Forbes on Linux

mvdwege writes "It appears that Forbes is doing a Linux Special. Lots of nice articles showing off the state of the art in Linux development today. It's nice to see Linux get some good mainstream press without hype or FUD. A very objective treatment that might definitely make some people think."

Comments

Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[altgrr]

IMHO, it was at first unusual for Linux to be given credit in the "real" OS stakes: I remember the first time I saw Linux in the UK, on a Computer Shopper cover CD. I can't remember what the distribution was, but it was incredibly flaky.

However, what Linux has proved, more than anything else, is not that Linux is a viable OS, but, far more importantly, that Open Source developments are a viable option for companies these days.

It will be interesting to see if, ultimately, businesses do perform a complete about-turn on their strategies and, rather than going for licensed software, with maintence contracts etc., have maintenance in-house for software which, for the most part, has a bug patch written for it before the user finds the bug.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[strictnein]

that Open Source developments are a viable option for companies these

How has it showed this?

I'll probably get flamed for this, but where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit (and not just using some creative accounting tricks)?

Or maybe I'm just oblivious to all of the open source success stories....

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[millette]

Probably in the embedded market. That's one reason you won't hear too much about them. Look at http://www.linuxdevices.com for a few examples.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[altgrr]

I'll probably get flamed for this, but where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit (and not just using some creative accounting tricks)?

In my eagerness to get first non-troll post, ambiguity kicked in. I meant that, for clients, open-source software (commercial or otherwise) is a viable alternative to licensed/paid-for/whatever.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[Tony-A]

"It will be interesting to see if, ultimately, businesses do perform a complete about-turn on their strategies and, rather than going for licensed software, with maintence contracts etc., have maintenance in-house for software which, for the most part, has a bug patch written for it before the user finds the bug."

I'll probably get flamed for this, but where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit (and not just using some creative accounting tricks)?
You're confusing producers for consumers.

Or maybe I'm just oblivious to all of the open source success stories....
Most likely. The major gain from open source seems to be about 1 or 2 more 9's of reliability for very little cost. Just look at the mechanics of Microsoft fixing a bothersome bug when you are the only one who encounters it. Even if they were willing.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[mshiltonj]

I'll probably get flamed for this, but where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit (and not just using some creative accounting tricks)?

I interpret the original poster as meaning that OS is viable option for companies to *use*, not *develop* They can save money by using OS software.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[skippy5066]

That's a pretty interesting point. I work for one of many IT groups inside a major financial company, supporting mostly NT servers. About 90% of the applications we run here in-house are custom built.

They don't rely on outside vendors for supporting software and creating patches; the entire process takes place internally. This would seem to be the ideal situation for application development on Linux...

Obviously the learning curve for developers used to MS developing environments has to be considered, but next to the potential cost savings of migrating hundreds of servers off of a (relatively) expensive OS to one that is (relatively) free, one could make a pretty good argument that the time and money spent on training for the dev guys would be well spent.

I wonder if any of the developers have thought about that. Pardon me, I think I need to go drop a clue on someone.

-Jeff

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[carlos_benj]

...Open Source developments are a viable option for companies...

I'll probably get flamed for this, but where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit...

If you do get flamed it's probably because you chose to read into the post something that wasn't there in order to exercise your predisposed opinion. There's a significant difference between finding open source developments a viable option for your company and creating a company to make money from open source developments. The latter is difficult because we tend to think in terms of production rather than service but the former is clearly evident. ...(and not just using some creative accounting tricks)?

I think you're confusing RedHat with Enron or Worldcom.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[mborland]

However, what Linux has proved, more than anything else, is not that Linux is a viable OS, but, far more importantly, that Open Source developments are a viable option for companies these days.

I totally agree. In my last project for a large financial services company, I was looking for some third-party libraries for use in our application. After conducting some research, I found an open-source solution which just blew away the alternatives.

I was a little concerned at the beginning of the project that people would be fearful of my recommendation--that they'd be afraid we'd have to reveal all our sources, or that our code would be more prone to exploits because of the open-source library.

I did spend extra time making sure that the licenses matched our corporate policies, which they did. And I was very surprised, just yesterday a guy who was reviewing the project was particularly pleased we had used open-source software--not because he was a zealot, but because he understood the drawbacks of black-box software and nasty licenses.

Linux and Apache are the two best-known systems which have caused people to understand open-source software. Thanks to everyone involved.

P.S. The libraries we used in the project have worked wonders. Seriously, the commercial 'peers' were completely unreliable and hard to use, all for thousands of dollars more!

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[mshiltonj]

There is no spoon. There is only Zuul.

Love the sig, BTW.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[antirename]

I think he meant "a viable option for companies to use". My company is looking at using Linux on the file servers... I don't do IT work for them, at least not officially, but... I run Linux, and I help with networking stuff sometimes. I'm going to walk them through setting up a backup file server with the users, groups, etc. and show them how to connect the NT workstations to it. This is certainly possible. Is it viable? I guess that really depends on how much they want to spend on training for the current IT guys. Would that be cheaper than the next Windows liscense? You bet. That's why they're looking at it. Not stability, not for the good of society, not because it's open source. They're just tired of bleeding money on constant windows upgrades. Please note before you flame: I'm not a Linux zealot. It's just my preference. Something else may work fine for you. And, they asked, I didn't suggest it. How many of you are an engineer of the electrical-mechanical-whatever variety who runs your home machines and sites on something other than windows? Does your IT department know that? If they do, don't be surprised if they have questions. I just hope that your department head is as cool as mine is, and willing to loan you out for a day or two to give them a demo.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[EnderWiggnz]

try this: NWRE

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[mborland]

where are all the open source Linux companies that are currently truely making a profit

I think that the viable options are for the companies that use the software. For example, the option to use Linux for an OS on a server is cool: no forced upgrades, no unneeded bells and whistles. For PostgreSQL or MySQL: no having to pay more in licenses just because your user base or usage has increased. Etc.

P.S. I hope you didn't get flamed, it is a good question.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Tre letters: I. B. M.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[Sj0]

thousands of dollars can be saved by implementing a free solution in licences alone, in some cases, ON A SINGLE MACHINE. These costs are recurring -- upgrades can either be free, or they can be expensive. That is real, tangible money which can now be used for something more productive...like advertising on grave stones.

I'm not going to get into costs of maintinence, because those costs aren't as direct, obvious, and tangible.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Source developments are a viable option for companies these days

viable in what way? that you dont know when your project will be finished, since you arent paying anyone to complete it? or is it viable because its relatively unsupported, at least officially? or is its viability just based on its being free beer?

sure, open source is good as a development vehicle, good for improving knowledge, and good for people on a budget. But if you are in the world of risk management, accountability, and actually supporting things, I still dont see Linux as a 'viable' option.

It will be interesting to see if, ultimately, businesses do perform a complete about-turn on their strategies and, rather than going for licensed software, with maintence contracts etc., have maintenance in-house for software which, for the most part, has a bug patch written for it before the user finds the bug.

ah, another holy warrior. always preaching about the coming software revolution, with the new economy wiping out the old, transforming our world into Lin-utopia in one or two days. However, holy warrior, there are a few flaws with your logic.

1. Licensing and maintenence contracts are a good thing, from a business standpoint. you dont need to pay staff to support something, you just pay either per incident or whatever.

2. small-medium size businesses generally cannot afford to have an in-house expert.

3. there simply arent enough experts to go around, leaving businesses with tighter salary requirements with less options, and generally worse support.

4. "has a bug patch written before the user finds the bug"? what kind of prognosticating b.s. are you spouting? I didnt know Linux had any more access to the bug tracking crystal ball than Windows or any other OS or program, or whatever.

Please use some intelligence and logic before hitting that "submit" button. Just because you can whip around foolish opinions quite easily these days doesnt always mean you should.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[Anonymous Coward]

The major gain from open source seems to be about 1 or 2 more 9's of reliability for very little cost. Just look at the mechanics of Microsoft fixing a bothersome bug when you are the only one who encounters it. Even if they were willing.

this makes no sense. first, Win2k is pretty damn reliable- my servers are up almost constantly- sometimes I need to reboot them after I make changes, but thats about it.

second, I have never encountered MS unwilling to fix a bug. Just because they dont give you hourly updates doesnt mean they arent working on it. I have dealt with them many times before, and I understand how they work. First they make sure the problem hasnt already been covered in the Knowledge Base. Then they make sure the problem isnt currently addressed by people working for/with MS. Finally, they will assign somebody to work on it.

Where I come from, this is called "Due Diligence". Perhaps this doesnt apply in the Open Source world.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably both of which used Microsoft servers :-)

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[Anonymous Coward]

What libraries? What open source solution? What commercial alternatives?

Your post is just a bunch of oss fanboy BS if you don't quote specifics.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[strictnein]

I interpret the original poster as meaning that OS is viable option for companies to *use*, not *develop* They can save money by using OS software.

Ahh... yes, I believe I interpreted it as a viable option to develop.

A viable option to use, definitely.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[strictnein]

If you do get flamed it's probably because you chose to read into the post something that wasn't there in order to exercise your predisposed opinion

Predisposed opinion towards what? I love open source stuff as much as the next guy. The last job I worked at I pushed to allow a lot more of the code for the software to be open to the end-user/consumer, an idea which many of the long time programmers were against, but is also an idea that they end up using. It didn't become a truely open source software package, but it allowed the end-user a lot more control of the package.

I personally think using open source software is a great idea for a lot of companies, but it is a great idea because it saves them money.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[Anonymous Coward]

WorldCom definitely didn't (company policiy forbid disposing Microsoft to the outside world for security reasons). And UUnet finally stands for Unix to Unix network, doesn't it?

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[spitzak]

As several other responders here have stated, it's the companies that use the software that are making profits.

This straw-man argument keeps getting posted here. I think it is obvious to even the biggest OSS supporter that a company saying "here is some source code to a program that many people (not just you) want, give me $1000, and incidentally the license allows you to give the code to anybody else" is not going to make any money beyond 1 sale.

It is totally bogus to claim that OSS supporters say that you can make that money that way, and then try to ridicule them because of this false claim.

There *are* other ways for software to appear:

1. Ignore making money and make the software because you want to, as a hobby, or because of a philantropic desire to help the world. Admittedly this is the main source of Linux software today.

2. Sell OSS software that only ONE person wants, ie highly customized solutions. Actually it has been normal to give the source code with such customized solutions throughout computer industry history.

3. Sell OSS software with a modified license that does not allow the person to give it away.

4. Or (unbelievable but true) sell software EXACTLY LIKE YOU DO FOR WINDOWS. Anybody claiming this is impossible should check out the special effects industry where I work, where virtually every major piece of commercial software is available for Linux, and (GASP!) people PAY MONEY FOR IT (so none of this crap about people not paying for software on Linux, if it was available people are going to pay!)

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[msaavedra]

I believe the confusion came because of the slightly different meanings of the terms "Open Source" and "Free Software". Traditionally, the Open Source Initiative has been oriented towards convincing developers that releasing the source code with few restrictions is a viable (that is, potentially profitable) development model. On the other hand the Free Software foundation has consistently sought to show the benefit to users of having the ability to use the software they have acquired as they see fit (including modifying and redistributing it).

