Slashdot Mirror
The Linux Uprising
ballpoint writes "Business Week is featuring a list of articles under the header 'The Linux Uprising' including topics like 'Red Flags for Red Hat' and 'A Bad, Sad Hollywood Ending?' touching everything dear to the Slashdot community. A good read to align yourself with what mainstream businesspeople are fed."
A good read to align yourself with what mainstream businesspeople are fed.
I could sure go for a tasty steak right now! I know business people eat steak a lot... mmmm... steak!
No time to read the articles, just gimme the jist.
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
Guess Business Week's next story will be about the dramatic increase in the stock price of companies that manufacture Suspenders..
grab your torch! I need help storming AMD's HQ to "convince" them they need to release the Athlon64 now, and not on Microsoft's timetable. Think more favorable Businessweek articles.
You read the first paragraph of the article and you get the impression of Linus, Alan and RMS just limping down the road with a torn GNU/Linux rampart and whistling the *nix equivalent of Yankee Doodle. Not really a bad picture but what's the *nix equivalent of Yankee Doodle?
I think it's pretty funny how everybody is trying to make this whole topic into a "underdog is always the good guy" Rebel Alliance versus Evil Empire thing. I think once mainstream people understand that big businesses use linux, lots of it's out-of-the-way appeal will be lessened.
Specialized linux chips? Why didn't I see this posted on /.???? This is possibly the biggest story this year!
you can see for yourself that the article is so shallow: Here is a quote in the context of why linux is becoming popular: "Second, Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for PCs, loosened its tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for Linux. This made it possible for corporations to get all the computing power they wanted at a fraction of the price. "
No, they don't! Evidence: Napster, Kazaa, et al. Casual piracy in the workplace. Mix-tapes. etc.
I like the Bruce Perens interview, Programmers are like Artists, where he explains the motivation behind open source from a developer's viewpoint. Imagine you're a talented painter, but the only way to make a living at it was to work on a corporate art assembly line, where each artist is responsible for a few specific brush strokes in a particular color (which is actually how "starving artist" paintings are done). Of course you'd be working on your own canvases in your spare time, and giving them away if that were the only way to be seen.
The only thing bothersome with the articles is the idea that Linux is still something that's "rebellious". It's not. No, it doesn't have the market share that some of the other operating systems out there has (ahem), but just because you're not #1 in market share doesn't make you a niche technology. Linux IS mainstream. It's proven itself time and time again.
Just because Ford (or whatever car comany) has market share, it doesn't make my buying a Honda "rebellious". It just might be the choice that fits my needs better.
Executives need to know that Linux isn't a rogue OS. It's a choice you can make that provides different features. For those whose requirements would be better by Linux, they need to know they are simply making another mainstream choice.
Business Week needs to catch up to the present.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
For Microsoft, the symbol right now is a fat guy in a skintight butterfly suit.
Now, which mascot is more appealing?
Mildly off topic I know, but it's strange when events like open-software gaining acceptance in the marketplace are called 'uprisings'(as though open-source programmers are so terribly disenfranchised) while real uprisings, like the 'L.A. riots' that happened in part to bring about social change for increasingly disenfranchised and marginalized groups have less grand language applied to them (e.g. 'riot').
This is the main issue in open source: using open software for your business is a no-brainer (unless there is no open source solution for your problem), however developing open source software and making a living out of it is not easy. I am not saying it is impossible, it is just pretty difficult.
I have the feeling that the next main contribution to Free/Open Source Software will come from a business person, not from a developer. We need to find a way so that people can make money producing (as opposed to "using") free software, without compromising the spirit of free software.
Implying that Free Software has a problem with people making money which isn't the case given:
Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software.
found here.
It might be said that Free Software has a problem with how you go about making money off of software not the fact that you do.Logic is not Divine.
<:
Hmm.. Good question!
