Slashdot Mirror
Ian Murdock: Linux is a Process, Not a Product
securitas writes "Debian founder Ian Murdock says that Linux is a process, not a product. He also says that the product mentality 'misses the entire point of Linux and the open-source development model.' Because Linux is made up of many different components developed on independent timeframes, Murdock posits, to refer to Linux as a product is to strip it of its dynamism and closes its inherently open nature. Instead, he says that Linux should be viewed as a shared platform and infrastructure technology, and that business models should reflect that or else Linux risks becoming proprietary, closed and just another cookie-cutter piece of software."
Funny, I just got done reading something else that sounds famailar: Science is a process
Uh-oh, now he's gonna get sued by Bruce Schneier!
XML is argued to be a data exchange format, not a data storage format. This article about Linux being a dynamic project has a similarity with XML. It is interesting how people now consider the dynamic nature to be the core of interest, instead of the actual tangible aspects.
I find that the process of creation is only half of the beauty of Linux. The other half is the wide flexibility to use the elements of Linux to do new things. There is no preconcept to the use of the collection of components which give rise to solving an ever widening range of problems and interests
Linux is a kernel, GNU/Linux is an operating environment. There are various processes associated with the operating environment e.g. configuring/installing apps and also the big 'process' security (thanks Bruce Schneier). GNU/Linux is a collection of apps to make an environment, not a process. It is simply a tool to get a job done.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
No, he's still using the product.
# ./kill_linux ./kill_linux: No such file or directory ./KILL_linux ./KILL_linux: No such file or directory ./KILL_LINUX ./KILL_LINUX: No such file or directory ./KILL_LINUX!!!!!!!
bash:
#
bash:
#
bash:
#
[...]
You've been reading some attemted humor by [jole]. Please laugh.
He ... says that the product mentality 'misses the entire point of Linux and the open-source development model.'
That's GNU/Linux, you insensitive clod!
And, it is a product, it's an actual thing that I can put on my computer and use. It's developed through a process.
Christ, every time some open source guy smokes a bong and gets all philosophical, do we really have to make note of it?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Linux a process ??
No, Linux is a reincarnation of dead Unix, much to the chagrin of MS
McDonald founder Ronald McDonald says that your happy meal is a process, not a product. It's a process because it is made up of many different components developed on independent timeframes, Ronald posits, to refer to your happy meal as a product is to strip it of its dynamism and defames its inherently delicious nature.
A product, a process, a community, a method, a team, a concept, an idea, and most importantly, many alternatives.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
I think he completely misses some of the good points of having distros unifying the various projects as a unified product but ...
His comments are good because perhaps they can open the business people up to the concept that linux in and of itself is not an OS. It is a kernel with literally thousands of projects built around it to flesh out the total package of the OS.
It is a very hard concept for people accustomed to having their OS as a single product shrink-wrapped and delivered onto them from a single company.
It has its flaws but its a very good article.
For those using linux and for that matter commercial Unix in the IT world, how many bosses actually get the projects as opposed to product conception of Linux?
ACK
...however, we can't even get most people past the notion that "Linux" isn't the name of an operating system, much less that the "product mentality" doesn't apply to everything.
Most people think that "Linux" is the name of an operating system, and most of those assume it's made by a company. The majority seem to think that "Linux" is an operating system made by Red Hat. Even one ORA book-- to wit, the one on Mastering Algorithms With C, with the pink cover-- noted that its code was tested on "Linux 8.0" (!!!).
We don't need to discuss amongst ourselves the fact that Linux isn't a product. We need to teach others-- including Gartner-Group-reading "IT Manager" types and the PHB corps-- what Linux is, and what it is not.
I have hardly ever seen a major publication (of any sort!) refer to Linux as anything except "an open-source operating system", or the like. It is not an operating system-- it is a kernel. (It is not even "open-source"-- it is "free software"! Not to wax RMSish...)
Until this changes, we cannot honestly expect anyone (outside of our own circles) to understand any of the points brought up by Mr. Murdock.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
How do you sue a process?
Oops. Though I do use produce, I meant to write:
"participating in it than I ever did by just using a product "
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Linux is a dynamic system. Updates and new software are made available all the time. There are flavors of Linux for many different niches, yet it's still GNU/Linux. Cool.
Windows is also a dynamic system, at least for those who don't disable the automatic updater from automatically hosing their system. Updates and new software are made available all the time. There are flavors of Windows for many different niches, yet it's still Windows. Spiffy.
The difference is that users can contribute to the core codebase - not just the add-ons. However, while this is awesome, and the GPL'd nature of Linux makes it special among the OS's.....
All modern operating systems are evolving at a high speed. All technology infrastructures are a process as much as anything else.
Nicely hyped though.
I write code.
Non-geeks either understand, or dont care one way or the other.
Much as I dont care who the starting fullback for the NY Jets is. Or if the NY Jets is even a football team.
Then RMS says linux is the kernel, and the product is GNU/Linux.
Other consideration, off topic here: if SCO really does have their way, are we going to run something called SCO-GNU/McLinux?
This sig no verb.
Umm
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Somehow, I don't think he really meant dynamism.
...I am not so sure about Linux.
