Slashdot Mirror
Linux Going Mainstream
Gossi writes "The BBC is carrying an excellent overview of the growing use of Linux, by many different fields. The article says it all, really, and is probably something you should show your Boss."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Until Linux is a complete entertainment package as well as a utility package, Linux will be hard pressed to take over the desktop.
With the way games are written these days (requiring massive amounts of time and money), game development will have to undergo some pretty radical changes before it will fit successfully into the OSS model and we continue to have the quality of games we have today.
Of course, the other path is that the PC is removed from the entertainment picture and consoles take over that role completely (woe be that day).
Anyone else remember those issues that proclaim that "The New Age of the Airship is Upon Us"?
...I'm quite sure you read about Linux becoming a mainstream server OS. A main-stream general purpose OS is something completely different.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm 15 and have been using linux for a little over a year...people in the k-12 school system are starting to get a grasp on the bennifits of open source. It really is the best option for so many people and with the newest distros of Mandrake (what i use) make it incrediabily simple to do most anything graphically. With a little bit of help even people like my grandmother (who could never even minimize windows) can do as much on linux as any other OS out there.
In my openion the main problem is people, in general, don't even knwo open source exists. And those that do only vaguely recall that they've hear about it somewhere. Hopefully its only a matter of time before people (especially in the US) catch on.
Oh... my.... god!
Technical professional?!! You are SO unbelievably clueless, I don't even KNOW where to start!!!
I mean, since when has Redhat been a webserver!!!
Those certificates are obviously not worth the paper they're written on!! Next....
There are other GPL'd operating systems, and the BSDs are all open source, aren't they?
Large companies have been benefiting from Linux for years now. They use it to run large servers and networks.
Small companies have arguably been benefitting more: I know from my experience that it's easier getting Linux into a small company than it is into a large one.
"This is something that a lot of people in developing countries have. It is a natural for them to make do with little, and to produce something of value out of nothing."
This is just patronising.
How about pointing out that people whoever they are all benefit and can run the same software without the discrimination that high prices cause.
Some worry, though, that large corporations may be reluctant to share their Linux-based software with others. And that, say long-time Linux programmers, would violate the tenets of the open source philosophy.
More importantly, it would also be copyright infringement if they ever distributed it, and would cause them no end of trouble keeping their version of the code up to date.
But other than that, refreshing to read an article about linux that doesn't mention either Redmond or Utah.
I think that if your boss does not already understand the ways of Linux, perhaps reading an article on a Web page won't be enough to convince him.
Get a hold of one of the new IBM ads and play it for him. Seeing a major, big name company back Linux with a TV spot would carry a lot more weight than someone's opinion on a Web page, no matter how eloquent that opinion is presented. But then, I'm not even employed right now, so I shouldn't be giving advice on what to show your boss. ;)
Still, it's hard for anyone to ignore the opinion of IBM. Or rather, it's a lot easier to ignore the opinion of an author at the BBC.
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
Umm, start with Mandrake, then Redhat, then suse, then debian. Now, go get started!
I would like to sway away all those trolls nay-sayers, and such things and would like to ask them one question - when Microsoft started to deliver to desktop what do you see now? Not so long time ago. And it's still unstable and unsecure. If someone is desktop king now - from visual and usability - it's Apple OS X.
I was doubtful three years ago but now I say for sure - Linux and Free Software has a future, and it is right here - in Gnome, in KDE, in OpenOffice.org, in all those new ideas, which pop-up instantly in mailing lists, forums, freedesktop.org, gnomedesktop.org. I like that creativity which grows and grows and seems to be unstoppable.
Linux is here to stay. Is also here to stay and be viable alternative for your desktop usage. Whatever you choose it or not, it's upon you. Because it is about the choice, not about pushing you to use it.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
They're meant to generate interest in a product, not explain it, so that the PHBs then go to IBM and ask them about it, and IBM happily gives them the whole sales pitch.
Pretentious? You bet! They're fscking IBM! They do their best to look even bigger than the 800 pound gorilla that they are so, that the PHBs, who are business people, are sure that IBM is the winning team; cuz that is who the PHBs go with: the ones they consider to be the winning team.