In short, Open Source is a developer-oriented idea, while Free Software is a user-oriented idea.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[Anonymous Coward]

What financial library/ies are you talking about? quantlib?

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[altgrr]

Open Source developments are a viable option for companies these days
viable in what way? that you dont know when your project will be finished, since you arent paying anyone to complete it? or is it viable because its relatively unsupported, at least officially? or is its viability just based on its being free beer?

A lot of software nowaday is purchased after it is written. You don't see many orders for Office 2005 about, do you? The point is that, if you look around at all the various bits of software to carry out your task, the open source / free ones are now being looked at seriously by businesses, because it has been proven that such software works, and works well.

It will be interesting to see if, ultimately, businesses do perform a complete about-turn on their strategies...
ah, another holy warrior. always preaching about the coming software revolution, with the new economy wiping out the old, transforming our world into Lin-utopia in one or two days. However, holy warrior, there are a few flaws with your logic.

I said "it will be interesting to see if". Never once did I make any suggestion that I was a "holy warrior". I don't believe that we'll see a total revolution. Some companies may switch. Others won't. It'll be interesting to see how many do. Meantime, read what I post. :-)

1. Licensing and maintenence contracts are a good thing, from a business standpoint. you dont need to pay staff to support something, you just pay either per incident or whatever.

I think you'll find that there are a lot of companies which do support contracting. Maintenance contracts may be good, but licensing is a method of attempting to lock companies, users et al. into their upgrade path. IMHO.

2. small-medium size businesses generally cannot afford to have an in-house expert.

See above.

3. there simply arent enough experts to go around, leaving businesses with tighter salary requirements with less options, and generally worse support.

Given the same number of computers and the same number of applications, you need the same number of support staff, whether contracting out or not. If anything, it's the fact that migrating to a new OS will require retraining that means that this isn't happening. If "there aren't enough experts to go around", why are businesses managing fine as they are?

4. "has a bug patch written before the user finds the bug"? what kind of prognosticating b.s. are you spouting? I didnt know Linux had any more access to the bug tracking crystal ball than Windows or any other OS or program, or whatever.

I speak from experience: I've downloaded the latest version of whatever open source / free software, looked at the changelog, and found that bugs have been fixed that I didn't even know existed. Because open source / free software seems to get updated a lot more frequently than other software, the fixes are released in minor versions, and consequently, if you're always running on the latest version, it's quite likely that you don't find the bugs that are there.

Please use some intelligence and logic before hitting that "submit" button. Just because you can whip around foolish opinions quite easily these days doesnt always mean you should.

I think I used enough intelligence and logic on my original post; perhaps not enough in deciding whether or not to reply, Mr. Anonymous Coward. Also, I'm more than welcome to state my opinion, foolish or otherwise. The only opinion I stated is that "Open Source developments are a viable option for companies these days" - a statement which is hard to deny. The rest is speculation, as indicated by "It will be interesting to see if...".

Lesson Of The Day: Reply to what the poster wrote, not what you want the poster to have written. That said, it seems that those who don't want to do this post as AC ;-)

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence?

[carlos_benj]

Sorry if I lumped you in with the luddites, but you did take a statement about profitability of using open source software into an argument about profiting from the sale of open source software. You also asked where all the open source companies that were making money were. That seems adversarial in a business climate where even well established companies with good accounting practices are taking it in the shorts because of the few bad eggs. There are a few open source companies that are reasonably healthy given the current economy. The business models still need to be tweaked, but there are rays of hope for those who hang in there.

Development?

[saintlupus]

Lots of nice articles showing off the state of the art in Linux development today.

I don't think that the target market for _Forbes_ is too interested in the development of software. They're probably more interested in the fact that "Open Source" based companies are dropping like flies these days.

I wonder how much longer VA Pastries and Sundries has left.

--saint

Re:Development?

[tanveer1979]

well you are worng in a way. The forbes market wants to make money, and they will go to any extent to do it.

I work in a company that does not have anything to do with OS's etc and many sections were using proprietry software.. but in current scenario, though we are till pretty comfortable, managers are looking at linux farms for computing needs and servers, and 3 years from now this would have been unthinkable.

Another misconception is that business houses run away from open source. This is not entierly true. Of course most of staff in such companies breaths on proprietry office solutions, and this will remain the case for a long time to come.

but look at the brighter side.. server share is growing and growing. And if you want to check what is forbes running on here it is... and yes its apache :-)

Re:Development?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering why this post got troll but then at the bottom I noticed the itsy comment about /.'s parent company.

Re:Development?

[mvdwege]

My fault, sorry. I didn't mean software development, but I meant to use the word in the more general sense.

Mart

Interesting Article

[maddskillz]

It was quite interesting that Linux was getting some good press from a PHB type magazine. Hopefully this will make it easier for the IT departments to make Linux a real option, since it is the perceived quality that gets a project going, and let's face it, a lot of managers are going to equate free with a lack of quality.
My Favourite quote from one of the articles was

information technology executives say they are demanding that their technology providers have a comprehensive Linux strategy. Microsoft is the only major technology company without one

I do disagree with what they are saying though, MSFT does have a Linux Strategy, but there strategy is to obliterate it.

Good series - what motive?

[pubjames]

I've been following the Forbes series for the last few days. It's nice to read some rational, non-baised information about Linux in a respected publication like Forbes.

But since Forbes is an US publication, and there doesn't seem to be anything done is the USA that doesn't have something to do with promoting some company's agenda, I have to wonder if Forbes has a alerior motive for publishing this? Is Forbes owned by someone who doesn't like Bill Gates, for instance? Or who has shares in Red Hat? It is so uncommon to come across truly unbiased factual information in the US press these days I find it hard to believe that there isn't something behind this...

Re:Good series - what motive?

[oever]

Don't be so paranoid!

This series is very good. It takes away part of the fears that executives have of Linux. Especially the article on the retailer going Linux.

The readers will get mixed feeling from this article though: "These programmers are weird, they can't make money from this. But it is free software and it seems to work."

I'm not sure reading about Linux is healthy for executives.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Beautyon]

Is Forbes owned by someone who doesn't like Bill Gates, for instance? Or who has shares in Red Hat?...It is so uncommon to come across truly unbiased factual information in the US press these days I find it hard to believe that there isn't something behind this.

You are in shock; It will pass.

Even if the articles do have an agenda, it doesnt matter as long as they are factual, and even if they were not factual, its par for the course with much journalism today.

When ideas are at war, lies are as the sharpest of swords.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[pubjames]

Don't be so paranoid!

But if Forbes ran a big series about why MS is great, everyone on Slashdot would be saying "They must have paid for it."

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Christopher Whitt]

But if Forbes ran a big series about why MS is great, everyone on Slashdot would be saying "They must have paid for it."

We wouldn't have much to complain about if the article was factual and fair. I think most of the reaction to previous MS shills has been that the analysis has been somehow incomplete, exaggerated or biased.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Moridineas]

But since Forbes is an US publication, and there doesn't seem to be anything done is the USA that doesn't have something to do with promoting some company's agenda, I have to wonder if Forbes has a alerior motive for publishing this?

Oh come now this is ridiculous. You've clearly never actually been to the US or done more research than listening to slashdot trolls rant and leftist news sources. There's America bashing (hey, I understand that it's chic in Europe now, it doesn't matter to me, you can have your fun, and soon enough if the rise of Right Wingers in Europe continues, maybe we Americans can return the favor in due kind ;) and then there's just plain stupid--this is the stupid variety.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Open your eyes. Look around you. How many stupid people do you see? How many are acting in a culturally acceptable manner by being stupid?

Even my wife, who is from the US, bashes America and Americans. Most of you cant see what is right in front of your eyes, but there is a small minority who have figure it out.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Moridineas]

Ah, so now elitism comes through?? Europeans are better than Americans because they're smarter? I don't think I like where this argument is going, and since you (Whoever you are, AC) resort to ad hominem attacks, there's no point in carrying this on.

And incidentally, not to be a grammar troll (I'm sure I've made mistakes...maybe even in this message!) but if you're going to call people stupid you might want to proofread your message.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[pubjames]

Oh come now this is ridiculous. You've clearly never actually been to the US or done more research than listening to slashdot trolls rant and leftist news sources.

I have been to the USA - it is partly that experience that colours my opinions.

I read news sources that represent both left and right viewpoints. I didn't say anywhere in my post that I thought Europe was better than the USA. Nor do I think it ridiculous that Forbes might have an alterior motive for publishing this extensive series on Linux.

Why is it that when there is extensive positive coverage of Microsoft people speculate that they have somehow infulenced it, but when Linux receives positive courage it is 'ridiculous' to suggest that?

I am sure if Forbes ran a week long generally very positive series looking at Microsoft technologies then the opinions on this thread would be really different.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[antirename]

The US press is biased. I accept that. Some organizations are biased one way, some are biased another. Ok, I accept that too. Now, every once in a while someone has a slow week/hangover/too much prozac and publishes something unbiased. You have two options: There's a secret sinister ulterior motive, in which case even publishing an article that touches on the good things about linux could be construed as "anti MS", or maybe it's just an anomaly. Or maybe, in Forbes case, its not about the companies making the software at all. Its about the cost/benefit of using one or the other. Still no spin? Ok, chalk it up to the editor having a hangover and move on, man. Not everything is a conspiracy... there isn't time, that rag has to be on the shelves in a month!

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Moridineas]

Ok sure, I can buy that--(Nor do I think it ridiculous that Forbes might have an alterior motive for publishing this extensive series on Linux.), however when you say:

there doesn't seem to be anything done is the USA that doesn't have something to do with promoting some company's agenda

That statement just seems a bit silly.

Out of curiosity, in your travels here, where did you go and what as you say coloured your opinions? I'm always interested in how peoples opinions form. For instance, in the experience of a friend who lived in Pakistan for awhile, he said that talking to many Pakistanis who had been to America and back, they thought America was debuached and immoral and full of loose women--of course what did they do when they were in America? Visit a stripclub, see a porno theater, etc--all kinds of things not available in Pakistan, yet hardly representative of the average in America either.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[antirename]

If Forbes ran an unbiased, real world example based series on how MS was better (in the server world), I'd wonder what the fuck happened to linux. If they did the same article about linux vs. ms on the desktop, I'd agree that there was room to improve. If they ran a series about how MS was better in the server room, I'd KNOW it was paid for.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I'm terribly sorry, here is a spare ' and a spare d. Please place them in the correct spaces provided in my post, where, horror of horrors! I had mis-typed them!

Incidently, not to be grammer troll, you should never start a sentance with the word "And", and you have used two punctuation marks at the end of a sentence.

I notice that you fail to address the fact that my wife, who is a citizen of the United States of America, is a loud critic of both the United States and Americans in general. Instead you want to play grammer games (Which you are loosing too).

Maybe next time you could just avoid the argument altogether by simply labelling me a terrorist?

Re:Good series - what motive?

