Slashdot Mirror
Is Linux Dead?
TunkeyMicket writes "It appears MSNBC is reporting that Linux has failed as an operating system. By citing the large Linux hype as reason for Linux to be dominating the market, they draw the conclusion that the "open source" alternative has flopped as an operating system. They briefly mention the success of Linux in the server community, but really the article gives Linux as little credit as possible."
Part of the reason linux is moving slowly is that almost everyone has used windows. While those of us experienced with more reliable and open OS's may find this a reason to avoid windows in the future, it nonetheless makes managers comfortable. There are also umpteen trillion "certified" MCSE types out there, who are ostensibly capable of managing the microsoft systems. Linux certs are fairly rare -- which is unsurprising, because demand for them remains relatively low. It's a classic case of Microsoft having a 'Mindshare'.
That said, things are improving. The support of IBM and others and their initiatives is coating linux with the candy coating of acceptability. If large groups begin to adopt linux on the desktop with open office, we are then on the verge of a true potential transition. Desktop use will translate into server comfort.
Finally, it hasn't helped that the last milestone release, 2.4, was a colossal mess. My 2.0.x and 2.2.x boxes were totally, utterly rock solid as servers. I upgraded one to 2.4 -- and it is now an unreliable piece of crap. It fails with kernel panics at any time (albeit infrequently), and almost always dies ~45 days into uptime. Every box I ever tried to use ext3 on died a horrible death, and that didn't make me particularly happy. FreeBSD and I are now getting well acquainted.
Despite all this, Linux has continued to make inroads. And of course it has hype -- it has become, and remains, the primary alternative in the minds of IT people everywhere to the monopolists from Redmond. Since they are a multi-hundred-billion-dollar company, and are tied into every aspect of the industry, saying something might challenge them is a bit like suggesting something might shift the Earth off its orbit -- it will cause ubiquitous change. And Linux is hardly down and out. The sad thing is that venture capital is so dead. NOW is the time of opportunity for fresh linux companies to step up and replace microsoft in places that really want to keep their budgets down. A return to the boom days just means that hundreds of dollars of windows upgrades and office software and such is no longer a big deal...again. Get in there while the gettin's good, I say.
It is these type of subtle messages that constitute "spin control" of the part of the article's author.
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
I run two server farms and have been asked to provide High Availability for them. I was also asked to do public nameserver and virtal hosting for nearly twenty corporate domains, not to mention another hundred-or-so portals. I was asked to provide failover and redundancy, Content Management, Source Code Control, Document Management, Workflows, LDAP, scheduling and reporting.
All on a budget less that the cost of a Sun 4500.
There was only one solution on the market: linux. I used the IPVS heartbeat + mon + fake + coda layout with Apache for virtual hosting and front-end, Weblogic for the java backend, Zope for my CMS / Document Management, daemontools for process monitoring, Checkpoint firewalls (not my choice mind you) and last but not least linux on every single machine in the farm(s). I have multiple NICs with bonded channels between the servers providing me with near-Gb Ethernet speeds between my data servers and hosts.
Linux took our server from from 100% M$ and literally constant system crashes and reboots to 100% (so-far) uptime except for scheduled outages AT&T is our telco and they only give us 99.96% uptime.
At least here, M$ is dead. We are evaluating linux on the desktop to see if we can use Wine with Lotus Notes and Office. If so then we might start switching desktops for some groups.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Right, and when I submit articles with the following head lines:
2001-10-05 16:20:38 Andrei Dmitriyevich Sakharov (features,enlightenment) (rejected)
2002-01-21 15:09:06 Slashdot censorship (yro,slashdot) (rejected)
2002-02-03 16:02:31 Is fetus a child? (articles,news) (rejected)
2002-06-18 22:31:59 Just paid for a 2 months Kuro5hin subscription (askslashdot,news) (rejected)
But articles with headlines like: "Is Linux Dead?", "Bill Gates Is The Devil", "All Hail To Red Hat" will be posted no problem.
So who rejects and accepts the articles?
That's it.
You can't handle the truth.
Truly the SlashDot summary is worse than the MSNBC article.
But the MSNBC article is riddled with factual inacuracies, slanted language, and selective omissions.
"Small software makers like Lindows are trying to help desktop users bridge that divide."
Small? Relative to what? MS? GM and CocaCola are small compared to MS!
"A Linux-based open-source program called Evolution looks pretty much like a standard Windows desktop."
What on earth does Evolution have to do with the desktop? Other than being made by the folks at GNOME?
"WalMart recently began selling a house brand PC at rock bottom prices -- available with Linux for the thriftiest PC buyers."
Read Cheap. It's an old FUD, that linux users are cheap, and wont spend money. If that's true go talk to the folks at Ximian who get monthly subscriptions, just for better connection speeds (and of corse StarOffice!). Or about SlashDot subscribers. Truth is that Linux users (curently) arent' cheap, they are just very educated, and know what not to waste their money on. Give them a product worth paying for and they WILL pay for it.
(of course that meens producing quality product and such, most of the corporate world seems to be of the notion that if you advertise something enough the sheeple will buy it)
"Home users are cheap," he said. "At $49.95, you're going to have to sell a whole lot of (copies) to make it in the market."
Totaly out of context. This has as much to do with Windows as it does with Linux. Home users don't have 3 grand to blow on an acounting package, but last I checked Intuit was doing OK.
"The Linux operating system, and other "open source" alternatives written by devoted bands of volunteer programmers, would be available to anyone for the cost of a download. But today, Windows is still running on the vast majority of PCs. So what happened?"
So what is OS X?
Nah, no one uses Mac...
I would rather be ashes than dust!
Really, I wonder about the guy that submitted this story. This is a GOOD thing for Linux. In that it honestly reports the current state of affiars:
It's great in the server market, it has a way to go in the desktop market, the hype has died down, the stocks fell, but a good product continues to be developed.
If I were running a business and I read that article it would spark interest, not turn me away.
Frankly I thought it was sincere and balanced coverage. But I guess since it didn't get on its knees and pray to the mighty gods of Opensource, it will be read as FUD here. (Though, judging from the other posts, I don't think it was read at all)
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
...will point to this time and say "2002 was the year Microsoft lost the war."
Why will they say this?
But then again, I still don't understand why SQL Server is selling so well when the same codebase can be obtained for free from linux.sybase.com.
Still, free software is a flood that is rising around Microsoft, and Microsoft is busy trying to build something that floats. It is unlikely that they will succeed, given the importance of their legacy support.