That ought to work, at least in England. The BBC article says that, "Linux is unique in that it is open source," so they've apparently never heard of OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, kOS, etc, etc. :-)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Show Linux to the grandmother who needs her computer fixed. Show Linux to the government of your country. Show Linux to your mom. Your Boss already knows about Linux.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
For most software, the differences among Linux distributions are immaterial; if you port to one, it will run on all. In fact, in most cases, so long as the CPU is the same, the binaries will be compatible. For that matter, most properly written software will be portable, at the source level, among POSIX-compliant systems, meaning not only Linux but a wide range of other UNIX systems.
Except in the very unusual case in which different distributions use different versions of the kernel that differ in what system calls they support, and where your software makes use of these system calls, the differences among distributions are entirely a matter of what versions of what libraries they come with, and what other software. That means that software that compiles and runs on one distribution can always be compiled and run on another; the difference will be that in some cases the person doing the build will have to install a library or a program that did not come with the distribution. That is generally not a big deal. If your software requires something exotic, you can also provide statically-linked binaries that incorporate it for those who don't have the necessary library.
I've never encountered a problem due to differences among distributions. I have been using Mandrake on my own machines for the last several years. I have had no problem compiling software that I write on the Red Hat machines in our lab. In fact, I rarely encounter any problem compiling my software on our Suns. (When I do it is almost always because I am using GNU extensions that Sun libc does not support.)
The variety of distributions may seem confusing and chaotic to non-Linux people, and at the level of the desktop, I can see how inexperienced users would find the differences offputting. But it really isn't a problem for developing or porting software.
and is probably something you should show your Boss."
Corporate middle management is not interested in facts. They are not interested in improvement. They are not interested in efficiency that is not accomplished by either making people shovel shit or firing people.
Middle management seeks to maintain the status quo, and to do nothing unless it is absolutely necessary. Incompetence, bankruptcy, waste, stupidity, anything is better than trying and failing.
They have failed to learn that the raw materials for success are failures. They have failed to learn this because they do not listen. They do not seek the advice of people who know better than they do. Faced with irrefutable truth, middle management will very often if not always follow the path of maximum stupidity.
Therefore, middle management will very often if not always refuse to allow Linux to be used to improve their business. No accomplishment, no fact, nothing will change this. Discussing Linux with a middle manager is nothing more than an amusing waste of time.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
I showed a six inch stack of papers explaining the virtues of open source and Linux to my boss and our lead developer. I held a meeting with my entire team when they started thinking of switching to .Net. I brought together all the facts management should hear when making a platform choice and made a professional presentation. I rewrote one of our smaller apps on Linux in my personal time as an example.
.Net is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Our boss agreed and we were forced to switch to .Net without even looking at an alternative. Rarely have I seen such blatent ignorance. So I keep an eye open for other jobs and read the articles on starting your own software company. Seems the only option when dealing with such ignorance is to stay away from it.
They wouldn't even look at it. Our lead developer thinks Microsoft is the best producer of software and that
Developers: We can use your help.
Mike, i hate the break it to you, but mcse's are laughed at all over the world. talking your paper up by saying it's issued by the largest software company in the world just shows you for what you are. also cut and pasting from some bogus website doesn't help either. so yes you might have paper but your very far from skilled and shows horribly. and what exactly is "Linux 7.0" ?? to my knowledge the latest linux kernel is 2.6? you must be a kernel hacker as well huh? or maybe the website you copied from is just pulling numbers out of their arse hmm?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Links has a long long long long long way to go before it is mainsteam. I mean don't get me wrong it is a great OS and it is stable. But I rarely boot into my Linux install (Slackware) as XP is stable (well, sorta anyway) enough for my purposes and requires a lot less maintence for me. I prefer to just use a lot of open source software on my windows install (firebird & thunderbird, open office, gaim, wingimp ect). Seams to work well for me.
:/ lol.
