if you disagree you're in big
trouble". We've noticed this latter attitude
before, there have been Slashdot articles on this
"frothing advocacy".
I started noticing posts from Linux users forced
to use Solaris at work or school... all too often,
the post boiled down to "Hey, why doesn't Solaris
do THIS, Linux does THIS, why does Solaris suck so
much?" I'd check out the other Unix newsgroups
and notice the same attitude, just replace
"Solaris" with the name of the OS in question.
And usually the feature the said user was having
a seizure over was a simple thing, like gzip or
the pretty network configuration gizmo. Linux,
for power users? It doesn't seem like it anymore.
But, OK. Everyone has a right to the little
features they've gotten used to, and hey, some
of them ARE cool. So, I sit down to try and port
some of these things to the OS I'm currently on.
Uh oh. It uses inline assembler, completely
uncommented of course. Or, its completely reliant
on the bastardized Linux kernel headers. Or it
needs a "convenience" device that exists on Linux
despite the fact that the stuff could be done
completely fine at the application level. And
let's not forget the hordes of other utilities
and libraries I have to port/install just to get
that far. What happened to the portability I was
familiar with? What is this stuff... open source,
yet proprietary? How does that work?
Of course, if I worked hard enough, I could
probably get it going. But why? I'd be just
completely rewriting the whole thing, to add a
measure of portability that could have been easily
added during initial development if the coder had
thought of it. But why would s/he do that? Who
is stupid enough to run something OTHER than
Linux?
This pure, narrow vision is why *I* no longer run
Linux. We can see it here in knee-jerk reactions
to some "Ask Slashdot" questions. A user wants
to build a pop/smtp server for a bazillion users.
Another wants to construct a high-availability
database server. What's the best choice for a
good news server? How about a closet print
server?
Always, 90% of the replies are "use Linux". It
doesn't matter that DG/UX has some of the best
high-availability tools around. I've personally
seen an RS/6000 running AIX munch some absolutely
insane mail loads. Four of the top five Usenet
transport servers are Solaris boxes. And hell,
if you've GOT the NT license, why not stick it on
the free box and stick it in the closet to print?
Its one of the few tasks its good for. But the
reasoned, use-the-right-tool responses get
drowned out under the "use Linux because its cool"
followups.
I think Linux has some of the niftiest gadgetry
I've seen in an OS. It certainly manages to
support every device in existance, and its a great
thing for the environment, reducing the number of
PCs that end up in the landfill every year. I
won't begrudge it that. But why can't I play?
Why am I an idiot because I won't use it at every
opportunity?
I certainly hope this "migration" happens sometime
soon. There's nothing specifically wrong with
the OS, but the people seem to be getting stale
and sedentary. Maybe a new project would shake
it all up again.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:1)
Actually that's pretty much what I meant - I think I'll call you the next time I don't want to type so much
-----
Re:Well, all considering.. (Score:1)
----
Let's be honest with ourselves (Score:1)
Does it feel good to be admired by your peers for competence with some "powerful, obscure" operating system? Absolutely! Is it fun to make comments in meetings such as "to do that would be trivial with Linux"? Of course! Does the fact that nobody else at work knows my chosen server and workstation operating system make me feel unique and special? Hell, yes!
From my experience:
*Knowing Linux and UNIX in general pays more than NT/NetWare expertise
*My knowledge of Linux makes me irreplaceable in the eyes co-workers and employers
*Linux does what I want it to do, the way I want to do it, for as long as I need it to, without crashing
When the Internet first went commercial, folks who knew HTML were paid big money. When people realized their applications weren't Y2K compliant, Cobol came back (briefly) into vogue. When the day comes that I get paid more for knowing Amiga
To sum up: I agree with the author, except that I think that there must, and will, always be enough new developers learning to work on Linux to supplant those who choose to move on. If not, Linux would become a footnote in the dusty tomes of history, with the UNIVAC, OS/2, and Charles Babbage's "Analytical Engine" (ca 1837).