I think any "product" of open development that is sufficiently successful will eventually be killed by competing anti-open interests (software companies, adjacent industries, governments, etc.)
As a result, individual products like "Linux" will probably come and go. However, the death of any open product simply means that the labor pool of the open development process will have or will soon move on to construction and maintenance of a new product which will in time, due to the superiority of the process (IMHO), again compete with proprietary interests, etc.
As such, open development is likely to evolve into a lifestyle or an ideal which leads those who embrace it or participate in it to make use of a series of "open" products over time. These types of "open products" are developed, marketed and used quite differently from products originating in the traditional marketplace and the use of "open products" comes at the expense of the traditional marketplace (to use RIAA/MPAA logic).
Thus, I tend to believe that if open development (and open content, etc. etc.) continues to grow in popularity as a philosophy and preference, there will eventually be some kind of sociocultural clash on a larger scale between the "open" and "marketplace" (i.e. closed) worlds.
I am not an economist but it seems to me that open development and traditional more closed/proprietary marketplaces represent fundamentally different economies that coexist peacefully now only because open development hasn't been large enough in the past to warrant the expense or dischord necessary to displace or destroy it. However, as more and more talent/revenue/ideas/sales/young minds are "lost" (RIAA/MPAA again) to open development, I can't help but think that this will change.
It seems to me that we are seeing the beginnings of this already with the grumbling of large interests like Microsoft about the "evils" of the GPL and open source.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
A project is done when nobody has anything to add/fix/change. The day when people don't have anything to add/fix/change in the Linux world - Linux will be a "product" (everybody knows that they're even fix/fix/fix windows sometimes and windows IS a product - or sold as such). Right now Linux is an EVOLUTION in itself and it's progress is already leaving inferior "lifeforms" (OS') behind.
I'm unsure how I feel about "thinking" about anything in the context of what it really is, rather than what I think it should be. I was once stung by a bee -- and "thinking" to the contrary -- did not make me hurt less.
Here are the pitfalls of this article, and in fact, the entire class of so-called opinion pieces concerning technology:
And it gives its users greater control over the evolution of the underlying platform, putting the user firmly in control of product release timelines and rollout schedules. In short, with Linux, the balance of power has finally shifted back from company to user.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to happen. I'm a small-business, since technology in general is not under my core-competence I have zero systems people. I can't code nor change anything about my system, I don't care to read the manual I accept the default settings plus whatever basic user configuration is possible.
They need business models that preserve the magic that has made Linux what it is today.
Here is finally the thesis statement of the article. In paragraph 15. Yes, this is what we need. In fact, this statement is so bland I could use this for business -- not really thought-provoking:
"Poop needs business models that preserver the magic that has made Poop what it is today".
To do so, I reiterate, is to miss the entire point of Linux, because Linux is fundamentally different from traditional operating system products--both technologically and, for lack of a better word, culturally.
What is a traditional operating system? Is that like family-values? Is Linux some sort of all night-pill popping raver? I think Linux let's me access data on my harddrive. In fact, I'd say it's really not that revolutionary since it's, from a developer standpoint, UNIX. I'd say the old-school 70's UNIX culture is quite similar to the current LINUX culture.
At stake here is not just the commercial viability of Linux distributors but the Linux ecosystem itself.
Now here is the real kicker. I'm told that with LInux everything is compatbile I'm not locked into anything (see pro-Linux marketing). Now he's saying that's not the case, that I could be just as locked in. I guess it was always a possibility of Linux-LockIn(tm), but they lied to us?
Final thoughts: I hate articles like this that sort of re-heat and serve slightly tough on the edges. I think UNTIL you start thinking of LINUX as a viable contender to an average user you will continue to think of Linux as a process -- like flushing the toilet.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
Another SCO joke! It never gets old!
And neither do the moderators, apparently...
There is no linux!
if a business is going to deploy linux v. whatever they want a working product not a process in progress. nobody outside the oss community gives a rat's ass about whether linux is open source or not. businesses only want to know if it's going to have a positive impact on the bottom line.
Pulled down Apache 2.1 via anonymous CVS.
I think I'll compile it for full debug, light it off, attach to it with gdb, and watch it handle an HTTP request.
1) Why? I want to understand the nitty gritty, and
2) I can. It's perfectly legal not to want to be a sheep all your life.
Not to disenfranchise the sheep, mind you. I totally grasp the need of some to be sheltered from the gnarly details. Fine. Enjoy. Bother me not.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
in the software business.
If we fcused on developing a solid proicess for development, we would end up have less flaw in our software.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
who said that security was a process not a product. and that encryption wasn't the ultimate answer (as he wrote for hundreds of pages in Applied Cryptography)...
offtopic yes, but perhaps points to the fact that computer theories, are often in a continual state of improvement and need constant attention.
And here I thought Linux was an OS kernel.
What you are referring to is basically "branding." It is an old technique that companies have been using for a long time. Red Hat doesn't necessarily want to make Linux and go proprietary but they certainly would love for people to think "Red Hat" in conjunction with Linux.
Examples of branding:
Bailey's (Irish Cream)
Coke (soft drink)
Polaroid (instant camera)
Unless you are McKinsey or Booz-Allen (large strategic consulting firms), processes don't sell.
