Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Perens: Unite behind Debian, UserLinux

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the no-surprise-there dept.

An anonymous readers writes "Infoworld is running a report on the Desktop Linux Conference, at which Bruce Perens suggested that in order to get Linux to the enterprise desktop, the Linux community should base their efforts on one single distribution... based on Debian. Perens went on to say that enterprises will be willing to pay Linux companies to engineer versions of Linux to suit their needs, but that the base distro should remain free. He suggested that by 2006, 30% of enterprise desktops will run Linux." Here is a wired story with more information about his proposed UserLinux project.

58 of 745 comments (clear)

  1. That would never work... by eurleif · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What makes Linux so great is that there are so many distros, and I can choose the one I like. One distro can never compare to hundreds of them.

    1. Re:That would never work... by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's easier to fork your own custom distro if all the packages out in the wild follow the same standards.

    2. Re:That would never work... by Jimbo99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hundreds of distro's creates fractionalization and marginalization of certain ones. One distro won't help. Multiple distro's seem to create a situation where the user, wanting one good desktop have to pay to try multiples just to see which one is the right one. Linux doesn't need one distro, it needs a single cross-distro installation package for after-OS-install applications (end user software). Linux lives like the guy that constantly tweaks his car but never takes it out of the garage. It is also similar to the guy who thinks the car is all in the engine and nothing else matter. Why build doors on the car when you can get in through the windows, and who cares if the 3 year old daughter doesn't like it that way. A cross-distro installation package for all end-user software that is graphical and can accomplish an install within a few clicks of the mouse is the only thing that will solve the problems linux has. Otherwise Linux will hit its zenith and take a noze-dive.

    3. Re:That would never work... by supabeast! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are so many distros, but most corporate Linux users are running Red Hat, Mandrake, and SuSE. A large number of "hobbyists," ie. the open-source programmers not working for any big company, are using Debian.

      The thing is, much of what goes into the four big distros is culled from the little ones-but the little ones often aren't suited for all-around use because they are developed with very certain featuresets in mind.

      If I hire you to work on my network, I don't give a shit if you want to use some obscure distro because it's your flavor of the week for a certain application. On my networks, we will be going with one of the big five-actually just Red Hat or Debian, as they are the most popular distros in my region of the world-because there's a big chance that you won't be running the server forever. You might get promoted, get transferred, get fired, quit, etc., but in all likelihood I'll need to hire another sysadmin to manage that box within two years. And I'm NOT going to hire a senior admin who can handle learning some weird distro when I have the option of bringing in a college kid who knows how to keep a big-distro box running on autopilot.

  2. Great idea, but... by Dr.+Cam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the community is going to have to put more resources into Debian to keep it up to date. I won't use anything else, but you can't have an enterprise running on a mix of testing and unstable.

  3. Standards by 4of12 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why Debian, instead of, say Gentoo?

    What I think is most important is that standards apply, so that users can mix n match between distributions more easily as new applications are developed.

    It's a tough battle, though, because the commercial landscape for Linux is being advanced by companies that are trying to differentiate their particular distribution from the rest of the heard.

    The best we can hope for there is that their new systems and add-ons are free.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Standards by wytcld · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course ideally Gentoo would also collaborate in this enterprise and would become debian derived

      There's a problem with this. Gentoo's advantages are not just that you're running quite-recent versions of everything custom-compiled for your architecture, but that it has a better-standardized arrangement of daemon configuration files and better (although not perfect) handling of init-script dependencies. It's possible to run serious production servers that need recent-version daemons using Gentoo defaults for compile options and with a nicely-rationalized /etc/*/ tree for the configuration options. If you want to accomplish the same with Debian you're going to have to custom-compile your major daemons, and deal with much more of a mish-mash of init and conf stuff.

      Mind you, Debian is good if you want a server that's not cutting-edge, that's real stable, and that doesn't do much that's fancy. But Gentoo is less trouble and performs better if you have clients who you've sold on using today's technology, rather than that of several years ago.

      Oh, and desktops in particular run much better when the stuff is compiled for your specific hardware, and the feel of responsiveness is a major factor in making power desktop users feel comfortable and happy. People whose work involves seriously drafting documents or analyzing spreadsheets don't want a Cadillac, they want a Porsche. Gentoo is a Porsche, Windows a Cadillac with factory defects, and Debian is a mid-level Ford. Debian-for-the-desktop perhaps for your Aunt Maud who writes the occassional letter or e-mail (and even then, doing a Knoppix install to the hard drive will give her something happier than stock Debian), but Gentoo is what's needed to make the power users who demand the most from desktop machines - and who often have a loud voice in corporate computing policy, since their offices are close to the CEO's - happy.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    2. Re:Standards by rifter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably because debian takes the GPL and licensing issues seriously from the start.

      Debian also manages package dependancy hell a bit better AFACT.

      I recommended debian for a large project for this reason, though I did later curse it soundly for my personal installation.

      Maybe when sarge installer is working a bit better I'll try it again.

      It does not surprise me that a person who recommends dogfood to his customer without trying it first is wrong on this point. All the source based distributions maintain their freeness as much as if not moreso than debian. After all, you are downloading and compiling from source for most packages; if you can't do that you know there is something wrong. Much like debian, free and non-free are kept seperate and there is a lot of discussion of purging nonfree altogether. Non-free software really sticks out in a source-based distro.

      Package management and dependencies are a breeze on the source-based distributions. I just cast or emerge the package I want, and all the dependencies come down automagically. What could be simpler?

  4. That would work... by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What makes linux so difficult to adopt in the business world is that there are too many choices and just confuses the market..