A different kind of exodus (Score:1)
When GNU finally releases a semi-stable Hurd, a major exodus will occur. There are too many AC's ill-contented with running GNU/Linux. They want GNU/GNU. They want politically correct software created by politically correct people. They don't want a kernel that includes an obnoxious clause allowing non-GPL modules. Just as some BSD-freaks carefully excise any trace of GNU from their systems, these new Hurdites will excise all remnants of GNUless code from their boxen. If you thought the holy wars of the past were bloody, you haven't seen anything until you've seen the disciples recieve their book of Revelations.
Just so that I'm not misunderstood, these are not the same people as the Hurd developers.
Wrong aphorism (Score:1)
--
I noticed
Not So! (Score:1)
Linux is here because it is capable of being MUCH better than what's out there can. Some people will jump any bandwagon that gives them an identity, but there is a group of highly intelligent programmers out there who have chosen Linux (or some similar platform) for the best reasons around. These people will not leave simply because the platform has become popular.
These people may however leave if Linux becomes too supportive of the end user and stops evolving. But if this is the case it will be their second good choice based on sound philosophy and will probably promote positive changes just as much as we all hope Linux will.
This is a good bandwagon to be on. Jump in if you haven't, and stick around if you have!
Re:You missed the point! (Score:1)
I'm an elitist, too (Score:1)
I took pride in the fact that I was different, I liked the fact that I used TeX to do my high school Chemistry research paper. It was different, as was I. Linux gave me the opportunity to do things that weren't nearly as easy in DOS/Win.
I don't want to hear about every Joe Schmoe using Linux to do those same things. I want to feel that specialness that it first gave me, if only for a little while longer. I'm sad to see the era of the Linux underground shift into the era of the Linux mainstream. I don't like that 15 year olds post messages about it that have 10 grammar and mispellings per sentence. It deserves more than that.
I know that things are only speeding up to make Linux the mainstream rather than the underground. I accept it as an exciting thing. But it has its downsides, too.
Linux feels like the girlfriend that I've had for five years (only literally for 3 of those :) ), and now she's decided to sleep around. I can either accept the disappoint that comes from knowing that I'm not the only one using her, or fight it. Either way, it's there.
When would I move on? (Score:1)
I'd be tempted to move onto to something else when I thought that Linux had gotten stagnant and that it had reached a point where there was nothing new that could be done with it.
Do I see that happening? No! Not for the foreseeable future. Now if some absolutely fantastic system comes out of a research lab that totally blows away anything and everything that's currently in use and I/we just have to get in on it... well, then maybe, especially if that breakthrough is in the area of software. On the other hand, if that breakthrough happens to be in hardware, I suspect that someone will have ported Linux over to it within a matter of weeks and we won't have to leave Linux behind.
\begin{offtopic}
Speaking of porting... What's the current status of some of the porting projects like VAX Linux? Most of the home pages for these projects don't seem to have been updated for an awfully long time. All the latest ports seem to be geared toward personal computers. There's a ton (or ten) of perfectly good VAX hardware out there that would probably be better of running Linux than winding up in the town dump. Did the people on these projects decide that the hardware was just getting too old?
\end{offtopic}
GNU HURD (Score:1)
I'm actually the sort who diversifies. I eschew commercial releases of Open Source OS's, though I do poke around with them. I use Debian, FreeBSD, and NetBSD, and I'll be checking out OpenBSD pretty soon. When HURD is done, I'll definitely be using the Debian GNU/HURD release for a while, just to play with it.
The point is, however, that all the apps are still the same. The next-and-greatest will still be comfortable for most people.
--
I noticed
I'd bet on forking rather than desertion... (Score:1)
If/when Linux gets "bogged down" because of mass-market concerns (and this is really more of a distribution issue than a kernal issue anyway) then the response won't be to abandon their work, it will be to fork a new development branch.
Also, expect to see new tools replacing old ones as people try to redesign what they think is "broken" about the older tool (e.g., Berlin as an X replacement) -- this logic extends to the kernal itself. Do you honestly expect that hackers are just going to abandon their code bases and start all over simply because a lot of people who aren't "elite" or "cool" happen to use it? No, starting over is saved for when a fundemental overhaul is called for, not because of "coolness".
Is this universal? No, and no more so than saying that Linux will be left behind. As others have pointed out, most of the work is done on software that actually isn't Linux-specific. The GIMP will still be the GIMP on *BSD or *NIX or BeOS or whatever, maybe requiring a little porting, but that's all.
