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."

Comments

The Process of Invention

[BrynM]

Reading the commentary below this article is interesting. I'm betting the /. discussion will be just as heated. This post in particular was interesting to me:

Since IBM doesn't have a distro then they're not going to disagree. The issue was the fact that the label "Linux" is being applied to multiple things and maybe the one that the press and the general public apply/associate it with is not really the "correct" one. (At least not in the opinon of the commentator.) Your example shows the error that most people have with the thinking: If me and a bunch of friends get together and bake cakes for a charity, the cake is the product of our efforts and is being offered as such to the consuming public. It is no different than the cake made by Sara Lee... In your case, you're emphasizing the end product, the cake, rather than the process of friends gathering to do something (bake) for charity. The fact is that you could gather together and bake a million different things for charity it doesn't always have to be a cake. Or, you could take that friends gather together part and the charity aspect and wind up with a home built instead of a cake baked. What really is the more important part to be emphasized in your example? The cake or the charitable act of friends? BTW, the author never claimed that other OS's don't have processes involved in their creation it's more that the process is internal and hidden (like Sara Lee's cake baking) as opposed to an open and community process. The other "fact" is that this Linux "process" can be used by the community to come up with a multitude of things besides the simple "cake". (Yeah, I'm blending your analogy in here all over the place. :-D )

I think it's very important to note that the process of making Linux is just as available and useful as the end product of a Distro (Suse, Red Hat). I would say that I have learned more about computing in the past couple of years by having access to the process and participating in it than I ever did by just using a produce. To me, this makes Linux worth it's weight in gold.

I wish non-geeks would understand this sorta thing

[JessLeah]

...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.

Re:Reminds me of XML

[Pieroxy]

The problem with Linux is that everyone is calling everything Linux.

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 .02

Open development is a process...

[aussersterne]

...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.

Re:What!?

[Magic Thread]

I agree. Linux is a product developed by a process. The point is that it's the process, not the product, that makes Linux special.

Re:I wish non-geeks would understand this sorta th

[div_2n]

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)

Not exactly

[madgeorge]

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.

Process is a bad choice of words

[Serapth]

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!

How about...

[Tomster]

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