    For a home user, who cares.. for business its a hindrance..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:That would work... by eurleif · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Maybe so, but geeks (me included) will want choice. How will the business people know that UserLinux is the one true distro any more than they know that Debian is the one true distro now?

    2. Re:That would work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Horsepucky! "Too many choices" is hardly the problem. The people who could very well migrate to GNU/Linux but don't are hardly intimidated by choices. After all, they have a much larger selection of realistic possible banks to choose from, but this doesn't prevent them from opening checking accounts. They have several options for Wintel vendors, yet they manage to choose one. They could locate just about anywhere, yet they manage to find a place to hang their sign. They could advertise in a million publications, channels, stations, direct mail, etc, but they do figure out how to get the word out. The idea that a businessperson is somehow "confused" by choices is crazy talk.

      The real problem is that there are few, if any, companies pitching GNU/Linux in a way that makes it obvious to potential users why they would care. The other problem is that buying bare systems or pre-installed Linux systems is difficult. It takes some work to avoid buying a copy of MS Windows or Apple Mac OS when you buy a piece of small-to-mid-sized hardware. I have *never* seen a GNU/Linux system on display in a store. I have *never* seen a fully assembled system for sale without an operating system (except on web sites devoted to such things). So not only do you have to pitch GNU/Linux, but you have to make it easy to get there from here. No intelligent businessperson is going to spend good money on Windows only to get the system in-house and immediately fdisk it!

      All this talk about distros is pure distraction. The only company actually doing something to get Linux out there right now is Lindows. They are putting Linux on hardware and getting it in people's faces. Beyond that most of the Linux marketing I've seen is pure backroom stuff that functions more to reinforce the geek notion that Linux is a great server OS, but does nothing to get the unwashed masses to sit up and take note.

      The desktop market is darn near saturated anyway. If someone hasn't bought a home or small business computer yet, the odds seem pretty low that they will. If they already have a computer, odds of buying another one are getting similarly low. And for better or worse, most of the already sold systems are Wintel systems.

      Which means that in order to gain share in those markets the value adds are going to have to be significant. One possibility is the "new lease on life" approach (your old hardware starting to seem sluggish? run Linux!)-- but I consider that holding out false hope. Linux is just as demanding as Windows for a lot of stuff, so while it's possible to run FluxBox and mutt, most people aren't going to want to. More likely is the Lindows approach. I mean, how do you beat a $200 brand-new system with decent specs? Problem with that approach is that it's low margin (and therefore somewhat risky).

    3. Re:That would work... by Matrix272 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe so, but geeks (me included) will want choice.

      I'm a geek, and I really don't care about choice. As far as I'm concerned, there's only a handful of good distros out there, and even then, that's stretching it. I'd consider Red Hat, Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian, and Slackware. Everything else is window dressing for those that want "choice". In fact, now that I think about it, Gentoo, Debian, and Slackware aren't very user friendly, so just lump those in with the other "choices" too.

      Start maintaining machines in a setting where you don't want to spend 6 hours a day teaching people how to use a computer, and then talk to me about how many wonderful choices there are in the Linux World.

      How will the business people know that UserLinux is the one true distro any more than they know that Debian is the one true distro now?

      The business people don't make choices like that. They make the decision that they want a free OS installed on the computers, then hire (or outsource) someone that reads /. to choose the best distro for their operation. And, unfortunately for the proponents of a lot of the distros out there, one of the main features the technical people look for is ease-of-use... and that's the area that Linux fails WAY behind Windows. Security, stability, reliability, etc. is all great, but the ease-of-use and the features are still lacking.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    4. Re:That would work... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe so, but geeks (me included) will want choice.

      When it comes down to it, regardless of how many distros there are, whether it's one or one thousand, there's always a choice in the software you run. Beyond that, they're basing their distro on Debian, just adding software that Debian won't include (like closed-source drivers). You could always choose Debian, or another distro, or modify the UserLinux distro for yourself.

      How will the business people know that UserLinux is the one true distro any more than they know that Debian is the one true distro now?

      How do they know what RedHat or SuSe are? They don't. They rely on people that know what they're doing to make the right decision. That's why US Corporations have been moving to have positions like CTO and CFO alongside the CEO, because they need people with a firm understanding of the technical and financial sides of business. If the CTO doesn't know about UserLinux, or any other distro of Linux, chances are he knows that someone on his staff will be able to give him an informed decision. My favorite part about being a geek is not just the control over my computer, but also being the person people go to when they want to know what they should do to keep up with technology. The best managers know that there are people working for them that know particular portions of their business better than they do, and will go to those people for advice on those portions of the business.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    5. Re:That would work... by div_2n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Maybe so, but geeks (me included) will want choice."

      From the story header: "at which Bruce Perens suggested that in order to get Linux to the enterprise desktop"

      Thankfully, that excludes geeks like you (and me). Business has absolutely zero to do with such small quibbles on whether or not we geeks have choice and everything to do with what is a good business decision. There are points at which the two intersect but they are not either mutually inclusive or exclusive.

      Human tendency especially among the informed/educated is to think to one's condition. "That isn't what I would want/do so it will fail." That line of thinking is usually not conducive to successful businesses.

      "How will the business people know that UserLinux is the one true distro any more than they know that Debian is the one true distro now?"

      Because if everyone in the Linux community unites behind one version for the defacto business standard, then they will know. Keep choice for those that want it. For those that don't give a flying four-door (insert your favorite four-letter) about whether it uses KDE or Gnome or OOo/Hancom/KOffice or for that matter what the hell it runs. They just want something that works.

