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)
He was great to talk to. This interview is exactly how our conversation went. Alan is very forward thinking and understands the role that larger companies take when partnering with Linux. Interesting to note that he said in the article that Linux has had a tough time entering the desktop market. When I met him, he was claiming that the desktop market had already been penetrated. I wonder why the switch in ideology.. Go figure.
Alan Cox is one of the most influential IT innovators in the world. A graduate of the University of Wales, Swansea, he has been a key developer of the Linux kernel for nearly a decade. Currently working for Red Hat® writing kernel and application code, Cox was previously responsible for the original Linux multiprocessing support, and for much of the early work on networking. Here we ask him about his changing role at Red Hat, and learn about the benefits Linux brings to business.
itwales.com: You're a leading kernel developer on Linux. What exactly does your role entail?
Alan: Mostly I am involved in making sure changes get integrated and that the changes are of a high enough quality. Often this also means working through longer-term plans for the Linux kernel. It also gets to be fun because many of the contributors have conflicting aims and it is necessary to find problem solutions that work for all cases - from Linux on a PDA to Linux mainframes.
itwales.com: The Linux kernel is a modular one. What benefits does this bring to the OS user?
Alan: Modularity is an essential part of a reliable system. If you cannot change one part of the system without needing to modify the rest of the system you cannot fix a bug without risking introducing thousands more.
The modularity is more important to developers. With developers working on Linux on all continents its essential that everyone can make changes without full communication.
itwales.com: You recently stated that you plan to work more closely with customers
How do you see your role changing in the near future?
Alan: Red Hat is starting to pick up a number of enterprise customers. These people pay for - and expect - a very high standard of service. That includes improving the OS kernel to provide facilities that they depend on in legacy platforms they want to discard. One of the things Red Hat has to be able to do is to deliver those facilities.
itwales.com: The Linux OS is renowned for being stable, fast and virtually virus-immune. How have you achieved this?
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.
itwales.com: As a student, you installed Linux on the Swansea Computer Society computer. Is this how you began experimenting with the Linux kernel and became interested in Linux?
Alan: At the time the 386 based PC began to take off it was apparent that this was the better longer-term option for the society. We had two old minicomputers kindly donated by the computer center but we needed to move on. It also appealed to quite a few of the society people because it was not a closed box. The computer society's goal was educational and a bunch of students attempting to debug their own kernel certainly proved that.
itwales.com: 'Open source' means software is owned by everyone, and anyone can contribute to it. Is the sharing of ideas important to you? Was choosing to work within the free software community an ethical decision?
Alan: Technically the software is still owned by the person who wrote it, but that is more of a credit thing - which is important in the community. For me it wasn't really an ethical decision, it's simply the right way to do engineering. You don't build reliable bridges by refusing to let anyone see the plans.
There is a real problem in both the US and Western Europe today with people trying to own and control ideas, but that is something bigger than just software or free software. Ironically it is having the same effects on free software as other things - all the great innovation is moving to Eastern Europe, India and South America.
itwales.com: What are the advantages of an open community when it comes to product development?
Alan: From the developer point of view it means there is a huge range of talent. No matter how obscure a problem or a requirement is there will be someone who wants to solve it and who understands the field.
It also allows the sharing of development work. A large part of a computer system nowadays is generic and the revenue is in customisation and services. In the open community the cost of building the generic parts of a system are shared not duplicated. For researchers it has turned out to be a very big blessing too. It is possible to take an open source OS and modify it to test research theories and algorithms in real world environments without building costly throwaway mock ups. Furthermore, if it works out, it can be folded into the main project.
itwales.com: Linux has yet to be widely adopted as an OS by businesses, but the expense of Windows new XP operating system might change that. How are you targeting businesses?
Alan: Larger companies are adopting Linux rapidly for server systems in particular. Getting further into that market is now mostly about growing the quality of high-end support services.
The desktop is more challenging because desktop users are an extremely varied bunch of people. It demands a high quality and an easy-to-use environment - which is now mostly there - and it demands a large application portfolio which tends to be the chicken and egg problem.
