Slashdot Mirror
Six Barriers to Open Source Adoption
securitas writes "ZDNet/CNet's Dan Farber describes the six barriers to enterprise open source software adoption. Briefly, the reasons are 1) Lack of formal support, 2) Speed of change (not 'velocity'), 3) Lack of roadmap, 4) Functional gaps, 5) Licensing caveats and 6) ISV endorsements. The article makes an interesting counterpoint to Marc Andreessen's 12 reasons for open source adoption."
The number 1 reason: Non OS standards which Microsoft appears to be creating for the sole purpose of locking in the masses to their product line (IMO), until OSource finds away to deal with MS leveraging their hold on standards (which are fairly open right now) OSource is going to have a hard time, because MS is calling the shots right now.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
3) Lack of roadmap
That's okay, because REAL men don't need not stinkin directions.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
server room so as to protect their jobs when they have limited skill sets and no real interest
in learning
anything new.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
You might not believe it but that's a major reason. I don't know about you but arguments like "You get what you pay for", "There's no such thing as a free lunch" and "It's free if you consider your own time [setting up the system] worthless" tend to be rather convincing.
The owls are not what they seem
Newsfollow.com
The IT staff I work for like open source because vulnerabilities for the software we would like to use are found seldomly and when they are found they are fixed quickly, not to mention one program doesn't interfere with the others too much. But management listens to slick salespeople from crappy vendors and we end up with products that won't work with the latest security patches to Windows, and now we are left vulnerable on so many fronts because our proprietary software won't work with the updated and 'secure' versions of Windows. My coworkers could care less about how often the products need updating, as long as staying secure doesn't break our systems, Windows is failing for us in that arena.
Open source at my workplace is stifled by management who don't know the latest tech stuff and listen to vendors more than the folks in the trenches doing the work. Non-tech people are the key roadblock to FOSS adoption, the ever popular 'stupids'.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
Good to see there's more reasons for than against open source use. There's always reasons for and against using anything. With open source becoming more popular there must be some major reasons against using Microsoft software that outway the advantages.
Being locked into using a software suite due to the secrecy of the file format and the costs are two of the major ones.
Open source development tools are a godsend for development work. Trying to figure out why a program won't run properly compiled in a closed source environment usually leads to wasting time working around the problem by re-engineering your sofware, rather than finding and fixing a simple bug in your development tools. Just because a development environment is supported by a big company doesn't mean that big company is going to fix the problems you discover in its software anytime soon.
7) Rabid, frothing, pro-Linux zealots who consistently make fools of themselves by treating an operating system as if it were a religion. It makes it damnably difficult to pitch Linux solutions to corporate types when their perception is that it's written and run by hippies.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
If an enterprise has got inside technies that live and breathe open source - like Red Hat does for example - than there are no barrier to adoption. When you got wannabes like Novell out there, that admittly don't even use Open Source 'stuff' on their own desktops yet, how do you expect others to jump on board???
*drum roll please*
And the number one reason to Open Source use by the masses.....*ba da ching!* Users! If a user has trouble hitting "Ctrl-Alt-Del" to log in its gonna be a while untill they will be handed a new operating system.
Disclaimer: I didn't read the full article.
That pic of him on the article makes him look like one of the Onion's columnists.
He makes good points, but update the photo, man.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Five simple steps for migrating an office to Linux:
1. Build "beefy" Windows 2003 Terminal Server with apps that existing Windows users "have to have"
2. Install favorite Linux distro on all workstations
3. Install rdesktop on all workstations allowing access to legacy Windows apps
4. Wean users to Linux applications at comfortable pace
5. Nix Terminal Server
IMO this is THE biggest barrier.
Example corporate environment: financial departments have to make it work with their various file transfer and encryption applications, your reports people need their database building and access tools to work better, help desks have to make Mozilla running on Linux work with SAP and PeopleSoft (and the little misc processes that they rely on), the graphic arts department starts lobbying Adobe to support it, scheduling and forecasting departments find quirks in it when running their custom workforce management apps, your business applications group wants their development tools to work like the ones in Windows, etc, etc.