      In fact, while I am at it, this is what businesses want (I know because I run one):

      Web Browser (again, flavor DOES NOT MATTER)
      -Related browsing technology (Java, Flash, etc)
      -No Pop ups

      E-mail
      -No Spam
      -Easy attachments, etc.
      -Free from virus concerns

      Office Software
      -Maximum compatibility desired (MS Office, Word Perfect, etc.)

      Custom/Special Application compatibility
      -This is the big showstopper
      -Like it or not, there are businesses that will NOT consider Linux because simple apps like ACT 2000 will not work
      -Wine/Codeweavers integration is a must

      Central Authentication/Access Control
      -It may already exist. I honestly don't know.
      -Must work as simple or close to Windows Domains
      -Must dictate what applications/security/settings are available to users that log in
      -Must provide a central point to push new apps/bug fixes
      -Should NOT require physical access to a machine EVER except for system problems

      Windows Update-like mechanism (See Red Hat Up2Date)
      -Again, this should be automatic to the end-user but updates pushed by admins (after proper testing, etc)
      -Updates should be pushable by group (so that prioritization is possible)

      Integrated Virus protection/Firewalling
      -Just because a plethora of Viruses/Worms are not out there now doesn't mean they won't be later
      -The Firewall settings should be set upon logging in (see the above)

      Hardware Support
      -No, we businesses don't care if we have the source for a scanner driver as long as it is free and works
      -Again, do not confuse your condition to that of a business. Free first. OSS second.

      ISV/Vendor Support
      -Widely document the standard system
      -Provide migration documents for migrating Windows apps to Linux
      -Provide documents to train programmers that are Windows-centric to think on a Linux-level

      There you go. My rendition of what it needs. I am sure there is more but those are the things I have encountered in Enterprise computing that without, Linux will NEVER unseat windows in a reasonable amount of time.

      Feel free to tear my assertations apart.

    6. Re:That would work... by Bombcar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      your old hardware starting to seem sluggish? run Linux!

      Good Idea!

      There should be a "simple" Linux that is designed for home users to use to turn an old PC into a fileserver.

      I'm thinking something that will install Knoppix style, load a simple config wizard that will setup DHCP, Samba in NT emulation mode, etc. Such a thing is very doable with linux, we should make it one click to setup (Byte me, Amazon!)

      Then, in the future, if the user wants to, he can begin fiddling with things directly.

      I'm talking put-the-CD-in and then type two or three things, everything else autodetected or defaults.

      --
      Fellowship 9/11
    7. Re:That would work... by fferreres · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whoah, GREAT insight into the problem. First you drop all properly package managed distros like Gentoo and Debian, and then you bitch about having trouble to maintain the systems or teach things to users.

      Mhh, I'd suggest you go in other direction. For example, why not install Debian or Gentoo on a friends computer, and then teach them to use apt-get or emerge. Or maybe, tell him to give you a call if he ever has a new need (game, whatever). Then you can tell him: type "emerge doom3" or "emerge whatever". Of course, you'd leave sshd installed and will cron update on already installed packages.

      You don't even need to explain anything to the user. Really. Now if you only had mentioned Slackware or the likes, yes, that one I will only install on some servers and make sure they are lightweight, and vulnerabilities do not pop-up. These babies work GREAT, but must be babysitted (though I've found I really know what's going on and no side effects will be expected).

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    8. Re:That would work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I got on linux and windows at the same time, coming from a mac: imho, windows is NOT easy to use. Control panels scattered around, needless complication in terminology, lack of consistency.
      All this, when there aren't other issues with hardware of course. Heck, i got trouble with multisession hybrid cds that work fine with a '97 mac (and linux, of course).

      Linux is not easy to use, either, but is getting better way fast. Anybody can boot knoppix and finish a couple pages in openoffice write before win2000 has even finished installing.

      People are more familiar with windows. A very different concept.

    9. Re:That would work... by cshark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My perfectly average eight year old daughter uses Debian , a "non user friendly" distro according to your post with no problem at all. She prefers it to windows xp because "it has better games", "cooler menus", and "no blue screens!"

      The system is a vanilla install with some extra game packs, Evolution, Mozilla, and KDE. Nothing fancy.

      If my kid can do it with next to no training aside from a basic understanding of how to use a GUI based operating system, I have a hard time believing adults who have been working with computers for several years or more would have trouble with it.

      When it comes down to it, people like to complain about change, so they make excuses about why they aren't adopting linux. "But it's harder to use," "It doesn't have enough software," "It doesn't have any GUI tools" are excuses I hear all the time.

      If they would simply try a current version of linux, maybe use it for a week or two, they would find that none of these excuses are true of modern linux distributions.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    10. Re:That would work... by Spoing · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The business people don't make choices like that. They make the decision that they want a free OS installed on the computers, then hire (or outsource) someone that reads /. to choose the best distro for their operation.

      Oh, to live in your world! (No, really, where is this place? Tell me! Please! :( )

      I'm constantly told exactly what software to use by managers who like to micromanage. Only seeing a nitch, filling it, and then announcing that the problem/issue is solved do I get to have any choice.

      And, unfortunately for the proponents of a lot of the distros out there, one of the main features the technical people look for is ease-of-use... and that's the area that Linux fails WAY behind Windows.

      Some distros do make it a bit too difficult, and there are annoying inconsistancies. (Current gripe: file managers in KDE/Gnome can't share, CLI over the network does not match what you see in the GUI, though the *exact* same set of problems exists in Windows.)

      I find familiarity and fear are the biggest obsticals. Ease of use, while critical, is way down the list. It doesn't matter how easy something is to use if you never look at it or make it more complex than it is.