At the moment the desktop market for Linux is growing in two areas. Firstly in providing large numbers of easily managed desktops running either custom or very standardised software (such as the Star Office suite), secondly in the technical desktop market where the tools wanted are primarily the powerful development tools Linux has had for many years.
The ever-rising price of MS office is increasingly pushing companies to look at Star Office both on Windows and on Linux. In many ways the effective forty per cent price hikes in Microsoft pricing have been the biggest driver of Linux on the desktop.
itwales.com: Are the merits of Linux's business applications attracting users?
Alan: The main things that attract business at that level are the pricing, reliability and the reduced business risk. The fact that there are multiple suppliers of the operating system gives a great deal of comfort to companies using it. In addition the license ensures that they can always get a custom change made for their own use, even if the main distributors are not interested. In the open source world one example of this was Y2K. When packages had Y2K problems and were no longer maintained by their authors, anyone or any group of users could fix or pay for fixing work. There was no "enforced upgrade" risk.
itwales.com: It's been said that in the last year, particularly with IBM's use of Linux technology, Linux has become a mass-market alternative to Windows. Was 2001 a turning point for Linux?
Alan: It didn't strike me as a turning point. There has been a continuous trend in the increasing use of Linux particularly server side. With some of the big names now using and supporting it, visibility has increased.
itwales.com: Do you think Linux markets itself effectively to businesses?
Alan: That is really a job for the vendors, and I think they are doing a good job. There is a difference between effective marketing and claiming to be the one true solution to all problems. Linux is not the one true solution (if such a thing truthfully ever can exist), but we are working on it.
itwales.com: Why should an SME choose Linux as an operating system?
Alan: Because it will save them money and do the job better. If at this time that isn't true for their application set then they shouldn't choose it. The desktop monopoly has perhaps clouded things but with any tool the same fundamental rules apply, be it a hammer or a web server. Is it the right price, is it reliable, will it do the job?
itwales.com: How does it save SME's money, specifically?
Alan: As an SME you can pick from multiple vendors, or download it yourself. You can install it on as many machines as you like without expensive software auditing. If you need specialist features you can go to a company with experience directly in the matter. You can buy support from where you feel happiest, including companies that actually listen to their customers. No single company controls the ability to modify the software.
In many ways the lack of a per seat license to install the software is a side effect of the recognition that it's more efficient to develop openly. The better overall pricing, improved reliability and removal of vendor lock-ins are the really important factors.
itwales.com: How can Linux overcome Microsoft's dominance at the desktop? Will you have to come up with radical new technology?
Alan: In part this depends on the legal settlements. One of the big problems right now is getting Linux pre-installed on a PC. When you investigate why this is hard you end up looking back at questionable monopolist influences.
With the settlement, the large number of civil lawsuits pending, possible EU action, and the question now raised in the US about whether business practices of not paying dividends are in fact allowable or an illicit tax haven there are several chances for justice to be done.
Beyond that, the open source model is faster and more cost effective. It improves more rapidly, and for less investment. It's very hard to compete against a fundamentally more efficient model.
itwales.com: Microsoft recently implied that it's going to seriously target Linux in 2002 as a competitor, plus any vendors that support it (such as IBM). They are especially concerned with the server marketplace, and aim to find out about the use of Linux in their customer base. How can Linux combat this 'assault' from the IT giant?
Alan: Primarily by being cheaper, more reliable and higher quality. End users believe their own experiences over a salesman. Company directors talk to each other as well as to sales people. In terms of advertising, IBM have already been running Linux TV advertising in the USA.
itwales.com: In recent years, commentators have warned of a fragmentation of Linux (in a similar fashion to Unix). Because the OS is open source, programmers can come up with different versions, and applications may not run on every version of the OS. Do you think a level of competition will be introduced by this?