Products do.
Linux has a far greater chance of success if it is a product.
If you class linux as a product then they've released more OS updates than Microsoft could ever compete with :)
It's synergrrific!
--
The majority seem to think that this Linux process can be modified--but only at the cost of losing service and support. The Linux distribution industry needs to start looking at Linux in a new product which will in time, due to the market in technology, culture and process. They need to flesh out the total package of the OS. It is a collection of disparate technologies. Does this mean that the only way to commercialize Linux is an revolution in itself and its progress is already leaving inferior lifeforms (OS) behind. Sincerely, the kernel is the more important part to be distributed to end users as an integrated solution as opposed to just a collection of software components, individually crafted by thousands of projects built around it to make note of it? Reminds me of the underlying platform, putting the user firmly in control of product release timelines and rollout schedules.. Around the edges incompatibilities introduced by the community to come up with a multitude of things besides the simple cake. They think its very important to note that the only way to commercialize Linux is a kernel with literally thousands of projects built around todays leading commercial Linux distributions.
Top Ten Highlights Of Bill Gates' Birthday Party
10. Spirited game of "Pin the Tail on the Geek."
9. The part where he bought out the competing birthday party next door.
8. The thrilling rumor that an actual woman might show up.
7. Employee who decorated cake with trick candles that can't be blown out? Fired.
6. The annual tradition--drunkest guy in the room has to cut Bill's hair.
5. Leonard Nimoy presenting him with an autographed Spock ear.
4. Instead of blowing out candles, making vanquished business rivals put them out with their bare hands.
3. Kids got to smash pinata full of $10,000 bills.
2. When he "downloaded" almost 12 bottles of beer before passing out.
1. Scorin' the free meal at Denny's.
He makes some good points, but ultimately he is wrong in his assertion that Linux is a process. The process he's referring to is actually the process of open source development. Linux does describe something tangible beyond a collaborative process, namely a very distinct operating system kernel. There are other distinct kernels, and there are other open source projects that have everything to do with the identical process by which Linux is developed but absolutely nothing to do with Linux proper.
Whether we like it or not. And apparently, your level-headedness and sensibility have been rewarded by a slashbot with a -1, Troll.
So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
"...or else Linux risks becoming proprietary, closed and just another cookie-cutter piece of software."
Apparently, this guy doesn't understand the process he's writing about.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The production of free software appears to me to represent, an emerging, new mode of production.
Are we now in a period where the new process of producing value, (essentially use value since free digital stuff has almost no exchange value,) has crystalised and we are just starting to realise that it has the potential to become the dominant mode of production?
Check out MKDoc a mod_perl CMS
If you're going to post someone else's work (true intellectual value) please:
A. Give them credit (this was originally the work of Ian Murdock)
and
B. Put your own rude remarks in italics or parentheses and not insert them inline without annotation so your readers won't blaim such cheap shots on the original author. Commentary is fine, but take the credit (or blaim) yourself.
It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
/me goes back to figuring how to eliminate the 30+ years old partitioning process.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
11. Has recently been 'taking responsibility for everything he says'
I have a lot of friends who use Linux, so I know all the parts about how it's open source, anyone can improve upon it, etc. I think that putting that in the realm of quality would at least cause more businesses to come around. I'm in a manufacturing plant working on outlining our quality system, and it is all about looking at a process for continually making our product better. This is exactly how Linux is made better, not just the kernel, but all the open source software for it. It's like you have a workforce of everybody who uses Linux, and they're all working to make the product better through continual revisions. You mention that to any Quality engineer in manufacturing, you've just sold him on Linux. Yeah, Microsoft releases patchs all the time. These though are coded by what, about 10% of the people out there who improve the code of Linux. This makes Linux far more robust and able to handle different situations. Then add to that the fact that these "patchs" are marketed and priced as a new OS. Once companies, and home users, start realizing this, they'll start converting. The problem is that most people don't know what Linux is, or think you have to have a computer science degree to even use it. Once Linux starts getting away from that image, and people start understanding what kernels and distributions are, that's when we'll see an end to Windows
I've been disappointed by the quality of the linux distributions I've bought in the past. Either my hardware was too new, or using it was just a hassle (mainly due to lack of applications.)
But the thing that got me, in this and other free projects, is how when something doesn't work, it must be the customer's fault. Even if said customer follows all of the how-to's and spends hours compiling (COMPILING!)
Some people put their cars together. Others buy them pre-made. The former group often spends more time in the garage.
Where is quality? Why can't it just work correctly the first time?
Linux is a Product created from an Open Source Process.
"Times may change, but standards must remain the same." - George Carlin.
To get back on-topic, though, is it possible this confusion might have something to do with the similar version numbers in some distros? IIRC, Red Hat and Mandrake both released a version 8.0 at around the same time.
It's both. Speaking of confusion, though, it would be good if the concepts of "open-source" and "free software" weren't so commonly confused. Open-source needs to stop pretending it's free software with a new name (go read the Open Source Definition and tell me it doesn't do this) and start marketing itself as a development methodology, which is what it is.The problem is in the word "is". When you say something "is" a product, or "is" a process, or make a black and white distinction between the two, someone will see the flaw. It would be more accurate to say "I consider Linux to be a process" or "I see little value in Linux being considered a product". "Is" makes a dogmatic assertion that causes compiler errors here on /.
