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)
So true. Running on Linux baby!
The Army reading list
Oh no... I've got to start hating it now. Once common people like something, I can't like it, or I'll lose my elitist status. Hrm, what's a good obscure OS? BeOS isn't around anymore... maybe OpenBSD?
If my boss was so dumb that he didn't know Linux is the only choice for everything - well, he wouldn't be my boss, he would be the janitor.
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 carry a variety of flavors of Linux CDs in my car and use live version to show friends and family what they are missing. Suse 9.0 live-eval works great for showing people what this "linux thing" they have read about is.
What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
This ons still makes me slightly cross:
Earlier BBC story
Still, I suppose that the latest story is written by someone who has Clue. I'm told that they exist, even at the BBC.
I carry a variety of flavors of Linux CDs in my car
I do that too. They make quite a racket when I play them in the Kenwood. However, I've found that with 800 watt sub-woofers, anything can sound quite impressive.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
It's very interesting in that it doesn't mention technology at all, only some stuff about the "open" future.
You can watch it here.
Ok, I'm a software developer. I want to port my software, written for windows, to linux so that the average joe will be able to use it. Is it so simple? Well, which distro will I do first? Mandrake? Redhat? Suse? Debian? Then what about those who use *BSD? There are so many choices. I mean its a great kernel, I use different distrobutions for all of my servers. I have no desire to mess with Active Directory or IIS.. But how can it take over the mainstream market when each distro is different.
"Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the life-long attempt to acquire it." -Albert Einstein
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.
when will "Pirates of Sillicon Valley 2: The Wrath of Linux" come out?
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
It also doesn't explain how the kid grows up to be a penguin.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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
My Mainstream is not always your mainstream.
Government computing is not homebased computing.
To be mainstream, could mean that the software is being embraced by the majority of teenagers using computers, or it could be that the majority of corporate users will start using Linux somewhere in their business this year.
I've seen Linux evolve a lot since I first tried to use it in 1997. I couldn't figure it out then. In 2000 I used Red Hat 6.0 for the first time, and found it easier to understand, but still not useful to me. Now in 2004, I could make it be almost as useful to me as my Windows machine. Do I really think that this year there will be some killer distro that will blow Windows away? No. But it is possible...
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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!
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.
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...
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 think that's because Linux bits are lighter than *BSD, so Linux washes up on the shore all the time, whereas the heavier (but more correct) *BSD bits sink to the ocean floor.
Thinking outside my Head
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.
As with most people in the IT field I get a lot of requests for help from friends and family. It's almost never a hardware problem that they have -- it's always some virus or spyware program or some Windows corruption someplace. I found that I was reinstalling Windows every time I worked on someone's computer. And I was using my copies of Windows because they never had their own.
The first thing I want to know is, just how many people are using pirated copies of Windows? I don't even know one person who is now using a legitimate copy of Windows. Why pay when your pal can get it from work, or now from the net? How does this figure into the estimates of Windows domination and market share? Surely if you only counted legitimate, purchased and properly licensed copies of Windows, the home user market share would be drastically lower. Businesses are more or less forced by threat of litigation, fines, and raids, to be legitimate. That's why the first wave of GNU/Linux migration has been happening in the business sector. No matter how many bullshit Gartner studies "prove" that Windows has a lower TCO, it just doesn't. It costs more to buy, it costs more to maintain, and it costs more to upgrade.
I think the best thing that could happen to GNU/Linux right now is for Microsoft to crack down on home user piracy. Activation schemes are a step in the right direction. With more hassle, increased costs and the apparent (or at least, apparent to those who don't know how to get an activation crack) inability to get a copy from a friend, GNU/Linux will look like a much better choice to home users.
But back to my main point: service. I have continued to refuse to service a Windows machine unless it involves replacing the operating system with a Free alternative. Don't like it? Find someone else to do the work... but it'll cost more. I think if more people refused to work on Windows for friends and family, the death of Windows as a dominant desktop platform would be much more speedy.
-JemI'd been a happy Linux user for years, and used it for everything, from works (scientific research) and my own entertainment (music, movies, etc).
However, things changed a big bit for me a year ago: I've got a girlfriend. Being a typical person who can uses computer to a level (M$ Word, IE, WinAmp, etc), making her use Linux was difficult. It was just simply too difficult for her. So I had no choice but to installed Windows for her. Even that, I tried to make her use Mozilla or Firebird for web browsing. That failed, too. She simply use IE whenever possible. So, forget about OpenOffice.org, etc. There are people who refuse to use any other word processors because "it's not Word", and any other browsers because "it's not IE"... (the list goes on).
That's fine with me, whatever, I can still use Linux in another partition.
But, there was a problem: I usally run process as backgrounds and I want to do that when she's using Word or we both watching movies. And having all my works in Linux partition wouldn't allow me to do this!
So, I decided to get a Mac. OS X seems to provide me a reasonably good solution. First, it is a nice and very user freindly Desktop OS, one of the most friendly out there. Learning to use anything in OS X was painless, even for my girlfriend. Second, if she insists on using Word, then there's Office v. X for Mac (even though there're some compatibility problems). Third, it's UNIX with X11 so I can recompile most of things I need to do my works.
So, while I hope that Linux will eventually become more favorable for Home Users, I don't expect it anytime soon. This is simply because, more than anything else, convincing people who don't really know anything but stick with "name" of programs is very difficult. (Ex. There are people who won't buy anything but a computer wih Pentium-brand CPU, regardless of what he/she's doing with it.)
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
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.
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...
"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.
The version that comes with RH 7.5 is the worst paint program I have EVER seen;
I must say I was also very disappointed by RH 7.5. This is probably one of the worst RH release I ever downloaded!
"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.
That's not a problem on the corporate desktop. There is plenty of well-supported hardware out there these days, so choosing a supported configuration is not a big deal. Companies could simply replace outdated unsupported hardware with supported configurations as they upgrade.
And I think you will agree that once a manufacturer's sales drop slightly because of lack of support for a popular OS, it will ll write a driver pretty damn fast.
I just saw an awesome Linux/IBM commercial during the superbowl. I usually just watch for the commercials - so I am pretty apathetic about the game. But when I saw the commercial come up, I stood up and screamed...
Half of the people at the campus-wide superbowl party turned around and looked at me like I was insane, while the Comp Sci club all raised their fists in the air in victory.
It is good to have allies with deep pockets. Let's just hope it stays this way.
Cameron King
But my point is that the target market is *not* necessarily home-user desktop computing! Linux is certainly mainstream at my campus, where all engineers have at least a basic intro to UNIX, and where many of the CS classes are taught on Linux. Linux is certainly mainstream (if not dominant) in the graphics workstation market where major movie studios like ILM use it for their artists. Linux is certainly mainstream in the embedded market, where many embedded products use Linux. And Linux is on the verge of becoming mainstream in the corporate desktop market.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Aww, screw it all. I'm tired of trying to explain the benefits of Linux to Windows users. I'm tired of talking until my voice goes out about how terrible Windows is...
I'm just going to leak an ISO onto the net of RedHat, and change the name to:
"Windows 2005 (unreleased) [pirate] NO KEY NEEDED.iso"
Thousands of people "upgrade" to Linux, and everyone is perfectly happy. They will recieve a small error message when they try to play their games of old programs that they are incompatible with the new version of Windows, and should request a new version from the company (nothing new there, Windows upgrades always do that crap). Meanwhile it'll lead them to free equivalents.
Bingo. Linux takes over the world overnight. Companies are suddenly getting hundreds of thousands of requests to port their software to Linux, and many are happy using the free equivalents.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant