The Linux Uprising

Did someone say Steak?! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-21 08:55 · Score: 5, Funny

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!

I'm a business man... by jpsst34 · 2003-02-21 08:55 · Score: 4, Funny

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?

Re:I'm a business man... by frodo+from+middle+ea · 2003-02-21 09:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

The jist is,
You can no longer play the "blame it on Microsoft game". You have to get up your lazy a$$ and do some research before recommending a m$ product next
Coz, next time you recommend a m$ solution, chances are your customer will ask ..Whats this linux thing We are hearing about ?
And if you say , "Oh its just some geeky thing used by hackers ." Chances are they might ask, "Oh yeah then how come IBM and HP and so many other big guns are supporting it ?"

--
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Re:I'm a business man... by Spy+Hunter · 2003-02-21 09:43 · Score: 5, Funny

Here's the gist: Linus Torvalds is married to the six-time women's karate champion of Finland! Bill Gates better not try to mess with Linus!

--
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Re:I'm a business man... by metacosm · 2003-02-21 11:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

To be fair to the author of the article -- Intel has had very strong ties to Microsoft.

"Wintel" -- When Microsoft releases a new OS -- lots of Intel chips are sold in the MS push. The most common way people get a new microsoft operating system is via new hardware.

Intel needs Microsoft to drive the hardware sales. Microsoft needs intel to get chips specs and support on optimizing their operating system for the next generations of intel chips. Microsoft also enjoys a market controlled by intel-compatible PCs.

Recently, Intel has been making moves away from Microsoft (and Microsoft away from Intel). I might be tempted to point to AMDs upcoming 64bit chip as the source of alot of the friction. But the fact that intel has decided to completely support Linux as a first class operating system also bothers Microsoft.

I basically think the authors point was fair.
Re:I'm a business man... by Tim+C · 2003-02-21 12:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

In my experience, the only time the customer cares, is when they specify Microsoft. I've worked at my company for 4 years now, and every client I've heard express a preference, has wanted MS. The rest (the vast majority) don't care how we do it as long as they get the website they want.

Java, C, PHP, ASP - they couldn't give a toss. Well designed site that works and lets them sell things/get their prescence on the web, that's what they care about. The choice of technology is irrelevant - in fact, that's what they're paying us for.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.

Linux Uprising? by kevinvh · 2003-02-21 08:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Guess Business Week's next story will be about the dramatic increase in the stock price of companies that manufacture Suspenders..

Re:Linux Uprising? by fiftyLou · 2003-02-21 09:16 · Score: 5, Funny

From the B. Perens Interview:
The only way to stop open source is to make it illegal. If they're not going to make it illegal, it's pretty hard to stop it.

Hey Bruce, you givin' away the play book now? ;-)

A bit dramatic? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-21 08:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

The Romanticizing of "The Linux Uprising" by sidvishus9 · 2003-02-21 08:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:The Romanticizing of "The Linux Uprising" by mshiltonj · 2003-02-21 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think once mainstream people understand that big businesses use linux, lots of it's out-of-the-way appeal will be lessened.

By then, it won't matter anymore.

--
Software Wars

Chips for linux? by macshune · 2003-02-21 09:01 · Score: 5, Funny

"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."

Specialized linux chips? Why didn't I see this posted on /.???? This is possibly the biggest story this year!