($ageInDays + 13)-year-old =
( 12156 + 13 )-year-old =
12169-year-old
I'd like to tell my 12169-year-old self:
"Hey, good job on staying alive so long! I'll bet that 666th year was a killer!"
Oh, to be alive in AD14172. Can you imagine my Slashdot Karma by then? Of course, the conversion to IPv32 was a real pain...
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
Here's a quote from one of the linked articles that I think sums up what most Linux advocates fail to realize:
"The revenue growth isn't particularly impressive," says Paul McEntire, portfolio manager of the Marketocracy Technology Plus Fund (TPFQX ), which has owned the stock in the past. Moreover, he says, Red Hat's financial results don't persuade him that it can be solidly profitable in the future. Mostly, he worries that it would take only a little price competition from Microsoft (MSFT ), which goes up against Linux in the operating-system market, to see the return of red ink. Notes McEntire: "Microsoft hasn't really responded to the Linux threat yet."
Should Microsoft ever truly respond to the Linux threat, say by slashing their prices of Windows XP/Windows 2003/Windows Whatever in half, and slash the prices of Microsoft Office in half (much as they have already done in a recent promotion for Apple Macintosh users), it's game over for Linux on the desktop. Xandros is $100. LindowsOS is $130. Hardly anyone would be willing to switch to Linux, when for just $20-$50 more, they can buy the latest and greatest version of Windows, and avoid that steep learning curve and lack of "critical applications" that Linux tends to bring.
I especially see this coming as the other divisions of Microsoft, such as MSN and the XBox, while still losing money, are not losing as much money as they used to, and thus Microsoft would no longer have to rely on Windows and Office as their cash cows so much as they have done in the past.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
I use Linux/X11/KDE|GNome on my desktop because that's where all the apps I use are. If all your favorite apps live on WinXP, you should probably be using that instead, naturally. And, if/when everybody's favorite apps are on Linux/X11/KDE|GNome, that's when people will put it on their desktops.
It's all about the apps.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Although you'll also see articles like this out there.
I thought the "Red Flags for RedHat" article was actually pretty good--after all, investors are cautious now, and for good reason; also, Linux distributions haven't been making money, especially when compared to sales of other server operating systems, and a lot of people are looking at the bottom line now, after getting burned.
So, yeah, RedHat is a great company with a solid product... but always, always do your research first. I think that's a very responsible position to take. If you believe in RedHat, buy some stock--but don't bet the farm on it, especially if you might need that farm someday.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Linux is certainly mainstream, but the process behind Linux (OSS) is certainly not mainstream, especially to a business audience, hence the "rebillious" description.
Me: Read this article on Business Week... it outlines the history of Linux and it's increasing presense in corporate America, at least on servers...
PHB: Intel chips for Linux? No way! I would rather pay the licensing for Win2k Server than replace all of the hardware with special Linux chips that I have never heard of!
Me: Linux chips? Wait... Mmmmmm... chips. Mesquite chips.... or salt-vinegar chips.... okay, going to the cafeteria... you need anything?
PHB: No thanks.
No wonder nothing ever gets done around here....
The notion that a company which went from a $2m loss to a $300,000 profit, which has a clear majority in terms of install base and which is the only company making money in its segment is headed for trouble seems like seriously flawed thinking to me.
It seems pretty clear to me that Red Hat has the rare gift of competent management. Maybe RH isn't going to see a big pop in the next quarter, but it's hard to see how the "next five years" view isn't looking pretty rosy. I don't see the fact that it's not back to it's stupidly high .com-era stock price as any sort of a reasonable warning sign.
Anyhow, I own a couple thousand dollars worth of RH shares, so maybe I'm just believing what I want to.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
maybe he just shredded the "n" to hide the evidence
THIS ARTICLE IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO BE VIEWED BY ADULTS AND THEREFORE MAY BE UNSUITABLE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 17. THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: PROVOKING THOUGHTS (PT), EXPLICIT SARCASM (ES), OR CRUDE INDECENT SPELLING (S).
Why don't things evolve?