Linux really needs an installer of sorts. An exe-like format for morons. And it needs to get a real system to distribute packages and make it a standard. Cuz downloading 1000s of libs blows
Matt
You have 1 Moderator Point! Use it or lose it! Is that a threat? -vapid
Desktop Conversions: I'm not sure about anyone else, but my company ( a multinational telecommunications company ) rolls out new desktops of MicroSloth crap at least twice a year, and spends the intervening six months trying to make the stuff they just did work - the same crowd that says "You can't have XP because it will bring down the network."
Network Migration: What the hell, guy, are you still running NetBEUI or something? Linux has done SMB (through Samba) for-freaking-ever (in computer years, anyway). Outside of that, even MicroSloth doesn't really attempt to take on Linuxs' networking pedigree.
User Retraining: I would hope that your computer users are somewhat more savvy than, say, my grandfather - who converted to Linux eight months ago; or my wife, who converted over a year ago; or my Aunt Jill, who converted seven months ago and uses her home PC for work tasks. All in all I've had far fewer 'help me' calls from them since upgrading them. The hardest 'retraining task' was getting them to understand network logins and remember their passwords.
Consultants: LOL... Consultants won't recommend Linux conversion, on the whole, not yet. Mostly because their purpose is not to solve a company's technical problems, but to bill hours (and yes, I've been a consultant and I have been told that I 'solved a problem too rapidly').
When you combine all of these costs, double them, and then subtract the cost of troubleshooting and fixing SoBig, MyDoom, and the other litany of M$-based crapola, and, as the previous poster mentioned, the recovered gaming time (since you can't play a lot of the popular games on Linux) and reduced support hours, I think Linux becomes a clear win.
Thinking outside my Head
That's not a facetious answer but the fact is that Open Source software does not begin and end with Linux - there is a huge amount of Open Source Windows software (by virtue of it being Open Source, many people port applications to Windows from Linux and vice versa), just go to Sourceforge and see for yourself.
There are zealots in every movement, you just need to read between the lines a little and see for yourself...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
It's great that the mainstream press is giving Linux good coverage, unfortunately to wrest the Windows system from the mainstream user I'm afraid the games companies need to be involved in producing original Linux games alongside those of Windows. Only then will Linux get the Windows user looking the other way.... Unreal Tournament and Neverwinter Nights were starts but enter any Electronics Boutique and ask for a game for your Linux OS and chances are the sales rep will look at you like your ET
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
As much as I liked the tone of this article, it does come off as way too optimistic. Issues such as drivers, buying linux pre-installed, standards compliance, etc are glossed over. Granted this is a Linux 101 article, but these are important topics.
I think Linux expansion on the server end is doing more good than some think. If a small, mid, or large company migrages to Linux servers then they are more or less forced to drop prorietary crap like MAPI and open the door towards accepting standards over closed-proprietary standards, protocols, etc. With this mechanism in action tat means more competitors, less vendor lock-in, and a healthier IT market all around.
I don't see Linux as a MS-killer, Apple-killer, but as a carrier of open protocols and standardization. If Linux can deliver this than most of the problems in the IT industry will disappear. As we've seen many times before its much tougher to make a monopoly without proprietary protocols, vendor lock-in, etc.
Right now I would say the fastest way to getting things more "open" in general would be OSX on the desktop and Linux in the server room. Its a shame Apple isn't seen a serious player in the corporate environment, especially with their prices so low.
...unless you distribute your changes.
A BIG reason PHBs dont use GNU/Linux / FOSS is because misinformed geeks keep spreading the nonsense that if you use open source / free software then you have to make publicly available the source code to your applications.
This is NOT true.
You do not have to unless you are going to make modifications and then sell / distribute the modified code. If it is an in-house application and never gets distributed, there is no requirement AT ALL to release the source code back into the community.
PHBs would be far more comfortable using F/OSS if they didnt have geeks telling them how good it is that the company will become part of the F/OSS movement, and instead were told about the virtues of using F/OSS.
I am Monkey, the Great Sage, equal of heaven!
I agree that the unix concept of lean, interoperating software tools hasn't really gotten through the linux desktop (yet?). It's not entirely a minus because right now desktop linux needs credibility and for the average user that means having the equivalent of windows apps. With more stability and less unnecessary bloat.
