Slashdot Mirror
Alan Cox Interview
cuvavu sent in a lengthy interview with Alan Cox. He talks about his responsibilities at Red Hat, Microsoft, the Linux Standard Base, etc.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
This is a very pragmatic way to look at it. Obviously, moving government offices to (GNU/)Linux and KOffice or StarOffice would save taxpayer money in per-seat licenses. The costs of platform migration, service, and especially user training might eat up those savings, however. In addition, the public, which is under the Desktop Monopoly's thumb, would demand interoperability with government agencies. ("I'm sorry, I can't read your .doc file. Could you reformat it to take out this feature which StarOffice can't handle?" "It's a freaking Word document! How hard does it have to be for you to read it?!")
I also wonder about the unfair competition argument which MS and any other proprietary developer might raise. If governments mandate -- and contribute code to -- free software, is that government unlawfully competing with private enterprise? And even if it's lawful, is it politically feasible? Here in the U.S., folks would be skeptical if they felt like the U.S. government was setting up their own computing standard as a public monopoly in order to take down Microsoft.
The political considerations aren't limited to the perception that (pick a government or agency) is in Microsoft's pocket. It also raises questions about the government's role in steering the direction of technology, and whether government could usurp the roles of both software companies and free software developers in declaring standards.
When it first started getting good recognition for being usable on the desktop, he probably thought it would take off. Unfortuneately, that hasn't happened yet for a number of reasons. That is mainly the result, I think, of the chicken and egg problem.
With increasing usage in servers by large business, and also for cool stuff like doing graphics rendering for big movie studios, hopefully it will steadily gain recognition and people will start using it.
I think first it needs more support from manufacturers. At least one of the big ones needs to push Linux in a big way and include a ton of apps, and it would probably help for it to be on a really slick iMAC-like PC.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
First let me say I an a fan of Alan Conx, from a purely technical point, I dont know him personally, and therefore cannot make a determination if I like him or not.
The answers given were good, to the point and basically good answers.
THE QUESTIONS SUCKED !
This has too be one of the shortest most boring interviews with Alan Ive seen. Alan doesnt seem to be as forthcoming with tangents as some interviewees. But thats him, me id talk about everything under the sun.
Long story short, and a note to interviewers, If you actually get time to ask someone like this questions in the future, give some thought to the questions youre going to ask, this one about put me to sleep.
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
The desktop is more challenging
The is nothing I would like more than to see Linux take over the desktop. But I cannot see that happening any time soon.
Right now Linux can fill the basic requirements for the desktop - even though it might be a little challenging setting it up just right if you not a techie.
However, as soon you want to do anything remotely advanced like knowledge or document management (that is integration between office products and content management systems) I see no real alternative to MS Office on a Windows platform.
You can do really amazing things integrating Word, Outlook and Internet Explorer into a content management system. On Linux we are still waiting for StarOffice 6 to be released.
I have used StarOffice 6 beta and I am impressed, but on the Windows platform we are talking advanced systems integration and not just regular word processing or emailing.
That is why I think that the question of using Linux on the desktop is a question of ambition. You can use Linux all you want, but you will not be able to integrate you work processes any time soon like you can on a Windows platform.
Alan: Open development. People have spent ten years looking over each other's code able to refine the existing code and to spot security holes. The same process of peer review that ensures university research quality and that bridges don't fall down has simply been applied to software, which as an engineering discipline should always have been the case.
Finally, a good quote! Seriously he has a great point. When anti-Open people talk about 'Free Software' and the such they almost always talk about the economics of it.
Open Source isn't about money, it's not about economics. Red Hat shows that they can be the builders of the bridge. They can put together all those pieces of steel. Alan has just helped go over the plans and helped make sure they bridge doesn't go down.
Hell, I can get bridge plans off the internet now... but I need someone to build it for me! In this view Red Hat would be the people to call.
Get your Unix fortune now!
> .. government unlawfully competing with private enterprise?
The real question is, what services are considered so basic as to deserve to be free of the shackles of private interests. Private interests are always directed at a profitable consumer base, not a consumer base with needs. I think, if you say that computing is going to be a fundamental part of your infrastructure (like, broadcasting, roads, etc), you have every right to prefer solutions that are free of private interest influences. Sure, it might cost more in training, migration, etc, but at least you arn't placing important services that your country relys on in the hands of so-and-so's markting plans. The justification is doubly so when the only (real) private-interest solution is doing everything in its power (and thats a lot of power, in MS's case) to minimize competition. The government has every right to say, "Look, if MS allowed competition, then sure, we'd favour domestic market stimulation over the costs associated with riding on the back of private interests. There are enough disperate private interests to garauntee long term viability of this buy-in should this investment fail or suddenly change horses." However, when you go with an MS infrastructure, you're placing all your eggs in one basket, thus giving you a vested interest in their success. In the governments situation, thats the very thing they should be free of. (Good example: Enron. In hiding the details and placing all their eggs in the Enron basket, old boys club notwithstanding, the government effectively screwed a fair number of its citizens in not 'tampering with the market'.) If anything, staying with MS software interferes with the market more than trying to knock MS down a few notches by preferring the only real cost effective alternative, free software.
If there were more than 2 truely viable commercial OS's, I'd say, who cares, but the government is really just doing the market a disservice by not placing a 'preferred' status with 'competitors' (even if said competitor is being forced to give away said software for free because of the barrier to entry of the market that the Intels and MSs have created).
Just my two cents. The whole blind-faith thing that the market works itself out is a successful sell on behalf of large companies. When you look at countries that have fostered the fastest growth in their economy, they've done it through government regulation and placing 'preferred' status' on solutions based on their long term benifit to the economy. It's not by bolstering up the champion of the market at the time the decisions are being made, which is why I think the government, for the sake of their citizens at large, should be going out of their way to not do MS any favours (and the way MS acts, leaving MS alone is a favour in itself.)
"Old man yells at systemd"
No offence, but:
Alan Cox is one of the most influential IT innovators in the world.
Come on.. the guy does a lot of great work and all, but most influential INNOVATORS??? We're talking a Unix clone here.
No, I'm not agreeing with the fact that Bill Gates gets named as one of the great innovators of all time (yesterday). In that light, naming A. Cox one of the most influential IT innovators is a bit over the top. Sorry.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Cox is correct: The ability of linux to be successful on the desktop is based in part upon the resolutions in the courts. I say "resolutions" because many cases are now before the courts and the EU.
Key will be the requirement for Micorsoft to sell a barebones OS. That resolution is essential. Otherwise, monopoly power precludes any competition in the key desktop markets.
Also key is the Netscape(AOL) law suit to gain a right to fairly market a browser application. Fair means that when an individual customer decides to buy the Netscape browser absolutely no money goes to Microsoft for Internet Explorer. Otherwise, consumers are out of the loop and no longer decide the success or failure of products.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best