Re:Chips for linux? by Skyshadow · 2003-02-21 09:31 · Score: 4, Informative

I think that particular error provides you with a fairly accurate yardstick with which to judge the rest of the reporting in the articles.
IMO, you have to be pretty close to any given industry to really understand it and even closer to try and draw conclusions as to what the future looks like. There's no way that you can get that close to more than one or two industries, so turning out an insightful article about a new industry for a magazine each month is a bit of a joke. So, these reporters are left looking at the tea leaves of the businesses they're reporting on -- the profit numbers, the growth rate, etc.
The more important data is beyond their grasp. For instance, I know that the advanced server and subscription update models are good because, even though I'm an old-school linux guy, I use them and find them valuable, esp. if my company's paying for them. I know that when I look on the desktops of the people who are making buying recommendations, I'm seeng Red Hat systems running as desktops. I know that in meetings, we make buying decisions for products based partly on how they support Linux.
None of this is available to these guys, which is why in the long term their advice in this (as well as many other) catagories is essentially worthless -- all they can do is point out the obvious, like "not making phone companies share will hurt DSL companies dependant on that sharing"... Gee, thanks.
Besides, if you knew how to play the market with any great degree of proficiancy, would you waste your time publishing a magazine?

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Re:Chips for linux? by IamTheRealMike · 2003-02-21 10:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's cute, but I'm waaaaaaay more concerned about this part:
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? That has to be one of the more dangerous pieces of bad reporting I've seen lately. Not only is it utterly inaccurate (you don't have to sign anything to use open source software), it also hopelessly confuses "code" with "innovation".

Art by drooling-dog · 2003-02-21 09:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Linux IS mainstrem by argmanah · 2003-02-21 09:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

ooo... "e-mail" ! by kevinvee · 2003-02-21 09:10 · Score: 4, Funny

... since the volunteer programmers often lack specialized knowledge, complex business applications are probably beyond their range. But basic open-source databases and e-mail are already available.

Beyond the obvious argument about specialized knowledge, I'm really interested in this complex business application they call "e-mail." Has anyone else heard of this? I hear It's making waves through the internet.

It's the Mascots by Nikk+Name · 2003-02-21 09:10 · Score: 5, Funny

It all boils down to the mascots. Right now, the Linux symbol is a cute cartoon penguin.

For Microsoft, the symbol right now is a fat guy in a skintight butterfly suit.

Now, which mascot is more appealing?

gross margins by InodoroPereyra · 2003-02-21 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

An interesting figure from one of the articles:

It will be hard to replace the 50% to 80% gross margins of the software business with the 20% or less gross margins typical for software-service companies.

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.

Re:gross margins by IamTheRealMike · 2003-02-21 10:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
I don't think that's so hard.
Software isn't perfect. It's practically guaranteed that somebody, somewhere, is right now cursing some piece of softare. Maybe it's buggy, perhaps it's missing a feature they want. Maybe it costs so much they can't afford it. Maybe it's obsolete.
If all software in the world was under the (L)GPL, we could stil make money, by eliminating imperfection. Let's say I need some cash. OK, so I go bug hunting. A quick bugzilla query... what features have the most votes? Hmm, this one is pretty popular. It's a lot of work, and the maintainers are busy with other stuff. It's not got done. There are 200 votes. I think it'll take me a month. If each one of those people who voted chips in £5, that's £1000 for a months work, not bad at all.
They won't all pay of course, but if you state that you need £1000 for the feature, then the people who really want it will pledge money for it, and the ones who thought it'd be neat but don't care enough to pay will just wait it out. Eventually it'll get there.
Because, the model we use currently is actually very inefficient. Companies attempt to predict what all their customers want, and then write the code, and then sell it. What if really their customers wanted something different? Your shafted. Worse, because the culture is that you don't pay for bugfixes, new features are constantly introduced, with little thought given to whether they are actually useful or not.
So, freelance work on free software is more efficient. The example I gave above is less likely than a business saying "I need the software to do X, how much will it cost" - it's more efficient for them, because they only pay for what they need, and it's more efficient for us, because everybodies contributions are lumped together and we can all co-operate.
I call it the bounty hunter model, you hunt for bounty. Maybe a company wants you to port their apps to Linux using WineLib. Maybe a film company needs a new feature in the Gimp. Maybe an ISP is concerned about the security in the networking stacks and wants an audit.
And for new projects? Well, that's what volunteers are for :) Whatever. Basically the 80% of people that work in software services becomes 100%. I think it's workable.