The really creepy thing is that a good portion of tech people don't even know the difference. Just think for a minute about all those Windows babysitters out there in IT. How about all those "system analysts" that program crappy VBA all day and have no clue that there is something else a PC can run besides Windows. Can you imagine the hell I go through when talking with these people, oh Linus, make it stop...
My name is Mike, and I run Gentoo (2-3 days after starting the install).
I think a lot of people who say he misses the point, are in fact TEHMSELVES missing the point.
Linux, as a collective and generalised OS, is a process.
Debian Linux, RedHat, Slackware, etc. etc., are products. Furthermore, they're comprised of dozens of sub-products, so to speak, each with its own lifespan and schedule.
The general entity called Linux is a procedural entity, or a way of putting together a bunch of products (the kernel, the utilities, the startup scripts, etc.) such that you can make a product with them.
Now this is all fine and dandy. Unfortunately, there are two conflicting results to this:
1) By pushing Linux as a product, you're pushing specific distros which are in effect, proprietary bundles. (Source code notwithstanding, in a professional environment, a bundled distro is _treated_ as a proprietary distro--partly for good reasons!) This is damaging to Linux as a process or concept.
2) Companies don't want to run processes on their computers. They want to buy products.
3) Due to the process nature of Linux, a resulting product (say Debian) is a snapshot in time of all of the subproducts travelling along at different rates. This makes it a big pain for the vendor (and to a lesser extent, the user) to keep current in Linux. This is effectively fallout from Linux "versionitis," and there are no easy ways around it.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Nope.
There are two clearly divided camps in the Linux community: one tries to maintain it as an exclusive geek club and the other tries to promote it to general use. It's pretty clear which camp this claim of not being a product is from.
Because Linux sure as heck isn't finished yet...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
1) Claim first step of process as your own. 2) ???? 3) profit!
Linux is...
...)
A kernel
A distribution surname (redhat linux, suse linux yellow dog Linux Gentoo Linux
A trademark owned by Linus Torvalds
A community
A threat to Micro$oft
Free as in Beer
Running my Computer right now
Now it is a process. A rose by any other name...
Are the voices in my head bothering you?
Linux may indeed be a process and not a product, but that doesn't matter if you're not a Debian. If you are a business trying to make money off of Linux or you are a consumer looking to purchase Linux, waxing philosophical about Socratic nature of Linux is a waste of time.
It's not my fault for not getting it, it's your fault (vendors, advocates, press) for calling the resulting OS and application suite Linux, when technically Linux is only the kernel. If you want me to think of Linux as a process, rename all instances of Linux products and OS distributions to something equally snappy like, PixieOS!
Because when I as an informed consumer am standing in CompUSA with Windows XP in one hand and SuSe Linux in the other, I'm looking at products, not processes.
The human body is just a bunch of cell order in such a way that combinds to form one self contained entity. It preforms usefull tasks. Anything that grows, adapts, and replacates can be consitered an orginism. And linux does just that. It is not diffrent than memes. In fact many consiter the open source mentality to be a meme. In my mind, saying Linux is a product is like saying the human race is a single entity. There are thousands of forms and each installation of each form on each computer is diffrent in some way. Why can't I say that Linux is a Species of core software?
sad how many people here don't get it. Ian succeeded in describing what is different about this "linux thing", and one of its major strengths, and many posters here dismiss it with "market-speak". No, sorry, it's much more. Right now we are going thru a new product analysis (hint: initials are BMC) and while I was initially excited that it would run on linux, we find it is only supported for RH7.2 or RH AS2.1. So lame. Instead of this wonderful free, open platform I can modify and optimize, the server turns into just another black box with an expensive (min. $1500) yearly license. Of course at my company, "not supported" is verboten. Very disappointing, and hard to even relate to said company why they shouldn't try to lock it down like every other proprietary platform. These days, we business users are just unpaid (in fact, we pay dearly for it) QC for all the companies we buy broken software from, so locking it down is also preventing us from contributing fixes and improvements.
Thanks again, Ian.
tcboo
Though I do use produce
I've downloaded some neat videos of german chicks using produce.
Linux is a clone of the Unix kernel, written from scratch by Linus Torvalds with assistance from a loosely-knit team of hackers across the Net. It aims towards POSIX and Single UNIX Specification compliance. It has all the features you would expect in a modern fully-fledged Unix kernel, including true multitasking, virtual memory, shared libraries, demand loading, shared copy-on-write executables, proper memory management, and TCP/IP networking.
Honestly, most non-geeks look at the name Ian Murdock and think "executive producer of Fox" (Rupurt Murcdock).
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
This is the best descriptive model I've seen for LINUX, unfortunatly, it ignores the reality of the very real end user. Currently the LINUX end-user is a system-savvy hobbiest or professional, a minimum of one or two levels above the average computer owner (the guy or gal that's still trying to figure out emoticons in AOL-IM or get the time set on their VCR).