Re:The Next Big Thing in Operating Systems (Score:1)
What is Alliance?
Alliance is an Open Source project which is developing an Operating System loosely based upon the Cache Kernel concept as developed by Stanford University and the Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) from OMG.
Alliance uses the Cache Kernel concept to create an OS environment geared towards the emulation of other Operating Systems and hardware platforms. The goal is not only to have a fantastic OS emulator, but to provide an environment where data can be shared across the OS boundaries. It also provides very intriguing resources for native applications (real-time process support, distributed computing support, and a host of other cool things.)
The Perfect OS! (Score:1)
The human brain runs the perfect OS. It does everything you think it can do, without any programming whatsoever. Too bad the source isn't GPL'd, damnit. I'd try to port it.
Hmm.. could make an interesting sci-fi, probably better than much of the crap out there..
ahh well.. ramblings from the cubicle..
Not the end, but a new begining. (Score:1)
Not because they must remain 'alternative' and Linux is too 'mainstream', but because these people are into working on the bleeding edge of technology; when linux becomes the defacto desktop operating system it will no longer be that bleeding edge.. It will be the standard.
I don't think this will be the 'end of linux', just perhaps a shuffling of the deck. I imagine we will also see a slew of really cool new projects emerge, and likely not in the OS realm. So I think this change is to be expected and will even benefit the Free Software/Open Source community.
You may lose some to the 'its not cool to be mainstream', but these won't be the people who contributed in any meaningful way anyhow.
Time devours all things. (Score:2)
Of course linux will disappear. When it does, most people won't even care. Something new will have arrived. Only time will tell what that new "something" will be. In fifty years historians will laugh over the simplistic technology we have today, and wonder how we ever made it to where they are.
Live in the present, not the future. You can't change the past. You can't change the future. You can only change the present. So.. what are you waiting for? Go out and code. Make new friends. Change the world.
--
Still under other people's control (Score:1)
If people really want to be original and independent, they should take some time to think about what option is best for their computing needs, and then act on their own best judgement. Those that won't take the time to do this aren't worth mourning--we're better off without them. Based on what I've seen, though, the really cool and useful folks are cut of better stuff than that.
I don't buy it - some things to think about (Score:1)
This implies that the *only* reason we use Linux is because it's elitist. When it is no longer elitist, we will no longer be motivated to use it. Now ask yourself... why do YOU use Linux? Is it to be cool? Or do you have other reasons?
I can think of two important reasons for using Linux that were totally ignored or handwaved away in the article. First, it doesn't suck, or at least it doesn't suck much - certainly, it sucks less than almost all other OSs. Second, it is based on politically correct Open Source licenses, particularly the GPL.
It is quite true that many Linux newbies are using it to get away from Windows - some for the elitism of it, but most for its technical and emotional superiority, imho. I do expect Linux to beat Windows in the end, but not because it's elite. Rather, it will win because it doesn't suck (much), and the license terms are better.
The fact is, neither *BSD nor any other Unix variant is going to offer significant technical superiority. Linux, at heart, is Unix. Using and programming it is a Unix experience. So the technical elitism of *BSD (etc) is very marginal compared to the elitism of Linux/Unix over Windows, which sucks mightily. And license-wise, BSD et al is at best equivalent, and arguably worse than Linux, but both are a huge leap over Windows.
I should mention BeOS here... technically, it may be significantly superior to Linux, but its license is still proprietary, and the source is closed. If anything, i can see Be getting lucky and becoming dominant, and Linux hanging on as a server OS and license elitism tool.
To sum it up, Linux is a HUGE technical and political win over Windows, and i believe it will ride to victory on those rails. But no alternative to Linux offers a sufficient leap in technical superiority, along with a politically equivalent license, to really take Linux' place as the elitist OS. Therefore, i conclude that the vast majority of current Linux users will remain with Linux, even when Linux becomes the dominant OS.