[BCGlorfindel]

Even if the articles do have an agenda, it doesnt matter as long as they are factual
This is a very dangerous statement. The best propaganda is also completely factual. Showing only selected facts can be every bit as misleading as outright lies. What if forbes agenda was to portray an image of linux to big business that showed only the strengths it had that business don't care to adopt? Most execs might then dismiss linux as a good thing the have no need for. I don't believe this to at all be the case here, I'm simply saying that the potential is there. Just because something is factual does not mean it can't also be misleading.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Moridineas]

Since you brought it here, you spelled grammar wrong every time you typed it. I never claimed to be perfect, or smarter than you (a claim you did make--also, as a sidenote, the "never start a sentence with and" rule is not a strict rule, and also two punctuation marks implies a trailing off), and indeed I even said I might be making grammar mistakes--my point was, people in glass houses..

I don't see any need to address your second "point" because you haven't said either for what she "bashes," and quite frankly I find it difficult to believe that anyone as petty and seemingly immature as you are being could possibly be married.

heh btw, I enjoyed your "Which you are loosing too" -- that was brilliant :)

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Anonymous Coward]

also, as a sidenote, the "never start a sentence with and" rule is not a strict rule, and also two punctuation marks implies a trailing off), and indeed I even said I might be making grammar mistakes

Well hey, if you want to be a pedent about it! The "And" rule is a strict rule. Simply because your school teachers chose to ignore it, doesn't mean you can too. Two punctuation marks at the end of the sentence does not indicate "trailing off. Three periods at the end of a sentence, also known as an elipse, does. Simply placing two or three question marks at the end of a sentence makes you look silly.

I also never claimed to be perfect, nor to be smarter than you. You seem to like to claim that I have, but it seems that you do so only because you have poor debate skills.

I don't see any need to address your second "point" because you haven't said either for what she "bashes,"

Yes I have. Several times. Let me restate, just to make it obvious: My wife, who is a citizen of the United States (She is from Western NC, to be precise), does not like America.

She dispises American values, its culture and its obsession with money and material possesions. She believes, and is quick to state, that many Americans are simply stupid. My wife is quick to remark that the majority of her fellow countrymen are unwilling to adapt or change, and simply want everything to be the same, the entire world over. People from the USA are afraid to immerse themselves in a foreign culture, they are insular and inward looking. She has seen this for more than 18 years of her life. She hates it.

and quite frankly I find it difficult to believe that anyone as petty and seemingly immature as you are being could possibly be married.

Just to make this clear, I believe it was you who first used the retort of "ad hominem attacks", and now it is you who is doing the attacking.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Beautyon]

Ok, what I meant was unbiased, fair, evenhanded, unprejudiced, just, neutral, uninfluenced, well-rounded, balanced AND factual.

If an article is all of those things, AND has an agenda....Thats Cool(R).

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Moridineas]

Ok, well then consider my two periods a stylistic choice if you will. As for the "and" issue, if you google it you'll see some professional writers very much disagree with this 'rule' -- most places that even stated the rule at all said "avoid" rather than "it is forbidden"

And no, you never did claim to be smarter than me in particular, just that Americans are stupid (you first post).

Thank for finally putting some actual issues on the table -- we could have avoided that whole middle unpleasantness had you merely done so in the beginning rather than the old "americans are stupid" routine.

fyi, I'm from Central NC and have no complaints :) Some of those criticisms ARE valid--many americans do want the rest of the world to be like them--bad? Depends on your viewpoint. The basic point of the matter is that EVERYTHING you or she says is a blatant vast generalization, that just doesn't hold water. "People from the USA are afraid to immerse themselves in a foreign culture" -- ok, I'm currently studying Arabic and Turkish (and did for 2 years before 9/11). My best friends include Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and Pakistanis. I'm hopeful I'll get to study abroad in Turkey next year. One of my best friends is studying abroad in Japan next year, another in Australia, another in Germany, and one in Scotland. See all this anecdotal evidence, I'm clearly right (sarcasm). I could go down the line and poke holes through your other vast generalizations as well. Anecdotal evidence, and vast generalizations just don't work, and show nothing of truth.

Here's something to think about for people who think of Americans as insular, closed minded, etc. To many Europeans, you can go 40 miles and hear 4 different languages spoken. Brits can take holidays in France, French can go to Spain, Italians can go, etc etc etc. To Americans, that option doesn't exist. That's not to say that Californians have much in common with Carolinians, other than language and government though.

Just as a note, much of Western NC is dirt poor, and stereotypes often hold most true in the poor (unfortunate truth). Did she go to college in the states? Oh incidentally, if she hates it, why doesn't she drop her citizenship?

Can you explain why it's considered so chic to bash america and americans?

AS for my last comment about your immaturity, you're correct, that was beneath me, and I apologize for falling to that level.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if Forbes ran a big series about why MS is great, everyone on Slashdot would be saying "They must have paid for it.

Are you really that naive or is this a troll?

Microsoft Promotion and Advertising Budget: $100M/yr
Linux Promotion and Advertising:$0/yr

It's called track record. MS pours millions and millions into promoting its products in any way possible. They buy press and publicity. One must naturally be suspicious of anything pro-Microsoft, because 4 times out of 5, if you follow the money, it leads back to Redmond and is nothing more than marketing hype.
On the other hand, one would have a great deal of difficulty in asserting that Linux has paid millions to promote itself.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Dragoness Eclectic]

I've watched Forbes for years, so I can see two things in this: one, a certain contingent of Forbes editors and reporters have always been in love with cool tech toys--read Forbes ASAP some time. They've been watching and occasionally commenting on Linux for years now.

Two, Forbes editors and senior reporters seem to have a certain disdain for dodgy practices in business--they seem to have the attitude that companies that do dodgy stuff may not be the greatest long-term investments out there. After all, they might be dodgy in their bookkeeping, too. I will note that Forbes magazine was saying rude things about the "non-profit" business plans of the dot.bombs back when they were still the darlings of Wall Street, and that Forbes magazine has been commenting on the dodgy accounting at Enron and other companies for some time now--before it made the mainstream press.

Where am I going with this? Microsoft is notorious for its dodgy anti-competitive practices. Linux and Open Source is generally anything but dodgy. Draw your own conclusions.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Buck2]

Unless you're doing a thesis on how people develop their opinions on cultural biases you're not going to need to do much more investigation into people's travels than you already have with the Pakistani story.

Here's a good maxim: People's opinions of other people will more often be reinforced by travels rather than otherwise.

This is because it is natural to look for the things that you think you already know. Japanese hate foreigners. French are snotty. Mexicans are lazy and like to drink beer. Americans are loud, fat fucks. Canadians say "eh" a lot. These are all character traits that you can find quite easily by going to these countries and looking for them. Even if you are not actively looking for them, the first time you experience it in this country you will say, "Ah HAH! They were right!" You have to have repeated exposure to an absence of a character trait to have it deemphasized.

It's much more rare for someone to go to another country, and within a month or so, have opinions completely (and unexpectedly) reversed. Even if they were, you can bet that half the time in those cases they were with a travel group or some sort of organization that took pains to debunk any sort of cultural preconceptions.

Re:Good series - what motive?

[Buck2]

Well hey, if you want to be a pedent about it!

It's "pedant".

Ba-dum PSSH!

Re:Good series - what motive?

[slashclone]

One of the articles claims that fonts and images in mozilla load flawlessy because its based on netscape Questinable logic plus getting the facts upside down doesnt strike me as being particual factual

Cult?

[Daengbo]

The title on that page says "Forbes: The Cult of Linux (2 of 6)" What does that say about it?

Re:Cult?

[Salsaman]

The title on that page says "Forbes: The Cult of Linux (2 of 6)" What does that say about it?

It means in the next issue they will have:

The Cult of Microsoft (7 of 9).

somebody woke up

[tanveer1979]

well so t seems. Though till now it was a geek geek thing, linux users were a bunchof social outcasts and what not.. finally we have THE FORBES taking interest. This had to happen someday. After all the business community wants to mae money, and in a slowdown scenario like now linux makes sense. To some extent slowdown has been a blessing in disguise with cash strapped managers wanting to take the buck an extra mile.

This is definately a first and really a great achievement... and the goal now is to sustain linux rather that develop!

Re:somebody woke up

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what... Linux users are still a bunch of social outcasts. Spend some time reading this site if you have any doubt about that.

Re:somebody woke up

[antirename]

Hey, I'm not a social outcast :) That's not fair. I run Linux, but I do leave the house... I don't much care what Forbes says on my choice of OS to run my personal machines, and I doubt that they care either. I agree, though, businesses ditching windows for linux are probably going to be doing it to save money... that's the real issue to them, are you in the red or the black?

Re:somebody woke up

[Sj0]

Yeah, and look at the linux users in the looney bin -- I shit you not, every one of them is CRAZY! Look at linux users in the taliban -- I shit you not, every one of them is EVIL! LINUX USERS ARE ALL CRAZY AND/OR EVIL!

Seriously, slashdot is NOT the best place to get a real good sampling of linux users, just as my examples above aren't either. In fact, a sampling of any group using the cesspool of saying what you think we call the internet would be a bad idea. I'd be willing to wager money that most slashdotters when not slashdotting are perfectly normal individuals. Some geeky, some normal, some even cool(yeah, probably the trolls :P).

Re:somebody woke up

[goodwine]

Linus was on the cover of Forbes on August 10, 1998 ("Peace, Love and Software"). So... Forbes hasn't "finally taken notice." They were very interested even four years ago.

Re:somebody woke up

[byran lei]

>Guess what... Linux users are still a bunch of social outcasts. Spend
>some time reading this site if you have any doubt about that.
>
So what? Most of us would still rather have the rather nice write-up in Forbes rather than a gaggle of obnoxious Amiga/Mac/Windows-warez pirates like yourself running Linux.

On commericalization....

[zubernerd]

The articles were interesting... Linux is becoming a more commmerialized OS. This is a good thing (TM), since I can go to my boss and argue a good case to use linux; since I can get commerial support.
For all those who think its a bad thing (TM), the beauty of open source is that you can create your own homebrew (TM) distro.

What did MSNBC say again?

[Scothoser]

This is a far cry from what MSNBC reported not too long ago about Linux failing as an OS. It's nice to see a *credible* news source fill in an objective series of articles, and not just print anything that Redmond dictates.

Re:What did MSNBC say again?

[The Flymaster]

MSNBC didn't say that, if you read the article. In fact, MSNBC was relatively positive about Linux. You were trolled by Taco's headline.

The Cult Of Linux?

[linuxislandsucks]

I don't know how an article called Cult of Linux at Frobes rates unbiased coveraged and even reporting..

Maybe the orginal poster has eye sight problems..

Re:The Cult Of Linux?

[Scothoser]

You obviously didn't read any of the articles. Perhaps if you had gone beyond the title, you would have seen the points of view that Forbes was trying to show. They are gearing to a financial market that has little to no experience with Linux, except for "scare stories" that have been published about the "Linux Cult".

Because the article is directed to those with the preconception of Linux as a "Cult OS" (like Cult Classic movies), it first attracts their attention addressing this misconception, and then corrects it with the following articles about Linux, both pros and cons.

Frankly, this is classic journalism at it's finest.

Re:The Cult Of Linux?

[MrResistor]

I think it's important to recognize that in the market Forbes targets, the word Cult doesn't have the same negative connotations that it does in the rest of society. The Cult of Personality around someone like Bill Gates, or a Cult Brand like Apple, which has a core of devoted customers it can depend on no matter what, are things execs lust over.

