Perens: Unite behind Debian, UserLinux

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.

Comments

That would never work...

[eurleif]

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.

Re:That would never work...

[Dr. Evil]

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

Unite behind Live CD's

[corebreech]

If they're running Debian, then that's great. But you need to put Linux into the hands of the masses if you want to take over the desktop and the best way to do that is to seed the planet with Linux Live CD's with the same fury that AOL soils the planet with their CD's.

No gcc, no including twelve different versions of AWK; just the kernel, KDE or Gnome (pick just one), OpenOffice, games, and all the rest of the shit that makes everything go.

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.

We can rebuild him. We have the technology.

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[eurleif]

If the masses knew that it was another operating system, most of them would use the CD forn a frisbee. My mother recoils in horror when I suggest she should consider installing Linux.

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[Gleef]

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.

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[aliens]

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.

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[KikassAssassin]

KDE or Gnome (pick just one)

As a new Linux user myself, I'd suggest KDE over Gnome if you want to draw new people in. Gnome is an excellent interface, but by my experience KDE seems much more familiar to someone who is used to the Windows environment, and overall it has a somewhat more polished feel to it. That familiarity will make your average user who's never used anything but Windows before much more likely to try it out, rather than giving up from the start because everything looks different than what they're used to.

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[corebreech]

Nobody is asking her to install Linux.

Just to run it.

You can boot from a Live CD, play with Linux, then reboot, take the CD out, and resume your regularly scheduled programming under Windows.

This is the beautiful thing about Live CD's. If it's done right, the user is completely insulated from all the usual crap we have to do to make Linux work, and without assuming any risk whatsoever from the experience.

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[swillden]

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.

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[FatherOfONe]

It's funny you mention cost and the "mass users".

If Windows XP was NOT bundled with their computer OR they had to pay extra for it, then I believe that a small portion of the "mass" would switch. The same small "mass" of people who drive an extra 10 miles to Wallmart to save 10 cents on their soft drinks.

I was just having a discussion with a teen age relative of mine who loves Microsoft because one of his relatives works there. He has NO intention of ever using anyting but Microsoft. So I broke it down this way.

He will spend $600 for Office, $100-$300 for Windows XP. So lets go low and say that is $700. I won't go in to continual upgrade cost, but it should be mentioned. So he will spend $700 or more than someone who runs Linux and Open Office. Both would do the job for what he needs. So if he went with Linux he could....
1. Buy a new PS2 and some games AND
2. Buy a better video card AND
3. Buy a better hard drive AND
4. Buy a faster processor AND
5. Buy a new GameBoy with Games.

So I asked him... Wouldn't you like to have all that stuff? I do with the money I saved by not running Microsoft Office and XP at home. (I don't own a gameboy but he got the idea).

Cost does matter with Linux a lot for the masses. There needs to be a distro out there that is free or near free. There is a huge Linux market for the PC users who shop at Wallmart...

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[Spoing]

1. I find most of my "family" support time is devoted to pops-ups, spam, updating and patching windows, and virus eradication...

I used to do that. Now, if I touch anything on a Windows system outside of work, I make sure that the software isn't a petri dish waiting for a plauge. Firebird has been a welcome replacement for IE, and OpenOffice is also something folks tend to appreciate.

Discussing the problems with HTML email and how spammers abuse it also helps.

When they load on crap spy ware, I tell them not to do it -- remove it *once* -- and then if it happens again tell them to remove it themselves. The only help offered are pointers of where to go and a reminder why they really really don't want to load crap. Less is more for most Windows users.

Along the way, you bet I mention that these problems aren't a problem for me -- ever -- and why they aren't. Facts not propaganda.

1. why the hell would anyone NOT want to give all those things up especially on a box that is most used to surf the net and read emails?

Well, you're not really helping them by fixing these problems so often. They don't see much of a downside if you're thier tech support -- after all, you are the one dealing with it.

I know it's hard not to "help", though you have to ask if you are helping or drug-dealer-like providing a quick "fix" leaving the core problems intact.