---
No, it's about Freedom (Score:3)
There are many communities out there, with much overlap between them. There's the Linux Community, the Free Software Community, the BSD Community, and so on. You cannot say that the Linux community is here because of some holy crusade against Redmond, some clearly feel that way, for most it's a lesser or non-issue. They are here because they like to hack on their own system, or they are here because Linux works better for what they want to do. None of these people are wedded permanently to Linux, but none of them are likely to leave just because Linux becomes the majority system. Also, just because Linux becomes the majority system doesn't mean it has "joined the ranks of Windows as a sell-out".
I'm sure there are some who are so committed to being a part of something unpopular as to act the way the author describes, but they are solidly in the minority. People might leave the Linux community eventually, but the reasons will be "it's not as much fun anymore" or "system X does what I need better". And those will be the real reasons, not rationalizations.
Secondly, the Open Source movement as a whole has done nothing about development models. ESR, the originator of the Open Source movement described existing development models, not only didn't that change the models, but it was before there even was an Open Source movement. What the Open Source movement did was threefold. It tried to repackage the Free Software Movement into a business suit, it tried to downplay the benefits of Freedom in software (since Freedom is apparently scary to businesses), and it started the push to coerce businesses to change their licensing schemes.
You predict a dire future for Linux, "[The Linux Community] won't want any part in the corporate-sponsored demographic-pandering mainstream beast that Linux will have become. GPL'ed or not, they're going to hate Linux." I have a little more faith in the community than the author does. The corporate influence has been here for years. Most distributions of Linux over the past year and a half have included a commercial compiler (egcs), and people cheered! Why? Because commercial does not equal evil. I for one am not fighting against commercialism, I am fighting against proprietary software. Many companies have been very helpful against this, including Cygnus and RedHat. Also, the GPL is not the only protection against such evils as the author describes. The distribution of packages is the other. It doesn't get into the kernel unless Linus says so. Most packages have similar reins.
In conclusion, I agree, it's not about Open Source, but it's also not about being a fickle part of a counterculture. For most of the community, it's about "Having something that works". For me, it's about Freedom, plain and simple.
----
Legacy (Score:1)
Hopefully, in future, it won't matter what you're running, you can still do everything you need. A linux user today can meet with a windows user and a mac user on a quake server and play a game of quake.
On other fronts, we're not quite there yet. I'm frustrated at all the job ads that say "Send your MS Word '97 formatted resume to...". A lot of people are still very, very devoted to Microsoft.
Linux 1999 == Internet 1994 (Score:1)
At the time, everybody knew who Brendan Kehoe was, and there was a tremendous outpouring of sympathy when he was involved in a major traffic accident.
Then, as 1994 turned into 1995, the Internet was flooded with newbies. AOLers in particular were singled out for their utter lack of netiquette. There is no modern analog to Brendan Kehoe (or Kibo, or any other 'net personality).
What was occuring was the death of the Internet subculture. Lots of the pre-1994 Internet users still use the 'net, but we don't have the same feeling about it...it's no longer a community, it's a tool.
That's how I see the Linux community. Long-time users are being relegated to a smaller and smaller proportion of the total number of Linux users. Decisions are increasingly being made based on money, rather than "because it's fun and cool". And there's not a thing we can do about it.
Just as the Internet went from being a geek-haven to being a superhighway filled with porno-sites, so will Linux be transformed by the new users (and new uses) during the upcoming years. I shudder to think of what the end result will be.
The folks who are trying to hold onto this sense of community seem to be aggregating around Debian, or creating their own "unpolluted" distros.
Enjoy the Linux community while you are able to, folks. It's not going to last much longer. Already my Linux-user's-group listserv is increasingly innundated by people migrating from the DOS/Windoze world who are asking lots of questions which seem blatantly obvious to a veteran unix user.
These people are the AOLers of the Linux world...carpetbaggers who are riding the wave. Their intentions may be the best, but they're not going to learn the history of Unix and various arcane commands and such. They're not going to take the time to learn what not to say before they speak. They'll be downright annoying.
This is not to put down new Linux users. Hey...you've gotta learn somewhere! But the older users will become increasingly fed up with answering the same question for the 10000th time, and will drop off the lists. Then the lists will lose their decent signal-to-noise ratio.