The strong beleif and devoted following connotations of the word are much stronger with this crowd than the blood sacrifice, shaved head connotations. But then, if someone is willing to shave their heads and perform blood sacrifices for your product, well, nothing says "Success!" quite like that... ;-)

And really, success is what Forbes is all about.

This should confirm

[Vanders]

Actually reading through the articles (Shock!) gives a very positive image of Linux and the various Linux projects overall. Galeon, Gaim, even Pine, have all got nice, positive reviews. KDE take a bit of a kicking, but then its a review, and someone has be the winner!

Some hackers out there might want to take note of the sorts of things the Forbes reviewers found important; things like a clear user interface that doesn't shove big, glossy, eye-candy in your face, basically. They all rate intuitive, uncluttered user interfaces as a priority.

Oh, and before anyone starts flaming about "Point and drool" or some other nonsense along those lines; remember that they liked Pine.

Re:This should confirm

[Anonymous Coward]

Galeon, Gaim, even Pine, have all got nice, positive reviews.

The Pine review was hardly nice and positive. They claimed it can't take mouse input, and that it can't deal with attachments. It can do both of these if set up right.

But I'm just pissed off 'cos they didn't review mutt instead.

Re:This should confirm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and pine isn't even open source nor did it originate on linux.

Oh God!

[Mike Connell]

Forbes gets their info from /.? I quote:

"(Full disclosure: VA Software owns OSDN, whose Slashdot Web site provides tech news to Forbes.com.)"

In the next issue, "Exploring hostile takeovers and hot grits"...

Re:Oh God!

[heytal]

This is Actually TRUE.. I just went back and read the article, and laughed twice as much when i actually found it there.

so has /. reached the category of Reuters etc ? :-)

Re:Oh God!

[NineNine]

That IS scary! Who do they get their financial news from? The guy on the corner asking for handouts?

Re:Oh God!

[Anonymous Coward]

Even scarier: They get their financial news from the analysts.

Re:Oh God!

[binner1]

Enron!

-Ben

Re:Oh God!

[ethereal]

I don't get it - Forbes usually has very good grammar and spelling. There's no way they're getting anything from /. :)

Re:Oh God!

[antirename]

Only if they read at -1.

Re:Oh God!

[saider]

Too bad that the Forbes article did not link back to this Slashdot article. Then executives all over the country could finally understand the recursive GNU "joke".

Re:Oh God!

[MrResistor]

You didn't read the article on Linux web browsers, did you?

Re:Oh God!

[Buck2]

Heheh ... you're offtopic!

That's what you get for commenting on the parent post.

Re:Oh God!

[namespan]

I don't know. The headline I saw for the article series was called "The Cult of Linux."

Sounds like a half-decent handle on what slashdot is like anyway. : )

Re:Oh God!

[mvdwege]

Interesting. I got the link from a newsgroup, and I had sheer forgotten about Forbes getting its news from Slashdot.

Anyway, the articles don't sound like the usual stuff found on Slashdot, so I'd rather say they're both signs of a general interest of Forbes in 'alternative technologies'.

Mart

Tastefully done

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody read the part about cost and aggravation savings. Now read it again. Memorize it. Got it? Good. THAT is the angle to use with management. Not "freedom", not "evil empire", not "Windoze sucks". UPTIME + COST SAVINGS = MORE PROFITS. Show 'em the numbers (in Excel if necessary).

Re:Tastefully done

[SiChemist]

Show 'em the numbers (in Excel if necessary).

Don't you mean: (in OpenOffice.org Calc if necessary)?

:)

Re:Tastefully done

[adamjaskie]

Nah. "sc"
It can do all sorts of things, and can be used over a serial terminal!

Hmm

[GigsVT]

People seem surprised that Forbes would run a series such as this...

"(Full disclosure: VA Software owns OSDN, whose Slashdot Web site provides tech news to Forbes.com.) "

So this story is really more like some strange circle jerk, Slashdot provides the news to forbes.com, then links to forbes.com as if it is an independant source.

About LinuxToday's coverage...

[JanneM]

Linux Today has covered these pieces over the week. Interestingly, the piece about browsers on Linux was inexplicably missed. I refuse to think it's because Galeon came first, and Konqueror next to last in the comparison. A couple of attempts by me to alert the editors to the missing article have gone unheeded for _some_ reason, however.

Re:About LinuxToday's coverage...

[MrResistor]

I think it's because the article on browsers reads like it was written by a spammer. I was shocked at how bad the grammar was. Forbes is usually so good, I have no idea how that one got past the editors.

Write good software, adoption will follow

[Anonymous Coward]

Write more good software instead, adoption by the mainstream and the industry will follow automatically.

Allow me to rant for a while.

For example, if I were to make music, I'm stuck with Microsoft or Apple. Yeah yeah now people will say, there is software X and software Y which you should use. But guess what! The user interfaces generally suck, or the program is some 0.0.5 beta. So with a crashing beta you're better off using the other solutions explained earlier.

Something like Buzz for linux would be the ultimate bomb. Unfortunately GNU Octal seems to have died, at least the web site hasn't been updated for ages. CheeseTracker is good, but there aren't enough effects available. Also, it is mono.

So, for example those software look promising. But they really don't help you if you need the solution TODAY and not next year.

Re:Write good software, adoption will follow

[byran lei]

>So, for example those software look promising. But they really don't
>help you if you need the solution TODAY and not next year.
>
Bullshit. What you do is use the software that meets your needs for moment and let the future take care of itself. But that's banwagon jumpers like you will never really understand.

And The title says it all: The Cult!

[botik32]

Umm as I was going to read the article, thinking oh wow let's see some unbiased reporting, I read the title: The Cult of Linux!

I guess then I am a follower of RMS High Templar. So fear my wrath!

You're wrong

[Subcarrier]

The Forbes target audience will be very interested in anything that can cut costs for companies.

Re:You're wrong

[saintlupus]

The Forbes target audience will be very interested in anything that can cut costs for companies.

You mean like a software and support package from TurboLinux? Or maybe Progeny?

See my point now?

--saint

Re:You're wrong

[Subcarrier]

See my point now?

Not really. People are finding it exceedingly difficult to make money off OSS and its not a surprise that companies like TurboLinux are facing difficulties.

Ironically, companies with commercial Linux offerings face the same kind of troubles that M$ does in trying to compete with Linux. They cannot be cheaper than a free download, so they will have to offer better added value in their service offering and packaging than anybody else in order to survive. And they will have to offer attractive prices.

The other side of the coin is the cost of using Linux. Linux can be a very cost effective solution and that, if anything, has the potential to convince large companies to adopt Linux as part of their IT infrastructure. That's why I'm happy to see such well written articles about Linux in a major business publication like Forbes.

If you can convince IT managers that Linux is a viable alternative (and many are beginning to see it as such), this can only benefit Linux and the currently ailing Linux companies. Now that the dot com bubble is over and done with it is time to evaluate things calmly and realistically. And Linux is still looking pretty darn good.

Re:You're wrong

[antirename]

The companies that do this will go with a large vendor, like IBM, to make the change. Companies like support... and linux is widespread enough that it's not going to go away overnight. So yes, they'll look for a distro that has support from a large technology company. That makes sense, if you look at from their perspective. If you're a home user, you pick a distro, it dies out (doesn't seem to happen that often anymore, but it could) and you want something better you've got what, 20 machines to upgrade? Max? (It would be interesting to see a poll on how much /.'rs spend a month on power bills for computers, and how many closets they have full of old RS6000s and whatnot. But I digress.) A business has thousands of machines... they all need to be the same to cut down on support costs. An odd duck here or there if someone needs something strange is ok, but the rest need to conform to a standard. So yes, they'll go with something stable, provided by a stable company, and created by the most apparantly stable company they can find. IBM will come and plug it in, and everyone will be happy until they decide to tinker with it... which is where they call you to ask what a config file for something does if they know you run linux (yes, it happens... you don't think they'd call IBM and tell them that they were monkeying with a perfectly good setup, do you?).

Re:You're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I know lots of people making money with OSS - hint: none of them are pure-software companies.

What has ahppened is that the non-software companies have realised it makes more sense for them to fund OSS software development than to continue to pay proprietary software vendors.

Re:You're wrong

[mOdQuArK!]

People are finding it exceedingly difficult to make money off OSS

Correction: people are finding it hard to make money selling products based on OSS. They aren't having many problems SAVING money based on OSS products.

Re:You're wrong

[NeoNormal]

> and that, if anything, has the potential to convince large companies to adopt Linux as part of
> their IT infrastructure.

I'm hoping that as more of this adoption happens, you'll see companies investing in hiring/training competent IT workers that can make the most of their use of OSS. Put some of the $$ saved by not buying proprietary licenses into their human resources. You end up with better tools, applications, and workers. That's what I preach at my workplace.

The screenshot and description of Pine amused me

[Jack Hughes]

In the article about email they say that "pine is the most linux specific" coupled with a screen shot of pine on Windows 2000!

Of course, we all know that pine is the least linux specific.

And all the apps featured run on at least UNIX....

Moral: Whatever Forbes does, it shouldn't do software reviews.

A revered teacher and researcher

[jsse]

According to Linux legend, a revered teacher and researcher told Linus Torvalds that he "would not get a high grade" for his creation.

The "revered teacher and researcher" in question is Professor Andy Tanenbaum.

His book "Computer Network" is a bible in networking for many people. Yes, what he thought about Linux is proven wrong but we still respect him.

Btw, my favourite quote of the above conversation is:
"As an aside, for those folks who don't read news headers, Linus is in Finland and I am in The Netherlands. Are we reaching a situation where another critical industry, free software, that had been totally dominated by the U.S. is being taken over by the foreign competition? Will we soon see President Bush coming to Europe with Richard Stallman and Rick Rashid in tow, demanding that Europe import more American free software?"

It has already proven that there's an free OS(a software) that has not been totally dominated by U.S., we yet to see Bush(well, if not old Bush. :) coming to Europe with Richard Stallman and Rick Rashid. :)

Re:A revered teacher and researcher

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously doubt that Richard Rachid would be allowed by his boss Bill Gates to promote Free Software with Bush! Now that his is head of Microsoft Research I think he tows the party line.

You can say what you will about Microsoft but they are decent business men. They hired 3 out of the original 6 MACH kernel people (Bolosky and another one that escapes me). So whereever the OSes are going Microsoft should be decently clued in.

BTW I did see Rachid at the last PDC and he was by far the best KeyNote speaker. Don't miss him if you have a chance to see him. He didn't peddle anything so his talk actually had nice substance.

Oh and in case you hadn't heard, Microsoft also just hired Stan Lippman C++ guru. Also somthing to see at a talk.

Re:A revered teacher and researcher

[karmawarrior]

I'm not sure he was wrong per-se, more that academic excellence and real world success are not necessarily related concepts.

The Linux kernel isn't something that'd be revered within a computer science institution. It's been built on the principle of "this works", rather than "This is how it should work." Linus took the existing 20 year old Unix monolithic kernel design and reproduced it. It's had to be substantially revised on places, most notably with the "modules" capability, to keep it scalable and there are some capabilities that are just plain difficult to get right under traditional Linux systems, such as real time functionality.