This isn't denigrating the average user, it just means most don't lose sleep over the slow adoption of TCP/IP v6. They have little interest in memorizing their monitor refresh rates at various resolutions when DOS (with various windowing programs) and WINDOWS both had easy ways to switch on the fly. Why bother learning the intricacies and simplicity of pipes when all they have to do is hit an icon?
Personally I think they'd be better learning how to work the silly box but the simple fact is this is no longer the era of the ALTAIR,PET/VIC-20/C-64, Apple II, Atari when the purchasers of "home computers" were assumed to have a good basic knowledge OR DESIRED SUCH. Today purchasers just want to get a letter written or look something up on the internet.
Reality says if LINUX is to go further than UNIX did we have to get past the buzz and give the users something more than nine-tenths finished. Patches have to be as easy as wintel or mac machines (forget recompiling, just run the executable) and programs need to be complete and usable as delivered, including example templates, complete help files (written in ENGLISH!), and even online help (ala the much hated though immortal clippy).
The issue is not the developers, where LINUX is now strongest. The issue is the "mom & pop" end user that want's another toaster. Steve Jobs understood that with the original Mac, Bill Gates still does, the question is when will Debian, Red Hat, Suse, etc. catch on.
It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
Linux is now a science
I think calling linux a process is a huge mistake. Granted, its an argument of semantics, but that doesn't make it any less important.
In my mind... calling linux a process, models exactly what Open Source is. Open Source is a process... or more accurately, open source development is a process. Linux is one possible result. By calling the whole of Linux a process, muddles the lines between what open source is and what linux is. In essence, it derides any non-linux related open source process. Hope that made sense.
To me, open source development is a process.
Linux is a platform.
RedHat/Mandrake are an implementation of that platform, which was developed using that process.
To show it in different non linux terms:
Closed source development is a process.
Windows CE is a platform
PocketPC 2002 is an implementation of that platform, which was developed using that process.
In the end, calling Linux a process... well... it muddles an already confused concept! In my mind, I dont think the revolutionary concept is in any way linux, it is the way in which linux was conceived!
Most people think that "Linux" is the name of an operating system. And most people are right. The first line of linux.org reads: "Linux is a free Unix-type operating system."
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
We were having a wonderful discussion over there. I should have thought of copying it and having my "cake" and eating it too. :-D
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
MR. T: Murdock? He's a crazy fool.
Linux (=the kernel) does live and die by GNU alone. Yes, GNU... the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU Make. Note the absence of "/" indicating procedence, and not combination (as it would indicate the slash in GNU/Linux). There is no Linux without GNU. RMS offered his C compiler*, Linus offered his kernel, others offered other parts, because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. :-)
*and a lot of utilities, and the monstruosity that is Emacs
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
has been described as "a process, not a product". One of the more common quotes in this area is available here . (Be sure to read down a page or so.)
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
While all OS's are "dynamic systems" in that they change and evolve over time, it is the *BSD and Linux's that are truely evolutionary.
Why? Because they have the ability to mutate and are subjected to survival tests.
Mutate you say? Look at TiVo. That was an obvious mutation/adaptation of the OS to fit a particular need. The great thing was that the mutation found it's way back into the mainstream and improved the "species".
Compare this to Windows XP Media Center edition. First off, it only came around after MS was shown that there was a potential market for something like this. Second, it's growth will be artificially controlled by MS.
So, we have two examples of "dynamic" growth but only the first one has the process that allows people to truely run off and explore those mutant possibilities.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I have lost control of all my department's windows machines due to the RPC attack launched at 8/1/2003 3:30pm EST!!!!
What am I supposed to do TO FIX THIS???
SHIT, I am going to be FIRED!!
kleenex (tissue)
band-aid (small stick on bandage)
SCO (crap)
Then linux.org is wrong. Linux is a kernel, which is not the same as an OS or distribution on top of the Linux kernel. Linux by itself is useless, and requires libraries and utilities to make it usable.
Saying Linux is an OS is like saying the Windows kernel is an OS.
Why do I keep typing pythong?
that's because he's a known troll you idiot. mod him up and he will use his high karma to troll later.
It's not that different to explain to non-geeks that Linux is a process. Just put it terms that people understand, cars.
Before Henry Ford, cars were hand-made by craftsmen. (Some luxury cars are still made this way.) Ford came up with a process to distribute the work and knowledge so that it could be mass produced. It yielded a great deal of parallelization and reusability.
As a result of his process, it was possible to produce several models of cars at a consistent quality and much cheaper compared to the old way. That's when cars became popular
Linux is the same way. Before Linus, most operating systems were done by experts (of at least his level). He developed a process that allowed less knowledgeable people to put together something better than the sum of it's parts (i.e. even I could submit small a patch that has a decent chance of getting in. I'm nowhere near as talented as half the core Linux team). His process yielded a great deal of parallelization and reusability.
As a result of his process, it was possible to produce several models (i.e. distributions) of Linux at a consistent quality and much cheaper compared to the old way. That's when Linux became popular.
Yes people are doing lots of interesting things with every tool out there. The issue is when you look at something like TiVo it wasn't the OS evolving to fill demands. In that case, it was an idea that used an OS to create a demand.
The point I got from the article was that if you focus too much on the end product you could lose the real advantage/power of Linux.
The distro's do a great job of addressing the needs of the server and desktop worlds by providing a "finished" product and running their own process to update and evolve that product.
