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
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
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
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!!!!
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?
Umm
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
...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"
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.
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)
If you class linux as a product then they've released more OS updates than Microsoft could ever compete with :)
It's synergrrific!
--
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
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
Linux is a Product created from an Open Source Process.
"Times may change, but standards must remain the same." - George Carlin.
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
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
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
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!
"If SCO really does have their way, are we going to run something called SCO-GNU/McLinux?"
No. It will be called: MS SCO Linux GT (Gnu Technology).
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.
Apparently, this guy doesn't understand the process he's writing about.
I really wonder why anybody would moderate that a flamebait. Insightful would have been more apropriate. I believe the risk is nonexistent. Today there are branches, some more popular than others. Clearly Linus' official versions are still the most popular. But still some of the development happens in other branches and eventually returns back to the mainstream. If the mainstream starts evolving in a direction which a major number of person dislikes, some other branch will simply take over. There might be some fight, but the end result will be the same as today: One branch is the most popular, but it still accepts code developed in the other branches. The model is simply so robust I don't believe anybody can break it.
Actually trying to make a branch closed and proprietary would be a violation of the license (and if you don't accept the license it would be a violation of copyright instead). So whoever do this will be infriging the rights of thousands of developers. They can expect no help from the community, rather the opposite.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
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!
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 does not live or die by GNU alone. It is a system, and yes, GNU is part of that system
Wrong. GNU is an operating system. It's a replacement of the proprietary unix operating system. GNU was meant to be a system, Linux was not. Linux is a kernel, which needs an operating system to live. Theoretically (and perhaps even practically) Linux can run with some other operating system. But it usually doesn't.
It seems rather childish for RMS to stand up and shout "Well, if it weren't for ME you wouldn't even have your ball to play with!"
RMS doesn't say that. RMS says he's the one who made the operating system. And the operating system really should be called GNU. Not GNU/Linux, just GNU. The main reason RMS suggests to call it GNU/Linux anyway is that the name "Linux" is something that people know. It's pretty bad PR to give yourself a completely new name when people are just getting to know the thing. That's why he wants us to call it GNU/Linux. So people still recognize the word. If many people call it GNU/Linux, perhaps we could start to call it by its proper name.
In a later post, you say that Linus didn't try to finish the GNU system, he tried to make his own project instead. I don't really know about Linus' reasons, but let's suppose that this is true. That's fine, the nature of free software is that such things are possible. But it is usually considered polite to use the name of a system that the creator chose for it. If Linus didn't want to call the whole system "GNU", because he thought his contribution was large, then he should have thought of calling it something like "GNU/Linux". But to leave out the name of the original is quite rude, really.
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
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.