There's an ongoing debate over what consitutes the perfect kernel model, and right now for the most part the monolithic kernels are winning the hears-and-minds battle and the locked-down heavily-modular microkernel based approaches are still considered more advantageous in academia. That may change.

Re:A revered teacher and researcher

[David Off]

(Bolosky and another one that escapes me)

You are probably thinking about Richard Draves. Microsoft have also hired Mr Quicksort and CSP himself Charlie Hoare. In fact they are hiring just about anyone of talent they can persuade to take Bill's shilling (note that Avie didn't get hired :-). Don't expect to see much out of them though.

Re:A revered teacher and researcher

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, what he thought about Linux is proven wrong but we still respect him.

Grrr..

Tanenbaum was wrong about Open Source development (the viability of huge global teams), and Linus proved his management skills and ability to "herd cats" to be far beyond Tanenbaum's dreams. Fair enough: score 1 for Linus and I admit Tanenbaum was wrong.

But the whole "You would not get a high grade for such a design" was clearly in reference to the technical and design aspects of Linux, and Tanenbaum has hardly been proven wrong on those grounds.

(The social success of Linux hasn't disproven the monolithic-kernel-design-is-unwise position, any more than Windows' commercial success has disproven the Windows-sucks position.)

After all these years, the Linux developers are still putting lots of efforts into difficult and complex projects to fix and improve Linux, in ways that would make microkernel developers righteously smirk.

Operating systems aren't hard. If you're still working on it after 11 years, you did something wrong.

Re:A revered teacher and researcher

[frankie]

told Linus Torvalds that he "would not get a high grade" for his creation.

Smart professors often make mistakes when it comes to real-world possibilities. The classic example here is that the business plan for Federal Express got a C as an Economics term paper.

Re:A revered teacher and researcher

[Buck2]

You're just shifting the problem to another domain. If these guys [kernel hackers] weren't solving the problems in kernel space then they would be solving the problems in user space. They would be a more disparate set of teams [filesystems/devs/...].

Big deal.

Why knock 'em? They're getting stuff done.

Re:A revered teacher and researcher

[Anonymous Coward]

> You can say what you will about Microsoft but they are decent business men. They hired 3 out of the original 6 MACH kernel people (Bolosky and another one that escapes me). So whereever the OSes are going Microsoft should be decently clued in.

Business men, yes; decent might get you a fair amount of discussion (antitrust, Stac Electronics, "DOS isn't done..." et al).

Having good technical talent doesn't mean much if the upper mgmt layers are unethical.

Re:A revered teacher and researcher

[byran lei]

>The Linux kernel isn't something that'd be revered within a computer
>science institution. It's been built on the principle of "this works",
>rather than "This is how it should work."
>
And this is pretty much how the first plane to break the sound barrier (X1) was built and how basically the US got to the moon. There's a lot to be said for the "this works" approach.

excellent article

[tps12]

I really enjoyed this article. Although I consider myself somewhat of a Linux "guru," I actually learned a lot, if not about how Linux works, then about how it is perceived by those outside the community.

One thing that particularly struck me is Forbes' recommendation that "Linux not be depended on for mission-critical applications." In my business, I've always been willing to bet a lot on Linux's performance, and never (yet) been disappointed. After reading this article I may look into the offerings of Sun and HP, just to be on the safe side.

It goes to show, you can work in an industry for 20 years, and still learn something. I look forward to more informative articles from Forbes.

Re:excellent article

[eyepeepackets]

I don't understand why this post is considered a troll. Can someone explain, please?

Thanks.

Re:excellent article

[MrResistor]

One thing that particularly struck me is Forbes' recommendation that "Linux not be depended on for mission-critical applications."

Where did you see that? I didn't see that in any of the articles I read. The closest was the Boscov article, where the guy said he tested Linux on the least critical systems first, but is now moving more critical operations over. I didn't read any of the older articles though, just the 7/02 ones.

Re:excellent article

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on now, this isn't a troll, it's an alternate opinion, possibly flamebait. It shouldn't have been modded at all.

Meta-modded appropriately.

Now someone mod this as offtopic.

Relatively unbiased compared to past reports

[f00zbll]

Compared to other article on linux in the past by all the news sources out there, this set of articles are reasonably objective. One particular quote from "Retail Therapy" struck me as sign of people's frustration with MS's attempt to extract/extort more money from consumers.

Microsoft is helping me make the decision to look for alternatives, Roberts says.

I have no actual proof of the following statement, but is it possible that people view MS differently than pre law suit? Has a significant percentage of the population taken the view that Microsoft is a poster boy of Corporate America gone agro against consumers?

Re:Relatively unbiased compared to past reports

[NineNine]

Actually, I just set up a brand new POS system on Windows 2000. I love it. I don't know what the fuck this guy quoted in the article is talking about.

Re:Relatively unbiased compared to past reports

[Wiener]

I just set up a brand new POS system on Windows 2000

LOL!

Re:Relatively unbiased compared to past reports

[Anonymous Coward]

I know someone who set up a brand new POS system on Windows 2000 a few months ago. It's about to bankrupt their ass! Three POS stations, and they are lucky to keep one running during the entire day. Windows keeps crashing, sometimes not even restarting and they have to call a technician to come and fix it. The custom software they are using (developed by some fine VisualBasic grads) miscalculates the sales reports, commissioned salespeople losing sales because they ring up a sale and it goes into someone else's name. Not to mention their inventory numbers were off by $500,000 when they did an audit recently because of the POS system isn't correctly calculating it. What's even better is that I was in the store one day when a programmer for one of the Linux distros was purchasing something. The saleslady explained to him what had been happening to the system, and all he did was shake his head and told her that they needed to dump the system and start from scratch. Problem is that they have sunk so much money into the system, and paying those lamer VisualBasic guys to fix the problem they should have had corrected long ago, that they can't afford to start from scratch and get a new system. Meanwhile their business is going to hell because of the POS system mess, not to mention customers leaving without purchasing merchandise becuase the customers get pissed off having to spend 30 minutes checking out.

Re:Relatively unbiased compared to past reports

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who get mad are the big companies with tons of site licenses who are told that they MUST upgrade NOW or pay full retail later. It can easily take two years to roll out a new OS at a big organization, and I think companies are tired of starting all over as soon as they are done.

AC
--

Re:Relatively unbiased compared to past reports

[Jason Earl]

The lawsuit has little or nothing to do with it. The real problem is that Microsoft, in a desperate attempt to keep their revenues up, has become even more anti-consumer than ever. Instead of giving the consumer what he or she wants Microsoft is spending more and more of its time and efforts on initiatives that actually hurt their users. Microsoft's users did not ask for the new licensing schemes, the new anti-piracy code, built in DRM software, and a whole host of other annoying features.

Think about it for a moment. Windows XP is essentially Windows 2000 with some anti-piracy measures. While Apple is busy advertising how easy it is to create MP3s with a Macintosh Microsoft is busy trying to replace MP3s with something that the music industry could control. For most of Microsoft's customers Windows XP is less useful than the previous version.

This isn't really anything new. Microsoft has historically used all sorts of tricks to force their customers along the upgrade path. The difference is that in the past Microsoft could afford to act this way because they were the only game in town, but that isn't necessarily the case any more. Everyone else was vastly more expensive. Nowadays, however, there are affordable alternatives.

Re:Relatively unbiased compared to past reports

[NineNine]

The people who get mad are the big companies with tons of site licenses who are told that they MUST upgrade NOW or pay full retail later. It can easily take two years to roll out a new OS at a big organization, and I think companies are tired of starting all over as soon as they are done.



That's why W2K is here to stay for a long time. It's finally good enough that it can be used indefinately. Hell, DOS still runs a lot of POS systems because DOS is stable as hell.

Re:Relatively unbiased compared to past reports

[ebbe11]

Windows keeps crashing, sometimes not even restarting and they have to call a technician to come and fix it.

The OS is not the issue here. Windows 2000 in itself is very stable. But...

The custom software they are using (developed by some fine VisualBasic grads) miscalculates the sales reports, commissioned salespeople losing sales because they ring up a sale and it goes into someone else's name.

This is where the problem is. Running the POS system on another OS such as Linux would still produce lots of errors and crashes if the POS software was developed to the same standard, that is abysmally bad.

Pretty good articles, but some info problems...

[colmore]

from the web browser article:

Galeon is the Web browser created by Gnome, a part of the Free Software Foundation's GNU Project, which is a free variant of Unix. (In a bit of a joke, GNU stands for "Gnu's Not Unix. It is pronounced "Guh-New.")

Didn't get the joke, did you?

Re:Pretty good articles, but some info problems...

[heytal]

It's supposed to be funny to have recursive acronyms.

Re:Pretty good articles, but some info problems...

[Isle]

Maybe because with the great succes of GNU utilities in the UNIX world. GNU is UNIX
(but dont tell anyone)

Re:Pretty good articles, but some info problems...

[colmore]

my point was really that GNU is many things: a set of excellent utilities, a revolutionary form of public licensing, a religion, etc. but it isn't really a variant of Unix.

And as far as recursive acronyms go, I think Dilbert's "The TTP Project" is about as good as they come.

Re:Pretty good articles, but some info problems...

[MrResistor]

a set of excellent utilities, a revolutionary form of public licensing, a religion, etc.

Sounds like Unix to me.

One could argue the licensing part, I suppose, but according to popular wisdom Unix grew out of a desire to be free from the expensive licensing of another OS.

Re:Pretty good articles, but some info problems...

[Isle]

but according to popular wisdom Unix grew out of a desire to be free from the expensive licensing of another OS.

Not really. Linux grew that way and that "other" OS was not MS DOS or Windows, it was UNiX.

Re:Pretty good articles, but some info problems...

[MrResistor]

Not really. Linux grew that way and that "other" OS was not MS DOS or Windows, it was UNiX.

No, at Bell labs they were using an OS they licensed from MIT, IIRC (I don't recall the name exactly, might have been MULTICS). The licensing fees were metered, meaning they had to pay for every minute they ran it, and a large part of the impetus for Bell Labs to develope UNIX was to escape these expensive metered licensing fees.

That is the commonly accepted history of the origins of UNIX. That history repeated itself shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Check this out

[kruczkowski]

Scroll you mouse over the "BUSINESS" tab above the article. (Don't click!) It's between the HOME and TECHNOLOGY.

Notice what ad shows up above Linus' name!

Re:Check this out

[big_debacle]

That's strange, my copy of Mozilla didn't show anything odd. What browser were you using? ;)

Re:Check this out

[MyHair]

Netscape 4.7 wouldn't do anything, either. But I fired up the ole trusty {cough cough} IE 5.5 and there's a drop-down menu under business, the last entry being a big Microsoft logo that happens to end up directly above Linus Torvalds' highlighted name in the article.

I'm sure it's a conspiracy.

(P.S. I'm at work and use Mozilla 1.0 at home.)

Re:Check this out

[Kurgol]

i get the same with mozilla, but ie6 puts MICROSOFT above Linux..

Re:Check this out

[io333]

In IE6, when I do it, it says, in that oh so familliar font, "Microsoft", exactly above his name. It's really weird.