In my workplace we use (at great expense, license-wise) Unix System V to run our d-base servers. When I was hired on, I asked about this, and was promptly told "We won't use open source solutions because they don't come with any sort of garauntees or support. We pay extra for these licenses because what we are essentially buying is a garauntee of uptime. We don't have the time or the manpower to fool with some attention-intensive open source thing." I have found this to be the prevalent corporate mindset, at least in the circles I work in. Anyone else have similar experience?
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
1) Lack of formal support
Yes but there's plenty of free and friendly support on forums, newsgroups and IRC channels. Not to mention 1000s and 1000s of user created documentation.
2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')
At least Linux patches improve the product. You have the choice of not applying them, where as, not applying windows patchs means opening yourself to zillions of worms.
3) Lack of roadmap
Yes, so one is not constrained. This creates co-operative competition. I.e. I use your code to make a better product. If I don't agree with your roadmap, I start a new fork. This makes open source software development far more successful than the closed source monolithic alternative.
4) Functional gaps ;) ).
They are changes. Not gaps. You have the choice with OpenSource. Not with, say, Windows. (Not trying to bash Windows
5) Licensing caveats ;) ;) )
Read a typical Microsoft EULAs. See how many rights have you got. (Not trying to bash MS
6) ISV endorsements. Independent Software Vendors: Who listens to them anyway?
Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny
Nothing to see here
"Open source application server maker JBoss offers 24-hour support and is certifying its software for the Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) standard, but the small company is going up against companies like BEA, IBM, Microsoft and Sun. Convincing a CIO that it can deliver better, , more cost effective support than its billion dollar competitors is a credibility and growth challenge for JBoss and its brethren."
Here is a model of hypocrisy. Roughly translated, it means: "we probably won't buy support from Open Source providers anyway, but we're not going to let that stop us from complaining if the support isn't there."
I hate to say it, and I don't want to make some hard working open source coder accountable for his/her mistakes, but nevertheless it's gotta be one.
I download PHP and some other tools to get a web site running, wham, something doesn't work, research, research, finally find some note that one author made a change to one module that breaks PHP support, but the PHP folks say it will be fixed in the next version.
You think that's gonna sell in the real world? How many commercial packages can afford to ship broken?
Now, how can I sell this idea to a company. Broken is good because hey, we have the source and we can fix it?
I was mildly surprised to see such a pro-Linux article coming from ZDNet. In the past they have been a solid Microsoft advocate. This seems to be another sign that Open Source is gaining its critical mass.
Open source software introduces more complexities in software maintenance, but also promotes more secure and reliable code through rapid bug and vulnerability fixes.
Bull, I use thttpd and haven't needed software maintenance ever. Same with xitami, same with perl version 5.whatever I pick. Its not every freakin package that needs to be updated with Open Source stuff, but I do get the latest pureFTP because they are security fixes, but how many of those are there compared to IIS patches?
Lack of Road Map
That's funny, I haven't seen a TODO file with any MS product ever, this is pure FUD, most FOSS projects have a much more clear and open "roadmap" than any commercial product except when a commercial product wants to derail sales of competing products, then they announce exciting new features just around the corner...
Functional gaps
He doesn't even make a case that this is a problem, which it is not. As repeated here and other places many times, innovation happens at small commercial software companies and through FOSS projects and then is bought/stolen by MS and released to the oblivious IT Management World as MS innovation and they are none the wiser.
Licensing caveats
Please, read groklaw, or take the opposite stand - IBM says GPL (like copyright) works and SCO doesn't own jack.
But, it's clear that software development and business models are changing as a result of open source code.
