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.

Re:The Process of Invention

[MuParadigm]

Interestingly, this "cake" metaphor was used in an article on USAToday's website just a couple of days ago: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog y/maney/2003-07-30-maney_x.htm

"SCO claims it rummaged around in its closet and found that since the mid-1990s it has owned the rights to certain core source code for the waning Unix operating system. SCO says it then realized that the Unix code somehow got copied into the core of Linux, an increasingly popular "open-source" operating system developed and modified by thousands of independent programmers and owned by no one.

[... snip para. ...]

This whole thing is not unlike finding your grandmother's recipe for Bundt cake, realizing it's similar to the recipe in a number of cookbooks, suing the biggest cookbook publisher, then sending letters to everyone who makes a Bundt cake saying they should send you some money or risk legal action. Not a good way to make friends."

What's really nice about this is that it means some of the mainstram press (do you really get any more mainstream than USAToday?) is finally starting to criticize the SCO FUD.

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

Re:Huh?!?!

[rknop]

Umm ... yeah ... Debian ... exactly what I picture when I think of a Dynamic Constantly Moving and Developing Product.

Well, it is.

Debian is not a product. Debian Stable (currently Debian Woody) is effectively a product. But Debian is a project.

Debian Stable may only have a new release every couple of years, making it seem very stodgy and safe and conservative and slow. But the Debian project really is dynamic, constantly moving, and constantly developing. Try installing Debian Unstable, and you'll probably find it's a little more constantly moving than you want....

-Rob

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)

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