I keep thinking about the space shuttle, and open-source, and Microsoft; also of tiny winged dinosaurs recently found in the Mongolian Highlands. All these controversies and discoveries start me thinking -- but mostly the dinosaurs. Why did those little dinosaurs sprout wings? What was the point? Don't they know that was a greater wind resistance drag, making it even harder to escape predators? Why did the space shuttle, built in 80's never upgrade? One could talk of the government and the fact that they never, ever, upgrade unless it's tanks or grenades. But the space shuttle, with it's aging tape-to-tape flight computers, and it's spray on foam insulation, and it's glued on tiles -- why evolve to serve this niche, then never evolve? Was it laziness, stupidity, or some perceived fecundity that we've reached the promised land?
I can feel there is a tipping-point here, some wisdom I'm about to understand, and yet it eludes me. Back to Microsoft. Why couldn't Novell evolve? Did they think that a different password for everything was better than one password to rule them all? Why continue to chew the prehistoric cud whilst the meteor streaks across the sky - moocow!. Now it's Microsoft, you might argue, that is starting to run a little slower, a little more gamely, who sees the big game cats bearing down in their proverbial rear view mirrors. Will they evolve? Can they evolve? What will they become?
And so open-source sits too at the precipice, but its penultimate creative spark blew apart at its evolution, splitting into various organisms wading the primordial ooze. Fascinating stuff: evolve now or later, but why not right at the beginning? Evolve on the starting line! It's a pretty awesome strain of thinking. Keep trying to get it right on the starting line -- holding back some DNA -- shooting off ideas that might work. Hyper, hyper-parasitosis. I believe it's the way of informational beings. Even WOPR decided that there might be a better way.
So why can't Microsoft evolve? I believe they can, but it must happen while, and before, the energy required to evolve is still greater than the remaining energy it has to sustain life. Can they evolve a hybrid, become open-source (you heard it here first!), jump from the abyss, sprout wings, and fly?
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
It is amazing that with such astounding real world examples of the cost benefits of open source (not counting all of the other benefits), Microsoft and Sun can still find ways to convince suits that the cost of Linux/open office/etc training outweigh the license and support savings made by dropping Microsoft or Sun. Reports and estimations of rapidly gaining Linux market share always bolster my hopes, but sometimes I just can't see it.
Ok that's it... people use things cause they're good, and cause they work. MAYBE the reason Linux works is because PEOPLE made it work... and PEOPLE use it.... and corporations are coming in now that it DOES work.... and not back when the kernel would segfault every 5 minutes.....
People hopping on the bandwagon now, are behind the curve. And some device they use is probably already running it, and they don't know it.
Now maybe that all these companies are recognizing linux I can get some drivers for my USB camera......
Right after that quote is probably the largest piece of FUD I've ever seen:
Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it.
WTF?!?!
I've been using open-source software for years, and I've never signed anything like this.
"...A good read to align yourself with what mainstream businesspeople are fed."
Are you serious? IMO, this looks like FUD. Yeah, they talk about the "Linux Uprising" in the first article, and Tux looks like he's been living under powerlines in the top banner. Yeah, it's a bit of horse puckey how romanticized and incorrect they were in the first article (see: comments on Intel making "chips for Linux", "resentment for Microsoft", and "rotten economy" as reasons for Linux becoming a favored OS). No, they didn't address server benchmark testing or overall gains in stability and performance, but it's excusable....
Read McNealy's article. Read "Before Linux is on Every Desktop". Touching on embedded Linux? Sun support for Linux for the sake of a *nix OS, and the primary pros that come with such a styled system? From McNealy: "The operating system is still the underlying plumbing on top of which you build the real value-add -- the applications and services to run your business....Linux impacts everyone <in the OS industry>." Coming from a CEO of a very influential company in the tech market, this isn't something to thumb your nose at.
Yeah, there's FUD in the first article, but you really need to read all the articles before you recommend everyone to do the same with bad expectations.