They still don't get it. by auferstehung · 2003-02-21 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Open-source software programmers say they're different from Stallman in one major way: They don't have a problem with people making money off their work--or making money themselves.

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.

Re:Quick! by cheezedawg · 2003-02-21 09:14 · Score: 4, Informative

AMD's delay of Athlon64 has little to do with Microsoft, and is more about AMD's problems with SOI and inability to scale the clock speed.

--
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush

Re:Hrmph. by Rojo^ · 2003-02-21 09:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Someone just asked me this not too long ago. Here's what I emailed her back:

No Microsoft for many reasons, really. I view Microsoft as the Borg (Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.), so anything Microsoft says can be done with a highly restrictive license scheme, I try to find an Open Source method of accomplishing the same task. OpenOffice or KOffice instead of Microsoft Office, Apache with php3 / Washington University FTPD instead of MS Internet Information Services, etc. The Open Source community also seems to be in closer compliance with net-standard RFC's than MS proprietary products. For example, Mozilla has much better handling of cascading style sheets and web page icons than Internet Explorer, and includes some really nice features such as mouse gestures for page navigation. I use a variant of Mozilla called Phoenix on the help desk. Open source instant messengers, ssh (secure telnet), network protocols, all that stuff can be more easily and cheaply implemented in Linux than in Windows. Avoidance of malicious programs is another reason. Viruses are spread in Windows. How often do you hear about a Mac virus? Malicious web applets targetting Internet Explorer, spyware (a biggie) targetting Windows, having to patch security flaws every week or two because of skript kiddies playing with toys that break into computers, all that gets old. Finally, freely available software. www.freshmeat.net and www.sourceforge.net are good examples. Besides all that, I already have a Windows computer as a desktop that I can play games on. For what I would use a laptop for -- DVD's, music, diagnostic / data recovery tool, etc, Linux would better suit me.

--
<:

Not All's Well that Ends Well ... by Jack+Comics · 2003-02-21 09:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

So was google by pb · 2003-02-21 09:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

The process not the product by asv108 · 2003-02-21 09:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Linux is certainly mainstream, but the process behind Linux (OSS) is certainly not mainstream, especially to a business audience, hence the "rebillious" description.

Great... now the PHB will never go for Linux... by Dman33 · 2003-02-21 09:21 · Score: 4, Funny

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....

Pretty weak... by Skyshadow · 2003-02-21 09:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

I read over the "Red Flags for Red Hat" article, and I have to confess I found it pretty weak.

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.

Re:next article ..... by spotlight2k3 · 2003-02-21 09:21 · Score: 4, Funny

maybe he just shredded the "n" to hide the evidence

Perspective by mao+che+minh · 2003-02-21 09:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

According to the article, Morgan Stanley is saving roughly $25,000 per server over 5 years by moving to Linux. Since it's a financial firm that knows howto account for evey obscure penny saved, this is most likely highly accurate. I have seen reports of German financial companies saving something like 6 million dollars by switching to Linux (over the course of the usual 4-5 year estimate). CGI shops are enthusiastically promoting open source solutions as a means of cutting costs.

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.

Factual errors, bigtime by DunbarTheInept · 2003-02-21 10:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

I realize the technical details weren't the thrust of the articles, but that doesn't mean they have to just randomly make things up instead of telling the truth. Look at these quotes:

Second, Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for PCs, loosened its tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for Linux.

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.

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.

Re:the gist is... by tomhudson · 2003-02-21 10:30 · Score: 4, Informative

they don't know what they're talking about, again.

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...

Ha! MS cannot really lower its prices. Here's why. by SysKoll · 2003-02-21 10:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Mostly, [Paul McEntire] 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.

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.

-- SysKoll

--

--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

It now seems appropriate to mention.... by sawilson · 2003-02-21 11:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

34 of 396 comments (clear)