Replacing Windows would be ideal, though in the short term get them to use software that isn't motivated by the pushy-salesman's idea of being helpful. Most open source projects are there to be helpful, not to sell you an upgrade and special 'deals' with partners through spam, deception, or simply changing all your default settings.

Remember to tell them you can't keep fixing thier computer if they can't use it properly. If they protest that they are ignorant and you are such a great computer guy -- ignore it and teach them the right way. If they protest the lessons do not cave in, cut them off!

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[scalis]

I am not sure I agree that just because KDE looks more like MS Windows it means the users will find it easier to work with. Siemens Business Services did a study on this a while back (story was posted on slashdot too) Part of it reads:

"Before settling on Ximian, Siemens evaluated plain vanilla Gnome and KDE as well. Siemens found KDE to be more "Windows-like" than Gnome, but that led to problems when non-technical users expected a more Windows-like experience. Gnome, particularly Ximian's version, was "different enough" to set user expectations that the experience would be less like Windows, which led to fewer adoption problems"

Re:Unite behind Live CD's

[pyros]

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.

OT: Open Source

[Sanity]

I was quite amused when at a recent conference someone described Open Source as Free Software with a politics-obotomy...

IN OTHER NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs unexpectly announced today he thinks you should use a Macintosh.

Bill Gates made an interesting proposal that everyone use windows.

Scott McNealy outlined a plan he has in which everyone uses Solaris.

Larry Ellison, in a widely-publicized press conference, stated that everyone should give him money.

More on these sudden and shocking developments as news unfolds.

Odious

[Sanity]

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.

With all due respect to Bruce....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

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.

Re:With all due respect to Bruce....

[debrain]

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.

Re:With all due respect to Bruce....

[XNormal]

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.

It's where I'm off to

[mccalli]

Following Sun's decision to end of life all the Cobalt boxes, I'm converting my Raq4 over to Debian. The stability combined with security backports appeals to me.

Whilst reading all of the recent dropping of Red Hat Linux and purchasing of SuSE etc. I did wonder if this would lead to a boost for Debian. Take the Fedora project, for example. It seems madness to contribute to this over Debian, since with Fedora you really are just beta testing Red Hat Enterprise edition for them - the whole 'giving back to the community' thing is better handled by Debian since that is not meant for feeding back into commercial distributions.

So yes - I have to agree. Debian would seem to be the way to go following the absorbtion of the big names. Let Red Hat do its own work in getting rpms ready for RHE 16.8 or what have you - concentrate your efforts on improving things for the community at large instead.

Cheers,
Ian

Always respectful, but....

[mao che minh]

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."

Re:Always respectful, but....

[Skapare]

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.

Re:Debian minus freedom

[Nevyn]

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.).

Why does nobody get this?

[pubjames]

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.

Re:Standards

[bfree]

Because few people want/need to build their own system. Debian has shown an incredible ability to package stable and consistent software which has already become the basis for many different desktop distributions (Corel/Xandros, Lindows, Knoppix). Also Debian supports more architectures than any other Linux Distribution (correct?) and hence all the work done by the various parties would help to ensure that the computer market is held in balance in terms of architectures (i.e. if every Linux distro used Debian as a base, and Linux gained 30% of the desktops, then the ability for "the market" to switch architectures in the event of gross arrogance (i.e. AMD and Intel push through DRM technologies which require annual licensing) would be vastly improved compared to if the Linux distros in use were all derived from RedHat). Of course ideally Gentoo would also collaborate in this enterprise and would become debian derived (i.e. you could do a debian base install and then do "apt-get install gentoo-stageN" to have it use debian as the toolchain to build gentoo, perhaps even building the system out of debian source packages (with gentoo patches)).

Ever Tried Debian?

[mbrod]

I see all these people saying "what is so great about Linux is all these different distro's to try, and Debian is only one".