      To be any good at using Windows or a flavor of Unix you have to put in substantial amounts of work. Everything else is just clicking on a dialog and guessing. In the grand scheme of things, software is really just an arrangement of bits and bytes -- Windows, prop-Unix, or open-Unix -- and one package doesn't really make a difference. Run Windows? Know the registry. Run Unix? Know basic scripting and the file system.

      I'm not an admin right now, though the chief admin where I am is starting to get a clue that CLI != evil, and that it has it's place just as GUIs do. I've been carefully working on him for the past 6+ months, and he's reciently warmed to my advice realizing that I'm attempting to help not muck with his network or do an end run around him.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    11. Re:That would work... by Random+Walk · · Score: 3, Insightful
      My perfectly average eight year old daughter uses Debian , a "non user friendly" distro according to your post with no problem at all.

      Almost any "perfectly average eight year old" child will be able to learn new things at an almost frightening pace. In fact, there is a good chance that it will not even need any manual, howto, or whatever. (Marginally example: my 3 year old son handles the CD player w/o problems. And I did not tell him how it works ...). Children are curious, and curiosity is a major part of that thing called 'intelligence'.

      Its the fourty years old grown-ups that are not able to handle Debian. Actually, they can't handle Windows XP either, but at least with WinXP, they think it is their fault ('everybody says it is user-friendly, so it must be me'), while with Debian they will inevitably blame Linux.

  5. I was thinking.,. by hookedup · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the same thing the other day in relation to science, where we have 100's of institutions finding cures/treatments for the same thing, each basically reinventing the wheel all over again. Lot's of people united togeather on one project would probably reap more benifits that a bunch of smaller projects reaching for the same goal.

  6. Odious by Sanity · · Score: 5, Insightful
    He said the companies will also welcome an alternative to Red Hat and other commercial versions of Linux, which come with "odious" terms, limiting the number of seats and requiring expensive service contracts that are voided if users attempt to modify the software.
    What is odious about that? How can RedHat be expected to support an operating system when they have no idea what modifications might have been made to it from the their version? The whole point of having a standardized version of the OS is to make support easier. Refusing to support versions of RedHat that have been modified from their default configuration isn't odious, it is a common sense precaution against your support staff wasting vast amounts of time.
  7. With all due respect to Bruce.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What happens when the corporate backers of UserLinux decide that bills can't be met and they have to concentrate on an enterprise version? Bills don't pay themselves and there are reasons why RedHat isn't doing the consumer version anymore.

    In some respects I can see RedHat's position regarding the desktop, because for the majority of desktop users, Windows isn't "broken" and why switch if you don't have to? Servers are cake to argue because Linux IS so superior in many ways and that aspect is very easy to demonstrate.

    Probably what it will take to get Linux on more desktops is M$ trying to strongarm organizations and organizations doing exactly what Munich did, switch to Linux and then use WINE.

    That's exactly what the CIO of the defense branch I am working for is doing right now. Evaluating WINE because he is just fed up with the tail trying to wag the dog and the bad news for M$ is that the CIO doesn't think they are so unique anymore.

    1. Re:With all due respect to Bruce.... by debrain · · Score: 4, Insightful


      What happens when the corporate backers of UserLinux decide that bills can't be met and they have to concentrate on an enterprise version? Bills don't pay themselves and there are reasons why RedHat isn't doing the consumer version anymore.

      Debian, as a UserLinux, will survive the corporate onslaught precisely because it is free. Much as the Linux kernel will survive in the absence of corporate backing. That is the power of open source software.

      Red Hat isn't doing a consumer version because it cannot afford to, because it must answer to shareholders, because it is commercially driven to profit. Debian suffers none of these drawbacks.

      However, if Red Hat Enterprise were based on Debian, Red Hat would have minimal overhead in procuring a similar consumer version, while retaining all the benefits of a consumer presence. There is an enormous amount of work being put into the Debian distribution, and commercial entities that recognize and take advantage of it have the potential for great benefit.

    2. Re:With all due respect to Bruce.... by XNormal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What happens when the corporate backers of UserLinux decide that bills can't be met and they have to concentrate on an enterprise version?

      My guess is that the UserLinux corporate backers are large IT *users*, not developers like Red Hat. If that is the case they don't need to make any profit on it - they want to save money by using it themselves.

      Get a few big companies with hundreds of thousands of PC seats and each company's share of the investment to develop this kind of desktop distribution starts to look small compared to what they spent just on handling the latest MS virus.

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  8. Wishful thinking by 3Suns · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nice idea, and I agree wholeheartedly. Too bad it'll never work. "Everything could be so much better, if only they did things Our Way." That's never been thought of before...

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
  9. I agree... by Stingr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think that one of the biggest negative aspects of Linux is that there are too many distros. It makes it too confusing for someone who is interested in switching to Linux to make a choice. If the Linux community standardized then it would speak with one strong voice instead of a confusing drone of smaller ones. For all of you that say, "But choice of distros is what makes Linux great," let me say this. What makes Linux great is the fact that it is more or less a group project. Thousands of people work on it to make it better. But right now those thousands of people are not unified. They don't work together and the result is that the wheel is often reinvented. But if we took the good things from all the distros and combined the into one "super distro" (for lack of a better term) and then everyone worked to make that one distro better I think that thirty percent figure mentioned in the article would be vastly larger.

    --
    Chaos reigns within.
    Reflect, repent, and reboot.
    Order shall return.
  10. Re:Definatly by kayen_telva · · Score: 2, Insightful

    do you mean initial installer ?? because Debian has the
    best package installer hands down

  11. The Holy Wars Thread by VivianC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thanks Bruce. I now open the Linux Holy Wars thread by stating: "I like Mandrake better!" Please feel free to reply and let me know why your personal favorite is better.