The only thing that is changing is that there is an Open Source OS and now F/OSS is cool, hip, trendy, buzzworthy, etc. I have to go RMS on him and say that these IT Management level idiots never had a clue about how much of their business ran on lowkey, "not cool cause its not linux" FOSS - bind, sendmail, qmail (we don't like that Dan doesn't have an explicit license that we can poke at, waah!), postfix, mailman, php, perl, *BSD, etc, etc, etc. Now their all "concerned" because there is no formal support - if they knew that their Oracle guys got answers from the Oracle newsgroups and mailing lists and never from the "support" that they are paying 10's of thousands of dollars for, maybe they would have a clue that paid software support is 99% bullshit.
Bottom Line:
Open Source has issues, blah, blah sell trade rag advertising, blah, blah, blah.
Ok, so I was running RH9 for a while now, doing the apt-get update/upgrade bit. Got restless and wanted KDE 3.2 so I went to the apt-kde sourceforge place and it worked for a while. Then a recent update/upgrade borked my system. No way out but reinstall. After a reinstall, I could've sworn I followed the well-meaning post on a message board about how to reinstall fonts. Locked up X until I undid all the changes from the command line and rm -rf'ed the font directory I created.
So with an operational system, I decide to go mandrake (don't like the idea of a network install with SUSE and wanted kde-friendly over fedora). Installed it, configured the network connection, rebooted...BOOM, suddenly network connection goes out. Another search on help boards suggests turning on ACPI from somewhere in drakconf. Hunted it down and am in the process of restoring files backed up from my old RH installation.
Just a few minutes ago, I got a segfault from kopete when I was trying it out just for fun. Thinking to install gaim to see if I can get THAT stable.
I love the Open Source, folks, don't get me wrong. However, I lose a bit of cred when I start talking about how tough it is to bork a Linux install. It ain't the viruses and worms -- it's the politics (lack of KDE support in RH), the scattered help sources, incompatible distros, and multiple package sources that end up borking other packages as part of a dependency hell.
Sorry, had to vent -- been mucking with this thing for two days now just trying to restore. On a good note, the 2.6.3 and KDE 3.2 seems pretty quick so far. Much quicker than RH9 was, anyway.
You want Linux adoption? We just may have to dumb it down so much that we take the fun right out of Linux. In short, most people won't jump through that many hoops just so they can run Linux.
Remember OSS coders: Be sure to gap all functions at .040" to ensure proper data ignition and to prevent code knocking.
Unknown host pong.
The number 1 reason why open source fails to be adopted in corporations is that open source fails the largest costs of using a software package:
1. support
2. installation
3. deployment
4. documentation
5. deploying updates
The initial cost of software is not a big deal to companies because they spend many times more than that after the software is purchased.
Open source software typically doesn't make any promises, so there are none to be broken. But where there is a roadmap, in my experience the open source projects do a better job of meeting it than proprietary software does. Still often behind schedule, but typically not by as much.
Although not as vile as the typical anti-open-source journalism, this is nevertheless just a FUD story.
Eric
Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads! -- Emmett "Doc" Brown, Back to the FutureI agree with the points as presented - I believe that they can be a barrier to entry.
On the other hand, not all open source products suffer from those "barriers", and many closed source products do.
Lack of formal support? Damn, most of the packages my company purcahsed don't have any formal support. I remember one commercial software package we bought for about $100,000: the sales guy sold us some support, charging us 10% of the initial purchase price annually. But that support was ineffective. When we found major bugs, they took many months to address them (if ever). And finally, when the vendor was bought up by a 3rd party, the product was abandoned and is now truly unsupported. Bummer for the CIO, who now has to go to the plate to fire up a $1 million replacement project.
...and use Citrix Metaframe XP. They have a Linux client that rocks (I use it here at work). Something tells me that MS won't be writing a Linux client for terminal services any time soon.
3) Lack of roadmap
This is a valid criticism, but only when compared with the Oracles and Microsofts of the world.
FOSS projects have roadmaps, but there's no strategy at the level of platforms or information systems in general - each project is an autonomous part of the IT elephant. This means that no one can rationalize and coordinate between projects.
Is this a problem?
It might be. Look at Dotnet vs. Linux + Java or Mono or PHP. If MS got their act together they could simplify the Dotnet world a lot, offering a consistent and complete environment for information management. Meanwhile, we'll still be dealing with such mixed bags as file permissions, database permissions, htaccess files and Java security policies since these are all separate projects with no prospect of rationalization or consolidation.
Fortunately, at least with present MS management silos, this is unlikely to happen, however the general air of complacence concerning the unstoppable march of FOSS is probably misplaced.
Open Source is growing in the Enterprise and rightly due to the aforementioned vendors adding OSS components, if not systems, to their vendor price list.
Mindshare takes time and advertisement from sources people traditionally find credible.
What needs to be improved is the Documentation processes that will only make adoption of such Systems, along-side paid consulting services, Reality.
Open Source challenges not only the creative aspirations of developers but also the disciplinary aspects of making such visions understandable and easily consumable by the constituents it is meant to aide
Again.. as I wrote above, if they are concerned about the roadmap then they need to GET INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT and help SET THE AGENDA themselves. As a matter of fact, if they did this their needs would be serviced a lot more quickly and thoroughly than trying to work with any big bloated software company.
I think this point is just showing their exceutive lazyness.
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
Where issues of licensing, support, and future plans are concerned, corporate customers can in most cases get what they want by acting more like, um, customers. With the exception of a few hard-core ideologues like RMS and his camp, the overwhelming majority of open source developers would be only too happy to cut special licensing deals, commit to varying degrees of tech support, or implement special features if the interested parties would just cut them a check.
Now, I know that for many of us, our primary business isn't business as such, but most of us probably aren't averse to cutting a deal for a fair price. We're just not too interested in jumping through hoops for free.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Time and time again I turn to non open source
solutions because they simply are more complete. Another term is also "commerical qualitity". MS doesn't put out products that have broken buttons, and crappy images. They don't have desktops that look like crap, and are hard to navigate. A front end is put on everything, by the same team that puts out the backend.
Even things like installers for your apps versus a centralized approach like RPMs or Debian packages have a big impact. People have to be able to double click, and get a friendly click next 10 times kind of install. You can argue that this is just because they are used to it, but it doesn't really matter, they want it. You can pull of the same thing if you make sure you OS can detect them on a double click, but you also need the packages to contain a way to make the install look like it is from them.
The OS community is growing in the server market and tech departments because most of us don't care about it. Still some of us are busy developing on top of the server and don't want to have to deal with a lot of the server maintance stuff. Windows NT strikes a balance.
Another peave I have with the *nix approach is the use of OS based sub-systems to pull off functionality. It is a very valid approach to problems, but one that I don't particularly like and is a reason why Windows does better then *nix in the larger sense IMHO.
An example of what I'm trying to say is using things like file system links to pull things off, verus having a file that repersent a shortcut. Using a link for a web sever to redirect, verus the web server having a list of those links, Also using a list of shell scripts to pull something off, versus having a GUI tool that integrates them directly.
The large impact that this has is that it makes every program more dependent on large sets of smaller executable tools. Windows has a GUI for everything, and in most cases command line tools in the resource kit for those that need to write scripts. Having a GUI for everything just makes them look more professional, versus having to learn configuration files and such. With XP these things are even dumbed down to amazing levels. MS knows this, and Linux doesn't want to admit it, we can't turn the world into a bunch of command line whizs.
Most open source tools have a GUI or some kind of configuration helping tool, but most are from another party that is affiliated with the main group. IT execs hate this. If you are going to put out a product, put out a complete one. Everything has to have a unifing theme.
When people bitch about how long Debian takes to release a new version, now you know exactly why. It's hard to get software in really solid shape in and of itself, and then on top of that you have to get the packages working together nicely. This is hard work, and you've now seen why. Sure, you can always grab pre-release packages from outside sources, but these haven't gone through the Q&A that your distro provides. Packages coming from within the distro itself should play nicely together. That's the point of a distro, after all.
/usr/share/doc/packagename or the program's manpage (if a program doesn't have a manpage, that's considered a bug). It's very rare that I have to go outside those two sources to figure out how to do something on my system.