I don't think you have used Debian. I love Debian because I can put the bare minimum on my machines and then build up from there whether it be Gnome or KDE or a strict web server box with no GUI. To build it up all I have to do is grab the packages I want with apt. I can roll my own distro in a way.

Not to mention Stable, Testing and Unstable are really all different distributions anyway.

Anti-Redhat FUD but still a good point

[Jagasian]

It seems like there has been allot of anti-Redhat FUD lately. While I have always been a Debian fan, and I agree that every distro maker should base their distro on Debian, all this crap about Redhat leaving a hole in the consumer market because they made Redhat Linux a community project that is still heavily guided and sponsered by Redhat... that just smacks of anti-Redhat FUD.

Truth is that Redhat Linux 10 was released several days ago, and for trademark reasons it is called Fedora Core 1. Anyone who has used Redhat 8.x or Redhat 9.x, will be able to tell that Fedora Core 1 is Redhat 10.

I would love to see one internet based community developed meta-distrution of Linux, with one comprehensive package repository. This would be the Linux standard. Then companies that want to make a newbie-friendly Linux could cherry-pick the best software packages, make custom themes, and tweak everything and also provide support.

In my opinion, the thing that Redhat 8 through Fedora Core 1 do really great is that they cherry-picked a nice set of software packages, made a nice theme for the desktop, and put everything together into one nice coherent package.

Note that the good things that Redhat does with its distro do not conflict with having a Debian-foundation, and the fact that Redhat has decided to fracture the internet community because it refuses to have Fedora Core 1 be a customized Debian is just plain silly!

Other distros have shown the power of using a Debian based core: Knoppix, Libranet, and Lindows, to name 3 distros, all accomplish something slightly different.

1. Knoppix is a live CD based Linux distro with completely automatic hardware detection. Knoppix is a great toy, a great way to advertise Linux, and it makes for an uber rescue disk.

2. Libranet aims at being a general purpose desktop/server distro, and it adds value by greatly simplifying the installation and maintenance of the OS.

3. Lindows is supposed to be a newbie friendly / user-friendly Linux distro that emulates the look-n-feel of Windows. It is aimed at a large target market of casual computer users that want to save a few bucks.

So please tell me why Redhat couldn't use a Debian foundation for Fedora Core? All they had to do was create a small community layered ontop of the Debian community. Their job would be to cherry-pick software packages from the comprehensive apt repository that Debian already has, and integrate it all into one coherent system by tweaking settings and theming applications.

In conclusion, 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. It is starting to remind me of Christianity with its many demoninations.

Re:That would work...

[Matrix272]

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.

Re:do i need educating?

[jiri B]

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.

Debian as the reference system

[Dionysus]

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.

Wrong

[turgid]

Why should volunteers spend their valuable time making something to give away to corporations?

For this purpose, commercial distributions such as SuSE and RedHat exist.

One size does not fit all.

The market will decide as and when Linux is ready for the corporate desktop, and in what form.

Microsoft is doing a marvellous job already of comitting suicide due to over-pricing its software, shoddy quality and vulnerabilities to malicious code.

Linux has been doing just fine for my personal computing needs since 1996. If corporate America (or anywhere else for that matter) wants to enjoy the privilege of using Linux, it can make like the rest of us and make an effort.

my Linux newbie comment

[holy_smoke]

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.

Re:my Linux newbie comment

[molarmass192]

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.

20-30% My ass...

[cybrthng]

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.

Re:Standards

[wytcld]

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.

Debian needs to be brought up to date

[figa]

I recommended Debian for my company's development platform last year, and I'm now wishing I stayed with RedHat. Stable is hopelessly out of date, and the install is too difficult for junior desktop admins (windows admins) and developers to set up without my help (and I'm a developer, not an admin).

I need a stable release that evolves a few times a year, so that I can read reviews and decide when it's time to migrate to keep up to date. Debian only offers the choice between a year-old distribution several major releases out of date that nothing will compile on, and a testing release that moves on a daily basis, often jumping several versions back or eliminating a package entirely.