    Maybe we should keep working on the LSB specs so all the distros can interoperate?

    --
    Viv

    Gmail invites for ip
    1. Re:The Holy Wars Thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh yeah right! Silly.

      cat prevthread | sed '-s/Debian/Slackware/'

      so there...

      You missed his point. The point is that you can have 1001 Linux distros, but it would eliminate allot of duplicated effort if they were based on Slackware because Slackware already has a comprehensive software package repository, a structured filesystem layout, and a demoncratic multi-national internet based community that develops, tests, maintains, supports, and uses Slackware.

      Besides, Slack is already in the enterprise.

      JoeR

  12. Always respectful, but.... by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I admire Perens ambition and passion for the open source movement, and always respect his educated opinion, but I am not so sure that I agree here. Working in the enterprise world myself for about 4 years, it has been my experience that management is more willing to use Linux when it is backed by a well-known and "secure" name. Customized jobs cost a lot of money, and most enterprise decision makers are more inclined to lean towards comprehensive distributions and assign the task of making it workable to their already over-tasked IT staff.

    I don't think that the community needs to collectively focus their attention on one single distro. I just think that one single distro needs to rise above the rest and earn market acceptance as a solid desktop. The strength of Linux is that I can use a different distro suited to a particular task. If I need a quick solution for IDS, but don't have some powerful hardware, I can quickly setup snort and Acid on a Debain box and get it going. If I need a quick packet filtering firewall with easy to manage tools (for the IT staff here that isn't very Linux knowledgeble) I can setup Redhat 9 in about an hour and a half.

    Somewhere in the near future we need a desktop distro that is every bit as good as Windows is when it comes to the desktop. Then I can say "when I need a quick desktop for someone that just needs web access, eDirectory, and Lotus Notes out of the box, I can use insert distro here."

    1. Re:Always respectful, but.... by Skapare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is, when free markets make decisions about what should rise above the rest, that decision usually has nothing to do with what product is actually the best product. Instead, success in the market too often is based on factors such as what product is first to the market, what product has the strongest sales force, what product gets the most press, and what product works with the most other products that have decided to choose just one to be compatible with.

      PHBs have started to turn to some form of Linux. As more and more do, do we want to let them make the decisions about which particular form to go with? Or do we want to at least influence, if not outright make that decision? Do we want them using a distribution that locks them into a single vendor, or do we want them using a distribution that can be supplied to them competitively forever? You know they can't make good long term business decisions because of their shortsightedness in areas of technology. They rant and rave about how business concerns need to be addressed, and then they go off and make stupid decisions that end up costing the company more and exposing them to new risks.

      In as much as I think Bruce Parens' statement is a bit self-serving, I do think he's right, and that we need to center around not just a free kernel, but a whole free distribution. That's the only way to ensure minimal risks and costs for business use of Linux systems.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  13. Re:Debian minus freedom by Nevyn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think an important Perens quote from the article is: "UserLinux would only depart from Debian for software that is not open source"
    so, UserLinux will be Debian + proprietary software. A dissapointing step back in my opinion.

    A step back from what? Right now most US companies running a supported Linux in the enterprise are running Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and it comes with (or with support for) all the products they need, Ie. Java, Oracle, PowerPath, etc. etc. etc.

    This is the same "argument" that RMS uses, Ie. It's better to have nothing than something. Life doesn't work like that, people always go for the path of least resistance. Hell even debian wasn't stupid enough to not have "netscape" available when that proprietry and the only real browser. Saying "It's not free" doesn't solve the problem of "I need, now" (and "need" is relative, some people "need" to be able to play proprietry games, etc.).

    --
    ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
  14. Why does nobody get this? by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful


    I'm fed up with all this blather about Linux on the desktop. Is it ready yet? What needs to be improved? Why hasn't it happened yet? etc. etc.

    There is one thing that is going to get Linux on the desktop, and one thing only. That is that the big PC manufacturers (principally Dell and HP) start to seriously promote and sell desktop PCs with Linux already installed.

    If that doesn't happen, then Linux on the desktop will probably never happen to a significant extent.

  15. Re:Unite behind Live CD's by Gleef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While Bruce Perens seems to be talking more about development, not distribution (you can't really develop assuming Live CD's, or else your stuff might not work well on full systems), your point that Live CD's are incredibly important for evangilism is a good one.

    Also, note that the most popular Live CD's either are Knoppix or are based on Knoppix. Knoppix itself is based on Debian, so supporting Debian is supporting Live CDs.

    --

    ----
    Open mind, insert foot.
  16. Forget the Linux desktop seeking unity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    there'll always be diversity. Linux isn't centrally planned, it's development model is essentially geeks playing with their toys (even when they convince themselves otherwise) and distro makers trying to fight their fractured creations into a usable whole.

    What free software needs is a new, standard, OS that is designed for the desktop, won't have its driver APIs change all the time, won't use XWindows, won't have library hell, won't have a heap of different package management systems, won't chuck Unix at the user, won't have multiple desktop environments with different programs dependent on each one of them, and won't year after year run like a dog on anything but new hardware with desktop uses. Maybe put a little effort here.

  17. Re:Unite behind Live CD's by aliens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately they don't know WTF you're talking about nor do they care.

    Honestly why would someone running XP Home/Pro migrate to linux?

    There has to be a killer reason to switch, maybe someone hit by one of the worms lately might, but that's still a minority of home users.