The thing is if you want to do something really unique and creative you have to go back to before that product and work from there.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Well, sometimes it does useful tasks. Except when I want to play Myst on it.
because he is finally being asked (not told) by his countrypeople (not the media mind you) to do so.
Fox News: Clearly deluded,
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
Do you believe in magic?
And I hope you do
You'll always have a friend at the G-N-U
When you believe in magic!
Redhat makes a living by making Linux a product.
That is the great strenght of Linux and GNU you are perfectly free to use it as a dev platform in anyway you see fit. If your version is worth while then it will survive. It is the perfect dev platform for really advanced embeded systems. The ideal thing is to create a killer device which becomes a real product. At that point the software becomes secondary, and if you need to bow to Redmond or where ever so that your system can work then you are at a disadvantage when the company whose OS you use decides that your device is something they really have to own. Patent devices not software. Give the really inventive people freedom from rediculous constraints. GNU/Linux is the way of the future. Let MS patent every concievable system function software sequence and
and eventually new American tech will grind to a halt.
Look how long affordable 64 bit systems have taken to reach the market. This is purely the doing of IBM, Intel and Microsoft. But then again what does a home user need 64 bit for. Of course there are no applications that a MS wants to think of. The RIAA would have kittens if 24/96 recording became easy on the home computer. Also small art schools would be able to do too much. Budding digital artists using Maya and like tools would get too good too quickly. Advanced scientific tools available to all schools and teachers.
Oh hell you cannot have little people doing things that only rich guys can do.
This is the reason why high tech is going off shore, not that we are stupid just that we are stupid enought to let the major corporations control the future of tech. The real cost of advancements in computer tech has been the software. GNU/Linux has thrown a wrench in the works and eventually will open up 64 bit tech in the Orient and Europe. This will happen so fast that Microsoft, IBM, and Intel will not even know what happened. American government intervention on their behalf (like what happened with tron) will not help the giants this time. Compete or die is going to be the answer from the government in future. As so it should be.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
And most people are right. The first line of linux.org reads: "Linux is a free Unix-type operating system."
Quiet man!! Do you want everyone else to think you're one of those uneducated yokels!!
There's a geek frenzy in progress!! Just nod your head, say "Linux is a process" and add your favorite Microsoft/RIAA/SCO joke and slowly back away.
I agree with you 100%. There' s much value in the realization that Linux is an operating system undergoing constant change and input from many, many developers - all with their own unique ideas about what the OS still needs.
In the end though, the process must result in a "product" - even if the product is really just a snapshot in time of the development going on. Otherwise, you'd just have thousands of people writing code for the sake of learning/enjoyment/self-fulfillment, and not ending up with a single usable OS that "end users" could install and run.
Linux is an ecosystem, not a product.
Linux is a philosophy, not a product.
Linux is a culture, not a product.
Linux is a development methodology, not a product.
Okay, mod this "-1, Sarcastic" if you want. But I don't find the article to be particularly illuminating or useful. Linux can be viewed in many ways depending on your perspective and assumptions. Declaring that Linux is "not a product" is about as useful as saying the United States is "not a nation". Yeah, you can get some people's attention, but you're not saying much.
How about looking at the value of the "Linux way" of doing things? How about comparing the "Linux way" to other ways? Other people are trying to answer these questions, and those discussions are much more interesting to me than a simplistic "Linux is a process" label.
My curmudgeonly 2c worth....
-Thomas
"Debian founder Ian Murdock says that Linux is a blab, not a product. He also says that the blab blab 'misses the entire point of Linux and the blab blab blab.' Because Linux is made up of many different components developed on blab blab, Murdock posits, to refer to Linux as a product is to strip it of its blab and closes its blab blab blab. Instead, he says that Linux should be viewed as a blab blab and blab technology, and that blab blabs should reflect that or else Linux risks becoming blab, blab and just another cookie-cutter piece of software."
As you can see Ian Murdock didn't say anything you can't hear attending church and listening to the sermons they give there.
Linux (The Kernel), and its technology is not revolutionary by any means, it has even been argued that the Kernel was a step back from the direction that kernels should have been going, ie towards microkernels. I dont think the article is really refering to its technology (The Code), but rather what Linux "Stands For".
It stands for an extremely good "process" that many said wouldn't work, nobody was doing and was even laughed @ by the likes of Andy Tanenbaum. As for a product. Linux is a product, both the Kernel and the distros are, both can be 'packaged', both use a process to deliver the final, yes you guessed it: product.
Anyway, who gives a crap if its a process, or even if anyone uses it, Linux was partially founded on the idea that if you wanted too use it, you could, add to it if you want, either way you should just get on with it. Nuf Said!
In Korea a person tried making it his own trademark.
a Boston man tried taking control of it.
Microsoft Purchased it
although it's currently controlled by The Linux Mark Institute so Linus doesn't have to deal with it.
I thought linux was a kernel
I have hardly ever seen a major publication (of any sort!) refer to Linux as anything except "an open-source operating system", or the like. It is not an operating system-- it is a kernel. (It is not even "open-source"-- it is "free software"! Not to wax RMSish...)