For me, I'll use Linux while it suits my needs. I'll probably switch to BSD the first time a friend or family member calls asking me to do tech-support for 'em.
a brand-new OS from scratch... (Score:1)
Not dead yet! (was Re:Moving on -- to DEBIAN!) (Score:1)
Careful, there is some rather intresting stuff going on in the FreeBSD kernel. Taking filesystems for example the new ffs soft update code is nearly as fast as going async (removes 99% of sync writes) but is as safe as a sync version of ffs. Runs quite fast as well, just be careful not to try to remove too many huge tress of files at once (that will tax kernel memory usage, for 30 seconds or so). With soft updates you can also skip the fsck on boot, schedule it for some other time (you still need to unmount the FS before fsck, but using it between a crash and fsck is safe!). More intresting yet is the snapshots for ffs code, which not only allows "NFS toaster like mid-day live backups", but also allows you to fsck the snapshot, and apply the changes to the live (mounted) filesystem safely.
There is a good chance it will run faster then the log structured filesystem, and it defintly can reboot faster!
There is a good paper about how it works in the most recent Freenix procedings, which you may be able to find at www.usenix.org
Re:The Next Big Thing in Operating Systems (Score:1)
I'll add two suggestions to those already given:
-- Jecel
Does the same apply to Emacs, vi, or Unix??? (Score:1)
Re:Jeez the cranks (Score:1)
But seriously: Of course companies don't base their decisions on what makes them "feel" unique. They base them on TCO/performace/scalability factors. Feel doesn't enter into it. But I'm not talking about companies at all. I'm talking about the Linux community. The community of users. The people who install it on their own machines (for whatever their reasons). And when the users jump ship, the companies will follow. Not nearly as fast, because they will have already sunk serious money into this OS, but nevertheless it's going to happen.
-----
Yes, but not because of hatred... (Score:1)
Daniel
Re:The Next Big Thing in Operating Systems (Score:1)
Re:GNU HURD (Score:1)
I'm actually the sort who diversifies. I eschew commercial releases of Open Source OS's, though I do poke around with them. I use Debian, FreeBSD, and NetBSD, and I'll be checking out OpenBSD pretty soon. When HURD is done, I'll definitely be using the Debian GNU/HURD release for a while, just to play with it.
One of the things that's most interesting to me about Debian GNU/HURD is that..well..it's Debian. Having the same userspace running on the Hurd as as on Linux will be..well..neater than I can express
Hopefully this will also result in more flexibility in the Debian arch specification and ftp hierarchy, so we can add Debian GNU/BSD and GNU/Win32
Daniel
Re:This is rubbish (Score:1)
Most users don't give a damn about licenses and proprietary vs. Open Source apps. They just want something that works. Well, yes, Linux works, but so does Win98/NT. Sure, you can say that Linux is more stable (and I won't disagree) but most users don't care about that either. The average PC users doesn't mind rebooting every once in awhile and, contrary to popular
Anyway, I love Linux and all the software that I get with it, but it's a fad and, like all fads, its hype will pass.
Re:A different kind of exodus (Score:1)
I think it's not just due to people wanting a pure GNU system (although I actually wouldn't mind just for the aesthetic value
Daniel
Re:I hope it comes true... (Score:1)
I think you're exaggerating the problem a little; Debian has been running into problems porting stuff en masse to the Hurd but only a few really bad cases. Not to say that this isn't a problem -- in fact it may be worse than you think; I was told once on
Daniel
Re:The Perfect OS! (Score:1)
Thus, would it get too big and acquire an ego?
I like the idea of a brainOS, but I think that only one primary developer can ever be responsible for your perfect OS. That of course is the owner of the brain. Many of you would find my brain unbearable to work with, and likewise I wouldn't particularly like to have your brain sitting on my desktop.
As a final note, read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. Not really about open-source brainiac computers, but it does have a nice touch with a self aware computer.
Re:No, it's about Freedom (Score:1)
As per your first point, I don't think he ever meant to imply that the community is monolithic; he just needed a term to provide a handle on the kind of people he wanted to talk about. Just how would you have identified this group, for instance, and would you have wanted to spend half your essay on defining that subgroup? As per your second point, I think you're right, but what difference does it make to the bulk of his argument? As per your third point, I don't see where he commits this error; that's a projection from your viewpoint, I dare say. He doesn't identify "commercial" with "proprietary"; he identifies it with "popular" or "establishment."
