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).
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.
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
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's a very good point. When people say "we heard about this in 1998!" they are usually referring to a different market. "Mainstream" is a very vague word. Is Matlab "mainstream?" You'll find very few copies on a home user's desktop, but pretty much every engineer or scientist has a copy on theirs. In its market, Matlab is definately mainstream!
Linux has been becoming "mainstream" in a number of different markets over time. First it was low-end servers. Then mid-range servers. Then scientific computing (supercomputers, etc). Then workstations (ILM, etc). Then it was the embedded market. Now, its the corporate desktop. Come 2006, you'll hear again that "Linux is going mainstream" but it'll be a different market (maybe educational or public terminals?) Linux is becoming more suitable for more and more markets, and that's what the repeated articles about it "going mainstream" reflect.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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.
Unless things have changed radically since I actually used Linux on my desktop, the problem has been and continues to be peripheral manufacturers who refuse to write drivers for their equipment, so that it becomes necessary for some open source programmer to do so. And this isn't necessarily about to change. These manufacturers see their drivers as proprietary property. This is why the predictions have so far failed to bear fruit.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
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
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
the problem has been and continues to be peripheral manufacturers who refuse to write drivers for their equipment.
Again, its all a matter of what market you are talking about. Linux's support for server peripheral's is excellent, which is why it has "gone mainstream" in the server market. Its also not a problem on the business desktop, where IT purchases are planned ahead of time, and are generally conservative about hardware. The fact that Linux doesn't support Sony Minidisc players is utterly irrelevent on a corporate desktop. As long as it supports the integrated graphics and sound chips on the motherboard (and Linux almost always does) hardware support is not an issue.
This is why the predictions have so far failed to bear fruit.
If somebody predicated in 1998 that Linux was about to go mainstream in the home user market, they were full of shit. But the home user market is only a part of the overall computing landscape, and Linux has managed to become mainstream in many markets without making any inroads in the home market.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
"It's a great OS and it's stable" but you don't use it because XP is not-really-stable -- but good enough -- and it requires less maintenance from you. Presumably after you've installed all the software you need to use which would otherwise come bundled, like OpenOffice, Gaim and the others you mention.
And then you complain that managing 1000s of libs is a pain in the neck, saying "it needs to get a real system to distribute packages" -- after admitting that you use Slackware.
Worst. Critique. Ever.
An exe-like format for morons.
If you're thinking of this, you really have to ask yourself why you want widespread linux adoption at all. If you're just going to create an equally crappy system to replace windows with, what's the point? We already have a crappy system on 90%+ of desktops.
And it needs to get a real system to distribute packages and make it a standard.
Compared to windows which has er.. no package management at all. Just a haphazard bunch of proprietary binaries putting their files wherever they want, overwriting whatever libraries they feel like, and having no versioning system. That isn't package management.
In windows can you do 'apt-get install application'? Using your logic I could say that therefore windows isn't ready for the desktop because it doesn't behave like the rest of my systems. Windows looks massively inferior from where I'm standing.
I think before you boot your slackware system again you have to repeat the mantra: "this is not windows, this is not windows...".
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.