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
  18. Re:We're almost there by wed128 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The key components are almost there: - perfect device detection - modern file manager

    true not quite there...give it time...

    - office suites - smooth browsing - good email clients

    Openoffice, Mozilla Firebird, Ximian Evolution. 'Nuff Said

    What's missing? - in-built p2p - better CD burning tools - better attachment handling in email

    Does anyone else have built in p2p? i didn't know about that...does sound like a good idea though. Also, command line cdrecord is good enough for me, a simple gui wrapper would suffice for most people. Finally, i agree that program integration in linux is poor, and attachment handling won't progress without it.

    however, the chance of program integration getting better in the future is pretty slim, unless a business is willing to commit to one Desktop Environment, etc.

  19. Re:do i need educating? by jiri+B · · Score: 3, Insightful

    one of the number one reasons i don't like debian is that packages in the stable branch are typically full point releases behind!

    You can have stable, or you can have bleeding-edge. Debian gives you both options (three, actually).

    Perhaps Debian could release more often (and you could volunteer to help with that), but there's a lot of situations where one just needs something stable; and when Debian says "stable", it is. Most people don't want to be upgrading to a new version of their operating system more often than that anyway, and Debian doesn't have the resources to support multiple stable versions.

    If you want newer stuff, and are willing to tolerate the odd fault, go with "testing", which generally seems to be a reasonable compromise.

    If you want bleeding-edge, use the "unstable" branch - all the new stuff, with all the new bugs.

    You might claim that the Debian nomenclature is rather conservative; but that's what you want for serious use.

    --
    -- Hi! I'm the "Good Times" signature virus. Copy me into your Sig!
  20. Debian as the reference system by Dionysus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I said it before, and I'll say it again:
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69340& cid=6329 689

    One of the main reasons why GNU/Debian is perfect for a reference system, is that stable doesn't change that often.

    Debian Woody (3.0) was released July 2002, with an update December 2002. How many version of Mandrake, SuSe, Gentoo or RedHat has come out since then?

    If you are a developer, you really don't want a moving target like the other distributions. You really want to have stable target over some period of time.

    Note that, even if Debian becomes the reference system, it doesn't mean that RedHat or SuSe, Gentoo can't have never libraries or KDE, or GNOME on their system. It just means that at the very least, they need compatible libraries installed by default.

    And no, LSB is not enough. That is just a voluntary paper, and with no reference system, you still would have to test the major distributions to make sure your program is working.

    With a working reference system, like Debian, you would only need to test against one distribution.

    --
    Je ne parle pas francais.
  21. Re:Unite behind Live CD's by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly why would someone running XP Home/Pro migrate to linux?

    Here are a few reasons that I've seen:

    • Because they've had a conscience attack about using pirated software, but don't want to spend the money to buy a legitimate copy.
    • Worms/viruses, like you said.
    • An interest in trying something new. A lot of people who aren't geeks, per se, still like to fiddle with computers.
    • A dislike for Microsoft (usually imparted to them by some nearby geek).
    • The idea that maybe they'd like to "work on computers", along with a realization that with the growth of Linux there's a good chance to get in "on the ground floor".
    • A desire to have something that "just works" and isn't constantly getting screwed up, or intimidating them with zillions of options they don't understand (this takes a geek to configure a fixed-function Linux install).
    • Need for a file server, router, NAT gateway, etc that runs well on their ancient machine ('cause they just bought a new one with XP).
    • Simple curiosity, wanting to see what all the fuss is about.
    • Because that's what came pre-installed on the cheap machine they just bought, and it seems to work okay for them.

    Those are off the top of my head, and from comments from real Windows users who are using/toying with Linux. I'm sure you can think of some more if you work at it. Few of the above reasons are adequate to justify a switch on their own, but several of them taken together often are.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  22. my Linux newbie comment by holy_smoke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You also have to make it painless to do things like install/remove software and install/remove drivers.

    I have been patiently trying to build up and use my Suse 8.2 system.

    My biggest complaints so far?

    - I don't want to have to do black magic command line crap to install my NVIDIA drivers
    - Although I definitely agree with the root/user separation, its a pain in the a$$ to keep getting assaulted with a root password prompt when I want to change a system setting (flame away)
    - many of the programs don't seem polished; that is, they seem to crash at odd times or don't do what they said they would when I hit 'ok'. (??)
    - the interface needs to be more polished for the average user who doesn't want to understand the technical aspects of what a link is or what HDA1 is...

    I LOVE that Linux exists, and I am growing to love it more....BUT...I am not an "average" user. I am somewhere in the haze between advanced Windows weenie and low level Linux novice.

    I don't care how many LiveCDs you ship to my father-in-law or my wife (as examples). If they can't install drivers and programs, configure their systems, and navigate their PCs _easily_ and through the GUI _only_ you won't have an ice-cube's chance in He11 of getting them to use Linux. Oh - and if they can't buy software (games) for it at Best Buy you're screwed too.

    Average users want a tool that looks pretty, does neat things, and makes their lives easier/more entertained. They don't give a rat's behind about shell scripts, Xfree, Xserve, CUPS, gcc or whatever. It just confuses them and turns them OFF to the product.

    Hope you find these comments contructive - they are not meant to assault.

    --
    Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
    1. Re:my Linux newbie comment by molarmass192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, not to be a jerk but that's why there are different distros targeted at different segments. You want easy breezy no password point and click? Use Xandros, Lycoris, or Lindows. SuSE is for intermediate to advanced users. You want voodoo black magic? Use Gentoo.

      Anyhow, I'll be 100% honest, if they want to use their PC to play games, Linux ain't where they should be. I've said this prolly 80 times before. I play games on my Linux box but I know / understand / accept that the selection is going to be limited.