Furthermore, he doesn't predict a dire future for Linux, merely that the people that made it what it is (however you decide to designate them) will abandon it in the future. By the by, you do the same thing he does by predicting the reasons people will leave; it's a bit churlish to call his reasons "rationalizations."
Finally, since you're all about freedom (I wish someone who says that would explain that phrase as if they were defending it in a philosophy class instead of standing on a soapbox), would you abandon Linux if your peer group became entirely aflush with Open Sourcers who didn't care about the freedom issues? In other words, if your vehicle became so popular it outran your ideology, would you stick with the vehicle? This author of this article is betting you'll ditch the vehicle. Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him.
Re:Moving on -- to DEBIAN! (Score:1)
Actually, I'm not sure that these people will leave Debian for a long time. Debian is trying, slowly but surely, to evolve into a general operating system where the kernel is just another option. The most radical example is, of course, Debian GNU/Hurd, but there has also been talk of making a Debian GNU/BSD and of course Debian has ports to all sorts of weird hardware
Daniel
Re:future of linux (Score:1)
You even mention HURD later. What's wrong with it? (aside from the fact that it's unfinished) It's free software (and of course 'OSS') and much more modern than Linux (now I'm sure someone's going to complain that it is 'less modern' than the latest greatest research operating system..research OSes are good but it takes a while for the concepts to percolate to 'real systems') -- in fact, I believe its architecture may be similar to BeOS from what little I know of Be.
Daniel
Bah (Score:1)
Re:No, it's about Freedom (Score:2)
You write "if your vehicle became so popular it outran your ideology, would you stick with the vehicle? This author of this article is betting you'll ditch the vehicle. Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him." I don't understand what you are saying here. If you are saying "If Linux became no longer Free, you would ditch it", I probably would, but I see no way of that happening without major changes to the world today. If you are saying as the original author did, "If Linux became popular, you would ditch it", I certainly would not ditch it just because it became popular.
Now, as for explaining Freedom as if I were defending it in a philosophy class instead of a soapbox, here goes. Note, I am limiting my discussion to Freedom in a software context, which is clearly defined [fsf.org], as opposed to Freedom in the abstract, where there is much dispute over the definition.
Before I talk directly about computers and software, let's look at a simpler, but related situation, a simple tool, say a rock. At one point way back in our evolution, we knew nothing about rocks, they would usually just sit there. If we were unlucky we might stub a toe on one, or one might fall on us in an avalanche. At some point, someone took a rock and realized you can do something with it, perhaps they figured out how to break open nuts, perhaps soften hides, perhaps use it as a weapon, or any one of hundreds of things you can do with rocks that we take for granted today. Regardless, before this person figured out the trick with the rock, hundreds might have figured out the exact same thing, but it didn't matter because nobody shared the knowledge. Once this person shares the knowledge, it has a chance of surviving, it has a chance of becoming part of humanity's arsenal of technology, and spurring on further innovations in other people. The knowledge is not the important thing, the shared knowledge is important.
Given that, if a person (Oog) figures something out, they decide whether or not it's worth telling someone else (Ug). When Ug hears it, they get to decide whether it's worth passing on. Should Oog have the right to prevent Ug from passing on the knowledge? I say no. Knowledge of how to do things is too important, it should not be kept hidden. There is no good way of forcing Oog to share, but once it is shared, Oog should not have the means to coerce Ug to keep quiet about it.
That is how we learned how to use rocks to crush nuts, that is how we learned how to build a machine to remove seeds from cotton, that is how we learned how to tell a computer to edit our letters. It's all the same, the computer is just a tool, and software is just knowing how to tell a computer how to do something.
The shrinkwrap software industry depends on preventing the user from sharing software. Let's us as an example a program to balance your checkbook. A mainstream, shrinkwrap software company will give you the instructions for your computer to balance your checkbook, but they won't let you give those instructions to anyone else. Furthermore they won't let you use their instructions to let you figure out how to tell the computer yourself, and they won't let you modify the instructions to your computer to suit your needs. This is not good for civilization, because it is restricting access to our collective technology. Our society is poorer because of the restrictive license than it would be if it were Free Software.