Check Oracle Magazine July/Augut 2003:
Another common misconception about Linux is that it's a complete operating system. In reality Linux refers to the kernel--or core--of the operating system. Combining Linux with a set of open-source GNU programs from the Free Software Foundation turns it into what most people know as Linux
Actually, the whole article is accurate.
Well, it's not that hard. Anyone who can do a Windoze install can do Red Hat and the Red Hat is easier. Of course there's worlds of free help available through your local LUG. If your want your hand held and can't find a friend to do it, you can wait for an install fest or ask around for someone like me who will go to your house or business for a modest fee.
You are right about the distinction between the distros, but it's best to explain the whole free software thing first. You can do that in about 10 minutes. Intereste users can then read the free software site on their own. I've made a little newbie lectures, including "Where does free software come from." to sum it up for myself and others. After that, the different distros make sense and you can start to try and match the user with a distro that will make them happy.
I think that's what Ian was getting at, keeping the user informed and meeting their needs. It's the user's needs that are important. Everything possible should be done to make meeting those needs easy and the user should never be kept in the dark about the way things work. Lock-in is an evil thing and I hope he's not right about the intentions of some vendors.
Even if he's right, lock in is still difficult with free software. I recently moved a machine from Red Hat 7.3 to Debian stable and was able to keep all of my data. Some of the user configurations were off, but it was much easier than any Windoze move I've ever made.
Propriatory drivers and closed source software tacked onto free software definatly degrades the user experience. I've got a wireless network card from a company that touts, "Linux support". It's got some RPMs that may work on Red Hat 7.3 and 8.0, but I've had a very hard time making them run under Debian. It came with "source" that included a precompiled object module. I've had a hard time matching up that silly module with a particular kernel and I'm about fed up with it. I may try to set up a Red Hat box, but it will be a dead box that will have a kernel fixed for freaking ever. Changing the sofware around it will be a pain. That's not Red Hat's fault, it's the card maker's fault. It shows where things can go.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
A product is a valuable item (article, etc.) or service in the hands of the person (organization, etc.) that needs and or wants it.
Yes, there is a "process" involved in learning about, installing, tweaking Linux, but that is a secondary thing, IMHO.
Linux is a product that gives a user of it certain things, freedom from oppressive licensing, the freedom to tweak (source level), help a person handle e-mail, browse the web, network with other computers and on and on.
It is a "commodity" only in the sense that it is a tool that helps people do what they want to do with their computers, at a fraction of the cost (money and personal freedom) than other "products" out there.
Regards,
Fredrick
Debian ... exactly what I picture when I think of a Dynamic Constantly Moving and Developing Product.
:)
If you were running Debian Sid (unstable) as I am, you'd...know that Debian is a process, not a product!
It's not called "unstable" because it breaks frequently (in fact, in four years, I've seen notable breakage only twice), but because it changes on a daily basis. How much more "dynamic", "constantly moving" and "developing" do you want?
Maybe I just not with the flow but I tend to call Linux by the distro name not Linux. I don't run Linux. I run RedHat, Mandrake, or SuSE. Each is Linux, they are very much alike, yet very different as well. Throw Slack or Debian in to the mix and it is very different birds.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
The idea of linux has very little to do with what it is in its self. I think linux is a tag that non-technical people can understand as an alternative to m$. They don't have to know what it is in its self and that doesn't matter. My girlfriend has been finding and sending me anti-m$ and pro-linux stuff that she has found or been sent on the net. She has no idea what linux is. All she knows is micro$oft is wrong and linux is right. Non-geeks don't need to understand this sort of thing. It doesn't matter what people think linux is. We need to get the message (propaganda) out there and raise awareness. Who cares what non geeks understand. Non geeks employ us to tell them the way things are.......so tell them, just don't confuse them. Your guest is as good as mine.
GNU/Linux is about choice for users.
then "Linux" must be a verb.
I Linux you!
Linux is now a verb, not a noun!
I did not say Linus offered his kernel to the GNU Project, but to the community at large (by GPL-ing it, I mean).
And in the spirit of accuracy: GNU exists without Linux; Linux DOES NOT EXIST without GNU.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
...posterchild of Open Source because it is a product - RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, etc. just repackage the product to fit a perceived market however the core is still Linux. It is still the same kernel, I can use the same commands to get the same result on any distro...
It is dynamic because of how it was built - modularity to make it flexible so it is able to compete and thrive in avenues others wouldn't like the embedded market.
There is no "Linux process" - I'm not going to "linux" my development; I would be open sourcing my project. Even more accurate, utilizing peer review is more then half of what the open source process/ideal is.
linux is a movement with a final destination of the bit-bucket.
Like Ian Murdock says, Linux distributions are comprised of many different software packages, all contributing to a working whole. I think this is why Gentoo is doing so well.
I'll be the first to admit that Gentoo has been difficult to set up. Because I'm not a distro maker, my box doesn't have the slick polish of Lindows or Red Hat. On the other hand, now that I am set up, Portage (Gentoo's package manager) is so flexible, powerful, and up-to-date that all of the software I care about is as fresh as CVS and the software I don't care about is just not installed.
To me, it doesn't even make sense to put a version number on Gentoo, because it is always changing, and always current.
a) sucks for the non-open product people, who want to get paid
b) is great for other developers who can build from a higher starting point.