I also need a GUI installer, so I don't have to hold people's hands through the install. Nobody should ever have to use dselect, unless they're migrating from DOS.

The thing that upsets me the most about Debian is that the stable release is not always stable. The package for Galeon has been broken for a year now. The download manager for the Woody version crashes constantly, though the bug in Galeon was fixed well over a year ago. My choice now is between the unstable stable version and the completely unstable unstable version that stopped working entirely for me around 1.3.9 (yes I filed a Debian bug report). The testing version has since disappeared.

There have been numerous stable Galeon versions since last year on two separate branches, but I don't have an option to roll back to a useful version because stable is hosed and testing is gone. This ultimately caused me to give up on Galeon and just download the Firebird binary and install it by hand. So much for the wonders of apt-get.

Debian needs to either step up its glacial pace or make testing an honest milestone release before Perens starts touting it as an industry standard. I'm thankful there's still competition from organizations that put Linux usability over Open Source ideology.

Re:That would work...

[div_2n]

"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.

Re:That would work...

[fferreres]

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).

Re:That would work...

[cshark]

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.

Re:That would work...

[pyros]

Well, the thing about Debian is it's only user-friendly if your hardware works on it out-of-the box. My laptop has an Intel i830M chipset. If I want 1024x768 resolution with anything over 8 bit color, I must either user another disrtibution or run Debian unstable with experimental packages to get XFree86 4.3. I installed Debian unstable on my 5 year old PC this month and had to get on IRC to get my USB mouse working. Then after installing the 2.4.22 SMP kernel, I had to get back on IRC to get access to my IDE drives! These two should have been automatic years ago. As it sits now I can burn CDs in ATAPI mode, which is dog-freaking slow compared to the SCSI emulation mode, which I can't find any documentation on configuring.

Just to give you a little background, I've been running Linux at home, starting with Slackware, moving to Red Hat, and trying out Debian, for 7 years. I've managed a remote datacenter of 10 Linux boxes with nothing but ssh and the occasional use of a cyclades terminal server for when things get really fubar (like the nfs server got a little hosed and i couldn't log into anything remotley). So I'm no stranger to building my own kernels and configuring hardware by hand, I just find Debian makes it so much harder than it needs to be.

Re:That would work...

[dipipanone]

She prefers it to windows xp because "it has better games"

Better games? Better games?

Go out and buy her some commercial games, you old cheapskate. Expecting a seven year old to be happy with just Solitaire verges on the abusive.

Re:That would work...

[Random Walk]

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.

Re:do i need educating?

[Gleef]

golgotha007 asks:

on production servers, security is a high priority while new features can take a back seat. if a new hole or exploit is found in some service, will the 'STABLE' package be upgraded for protection?

Yes, in fact security updates are where 99% of the updates come from in Debian-Stable. Here's how it generally works (slightly oversimplified):

1. Someone finds a security hole in program foo version 1.3, it gets announced to all and sundry
   
2. The developer of foo fixes the security hole, and releases version 1.3.1, and announces that 1.3.1 is fixed and everyone should upgrade to it.
   
3. The Debian maintainer of the foo package, which is at version 1.2.4 in Stable, verifies that the Debian version also has the security hole, backports the patch to 1.2.4, verifies that the hole is fixed, and uploads the new foo-1.2.4-2 package to the security server.
   
4. The Debian-Stable release manager makes sure that the update is legit, and that nothing stupid happened (eg. the PPC port broke), and then releases the updated package to the security apt-source.
   
5. Any users of Debian-Stable can read the security report, run "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade", and get all the security holes fixed, without having to worry about the fact that version 1.3 of foo changes the data file format, the API and configuration file.
   

All this happens in a time comparible to (or often faster than) the security updates from the big commercial distros.

This is how Debian-Stable maintains security and stability. For more info, check out the Debian Policy Manual. A strict and careful policy is how Debian makes sure that things just work, and makes the distro a joy to administer in an enterprise setting.