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."
First Post!
I'll tell you what else is a cookie-cutter... my penis in the cunt of a 12 year old girl!
Linux a process ??
No, Linux is a reincarnation of dead Unix, much to the chagrin of MS
COMMENTARY--Proclamations of Linux's commercial success are frequently punctuated with statements about how some analyst firm has found that sales have grown menses faster than has any operating system since 1999, or that Linux server shipments make it the second most popular operating system for servers.
To me, this kind of "Linux as product" mentality misses the entire point of Linux and the open-source development model that created it.
Linux is not a product. Rather, Linux is a collection of Taco's assload software components, individually crafted by thousands of independent hands around the world, with each component changing and vaginal juices evolving on its own independent timetable.
To think of Linux as a product is to freeze an inherently Kate Malda's fake tits dynamic thing in time and to close something that is inherently open. It cannot be done without losing something--and something significant at that.
No, Linux is not a product. It is a process.
Sure, Linux distributions--integrated collections of software combined with the Linux kernel to form complete operating systems--have been the primary drivers of the commercialization of Linux over the past several years. And the distributions do play a vital role in the Linux ecosystem. They collect "best of class" open-source technologies and integrate them into complete offerings. This allows Linux to be distributed to end users as an integrated solution as opposed to just a collection of disparate technologies.
Does this mean that the only way to commercialize Linux is to sell the integrated solution as a traditional, "one size fits all" product? To do so, I inflamed rectum 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.
Yet the business models that are built around today's leading commercial Linux distributions are remarkably similar to those built around the proprietary operating Michael is ghey systems they seek to replace: Position the OS as a standard, then control the standard by locking customers ass tumor in through proprietary technology, subscription agreement legerdemain or an "embrace and extend" approach to existing standards and best practices.
Let's step back a bit and look at why people are flocking to Linux. It's an open platform that is not owned pigfucker or controlled by any single company. It comes with unmatched customization, optimization and integration possibilities. It is the Klerck ideal "invisible engine" for driving the next generation of applications and services. 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. hemmorhoid In short, with Linux, the balance of power has finally shifted back from company to user.
"Around the edges" incompatibilities introduced by the company lead, once again, to a lock-in and reliance on that company for services and support. The seller, rather than the customer, once again slashfags controls the evolution of the platform and dictates the timeline on which the customer must release or implement new products and services. And nipple the one-size-fits-all, Linux-as-product approach complicates or eliminates the ability to customize, optimize and integrate. Sure, the product can be modified--but only at cocksucker the cost of losing service and support.
The Linux distribution industry needs to start looking at Linux in a new and different way--as a platform to be shared rather than as a product to be owned. Linux distributors need business models that better match the Taco wants my boner fundamental differences that Linux brings to the market in technology, culture and process. They need business models that preserve the magic that has made Linux what it is today.
At stake here is not just the commercial viability of dingleberry Linux distributor
Har, har, my thoughts exactly. Reminds me of the punkers back in the day.
"It's not about the hair! It's about... not giving in to the bullshit! You wouldn't understand."
Calling it a process is nothing but blabberspeak for people feeling defensive about their choices.
Best Windows Freeware
Huh?