      I use to be all for Linux conquering the OS market but as time went on I came to understand that there's some desktop real estate that Linux shouldn't want to own. That segment is the home user that *thinks* they know what they're doing but really only know just enough to make a mess. I'd be happy to see Linux push MS out of the data center, off corporate desktops, and limit them to the mid range home user segment that's the source of 95% of all support problems.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    2. Re:my Linux newbie comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      sh ./Nvidia-driver-XXXX.run

      That's the point right there. They don't want to do that. They want to do what they do with Windows, where they sit back and let the driver install itself while they pat themselves on the back and think they're a 1337 h4x0r for clicking the icon.

      Stupid as my computer science professors can be sometimes, they have one mantra that should be taken to heart: The user is an idiot. Just becuase you say, "Press Y or N" doesn't mean you don't have to be ready for the user to start typing his email. Anything you can POSSIBLY make the program do, make it do it. Not just so the user doesn't HAVE to, but so the user DOESN'T TRY, because the user is an idiot.

      That's the reason Linux will have to change radically to gain widespread acceptance. The people who use it now are a bit more knowledgeable than the average user out there. The average user is daunted by Windows at first sight, and pretty much freezes up in abject terror at the word Linux, knowing it's a more complex system to use.

  23. 20-30% My ass... by cybrthng · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Linux won't make ANY inroads in Corporate desktop america until there is an undeniably stable and certified foundation by which to support from.

    Corporate america isn't based around the concept of "Free Software" it is based around Revenue Generation, using the right tools to get the job done and providing an IT infrastructure support revenue generation, sales force and back-office.

    Linux doesn't have any sales force automation tools. Sure you can install Oracle 11i on Linux, but even then your talking servers. Oracle 11i doesn't even support linux as a workstation.

    Until ACT is ported, until the average sales person can do everything he/she needs to do and very easily, linux will make "0" inroads into corporate america.

    It is all about supporting your sales force, your R*D departments or whatever your business's revenue generation is from. Linux just doesn't do that right now and surely won't do that within the next 3 years.

    RedHat has bailed the desktop market and gone for the workstation, but even then that is a UNIX workstation level NOT an "end user" level. Suse is making inroads, but not enough to do 20-30% market share.

    I'll repeat myself again. Corporate America is about supporting your revenue stream. Linux simply can't do that at this point. Tools are built around simplicity, ease of training and what is common knowledge. Your average sales person only uses a PC when needed and does everything with a Cell phone, note pad and over a few beers at the local bar. Linux can't replace this. Especially Debian.

    1. Re:20-30% My ass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You seem not to have noticed that there are quite a few other countries out here. Some of them have populations in the billions, and lots of smart business people and developers. I notice quite a few of them are already moving to Linux on the desktop. Maybe corporate America is missing the boat....and maybe you need to look further afield than you currently seem to be.

  24. Why Debian exactly? by Jahf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article only says that Bruce is calling for it to be Debian because he helped design it. That's not enough support for the argument to spit at.

    Debian may be superior in some respects, but it doesn't change the fact that businesses are already getting used to RPM based distros like Red Hat, SuSE and Mandrake.

    If he wants a sea change in the business view of Debian, there has to be better support for it than that.

    I agree with the idea of having a core distribution with variations for specific tasks. I think alot of other people do to based on the mild success of the LSB and the -ideas- behind things like United Linux.

    I think Red Hat leaving their free distro market to the Fedora project will either give support to Fedora becoming that core distro -or- will give up any chance Red Hat has of being such a core distro (or both depending on whether you view Fedora to Red Hat as the same relationship as Mozilla was to Netscape -or- as being completely 3rd party and a cold shoulder to the idea of free distros as some do).

    Either way, it's going to take a lot for a business to even consider a Debian distro. Educational books, live cd's, RPM compatibility, LSB compliance and lots and lots of gruntwork.

    --
    It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
  25. Debian is losing developers, this isn't the answer by iamnotayam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Debian is losing developers because they are a rigid and well-defined organization.. one of their biggest strengths and their biggest weakness. People who volunteer their time don't like to be confined in little boxes. In addition, Debian just isn't cool, sexy, exciting, hip.. etc. it's your dad's linux.. who wants to work on that? Gentoo, Fedora, etc. are moving forward, taking risks and *successfully* meeting their challenges.

    Circling the wagons around Debian is not the answer, fixing Debian so it has clear goals, integrates new technology better, and has less overhead is the answer..

    *Disclaimer* I run Debian, Gentoo, and RH9 on my boxes.. trying Fedora later this week. I think Fedora is officially a Good Thing(TM).

  26. Re:Unite behind Live CD's by aliens · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I totally agree, unfortunately when users buy their Dell's, Gateway's etc, the cost is "invisible"

    The best thing to do is exactly what you did, educate people and hope next time they do opt-out of having an OS installed.

    Only time will tell.

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
  27. Re:Anti-Redhat FUD but still a good point by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Er... what?

    ...lets drop this Redhat ditched desktop Linux crap, and focus on the fact that Redhat is duplicating effort by not basing their community developed distro on Debian.

    Red Hat already had a perfectly good base for Fedora - it was called Red Hat Linux. It strikes me that "duplicating effort" would better describe what they'd be doing if they abandoned the software they've spend years developing and tried to rebuild it from scratch using a completely different setup.
  28. Re:Unite behind Live CD's by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Right now, when you say "Linux" to a layperson, they don't know what the fuck you're talking about. A Live CD is a painless way for them to find out.