If you want to suggest these things to your bosses, be prepared to live with the tradeoffs. You can have stable software that's nice, but you'll pay the price in that it won't be shiny and new. Or you can have the new stuff, but be prepared to play "perpetual beta tester".
Any Linux install is easy to fuck up, if you try hard enough. You obviously tried very hard to fuck yours up, and did a good job of it. If you're suggesting Linux to a professional admin, hopefully they'll be a little more clue'd in about how their system works than you are, and will be able to deal with their system properly. As an example, I run Debian unstable on my desktop, a system which is known for having bugs pop up from time to time. But I know how to deal with them and it's never ever amounted to a reinstall, and only about twice in the last four years has it even interrupted my workflow. As another example, Gentoo allows you to completely fuck up your machine if you want very easily, and yet tons of people can't stop gushing about how easy it is to use. If you know how to deal with potential problems, Linux is an amazing choice, mainly because those problems are relatively transparent compared to something like Windows.
Oh, and I don't know how it is for Fedora or Mandrake, but in Debian, the majority of the docs that you'll ever want are located in
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Hell yes, there are barriers to open source adoption. Most women who give their babies up for adoption don't want to be contacted by the child in the future. Nor do they want everyone on the Internet to know that they had a child and put it up for adoption. The source of a baby put up for adoption should remain a secret. Otherwise, there will be fewer women willing to put their babies up for adoption. Why are we even discussing this?
(Being a typical Slashdot user, I didn't really read the article, but I'm sure that I know enough to comment just based on the title.)
11. #7 is true because they listen to what customers want and respond to it, while OSS shows little more than contempt for users unless they are hardcore, long-time *nix geeks.
12. Most OSS is horrible. It's free, and people still pay to use Microsoft products. Think about it. I say this as a Firebird user and part-time Linux user. Most of the apps are incredibly horrible.
13. Installing or tweaking Linux is still incredibly cumbersome, and next to impossible for someone who hasn't used it for years. This doesn't mean MS is perfect by any stretch, but they've done a much better job to help the user configure things.
14. Political OSS zealots who fabricate or exaggerate MS problems or OSS benefits, which never come true and invariably leave the switcher feeling duped and let down.
People are ripe for jumping ship after years of worms (mostly due to stupid users and stupid admins who don't patch their systems) and other issues. Nobody is giving them a good way to switch or a compelling reason. That isn't MS's fault.
Barriers or not, this is how OSS works and probably always will work. Speed of changes? Well, it's called development and there really is no reason to hold back patches or something. Informal support? Yeah, it's developed by a community, what were you expecting? No roadmap? That's because OSS product are not marketed and does not intend to be. It's developed by a community, and the community definately won't try to suit companies just for OSS to suceed on the corporate side as that's not the goal of OSS.
I couldn't come up with any better sign....
There was an article from CIO Magazine earlier this month which dispells some of the myths surrounding open source from a CIO viewpoint. An interesting read.
For example, what happens if Red Hat wants a specific modification in the Linux kernel but Linus Torvalds and the Open Source Development Labs don't agree?
uhh.. It happens all the time dan.
Now all of a sudden there is XP Rebloated or something shoved into this fantasy roadmap and longhorn has wandered of god knows where. Yup MS has roadmaps alright. It just doesn't follow them. But I suppose they are usefull you can read them and what is on them is EXACTLY what will NOT happen.
But why do they fall for it then? Because people are stupid short-sighted lazy and greedy. Roadmaps are nice things to show in powerpoint presentations to management when they are wondering why that huge IT budget still isn't delivering solutions that just fucking work.
"At the moment there are some problems wich we are working with but Look, a chart here says MS will fix it all no later then tomorrow". Kinda sad that grown men and women still don't get that one.
Most of the other arguments are bullshit ones. One not mentioned but still often used is "Opensource has no guarantees, no one I can sue" this is apparently used by companies without lawyers. Since any lawyer will tell you that sueing MS is pointless. Windows destroyed your data? Though. Of course this is true for all software for some reason. If I buy a truck and it explodes destroying my factory the truck manufacturer will have to pay for it but software seems to be a "you bought it, your risk" kinda product.