:)
Besides that, anyway, I find your comment somewhat surprising, given your relatively low slashdot ID.
Especially when you criticize linux permissions. They are dated but indispensable for a multi user machine, which can be your own laptop when your nephew comes by and want to surf a little. I don't trust myself to use my own windows box
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Because it's not like another popular operating system, who, for its own protection, we will only referred to as "M.S.W.", has a perfectly clean security record..
On another note, however, Gentoo on a dual 450 U60 is a great desktop!
Thinking outside my Head
"If you spend a dollar with a local company working on Linux, that dollar stays in your economy," said Simon Phipps of Sun Microsystems.
"When you spend a dollar with a multi-national corporation as a license fee for a piece of software, that dollar leaves your country."
"It's about keeping the money in your local economy, developing skills and developing the local economy to be strong in its own right in a global context."
At first I wondered, "Wait a sec. Microsoft is an American company, right? So if other nations pay fees to M$, then the 'local economy' is... the American economy. 'We' are the economy that this benefits!"
Obviously Phipps wants China and other nations to recognize that if they develop open source software (presumably Linux based) then whatever money the government spends on software supports their own people.
One has to ask. "Where does Phipps live and work?"
Do not misunderstand me. I love Linux. I want it to grow and expand and compete effectively with Microsoft. Especially because I want poorer nations to have a solid alternative that works - and works well. Even discounted M$ software imposes a burden on Third World nations.
My only point is that is struck me as odd that an American(?) like Phipps working for Sun Microsystems would invoke the "we want them to invest in their own nations' economies" argument.
I think a glaring omission of this article, one that most reporters seem to miss, is that a business need only buy one copy of a vendor's version of Linux (none if they download it), and it can then be installed on any number of machines. Absolutely no extra costs per seat. Why this point is being driven home I don't know.
Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently. - Henry Ford
"If you talk to governments, they're actually thinking - why don't we write open source software as well.
"So it's not just cost-based, but also the concept of open source software. They just like the idea of saving the people money, but also giving back to the people what they created."
So now government will get in to the business of writing it's own code and releasing it to the public? Just think about that and reflect upon what projects have governments undertaken that you personally would hail as successful, efficient, and inexpensive.
Didn't we the public just spend a decade crying for how government should be more business-like e.g. outsourcing? But we should change that for things like the software that makes government "run"?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I wasn't so thrilled with the Open Office spreadsheet and didn't even know there was a Kspread.
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
The ironic thing about Linux's growth is that in one way, it's easier for the average joe to use. But in a different sense, the scripts and code become hidden. While this makes using Linux easier, the learning aspect decreases as the amount of GUI use increases. It's like the programmers' work is going unappreciated because it's being shadowed by the GUI. And the GUI can easily deter a user from wanting to see what's underneath the pretty pictures and windows. After all, a graphical tool that shows your partition information is just reading /proc/partitions and putting a window around it.
It is when you maintain a standardized environment. If anybody put Linux on their desktop computer, I would try as hard as I could to get that person fired. They arent there to play, they are there to work. And their work doesnt involved compromising my security or environment with non-standard applications.
Nobody there is trained to work with Linux, so nobody can be responsible for making it secure. And if nobody can take that responsibility, it doesnt get used.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
OK. The government takes on its own software development but also uses some open source. Something goes wrong. Who's responsible? Now you may argue that current EULA's waive any accountability at the moment except that there is nonetheless an accountable party and the issue can be debated in court. In the case of oss who does the government take to task?
Even worse, what if a government agency develops some software which it releases. Will it be held responsible should there be a flaw which adversely affects other users? In this day and age there is no doubt that someone would try to sue esp. if it's a government agency. And let's face it, a government agency is fundamentally accountable to "the people" for its actions.
Lack of liability is already bad enough. Moving to oss would seem to exacerbate the problem. And should you doubt any of this, ask yourself, when you've bitched about a really thorny problem with some oss software how often have you had the response that "Hey, it's free. Don't like it then take a hike." That is not an option for a responsible agency with a critical need, nor is it a response they can make.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.