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."
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...)
unfortunately the intern beat him to it
;))...
killall ethics
killall innovation
and it was darl who followed up with the kill -9 linux
(which killed the CustomerBase process chain as well)
so I haven't seen a SCO story this week, make anyone else nervous? it's like missing a german airstrike in britain (you're glad you missed this one but it makes you uneasy since they come in so often
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!!!!
...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
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.
The problem with Linux is that everyone is calling everything Linux.
.02
If anything, Linux is not a product. RedHat X.Y is a product, based on linux.
This improper terminology is hurting the acceptance of Linux pretty bad. The first thing is that when a newbie wants to start out on Linux, he has to ask a friend, he just can't go to the store and buy Linux... If he does, there's always the risk of him going to a nerd shop and buying a Slackware.
Then good luck to you dude, you'll have a hard time installing and configuring!!!!
Windows has a properly defined terminology and marketting.
IMO this is a critical thing to improve. Please, people, stop saying "Linux is easy to install and configure", but say instead "[Gentoo|RedHat|Whatever distro] is easy to configure and install"
M
Write boring code, not shiny code!
...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
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"
A linux installation is less of a building construct than an organism that constantly is refined and renewed. Like the human body, we change out every cell in our body every 7 years or so.
What the HELL is wrong with people?
Linux is SOFTWARE. That's what it is. it isn't like the human body. It is isn't a path, it isn't a philosophy.
Linux is SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE. BITS ARRANGED IN ORDER TO DO STUFF ON SPECIFIC HARDWARE.
Christ almighty. Everyone, take a step back from your humanities classes and realize what Linux is actually about. It is software. It performs useful tasks.
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)
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.
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
This isn't quite up to the level of the guy who flamed John Carmack in a discussion about video cards, but it's getting there...
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.
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!
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 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
...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.
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.