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
A good read to align yourself with what mainstream businesspeople are fed.
in this case, who cares? as little as two years ago the media saw linux as some fly buzzing around bothering the big horses microsoft and sun. now its seen as a more significant player as a viable alternative to the giant expensive software companies.
The computer realm may never be the same. Imagine the havoc in the energy business if some newcomer started giving away gasoline. Linux is bringing on a convulsion of that magnitude in tech.
sure, *i* think linux is the greatest thing, and *you* think linux is the greatest thing, but that isnt going to make our boss think linux is a greatest thing. it takes zealous writers who like to think theyre on the cutting edge to write stories which put linux in all its glory. we can then go to our boss and say "look at this.. BUSINESS WEEK even thinks so!".
two years ago, the business world saw linux as a toy. rehat and ibm have invested alot of money into linux, giving it exposure to more mature audiences than slashdot. now that linux has been out and about for businesses to play with, they realise that "this linux thing is really great". the industry finally sees linux as a threat and is willing to give it the attention it deserves
I was not aware that the FSF was against selling software for profit. Somebody should tell RMS so he'll stop saying he has nothing against selling software. And so the GNU project will stop selling its software.
I also didn't know Redhat isn't allowed to sell Linux. Does that mean I can get my $40 back from that copy of 6.0 I bought in '99?
I guess business week will hire fact checkers as soon as cnn.com hires proofreaders...and MS hires QA analysts (call me flamebait, but I couldn't resist the urge).
Since when did Intel start "making chips for linux" (Well, I guess technically ever since the 386, in a way.)
Since when did the GPL become synonymous with all of open source? (Not that they got the GPL all that accurate in the first place.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
if you read the cringely article about sun from a few days back, the articles here concerning Sun with Scott McNealy do a decent job of responding to some of Cringely's challenges.
if you want to get a pretty decent picture of what Sun is going to do for their long term strategy regarding linux and the potential downfall of big-iron mainframe UNIX (think GNU/Linux on Polyserve), I think they're looking at sidestepping it altogether.
They're going straight for Linux on the desktop with the Mad Hatter project -- McNealy makes a lot of sense on this, although it might just be the kool-aide.
mike
As Linus said (as told by John "Mad Dog" Hall): "I don't care what you call it as long as you use it."
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
Here's one stupid quote...
Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it.
I guess they should have a sit-down with RMS first...
McEntire doesn't get it.
Most of the Linux distro revenue comes from professional servers and technical workstation users who want paid support. These users couldn't care if MS gave away their products. They would consider switching to, say, IBM's AIX or Sun's Solaris if the price was right and the apps available. But not to Windows.
The fact that this guy is not aware of this simple market reality and yet manages a stock portfolio is really scary. Keep away from his Marketocracy Technology Plus Fund.
Now, on another hand, your argument about Linux on the desktop makes much more sense:
I especially see this coming as the other divisions of Microsoft, such as MSN and the XBox, while still losing money, are not losing as much money as they used to, and thus Microsoft would no longer have to rely on Windows and Office as their cash cows so much as they have done in the past.
Now that's a valid argument. It would not hurt the server sales but it would certainly hurt the Linux desktop numbers.
However, keep in mind that Microsoft depends on the value of its stock in order to retain employees with stock options. Now take a look at MS'S SEC filing, especially Note 9, "Segment information". Their operating systems and applications account for more than 86% of their sales income (financial activities excluded). The other divisions, entertainment and consumer electronics, are barely showing up on the radar screen. Even if they were profitable, they really couldn't scale up to the Office+Windows income. A sustained price cut on Windows and Office would hurt MS's income very badly, send their stock price down, and bring down their option-based financial Ponzi scheme. So they just cannot afford to do it.
See Bill Parish's report for an overview of MS's financial pyramid. Recommended reading to understand what makes the Redmond Beat tick.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
A lot of the comments I've been reading, and quotations from the article, demonstrate that the writer of the article doesn't really seem to "get it" about nuances of Free Software, etc. (or even basic stuff like Intel building chips "for" Linux).