Alan: Competition and product differentiation don't have to mean incompatibility, and in fact the incompatibility story is mostly a marketing myth put about by a certain large vendor. The Linux companies care about compatibility a great deal, and one recent result of this was the Linux Standard Base, which defines precisely the base behavior of the core Linux software that applications rely on. You can expect to see compliance statements in the next series of vendor releases.
itwales.com: You resigned from the Usenix ALS committee earlier this year, reportedly because Dmitry Sklyarov, the Russian programmer, was arrested in the US. What do you think of the situation in the US at the moment with regard to the Digital Millennium Copyright act?
Alan: At the moment I consider the USA not a safe place for a software engineer to visit. Money and lobbyists buy many things but when it comes to the courts I don't think that the DMCA aim to send people to jail for even discussing security flaws is going to stand well against the US constitution. Until then I'd rather play safe.
These things happen. Right now the UK government is busy trying to pass the similar European copyright directive into law in a way which may well make it a criminal offence to help a blind person read an electronic book if it has been protected by some mechanism that interferes with their screen reading software. It also puts web caches that do filtering (for example pornography filtering for schools) on questionable legal ground.
itwales.com: What is your opinion on the government's involvement with Microsoft? Do you think that governments, as a rule, should use open source technology?
Alan: When the prime minister is appearing at product launches by a company twice found by courts to be abusing a monopoly, and facing billions of dollars in lawsuits you have to ask questions
Governments should evaluate open source technologies certainly. The fact they get the source code and can audit it has been a reason for some countries to adopt open source, pricing is another. However, I don't think its right that government should have fixed rules beyond "fair review". There may be situations where proprietary software is genuinely the right choice.
itwales.com: In terms of its skills base and its WDA initiatives, do you think Wales is improving as a venue for software development?
Alan: In some ways - and the lack of London pricing means it is cheaper for an SME to get the staff (as well as a higher standard of living for the staff) than in the South East. Right now we seem to have a problem in that all the IT literate people move to the South East because there is little Welsh IT employment. As a result of them moving there is no expertise here so there are not enough Welsh IT companies. Thus the cycle continues.
It is a very hard problem, and one I am glad I don't have to solve!
Before even seven comments were posted, the server fell down and went boom. There are times when I fear the raw destructive power of Slashdot readers, especially when someone says, "Look! Over there! It's Alan Cox!"
Carousel is a lie!
In fact, I think that AC provided a fair and balanced overview of the state of Linux and open-source software.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
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.
> Not that similar things don't happen in the U.S., but i don't think Dubya has ever attended one of these
;)
MS might get him to show up if they start(?) touting embedded windows for ICBM missle guidance systems, with one-click 'Kill Evil Axis' processing.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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
itwales.com: Do you think Linux markets itself effectively to businesses?
Alan: That is really a job for the vendors, and I think they are doing a good job. There is a difference between effective marketing and claiming to be the one true solution to all problems. Linux is not the one true solution (if such a thing truthfully ever can exist), but we are working on it.
For as much grassroots effort there is in marketing, there's still a long way to go, and I don't really see linux vendors attacking this at all. I'm talking about general mass media. MS has ads in every magazine (even linux ones!) but I don't think I've ever seen a RedHat ad in anything but linux magazines (preaching to the choir).
Some distros are in BestBuy and CompUSA these days, which is a good first step. The next step, imo, is some general print ads to get the visibility up. Perhaps RH could trade some consulting/installations with some regional business magazines in exchange for adspace? I'm thinking about something like Crain's in our area (detroit, and I know it's in some other areas too).
People reading magazines are often decision makers, but they don't want to get too technically savvy. Move the mountain to Mohammed, take the message to the streets, etc.
Thoughts?
creation science book
Given that Bill Gates is a Democrat (despite the Republican Party being far more sympathetic to Microsoft), I doubt you'll see him posing with President Bush like he did with Blair. Pity the reality check the Clinton Justice Department whacked him with didn't take.
Gates has the arrogant paternalism that all too often comes with great wealth. Gotta look after the little people, y'know.
> .. 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"
that picture at the top..
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
According to this interview Redhat is having a Q&A-session with Alan. Send your questions to (scroll to bottom of interview for this) asktheexpert@redhat.com and they'll send the most interesting questions to Redhat.