Oh well, off reading the rest of the comment. Kinda intrestting to keep track of them. Have you noticed people switched from the old "I don't use linux because I like my soundcard to work" to "I don't use linux bacause I like my digital camera to work"?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I see this kinda argument you have all the time. Oh MS is better since it has guarantees. Yet in practice it never seems to work. Make that call and all you get is a phone bill.
But quit frankly I don't really give a damn. Buy ASP and pay for every extra module you need. It is a free world. Zealots who say you should use X because of Y should be ignored.
Just remember. Your MS support is done by the lowest bidder. Have fun.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What do we end up with? A flavor of linux which the enterprise world is willing to accept - level-headed, release-engineered, supported.
And what happens to the grassroot linux? The lonely hacker coding for fun into the night. The reckless sysadmin replacing a windows group server with an old box runing samba. The enthusiastic team making up yet another distro. Who will take care of them? Will linus keep accepting their lowly patches? And even if he does, will IBM and Red Hat pay much attention to his kernel anymore?
I think that having Linux the kernel well-accepted and established is the worst thing that can happen to Linux the social movement.
The problem is that MS has got everybody fooled that simply updating the OS from 1 version to another is "porting" their systems. I never understood how MS has got away with it for so long. Look at the IBM AS400. Most companies have had 10 year old plus software running on these things and simply "upgrade" by "restoring" the old software from backup and continue on their merry way. We just moved and entire company from one box at our location to another box at the new company overnight! and they kept running on monday morning...try that MS!!!
1) Lack of formal support,
Just try and find out who's responsible if you use calculus to design a bridge and it fails.
2) Speed of change (not 'velocity'),
Not much change since we went from using fluxion to differential notation 300 YEARS AGO!
3) Lack of roadmap,
Nobody seems to know what innovations will be forthcoming in the next release. It's almost as if Newton and Leibnitz were dead.
4) Functional gaps,
What can you say about a tool that solves hard problems with 'Monte Carlo simulations' sheesh
5) Licensing caveats,
Do you have a copy of the TOU?
I've never even seen it! Is it OK to reverse engineer Green's theorem?
6) ISV endorsements
I haven't seen a single Fortune 500 company advertisement that even admits to using calculus in making their products, much less endorsing it.
The Windows servers are for the AD purpose only or as local servers in branches. So, yes, the workstation is a Windows XP station, but, it's not because it is well supported, standard or anything else, it's just because it's the de facto standard for this kind of usage.
Each Linux node is much more critical than any other Windows XP workstation. Would you pick it, if those 6 reasons were true? I mean, as a Bank?
Achille Talon
Hop!
1) Lack of formal support
This is true. Microsoft and IBM fix bugs the minute I report them.
2) Speed of change (not 'velocity')
True enough. Microsoft lets me upgrade in my own good time, and never forces me to adopt new software on their schedule.
3) Lack of roadmap
Yep. Hate to say it, but proprietary companies follow their roadmaps; I can set my clock by them. During the wait for Linux 2.6, I had to close up my business!
4) Functional gaps
Expensive software from companies both large and small does everything I could possibly need.
5) Licensing caveats
Yes. The only power a proprietary license grants is the right of the vendor to audit my business at my expense, and the right to send the BSA after me. The GPL and BSD licenses grant me nothing comparable.
6) ISV endorsements
Just what I look for when setting up my databases.
Is this really how a Fortune 500 company CIO thinks?
solutions to specific problems (a person decides to solve a problem so he writes some code and makes it available; I find I need to solve the same problem),
portability (same app running on different boxes with different OSs), and
learning opportunities (I want to understand something better; open-source means Free Information).
I always recommend open-source solutions when making proposals. People may have to learn how to use the tools, but they will be better employees for gaining the knowledge. Any company that systemically refuses OSS doesn't want to empower anyone and (foolishly) feels somehow safer if their figurative balls are in the grasp of Microsoft (for example).