But this is pretty typical BusinessWeek - the stories are consistently of a quick glance-over quality, rather than any sort of accurate and/or compelling analysis. If you pick up the print edition you will also notice LOTS of pretty pictures, which is true to the light-on-content feel of most of BW's articles.
Most businesspeople just read it for a quick glance at emerging issues - so the very existence of the article is a pretty important step, and exactly how accurate the content is is in comparison, for now, somewhat irrelevant.
Linux has about 3 different pronounciations that I know of, none of which are "wrong".
This has been settled by fiat: Linus, original creator of the kernel pronounces it so that it rhymes with cynics. That's as close as you'll come to an official pronunciation for something that is maintained and owned by 10,000 different people, most of whom have never met.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Lee-nux.
Which is the original pronounciation, considering you pronounce Linus Torvald's name Lee-nus. It's how he pronounces it...
Karma: Non-Heinous
Except for the fact pronounces it in a way that rhymes with "Me Next!" As in his name... Lee-nus. It _was_ named after him, you know?
Karma: Non-Heinous
Um, not it's not. That in-house stuff is one of the major sources of open source. Consider, for example, Samba, which started out as an in-house project to serve files from a Un*x machine to windows machines. He released it because releasing it was the easiest way to get free support on the software.
-Miko
Miko O'Sullivan
...who repeatedly paint themselves as heroic rebels fighting against the Evil Empire. That's how they want to be seen, and they try to get as much attention as they can. Slashdot, unfortunately, is infested with them.
I don't want to be too negative about it, though. Some of the attention they've brought to Linux has probably been good for attracting resources, though I worry that some has probably scared away resources, too.
A lot of us Linux users don't see ourselves as activists battling anybody. We just use it because we like it, not because we hate some Evil Empire. We don't get much press, though, because we're surrounded by noisy "M$ sucks!" activists screaming for attention.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Microsoft is dieing. No trolling intended here.
Seriously. I mean, this is a story in business week
predicting their demise basically. How can you stop
a compeditor that doesn't have bills to pay, or
debt? I mean, I was worried back in the day. I was
sure they'd come up with some way of simply taking
advantage of strong political ties to make Linux
essentially illegal. That doesn't even matter
anymore. Money is getting invested. Huge companies
are in. I used to flat out laugh at the
"world domination" types on here because it just
sounded so silly. My argument was always, who
cares about the rest of the world. How can they
stop something free? It's turning out to be their
achilles heel. Microsoft can't buy Linux out.
Microsoft is moving too slowly to make something
that can compete on cost. They've spent a fortune
on trying to market their way out of this
inevitable approaching death, and people just
don't buy it anymore. I'm not saying that
Microsoft will fade into the distance. That's just
not realistic. But they will have to give up the
childish name calling and get onboard at some
point. The sooner they realize they need to give
up the server market and embrace Linux as much
as they can, the less money they'll bleed down
the road. If they don't, they'll lose the server
market within a short time, then they'll slowly
lose the desktop market. It's all right there in
that article. It's what I see. I can't be the only
one. Imagine all the PHB's reading that going
"wow, that geeky guy telling me about Linux years
ago was right. We need Linux now". I don't even
feel silly saying that. I would have a year ago.
Scott McNeilly in a Penguin suit speaks volumes.
It's only a matter of time now.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
If you're running certain distros, you can hear Linus himself pronounce the word, "Linux".
Now, let's have no more of this Line-ucks business!Is it just me or is Scott loosing focus?
His interview was filled with wonderful contradictions like:
- IBM & HP are stupidly throwing away all their UNIX knowledge and going all for Linux. We wouldn't do anything like that.
vs.
- The OS is just the plumbing which upon you build the real value-add.
Eh...what's really happening here, Scotty?