    I still don't think the average user has any incentive to try Linux out. They don't feel the costs of Windows licensing because it came with their computer. They've been conditioned to expect the occasional email virus or system crash; to them it comes with the territory when using a computer.

    Linux needs a killer app for the desktop market. Work-alikes for popular office suites and web browsers are great, but they're never going to spark a revolution.

  29. What Bruce fails by micaiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    to realize is that in order for Debian to be taken seriously is that it needs to be upgraded to the level of commercial Linux distros. Its installer (I know everyone complains about) needs to be easy by default. The focus on stability while admirable IMHO is taken to the extreme where it almost appears that the distro is obsolescent when compared with the likes of Suse and Red Hat. Debian all in all still looks like a hacker OS. Show Debian and Suse from install to implementation and see which one a business type will choose. Companies are not going to choose Debian simply on ideological reasons. On a positive note Apt rocks, but now there is Apt for rpm.

  30. What is an OS by nuggz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I like debian because in stable they don't take risks.
    My OS isn't a toy to play with, it is just something that lets me run my applications.

    I had the same debian/stable box for about 4 years, it died. Put the drive in a new machine, rebuild the kernel and I'll probaly run the same install for another 4 years.
    That's a good thing.

  31. Re:Unite behind Live CD's by pyros · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with your argument is that when you buy a Windows PC from Dell, HP, IBM, etc, Office doesn't cost $600, and Windows doesn't cost $100-$300. When you ship the volumes that those vendors do, and agree to pay Microsoft a license fee for every machine sold, rather than every machine the products are shipped on, the cost of Office and Windows likely drops below $50 each. When Dell was selling desktops with Red Hat Linux, they chose to use one of the retail editions, and it ended up that the Linux PCs they sold cost more than the Windows PCs they sold. I'll grant that Dell should have chosen the free version of RH, so we could truly see the MS tax. But most consumers don't know that. All they saw was that the Dell machine with Linux cost more than the Dell machine with Windows. Even now, HP is selling the d220 with Mandrake Linux for $84 more than with Windows. They do this because the expensive Linux distros are more user-friendly than the free ones.

  32. Re:Unite behind Live CD's by dipipanone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    most users dont like windows. people need to accept that.

    If most people didn't like Windows, they wouldn't need to accept it at all, because they'd already know they didn't like it.

    The fact that you're arguing that people do need to accept it seems to imply precisely the opposite.

  33. One more by B1ackDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The biggest interest I've seen in linux has been in response to someone seeing me run something on linux that they can't get on Windows. Be it Evolution, the gimp, Xaos, a game, or an Xscreensaver, there are some cool apps for linux that are only for linux.

    "Hey, where can I get that?" "Linux only, sorry." "Huh. Maybe I'll have to check that out sometime."

    At this point a knoppix cd comes in handy.

    --
    The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
  34. Re:Hmmmm ? Debian only ? by MrPink2U · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The number of us non-debian users is far greater than the number of debian users

    Replace the words "debian users" with any distribution you like. Since there are so many distros, this statement will always be true. This is nothing more than meaningless chatter...

    ex. The number of us non-redhat users is far greater than the number of redhat users

    Why aren't we speaking up about all of debian's flaws ?

    I don't know, why aren't you? General statements are as useless. Please provide some details next time so we can actually analyze your arguments. Maybe you have some good points, but nobody will ever know because you didn't state them.

    If all you wanted to do is insult debian (and its users) why didn't you just say "Debian Sucks!"?

  35. Not Debian by DeVilla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I like Bruce (or at least his public persona) and I know that he has a great fondness for Debian. I can't agree that Debian would be the right choice for this. Debian was once my favorite distro. They had (and probably still have) the best packaging system. They were all about putting together an excellent system with ton of useful packages and they had a strong focus, it seemed, on technical details. They have a clear and atractive statement of how they would server the users. (Something that I hear is finally going to be ammended to better reflect reality.)

    In the time I used them though, the focus seemed to move more and more toward petty politics inside their organization. It got the the point that they were patting themselves on the back for creating Virtual RMS (a package to nag you if you were running non-free software) and bickering over the types of election rules to use since one type would guarantee the the non-free packages would be left unchanged while an other rules might get the non-free package moved to a different server or discarded altogether. This was at a time when a number of the packages in question (the ones I used at least) did not have reasonable free replacements. They appeared to become less concerned with technical merit and general usability and fell into a long running debate about how much they ought to appease RMS. All the while, you could count on Debian to be no less than a year behind all of the other distro's stable releases on software versions. Debian has been, and I believe still is the victim of Free Software Fundamentalism. (Not a term I coined, but one I agree with completely. I'm not certain the person I heard it from would like to be credited.)

    Also, Debian seems to be, shall we say slow at adding usability features for end users. Again, I am speaking from the time I used them, and they might have changed, but it would have had to be dramatic. Back when the other distros were picking up the various desktop environments and had them in their stable releases, I was having to go to some third party site that tried to maintain compatible packages for Debian's stable an unstable releases because debian was still being rather indecisive about how or if they wanted to include the packages.

    I've often heard this type behavior being justified with explanations that Debian is a distribution for the very people who make it, and that is great. That is one example of why Free Software is good. They have the talent and the freedom to use it. But given the focus of those people, given their disposition toward political deadlock and given the near hostility that many of them have toward non-free software (a stance not shared by the enterprise users yet) I cannot believe that Debian would be the right organization for this. I can understand putting it in the hands of a third party, non-profit and having a base distro to work from, but Debian is not it. Perhaps a clean fork from Debian could provide a good foundation, but if the target audience is the enterprise, then the baggage of the Debian organization must be left behind.

    Edd