These arguments apply to all forms of technology, whether it's how to run a computer, or how to suture an artery, or how to run a business. I focus on the software aspects of it because that's what I do, I'm a programmer.
On a personal level, it's pretty obvious that Free Software is a good thing ("Wow! I can use it and it's free! I can share it with my friends!"). I hope I've made it clear that it's a good thing on a societal level, given the assumption that "Technology, that is collective knowledge of how to do things, is a good thing for society". I think that's sufficient to defend Free Software from a philosophical standpoint. If you disagree, let me know.
----
The point of the article: the human factor (Score:1)
When Linux is "good enough" for mass-market acceptance (not there yet, but soon...), the mass market will use Linux in great numbers. Why not? It's free, and it's good! However, we must remember that the "mass market" is significantly less technical than Slashdotters. Their concerns aren't our concerns, and vice versa. Remember also, there are far more of them than there are of us, and when the mass market accepts Linux, it is THEY who will decide where Linux goes. Not us.
This isn't a bad thing! NASA once made a comment that when a shuttle launch wasn't even newsworthy, they will have attained their goal. I see Linux in the same way. When you say "I run Linux!" and the response is "Yeah, you and everybody else, so what?" instead of "Cool!"... THAT is when Linux will have "won".
The cool thing will be something else. No big deal... the cycle will go on, and on. What IS important about Linux is that Linux has created a mechanism by which ANY software industry leader can be successfully competed with. When Linux runs only on museum pieces, the legacy that Linux left will still be powerful.
Thanks to Linux, there can be no more Microsofts... not without a fight. And THAT, more than anything else, is the real value of Linux. The power and weapons to rebel against a market leader are out there now, and aren't going away, no matter whether its caliber is Linux, Hurd, or anything else.
Re:The Next Big Thing in Operating Systems (Score:2)
Won't cut it for what I need. Besides, I'd really like to see a MUD run X.
Re:No, it's about Freedom (Score:2)
As for your other point, yes, I was describing the operational good that comes from Free Software (and sharing knowledge in general). You want to know if Freedom in this sense is intrinsic or operational. Freedom in this sense is just a shorthand for "The Freedom to Share Knowledge". Just to break down the phrase, knowledge would be an intrinsic good; sharing knowledge would be a means of increasing the intrinsic good, knowledge, so it would be technically operational; the freedom to share knowledge would be removing obstacles against increasing the intrinsic good, and also technically operational. So, technically speaking, Freedom is operational, and "Knowledge is intrinsically good" is the axiom on which my whole argument rests. Taken as a whole, "Freedom to Share Knowledge", is intrinsically good, becuase it is an intrinsically good concept (Knowledge) immersed in an environment (Freedom and Sharing) that serves to protect and maximise this concept. So whether "Freedom" is an intrinsic good, or "merely" an operational good depends on semantics, it depends on how narrowly you are asking the question.
Yes, both RMS and ESR are making utilitarian arguments. One major difference, as you noted, is that RMS is explicit about the moral component, I would say that ESR is implicit, he considers Freedom the moral path, but knows that most people don't like having other people tell them about morality, so he dodges the issue deliberately. RMS doesn't care that people don't like hearing hard truths, he tells them anyway. Another major difference is where RMS says that Freedom is important, and created an environment (the GNU project and FSF) where Freedom can flourish, ESR doesn't worry about current developers as much, and focuses his attention outwards. ESR will try to evangelize and push businesses over to his point of view, RMS will just point out what a business is doing wrong (or right) without trying to change them. They've got (almost) the same goal, but very very different ways of trying to achieve it, and a lot of personal baggage that encourages snide comments and bickering between them.
You talk about "the thing desired", and "might get what they wanted" as if there is an end to all this. There is no end, there is no goal. Gathering knowledge is a continuous and endless process. Freedom is part of what's needed to encourage and support this process. It's a part that I focus on because it's the part that's been most lacking and neglected nowadays, particularly in the software world. So, yeah, Freedom is a means not an end, but it's an important means, so it's still about Freedom.
----