Linux not just for geeks anymore

[IamTheRealMike]

For example, Linux will never rival Windows as a mainstream desktop PC operating system, and Linux still has a long way to go before being widely used in "back-end" applications like databases and enterprise resource planning.

That's what she thinks.

cue evil laugh.. bwahahahahahaah

Re:Linux not just for geeks anymore

[mborland]

[From article:]...Linux still has a long way to go before being widely used in "back-end" applications like databases and enterprise resource planning.

There's nothing like seeing a bunch of tech managers sitting around after eating turkey sandwiches, saying 'ERP!'

Sorry. But seriously, don't a lot of people use Linux for databases? Definitely Linux/MySQL is used quite a bit on the web (although perhaps it is still not a large percentage). SO much more stable than NT/2K (particularly if the machine needs to run other services).

These days if I'm looking at setting up a database, I am more likely than not to set up MySQL/PostgreSQL/Oracle on Linux.

Show me the money!

[netphilter]

I just forwarded this on to my boss and my Controller. The Linux community needs more public endorsement like this. It's hard to make a business case for Linux when all that your Controller has ever heard about it is that it's a toy for hackers.

"Never"

[truthsearch]

The word "never" should never be used in a technology news article. Well, maybe if they're referring to OS/2... ;)

It's hard to believe the author of this article has been a technology news writer for at least a decade. "Linux will never be..." "Linux will never gain..." She doesn't mean never. I think she means in the short term (5 yrs maybe), which seems like an eternity in the tech industry. But to say something, especially something new, will never take over a market or will never be used for critical systems is simply rediculous. By this author's writing, some execs, if they're smart enough to read that far into the articles, will think Linux has mostly run its course and found its place in the industry since it'll "never" get beyond certain levels. By her logic, if she wrote an article about Microsoft back in 1985, she'd have said "Windows will never be a serious player in the server market."

This author's writing is incredibly irresponsible.

Re:"Never"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try to critique a Forbes writer. I've seen your sad little blog and it's nothing to boast about. You obviously don't know anything about tech writing.

Re:"Never"

[seann]

She's a lady, you must forgive them. they tend to make errational decisions.

Re:"Never"

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize Windows WAS a serious player in the server market now.

Re:"Never"

[Anonymous Coward]

By her logic, if she wrote an article about Microsoft back in 1985, she'd have said "Windows will never be a serious player in the server market."

But Microsoft will never be a serious player in the server market. They've made lots of money from small to medium sized companies that think they are running servers. But they are nothing but desktops on steroids.

This is where Linux has some interesting possibilities for the future: real servers for the masses.

Re:"Never"

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you didn't because the Linux radiation has rotted your already puny brain. You couldn't come off a bigger moron than by making that statement. Go back to playing with your tinker toys (Ooops, I mean Linux).

Re:FUD is very very gay

[yatest5]

It's nice to see Linux get some good mainstream press without hype or FUD.

And it would be nice to see a Linux or MS story not have posts using the term FUD - no-one else uses it you nerdy geeks - use proper words, its easy!

Re:End it

[yatest5]

Please, you should be able to post at least 10 times a day so we can have more links to goatse floating around the site?

Well, fuckwit, you just proved his point. As he says, trolls will now post as AC's (as they can't post more than twice as their user). So next AC's will be outlawed. So whiny weasly ballbags such as yourself yon't be able to hide your username like you so obviously need to. You soft cunt.

might definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

might definitely

What the hell does that mean?

Re:might definitely

[mvdwege]

Hey, give me a break, OK? It was 0:10 PM when I submitted the article, and I had a rough day at work.

I will not use the excuse that English is not my native language, as I speak and write that on a native level.

So, where's your contribution to Slashdot?

Mart

Overall, a good read...

[Andy Dodd]

I even learned a few things from the article... After reading their browser review, I'm going to be giving Moz and Galeon another try. (Previously, they were slower than NS 4.76 on my 64M P133 laptop - And FAR slower than Opera.) If Forbes is to be believed, they've really chopped down on the bloat. (The fact that NS7PR1 is far faster than NS6 could be a sign of these improvements...) Of course, what may be faster on a fast machine with lots of memory could be slower on a low-power machine. Some apps respond better to extra resources than others.

Seemed their most flawed review was Pine. (The most cross-platform as opposed to the least as they claim, and it IS capable of launching external viewers for attachments.) But I was impressed by their claim that text-only wasn't as bad as one would think and is in fact faster than GUI mailers. What next, Forbes extolling the virtues of bash? :)

Re:Overall, a good read...

[NDPTAL85]

Perhaps you may want to consider getting a laptop with a CPU more powerful then a pitiful mere 133 MEGAHURTS. I mean really, 133? Do you also whip yourself with a cat of nine tails just for fun or something?

Re:Overall, a good read...

[kigrwik]

From the tone of the Pine review, I'd *guess* they were impressed by the ability to quickly tackle email through, say, a network connection. (Like a telnet from a windows box to the server).

Hey, fellows, wait till you learn about ssh -X :)

But I agree that it is good that they understood that sometimes text-based is better that point-and-click.

Re:Overall, a good read...

[David Off]

Splutter, Moz will run like a 1 legged dog on your puny laptop.

Get yourself a decent system... 1 Gig Athlon or something and help US industry in the process by spending a bit of money.

Re:Overall, a good read...

[zulux]

FWIW...

The Mozilla nighly build of Tuesday on Windows - loads faster than IE6, and displays pages faster than IE6.

You would thing that web page loading is a solved probelm - that all browsers would grab crap of the internet and display it in the same time, but it apparently isn't. Mozilla is just faster.

Money,Money,Money

[XavierXeon]

I do not like stockmarkets (billboard charts for money) and I do not like M$, not because of their products, just for their buisness practice.

And I am not very convinced by these Forbes articles either, they just want to answer the question : "Can I make money with linux ?" and the answer is NO.
You may sell linux driven hardware, (non open source) software running on linux or support.

You can call me communist now if you like, I don't care.

I am not the only nutcase who prefers text

[SmallFurryCreature]

They liked pine.

Wow.

For years everyone has been trying to create the fisherprize OS TM and here the suits favor PINE! Granted I use elm myself since ehm, eh that is the one I grew up with, but the idea is the same.

I guess this puts to rest all those lamers who keep shouting that linux should be more userfriendly. The suits don't want that, they want functionality like apparently powerfull search over eye candy or even buttons.

This has really made my day and I will keep trying to get my company to allow my linux elm to connect to its servers. Thanks forbes

BTW with suits here I mean people who are not technical but who do have a brain, the management who is good at it in other words.

Forbes on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Checking E-Mail On Linux 07.18.02
Now everyone can find what they want with a much wider range of possibilities than on PCs.

Whoops, Linux doesn't run on PCs yet, someone tell Linus! =)

future of open source desktop

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

small, fast microkernel like L4 or Neutrino (think: not Mach).

small, fast framebuffer and accelerated GUI like DirectFB (think: not X).

atop DirectFB: Gimp, Mozilla, and OpenOffice.org.

poor RMS....

[Nomad128]

hehe....as he fumes about GNU being mentioned in a Linux article only because of Galeon. :-)

http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/17/0717tentech.html

Most Popular Unix

[Johnny Mnemonic]

From the article "Retail Therapy" the author writes: Solaris, because it's the most popular Unix OS. By most ways of counting, Mac OS X is now the "most popular Unix."

By 'most ways of counting' I mean number of machines that have it installed and actively used, or shipped with it installed--according to Jobs at his latest keynote, the former number is 2.5 million users. Apple actually shipped more Unix systems than that number even represents. Honestly, what are the numbers for people using Solaris?

Forbes is technically inept

[Skjellifetti]

A couple of years ago, Forbes ran an article on 64-bit machines. The article had some silly mistakes. Among others, it claimed that Unix was a programming language. But the best was the claim that a 64-bit machine could address 64! bytes of memory.

Now I'm a programmer, so when I see those kind of mistakes, I have to wonder if I should trust them when they run articles on biotechnology or some other area of technology where I know very little.

Not entirely accurate, but some PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it is nice to see the Penguin on a magazine such as Forbes. However, not all of the information was entirely accurate, and Forbes basically told the suits that Linux isn't quite ready for prime time. Personally, I disagree. I think the evidence is there that others would also disagree. A city in Florida is running Linux with KDE through terminals to all of its employees. Oracle is making their database server product Linux ready. So on and so forth. Many consumers run Linux on their desktops at home. Linux is ready for the prime time, but the Monopoly is doing all it can to hold it back.

Good Starcraft reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in starcraft, the high templar's foot soldiers are called Zealots.

POS

[Beltza]

For a POS system, the OS doesnt matter. Its the application that counts.

Re:POS

[Anonymous Coward]

The OS does matter if it is unstable. NT4 needs regularly scheduled reboots. The Boscov's article specifically mentions needing to reboot PRINT servers once every two to three weeks.

And I know someone who has to run a LONG data acquisition program (three months). After removing ALL OS dependencies, the system still locked up when the test object was in a dangerous state (vessel pressurized at a couple a couple tens of thousands of PSI). They had to re-write the testing protocol to include a Windows reboot every 45 days. For three months MS denied there was a problem. Nine months after they first found the problem, and well after they had re-written the protocol, they found an article on the MS Support Knowledge base about it. The article is hard to find because it is indexed on the specific time it takes to lock up, which I can never remember. There was no resolution when I last found the article.

Ameritrade?

[Sloppy]

I see an Ameritrade ad at the top (oops, time to update my sleezeball filters...), but nothing's happening on mouse movement. I even temporarily enabled javascript and reloaded the page. Is there some Ameritrade-Linus inside joke?

Re:Ameritrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

better watch it on those inside jokes with ameritrade wouldnt want to get them into trouble

Where is the benefit?

[Anonymous Coward]

The main benefits from the Free Software movement
is when people (or companies) share. So, a many, many
companies might use in-house Free Software . If
there is no sharing back with the Free Software
community, I am afraid, the benefits for most
of us will be minimal.

Tit for tat

[jmerelo]

Didn't anybody see this note, that talks about news syndication from slashdot (that talks about this slashdot-branded section) Is the Forbes article part of the deal? Is this news item part of it?

Re:Tit for tat

[mvdwege]

This news item is certainly not part of the deal, as I had forgotten about the Forbes/Slashdot deal when I submitted the link.

I don't know how much input Forbes got from Slashdot. My impression from the articles is that they probably got nothing more than a general idea what to look at, and that these articles are strictly on their own initiative.

Mart

Re:Slashdot is using censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot one site.

It is here:

Adequacy.org: News for Grown-ups.

Thank you

Linux users may be a cult...

[scubacuda]

...but Microsoft users are the ones drinking the Kool-Aid!

I have a 1.1 gig Athlon

[Andy Dodd]

On my desktop.

I did replace the laptop due to failure - 200MMX, 128M RAM.

I see no reason to waste huge amounts of money on a computer that does everything. I have the laptop for portable web surfing and checking of email. 200MMX (even 133) was enough for the following, which are my sole laptop requirements:

xchat
gaim
SSH
Web browser

MP3s were an added bonus with the 200MMX, other than that I have no need for more power in the laptop as long as a web browser runs well.