Is this one of these "Let's build a completely portable programming environments so that we can sell more of our proprietary hardware!" moments?
"Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it."
How is it stupid?
One, free software are free to use. It's just when you make derivative products from it where you come into contact with the GPL.
Two, not all free software are GPLed. Some significant examples, in fact, form the core of successful commercial products.
Three, there's nothing to actually sign. However, the effect is similar, so we can probably overlook that.
Four, "giving away your innovations" is a little oversimplified. It's theoretically possible that a competitor just downloads your sources, improves it a bit, and ships, but see how the best example of this - early versions of Mandrake - is near death but Red Hat is thriving.
The reason I'm bothering to list all of this on Slashdot is that this is, in fact, a bit nuanced, if not confusing. Is it possible that our political fervor is undermining us? Everything wrong with this statement comes from misunderstanding the GPL.
Look at Apple. They used BSD code, and are contributing their changes back even though they don't legally have to. They do that for good PR and for the potential of getting "free" bug fixes. In this case, free software is beneficial to all parties involved. I guess RMS never thought that would actually happen (without being legally required to by license). Perhaps relying on the fact that open source is good development practice is enough?
Visionaries as some of these prominent folks are, they've unfortunately "hijacked" the word "free" and made it so confusing that mainstream journalists cannot understand it anymore. They may be "stupid", but are we getting too smart for our own good?
Actually, they are doing amazingly well. Given that they just had an IPO a few years ago and that the US is in a recession, the fact that they basically break even can only be considered exceptional. Red Hat's stock has outperformed the S&P over the last 2 years. They are a very well run company.
Q: It seems strange that social and psychological factors are more important incentives for creating open-source software than money.
A: I worked for Pixar for 12 years. During those 12 years, every piece of software I wrote, except for one, hit its end of life before I left the company -- the projects were canceled or never deployed. Nothing survives. Now, programmers are like artists. They derive gratification from lots of people using their work. Writing software that just gets put away feels like intellectual masturbation. All of the good comes from someone else participating.
I'm glad that you were not refering to the efforts of free software writers. Who'd have ever thought of a bunch of softies as wankers? I'll leave that piece of filth about the de-bugger alone as they might be against the law in Southern California.
Not so bad at all really. A better analogy, and one I can tell my daughter, would be to compare such work with an Egyptian Slave's job. You eat and work on beautiful objects but your work is secret and in the end it gets locked up in a tomb with a dead man and perhaps yourself never to be seen again by anyone you know or care about. Not very satisfying at all, especiall when you cosider that your work is paid for and props up the nasty structure that enslaves everyone you know. Nah, jerk off works better.
"The Raw, the Cooked and the Half Baked" why does that ring a bell?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I know. You know. Why is a professional journalist still confused? You can sit there and conclude that he's stupid, or you can entertain the thought that perhaps we're not communicating as effectively as possible.
There are also people whose job it is to smear free software, and the GPL happens to be the easiest thing to confuse people with. Otherwise, free software is just like stuff on the shelf, only you don't have to pay. Easy.
The computer industry has been built on a simple premise: Companies invest to create software, sell it, and pour a good part of the proceeds into building more.
Building more what? That's the really big question. Since when do consumers OWE it to their suppliers to figure out how they can continue to be billionaires? We have already made Gates the richest man on earth. Now - because his business model and current products have a limited future - what are we supposed to do - continue to buy inferior products at a more expensive price so that his business as it is will continue to survive?
What's ironic is that the OSS developement is often labeled as communistic and it's developers as dirty hippies who can't make it in the real world.
Consider the cell phone industry. Originally the phones were considered new technology and commanded a very high price for the phone itself. Now, the standard phones are basically given away because we know what the phones have to do and we can make them cheaply. Companies make their money on the monthly cell-phone service charges. I don't see articles being written about the demise of the cell-phone manufacturers because thier phones are being given away - or the end of cell-phone innovation because the one I got for $300 5 years ago now is free.
I want to be alone with the sandwich