Slashdot Mirror
FT on Europe's Open Source Option
Anonymous Coward writes "The Financial Times offers a very interesting read about Linux, its possibilities for business, and its threat to Microsoft. Also a second article about "Europe's open-source option"."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The general concern of large corporations is more or less like this: what if I am an employee of a large corporation and the IT staff used GPL libraries to develop in-house apps? Can I request the source code since I got the binaries? But wouldn't this cause havoc with the internal IT policies, as usually the source code can only be revealed on a need-to-know basis?
¦ ©® ±
These things are interesting to read, and overall I thought the article was pretty accurate, but it makes it feel very dry doesn't it? All the graphs, figures, and relentlessly the focus on cost, the bottom line. Other benefits like increased flexibility and lack of lockin weren't mentioned. Neither was the fact that the vast majority of people who work on Linux the OS as a whole are not employed by big tech companies.
It's also rather depressing how much the involvement of IBM means to people. IBM has done a hell of a lot of good work, but the "we didn't pay any attention 'till IBM did" line indicates supreme daftness to me - Linux hasn't changed that much. I guess it's just a case of sheeple following whoever is biggest.
Not everyone is a mathmatician, infact (here in the UK atleast) a large number non business people know FT is short for Financial Times.. In fact the main UK stock exchange the FTSE is short for Financial Times Stock Exchange..
That's a part of the model that I don't often see pointed out. It's pretty apparent, when you think about it, but not obvious. Sure, companies can add distinguishing (and proprietary) applications, but the core stays relatively stable.
Not only do others benefit from what is added, they benefit from what isn't added.
It depends if you're interested in running a stable system or selling a patched version. I'd say most of the intended audience of the article aren't interested in selling Linux systems, but rather use it. Then the GPL is good, since it makes patches spread thoughout the community.
IBM's involvement means a great deal. If you're an IT manager following IT trends, you'll have read about Linux in the trade press and shrugged your shoulders with vague interest. When the IBM sales guy turns up to tell you his AIX box can run Linux, or the Sun guy is talking about Linux boxes running your webservers, then you start to take more notice.
Before, the evangelists were totally irrelevant and totally without credibility - in terms of who an IT Manager would take advice from.
"Although Linux has been slower to catch on in Europe, the drive to end dependence on the US for technology is a common but seldom admitted justification in every country exploring the technology."
Perhaps I'm taking the comparison a little too far, but the similarities between the US and the Roman Empire at its height (before it imploded) have been jumping out at me even more lately. Bush's unilateralism, the RIAA's panic response to P2P, and yes, even Microsoft's attempts to hold off Linux strike me as desperate actions of a dominant power failing to keep up with the changing times and thus losing its grip on power.
If India, China, and the EU eventually embrace open source as the new paradigm, that will be just one more crack in the wall.
-mh
I don't think that's true, actually. You're thinking of the FTSE100 (used to be FTSE30), which is a measure of how well the stockmarket is doing on a given day. It's calculated from the prices of the stocks of 100 listed companies. The Stock Exchange itself isn't owned by the FT.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
I still think that the most striking feature of this market is not so much the spread of Linux now -- after all, it offers obvious benefits -- as the fact that people are finally *stopping* spending huge amounts of money on Unix (read Sun) hardware.
I've occasionally had to do with projects where costs were reduced to 1/8 or so (yes, about what the article says) by replacing Sun with NT hardware. With hardware savings like that, it doesn't matter if you have a whole entire backup system with it's own set of staff.
What the popularity of Linux really means in money terms is that sites that kept spending millions a year on Sun, because of internal opposition to Microsoft, now have a politically correct way to buy cheap Intel hardware.
This is good. It's just a pity so many sites upgraded to ma$$ive Sun-hardware j2ee systems during the boom... it'll take forever to get rid of 'em all!
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Part of that is that Microsoft is not a EU
company and so there is no political motivation
to protect MS's market in the EU.
Whether or not that plays a bigger role than the
national security angle (being dependent on a
foreign company for national IT), I have no idea.
*sigh* back to work...
Big difference between distribution within a company and distributing to anyone who wants to download it. Since corporations are legally treated as an individual person, there is no difference between everyone in a corporation using the modified code (in binary form) and not distributing it at all.
A computer without Microsoft is like ice cream without ketchup.
Isn't it great how these articles list sales of Linux systems? Consider how many of the Linux systems out there aren't purchased preinstalled. It must be a pretty high percentage of those 'sales' numbers, if not more.
The others are considered by the analysts to be proprietary, not the chips but the systems, it would be quite difficult for you to build a POWER, or SPARC system, but anyone can assemble an PC compatable. It is not really the Intel part that is open, but the old IBM part that is open and what makes x86 so much cheaper.
Linux and Windows are both benefiting from the fact that x86 is now very competitive on a performance basis, and extremly competitive with HP Sun SGI and IBM on a price performace basis. When you buy a $20,000 server the price difference between a Red Hat AS support contract and a Windows Server license is much smaller than the difference between buying an Dell 2 way P4 Xeon and an HP rp2470 (two way PA-8700). I realize that there are other considerations, especially the RAM addressing over 4 GB, but the Dell will save you a boatload of money even if you buy a Windows license.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Whilst this sounds very nice, I feel that I should bring everyone back into the cold harsh reality by pointing about that the UK has a long long way to go before it becomes more open source savvy.
For example, the NHS, possibly the most underfunded thing we have, just coughed up £60 million for Microsoft Licencing.
Money well spent? You decide.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Stallman doesn't wear a tie. Get over it already.
However, more importantly, The Financial Times and many others seem to intentionally obfuscate or misinform their readers regarding the Freedom part of the GPL. Peddling misinformation does a heavy disservice to any that might be trying to make an informed decision regarding their IT strategies.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
...The USA *itself*: Europe.
;-)
Sorry, just couldn't help myself here
You must consider the context: it's the Financial Times speaking. They are not looking for the public good, they simply talk business to business-minded people.
Why businessmen choose Linux?
1 - Concern about IT spending (at least for SMEs this is the big factor).
2 - Concern about relying on a monopolist, high-price oriented company (Microsoft as much as the old proprietary Unix producers).
3 - Concern about relying on a monopolist, fixed-price oriented, *american* company...
If you read the article, you'll find these and not much more, because the FT reader doesn't want anything other (well, maybe some tits would be appreciated).
-- Let's go Viridian.
They do point out that UNIX fragmented in the '80s and '90s because each UNIX vendor went off and created their own additions and variations, and that this is what created the opportunity for Windows to get into the server market. Without the introduction of Linux, we were quickly going to a situation where Sun was the defacto UNIX standard, and in the Sun/Solaris vs PC/Windows competition. This isn't that different from the competition with Apple, where the software development and support is really a drag on the hardware business (keeping costs up), and it is hard to compete with the commodity PC pricing (MS just cleans up, big time).
With Linux, system vendors can cooperate on software without worrying that the competition can just take their contribution and not return anything. IBM will not work on Darwin, but Linux is great precisly because of the limits imposed by the GPL.