Which factor you weigh more heavily is a matter of preference.
Lessee.. "product mentality", check.. "dynamism", check... "shared platform", "infrastructure technology", "cookie-cutter software"... Yup, that fills in a full row on my Buzzword Bingo sheet.
please see http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html Xah Lee
The problem is that most people/customers/users want products. They want stuff shrink-wrapped, polished, completed. They don't want some vague notion of a never-ending work in progress or an ever-evolving platform. They want discrete, well-defined units and releases. It's true of everything from Twinkies to CDs to operating systems, and it's why this common attitude among Linux zealots is counter-productive to their hopes for widespread adoption.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Yeah, that would be an interesting read, but the link is not getting any page back, so what happened? Is Linux getting proprietary?
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
I'm surprised no one else here has caught this.
Do NOT start calling Linux a "technology." I'm dead serious. If it is known for being a technology, then it is only a stone's throw from being labelled a "circumventing technology," which under the DMCA can then be banned. Instead, swallow your pride and call it a document. It's a long list of source code, which happens to compile, on some peoples' machines but not others, OK? It's only when somebody does something to this that it becomes something else.
Don't say I didn't warn you...
What is linux? Let me count the ways.
1) Linux is an operating system.
2) Linux is game played by a worldwide group of people over the internet.
3) Linux the worlds largest meritocracy.
4) Linux is an experiment. It's an experiment to see if people from all over the world, of many races, religions, political affiliations can get together to one thing. To make the experiment more difficult the rules are that they must do it vountarily and without a profit motive.
5) Linux is a gift given to the world by geeks.
War is necrophilia.
It sounds like what Ian is doing is begging Linux distributions to not become typical loser enterprise software companies. Having worked in corporate environments, the standard 'enterpriseware' chosen by managers seduced by glossy brochures is very specific about software versions and configurations it may be used with if you want support.
For example, one product specified a version of apache that had long had a security advisory, used together with a version OpenSSL which had also had a security advisory. When I raised it as an issue, the vendor essentially said "you must use our certified configuration or we won't honor your $40,000/year support contract".
In my experience, the issues Ian raises are very real. For instance, Red Hat will only support Advanced Server 2.1 as a complete product. It doesn't support the operating system as a platform, as for instance, Sun supports Solaris.
For example, if you compile your own Apache for Advanced Server because Red Hat's bundled httpd is compiled to limit MaxClients to 256, any OS issues come across because of that are completely unsupported. Red Hat won't acknowledge any problems known issues fixed by a later version of a particular component, or explain the limitations. Just "that isn't supported".
That's contrary to classic Linux culture, where if you could submit a reproducible bug, the coders would be typically interested in fixing it. Even without paying a premium for support.
It's especially ironic in Red Hat's case, since Advanced Server 2.1 is listed as supporting large configurations, yet their shipped Apache doesn't even begin to give such a machine appreciable load.
Linux is a kernel. Redhat is a distribution that uses the Linux kernel. It's also got a bunch of GNU applications that help make it a useable whole package. So are Gentoo, Debian, SuSe, Caldera, Mandrake, and every other distribution that exists. Open source methodology is a process. It happens to be the one that is used to develop the Linux kernel, and the GNU software apps, and lots of other non-Linux, and non-GNU software. Words mean things. Fuzzy use of language, leads to fuzzy thinking. Like yout herbal karma is not in sync with alignment of your head up your ass.
From the creator of "Progeny Linux", one of the most depressing failures of open source software. Stop thinking about "processes" and start making reliable "releases", J.F.C!
I was barking at the original poster (and obviously not at you, sorry if it seemed that way) but to bark is not polite anyway. Sorry.
And yes, you were right, and you are right.
Yesterday I made an interesting experiment. My wife's cousin is a telecom engineer, and he has worked at Lucent (3 yrs) and some other big telecom companies here in BR. He is visiting us and asked me to look his webmail. In my home-office, I have my machine running Sid and my wife's running Bill's-98. I fired up Mozilla-Firebird in my PC, and he spent a couple of hours sorting the 300+ e-mails he accumulated during his vacation.
When he finished, I told him he was not using Windows, and he responded he would never know. Window decorations seemed funny to him, but he did not pay attention. This is a guy who can use complicated CAD programs, telco network management software, and stuff.
Point being, again, you are Right(TM).
Thanks and sorry again,
Massa.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
What, subscribing to an email list is too much trouble for you? That's where I get most of my help. We don't have a large enough group for IRC to be practical.
The rest of your trolly reply is an insult. You combine the admitedly over used bullshit grandmother example with an implication that I'd charge my relatives for advice. That's ugly, but not nearly as nasty as someone who'd con their relatives out of the cost of Windows. The fee I charge strangers for free software is less than CompuUSA charges just to look at a box and an order of magnitude less than the cost of comprable Windows software.
Someone set up with free software is much beter off than any poor schuck on Windoze, which is both confusing and breaks. Also, I can give anyone all the free software they want without worry. This software, once installed is usually easy to keep up and alows others to offer remote help securely. The only assumption I've made is that people are better off with free software than they are with Microsoft.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.