For stuff like Quake 3, UT, DAoC (my one non-Linux app), etc., I have my nice 1.1 GHz DDR Athlon system.

Buying a superlaptop to use for everything is a waste of money and pointless. To get the features of a sub-$1000 desktop you need to spend $2000-2500 on a laptop. Rather than that $2500, you can buy a hot desktop and a surplus laptop and have $1000 or more left over.

My original point in my first message: A browser that works faster than another on a modern system may be slower on an older system. What works in my desktop is not always what works best on the laptop.

Previously, Moz ran like a 1-legged dog on ANY system I tried it on, even my desktop. But NS7 on my somewhat slower P3 at work seems quite snappy.

Forbes discovers computer week later Linux article

[essdodson]

"Checking Email on Linux -- Now everyone can find what they want with a much wider range of possibilities than on PCs. "

What a bunch of crackpipe reporters joining on the bandwagon reporting on something they have NFI about. I'm still waiting for an unbiased series comparing MS and Linux written by someone who can use something other than a wordprocessor to submit articles to their editor.

"A great feature of Pine is its search command. You can search all your e-mails in a folder by keyword. If, for example, you want to search through your e-mails for a specific company, that can be done very easily. This is the only e-mail client we know of where this is so simple."

Oh wow! Will wonders never cease?

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

If this was true, then everybody would had be using apple macintosh computers instead of windows for the last 10 years...

Re:Bullshit

[aftk2]

Umm...the original poster was describing the recording of music. And in the music industry, everyone does use the Apple Macintosh instead of Windows.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

> And in the music industry, everyone does use the Apple Macintosh instead of Windows.

That was true until recently but as more and more music tech is implemented in software, the Apple price performance point leaves much to be desired.

Many studios are now using wintel boxes more and more to run softsynths, samplers and outboard plugins. They offer more bang for your buck and almost all the best software is readily available for wintel (Cubase, Protools, Logic etc.).

Apple have had it too good for too long in the music industry, and their grip is slipping.

Re:Caps Lock is a Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't post under my handle, Karma burn for off-topic will kill me.

Actually, neither allows them to do it.

It is their site, to run as they see fit, if they wish to keep some people from posting useless crap (like this thread of messages) they have the right to do that.

As it stands, /. is a free service, and one which no one is forcing you to use, if you do not like how Taco, Neal, and the rest run it, do not use it.

Your useless flamebaiting caught me, and I've paid a karmic price for trying to educate a young fool who won't even try to bring up a point rationally, but instead flames on the very site he cares enough about to want to continue to use, even when he can't be civil about it.

- Jones
If you wish to continue this, do so on-line with me, you can find my personal information to do that if you care enough to do so.

Linux

[BadTuna]

A little more than a year ago I bought a version of Linux with the intention to learn the OS and, at the very least, become a liason between Windows users and those wishing for a more stable OS.

But let's face it. Windows is as big as it is because it's biggest customer is "The General Public".
These are not geeks, IT professionals, or CTO's. It's Joe Schmucatelli in his trailer, in the backwoods of Minnesota. It's not Joe Schmanski in downtown St. Louis contemplating a replacement server for his .com

Until the harbingers of Linux make the installation and use as idiot proof as Windows their precious OS will remain in obscurity. Joe Schmucatelli only wants his shit to work and not get bogged down in syntax errors trying to pronounce Linux.

If Linux proponets truely believe in the superiority of this OS, they will have to seriously rethink the presentation of their product to the general public.

Rock on UnitedLinux ! Mod me lower than 1 please

Re:Linux

[Rascalson]

Numbers or links to back up your claim? Wndows is as big as it is because of anti-competitive deals with oems, and anti-competitive, monopolistic business practices of the convicted monopoly known as Mickey$oft, M$, Micro$hit, Microsloth, Monopoly$oft, etc etc.....

Re:Linux

[BadTuna]

What hole do you live in? Numbers ? Links? A fucking moron knows 'those'numbers. Holy Shit Batman have you been in the medicine cabinet ? I agree with your claims of anti-competitive practices etc., but it doesn't detract from what I stated

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the matter Rip?

Somebody wake you up unexpectedly?

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> Until the harbingers of Linux make the installation and use as idiot proof as Windows their precious OS will remain in obscurity. Joe Schmucatelli only wants his shit to work and not get bogged down in syntax errors trying to pronounce Linux.

A year in LinuxLand is a very long time; try a current desktop-oriented distro such as Mandrake or Lycoris and I think you'll find both easy install and ease of use. No, not the same as Windows - this is a Unix family OS so there are inevitable differences, but still easy enough with a little reading of the nice "Intro To Linux" wizard that comes up at your first login. Desktop-usable Linux is 90% of the way there, now.

Full Disclosure?

[jsindell]

Forbes.com gets its tech news from slashdot. At least they disclose their relationship in some of their articles. I wonder why we don't see the same disclosure on /.

I wonder...

[ruineraz]

I wonder what Microsoft did to piss Forbes off...

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Forbes probaly had to go through a BSA software audit...Remember that the new Microsoft licensing scheme goes into full effect July 31. Also the schedule for pulling W2K off of the shelves has already started (no more sharing copies of your OS). I think that the time for desktop Linux is just now arriving...

That is Forbes.

[jotaeleemeese]

In a business environment Solaris is king nad MacOS X is a nice curiosity, cute, like an AIBO or a Furby.

Forbes likes Linux. That is *REALLY* old news

[Anonymous Coward]

This discussion is excellent proof that Slashdot is full of people who want to cheer for a cause, but don't actually know, say, basic history about the cause they are cheering for.

Take a look at this timeline. As those of us who were around then know well, in July of 1998, Forbes gave Linux and Open Source one of its first big pieces of mainstream publicity.

Linus Torvalds on the cover of Forbes back when Bill Gates could still say with a straight face that he had never had a customer ask him about Linux was a shock. Now? Who cares?

Poor statement of OSS requirements

[ColonelPanic]

From the article:

Still, what Linux represents to a lot of people is freedom: freedom of dependence on Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) and the flexibility to modify the so-called "open source" software. That means that anyone can change or improve upon the OS as long as they make the changes public on the Internet.

Lots of people are going to misunderstand that assessment of the GPL. I wish they'd more clearly stated that publication of changes is required only if you plan to distribute modified software.

Re:Poor statement of OSS requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure DiCarlo meant to say that, because she said in her reply to this reader's email on that point "i don't believe i said that posting modifications was a requirement." Well, that was a few days ago. I don't know what she really means.

Nowhere near a first. This happened YEARS ago

[Anonymous Coward]

You are estatic that Forbes has finally taken interest? I know how you feel. I was estatic when they originally took interest in July of 1998.

Yes. You read that correctly. They did their homework and reported on the trend before it was common knowledge. Which is what they are supposed to do, and is why their audience reads them.

Take a look at this timeline for proof. Yes, that is Linus holding a daisy on the cover of Forbes. Before the Halloween articles. Back when Bill Gates had never had a customer who had asked him about Linux. Back when big database distributers like Oracle were busy doing flip-flops and announcing that they would develop Linux versions after all. Back when everyone was still in shock that IBM was going to be cooperating with the Apache team. (For a lot of hackers then, IBM was still The Evil Empire.)

In short, this is not a first. They have been on the Linux bandwagon longer than you have. And longer than the people who thought that your post was "insightful". Even though tech is not their field, they noticed the trend and correctly reported it well ahead of most of the incompetents who pass themselves off as IT reporters.

Re:FUD is very very gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what the fsck does FUD mean?

-non l33t d00d

Re:FUD is very very gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, yeah real clever...

FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
It is a marketing technique used when a competitor launches a product that is both better than yours and costs less, i.e. your product is no longer competitive. Unable to respond with hard facts, scare-mongering is used via 'gossip channels' to cast a shadow of doubt over the competitors offerings and make people think twice before using it.

...

"Objective"

[tmark]

Why is it that I assume this supposedly "objective" series of articles about Linux look at Linux very positively ? Could it be that the arbiters here of objectivity here might not themselves be very objective ?

Re:"Objective"

[mvdwege]

I specifically submitted the link because some of the articles do mention Linux shortcomings. It's not my fault that overall Linux leaves a positive impression, and I am not surprised as that seems concur with my own experiences. Remember, all software sucks, some just sucks less.

Perhaps something's wrong with your objectivity? Did you discount your own possible bias when reading the articles?

mart

VA no-longer a Linux company?

[Sanity]

From one of the articles:

His firm has changed its name to VA Software, and its media contact person declined an interview request for this story "because we're no longer a Linux company."

This is news to me....

Go Tigers!

[da007]

The article says that the guy who started gaim was a student at Auburn University. Which is not a very Linux friendly universtiy.

Worked quite fine for me

[Andy Dodd]

All it was used for was SSH, AbiWord, web browsing, and gaim. Oh, and xchat. 133 is plenty for basic day-to-day applications. (Otherwise no one would buy any of the internet appliances that have hit the market and the i-Opener would never have been popular for hackers.)

If I wanted to play Quake, I'd turn on my desktop.

I agree, 133 is pitiful for a primary system. But as a secondary system to do stuff "on the go" occasionally, it's just fine.

If you just want to read email, Pine is wicked fast on even a 386. :)

The Truth revealed.

[slashclone]

Now we know who was behind the Linux on X-Box reward

Interesting...

[brsmith4]

Conservative business magazine meets liberal technology/science forum... And they didn't fight or bicker! Amazing.

I would have thought....

[spacefrog]

Forbes always seemed more like BSD-ish folks than Linux. The BSD license is much more capitalism friendly, after all.

I have never had a problem selling clients on FreeBSD:

"If it's good enough for Yahoo..."

Hasn't failed yet.

Read and Learn

[Fujisawa Sensei]

This is the stuff corporate decision makers read.

They don't read Sys-Admin, or /., they read Forbes, and The Wall Street Journal.

The problems the inaccuries in the article are don't matter. It doesn't matter that pine runs on every *nx system out there. It doesn't matter that there is or used to be PC Pine which was point and click. What matters are statements like There is absolutely no way to get a virus using Pine.and The browsers available are fast, clean and work without a hitch..

Joe Smoe CEO is not an idiot. With his 7 figure salary, he has an entirely different skill set than the nerds running his servers. Learn to talk to him. He doesn't care about whether you use Java, or .NET, he cares about the are the costs and risks associated with running Java or .NET.

Cult!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I like their little "Special Report: The Cult of Linux" graphic. The font looks especially scary, suggesting that freaky people in penguin ties will show up at your door with pamphlets soliciting donations for L. Ron Torvalds' secret headquarters. I half expect to see photographs of a hidden jungle compound filled with servers, dead bodies and a large tub of Kool-Aid. Beware! Forget the programmers -- call in the deprogrammers!

Re:Cult!!

[Daengbo]

Since I looked at in Lynx, I didn't even see a graphic. That would have made it so much funnier.

Great news, terrible articles

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say that after reading the articles on Forbes, I was more than a little disappointed in the way they were written. They were far too brief, lacking details, and most importantly weren't even checked by an editor.

