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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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!)

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 :-)

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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).

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.

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).

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.

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!

[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!

[MrResistor]

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

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).

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.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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

[Wiener]

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

LOL!

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

[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...

[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...

[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

[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.)

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

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.

might definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

might definitely

What the hell does that mean?

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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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

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

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....

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. :)

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.

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: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!).

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

[fferreres]

That's so true!