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
You are allowed to make up your own words.
does not agree with a specific kernel change?
The author should look closer to SGIs business model. They grappled with this early on and came to the right conclusion:
Linus is in charge, it's his kernel.
Where did this leave SGI, and what does it mean for future development?
They decided:
(1) they can resubmit their changes after adjusting them,
(2) they can provide what they want as an add on (SGI ProPack),
(3) they can forego their project and embrace another one that gets what they want done,
(4) they can choose to not do it.
I was at a conference in 2000, I think, where their head technologist gave a speech on OSS and what it means to SGI. He outlined these options then. I thought about it quite a bit afterword and realized SGI gave quite a complement to the process actually, and Linus in particular. Rather than fight things, they accept them and begin engineering accordingly.
Funny many folks in the audience scoffed at this, thinking the OSS model would get in the way of things. The reality is that is has somewhat, but SGI now has Linux running single image 256 proc machines. Those same machines will run a stock linux, but will run better with the SGI Pro Pack loaded.
Eventually,
(1) Linus will accept SGIs changes,
(2) the kernel will perform the necessary tasks some other way, making those changes moot,
(3) everyone will discover the changes are not needed and move on.
The key here is that users of SGI machines will have clear choices open to them they would not otherwise have.
You can buy SGI IRIX machines that are sweet machines really, but finding applications on them is tough outside of user ported OSS. SGI developed fast and hard early on, but failed to achieve application capture which ultimatly limited their future.
Today IRIX users are dwindling as the mindshare leaves the platform. Make no mistake, IRIX is a sweet OS that can do amazing things, but its closed nature hurt its chance at gaining enough marketshare to survive long-term.
To me, this is a shining example of the primary advantage of OSS over proprietary solutions. Users come first because the process forces the issue, not because it makes more money. Having somebody in charge of core development that is not compensated on its use keeps things clean and workable for everybody.
Linux may not be able to match IRIX today, but the last 3 years or so have been simply amazing really. Give it another 2 or three and it will be there. On a side note, I have invested considerable time and money into IRIX only to see it slowly wither away. Same for various win32 iterations. The primary attraction Linux has for me is that my time and money investments are going to last a good long time. I don't want to go through another transition like that and with Linux, I won't have to.
In the longer term, this kernel is going to eventually spank every last one of the other kernels because it will be developed in a way that actually forwards the art of building and running kernels, not making money. As it continues along this path, the numbers of users grow as does mindshare. You can't get that kind of insurance for proprietary software no matter what you pay because money is the motivator. Think about it, if the software gets too good, what exactly will they charge for?
Clearly SGI sees this because they have embraced the process and appear to be back on track with what they do best; namely, large single image NUMA systems with low latency and high I/O. This time they are building on a kernel that has mindshare and a growing number of applications.
They get to make money, while their users retain choices they would not otherwise have, while they forego the expense of building all that stuff in house. Supercomputing just got one hell of a lot cheaper as a result.
Looking at all of that compared to the proprietary way seems like a no brainer to me really.
Blogging because I can...
As the new owner of an iBook, I have had a lot more to do with Mac owners lately, and let me tell you: Linux zealots can't hold a candle to an enraged Apple fanatic -- take for example the death threats this guy got when he did a parody of changing his PowerMac G5 into a PC. Linux users just don't get that excited, certainly not over hardware.
But then, everybody seems to think Mac users are some sort of peace-loving hippies, and the Linux people are radicals. Guess Steve Ballmer running around and calling us anti-American communists does have an effect after all.
"This app only runs on windows."
Really. Here's my example: As the systems admin, I've convinced the IT manager to let me migrate the entire company over to Linux on the desktop. Terrific, right? Well, there's one itsy-bitsy hurdle....
The expensive phone system in which they've invested a very large amount of money and time requires a client app on each workstation. And you guessed it... it only runs on windows.
I've even spoken to the company that produced the software, and offered to create and *give* them a Linux version. Nope, they can't be bothered - they're just too busy.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.