When the authors at a business magazine such as Forbes writes a small series of articles filled with buzz words for the buzz word junkies, they could at least have an editor review grammer and spelling. Otherwise it may tell the members of the target audience that "Linux articles aren't important enough to waste the time of the editors".

Also, it's often a bad idea to have authors such as Matthew Herper writing articles stating in a web browser comparison "KDE's unified desktop is less appealing than Microsoft's, however". This is just silly, I was under the belief that the target audience was supposed to be making decisions such as "Which path of migration would save us the most money in training?" and taking into consideration "My current users like the integrated desktop of Windows, wouldn't they also like the integrated desktop of KDE?". My point being that it was wrong of him as a "Linux Guru" to put down a feature that the audience may actually like as a pitfall due to his personal preference. I didn't see where it said "Opinion Column" on the page, His Bio describes him to the target audience as an industry expert and when not stated ahead that he is stating an opinion, people reading the article for their own education will no accept it as his opinion.

I also found his article a bit worse when he made performance based statements based on "Opera seems slower than Mozilla or Galeon" and also "Konquerer appears to load slower than Galeon". Wouldn't information which is supposed to help sway the decision makers have data to back up what was said?

In my personal opinion, Matthew should be sent back to MIT to sit around and write articles for IEEE or ACM, not for the general decision making public, he obviously isn't suited for the job. His article made me feel that next time I'm pointed to a column on Forbes, I may just skip it instead. Next time it might be me trying to learn something.

I'm sorry to say that this is a blow to the Linux community since it appears that Forbes felt like having fun with the Linux buzz word so they grabbed a few Linux geeks with poor writing skills to slap together a few short articles which never passed through editting.

I wouldn't chalk this up as a victory just yet, just another stuffed shirt who felt like blowing cash on a buzz word without actually understanding it.

Your point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point of this posting was that linux has a great deal of powerful allies. If forbes is in league with slashdot, wow, that's a big PR bludgeoning to redmond. Keep in mind that could also mean that Forbes writers just keep an eye on slashdot. Forbes is a fairly respectable business magazine, second pretty much only to the wall street journal(barrons, etc, they're all about on the same level). What we will probably see over the next couple weeks is other business publications examining this. It will be intriguing to see how linux is reviewed overall.

Re:Your point?

[byran lei]

>I think the point of this posting was that linux has a great deal of
>powerful allies. If forbes is in league with slashdot, wow, that's a
>big PR bludgeoning to redmond.
>
>
And it's something the Amiga,OS2 and Be crowd never really managed to do even with all the noise their communities generated. I suppose it really proves that running around and screaming how "innovative" you are really accomplishes nothing when all is said and done.

Linux and Business

[theolein]

We all ask ourselves this question repeatedly: Why is Linux not successful in the business world? I don't mean as a server. I mean as a platform for either server based or client business applications. We often offer our opinions that the Desktop should look better, it should offer games etc. Browsing, Office suites and Mail are now normal and easy on Linux with OpenOffice and Mozilla.

So what's the problem? Detractors of Linux will say, "It's the software stupid". And they'll be right, I think. Every time I look at Freshmeat or Sourceforge I never see any big action around ERM,CRM or small business accounting packages that are compatible with banks as Quicken is. Navision, one of the larger and more successful ERM,CRM companies (that was bought up by Microsoft recently) has no Linux client. Yet it is applications like these (Tuned, corporate DB's that one can easily script and turn into applications by combining tables with relevant data visually) that would make Linux a real contender in corporations and even small businesses. In other words, where are the visual database apps?

I don't know if Blender is GPL but the specialist CAD market also has no Linux applications and Blender might make a good basis for one. Likewise in other specialist areas. We are so proud of ourselves and our whizzkid technical knowledge, yet it sometime seems to me that /. people are more interested in wireless gimmicks and games than the specialist markets such as medical or legal or even cash register software. These are apps that make up the backbone of the market. Most companies running specialist software don't even have high hardware requirements, and often still run their customer and accont lists in Access95 on Win95.

Am I wrong here totally or are there atempts to write for these markets?

Re:Linux and Business

[Anonymous Coward]

you hit the real point, and get a "2" ???

Due Diligence?

[Niscenus]

Let's go through this together, shall we?

First they make sure the problem hasnt already been covered in the Knowledge Base.
Yeah, we don't do that.... First, we actually allow people, before filing a bug to check our database. Then, after filling out a form, we allow them to use a more intelligent search routine to check to see if any similar bugs have been encountered. After it's filed, the bugs are checked daily by at least one person to see if it's a duplication. Us open source whacks with our bugzillas and other tracking utilities have nothing like the "Microsoft Misfeatures, Misfits and Malicious Hackers and Pirates" database, in part because we wouldn't know how to use MSSQL with VB Scripting Support.

Then they make sure the problem isnt currently addressed by people working for/with MS.
We could never do that; it's easier just to keep status values on these things, especially since it is part of that whole database submission thing.

Finally, they will assign somebody to work on it.
Again, you know, we just don't have the ability to setup a bureaucracy of that size. We just have users vote which they think is most important and then see which developer(s) are interested in jumping on it by sending out newsletters and keeping track records and dev-mailing list.

Re:Due Diligence?

[redtuxxx]

Oooh - this is a seriously sore point

Access 97 has a critically data deletion bug

When a access97 db is developed on a machine with access2000 installed it uses libraries from 2000 (go figure)

This results in data DELETION on any update query when run on a machine without access2000 installed

Try finding this on the knowledge base

(OK if you type in type library you may find it - obvious????)

And microsofties say linux is cryptic?

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence? (however...)

[fferreres]

Another question is also important in some cases:

"Are Open Source developments profitable for developers?"

Some developements are profitable, some are just done for the pleasure. The real problem comes when you need to depend on an Open Source package supported by a comercial firm (expects a profit), and that firm is not making a profit.

I could name some examples (but you could imagine what could happen if your favorite app developer closes or drops the towel).

You are still better than with closed source. But many companies use Microsoft stuff because they can be SURE they won't close (at least not this century!).

Offtopic? I think not

[Niscenus]

Back to discussion:

I find it ironic that "a lot of managers are going to equate free with a lack of quality" when, in 1998 and 1999, ither terms "open source" or "Linux" would be considered a good enough reason to invest in an IPO. I think what is occurring now is the shock of waking up from the snow jobs of the Dot[expletive deleted]ed era, which, just to be geeky, would be much like actually waking up in the world of "The Matrix" where the reality is so massively different from the dream. The major difference is the reality now fully exists.

I have read in the past week, through a series of coincidences, various reviews and thoughts about many aspects of Linux once thought unlikely. These various mentions include the easy to install Mandrake, the really decent ongoing support from RedHat and the fully developed applications from, well, too, too many to actually list, but any Linux user would probably recognise them, ranging from Nautilus to GNU Cash.

What I'm more interested in knowing, with the phrase "Linux is a gateway OS" still in my mind, how many more doors will this open as Free/Free and Open Source software and full operating systems develop. What's the GNU OS? Will that be its name? Will its mind-blowing innovations (you really should pop over to the hurd site) result in people giving it a decent eyeballing? With this and Macintosh Darwin Operating System in place, will people give another go at the BSD world?

If investigations into more than just one OS were to begin, Microsoft might be forced to consider POSIX-Compliance and a new business model (Why pay for a crash prone, resource hogging operating system when you can literally pickup a stable, goes almost anywhere operating system for free). In the end, I suppose this part won't happen to soon with the foolish notion of "The Operating System for the Internet." You can have "one degree of separation" in your own environments and joint ventures, why invest even more money into a third party that uses questionable and historically unsafe technology? I do believe third parties will cater to smaller groups (small business and schools) but Microsoft will probably lose a definitive hold on this market quite quickly (despite an inevitable lawsuit).

Of course, these are just my own ramblings; feel free to ignore them as you wish. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds, yadda yadda yadda, history of GNU here, bio of Stallman here, marijuana was outlawed by request of cotton farmers, moderation of this topic will result in losing your soul and all that other stuff. VA this, that and the other are/is in no way responsible for how I code the HTML, as long as it doesn't crash slashbot.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence? (however...)

[chris_mahan]

MIcrosoft may not close, but they retire their product so fast it's impossible for us to keep up.

We have just begun deploying win2kpro to our workstations, and win2k is now "retired" in favor of XP... Arrgghhh!!!

Ignoring the rest

[raiyu]

Its nice to see open source get some real press but I just cant stand all of this "hype" surrounding linux when there are better alternatives. My choice would be FreeBSD, its simpler, more compact, and more durable in my opinion. Just look at the hassle you have to go through to add IPs from varying vlans and C-blocks through redhats multiple scripts, while in FreeBSD rc.conf takes care of everything for you.

Personally I rather spend 5 minutes writing out a perl script that will print out a list of ips, then spend 15 minutes figuring out which script if any in redhat will support what I want. Plus FreeBSD doesnt suffer from the splits of linux, where everyone and their brother has a different distro with different options and configs. While that may be a benefit, when it comes time to deployment on several hundred servers, its just a hassle.

Then again look at the installer, two CDs just to install redhat, if I dont want anything but the basics, you think they would skimp on the graphics and make it one CD. Then installing they cant even make an Alt+Tab which goes back.

Now Im not against linux, or redhat, but I just cant think of one thing that it can do that I cant do better, faster, or with less hassle in FreeBSD.

Which kind of irritates me that no one is giving this operating system a shot, I think alot of linux diehards, if they give it a shot, might even become converts. The same for all of those companies looking for linux solutions, dont look too far, just give FreeBSD a try.

Re:Why is this an unusual occurrence? (however...)

[fferreres]

That's so true!

Cryptic?

[Niscenus]

"I tell ya what," when I first used Windows, I considred that cryptic. A group? Open one to get to everything? Win3.x was MacNasty or a nasty mac(wannabe), I'm not sure which. Then, there was the Win9x+ME series that was a castrated nonesense version of CDE! If you needed to perform a scandisk (something I didn't understand the need for until this series) You had to go through, what, two or three things? In CDE, you just went up to "Utilities and Maintenance" (now just "utilities") and picked whichever application you needed. I have no intention of going back to Windows until massive changes are made...I hear China's doing a knockoff....

What "FREE" means to Forbes

[greyguppy]

Forbes is simply commentating that the FUD over TCO from MS has been seen straight through. Large businesses with custom apps, and the windows UI restricted off as much as possible via policies are simply seeing that they can contract in a guru to have everything EXACTLY as the company wants it for less money than it costs to license the copies of Windows.
With windows you need experts to lock it down, and tweak it as much as is permitted by MS to make it more suitable for your environment. Linux and OpenSource in general allow the company to roll out a uniform, customised, reliable base for their users at a fraction of the cost. Despite what MS may say the FSF states that according to the GPL they do NOT have to release their changes either, as long as they stay in-house.

Also in the server room, say you have a file server to be accessed via SMB. The license is around $1000 PLUS Client Access Licenses.
If your tech guys understand Linux, or are keen to learn, replacing 100 NT/2K servers rather than upgrading to .NET server will cause the dollar signs to flash around in everyones head except Bill!

Make no mistake, while this is definately very good publicity, the people to whom it is aimed at are interested, VERY interested in the free beer only. Don't expect any code back from these people, but I suppose if you can get a larger install base, then it is all good