Slashdot Mirror
Linux, Inc.
An anonymous reader sends in a link to Businessweek talking about the business of Linux, and the increasing threat to Microsoft's operating system monopoly.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Google. That would've helped to shake up the PHBs a little more effectively, given this is BusinessWeek.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
The only reason they're not doing that is the simple fact that they are effectively a monopoly. If they let Linux get a small share, then all that Linux will do is take up some of the slack from people who would have a higher chance of not paying for MS products anyway. What it also does though is give them something to point to. "See! They have some of the market...we're not a monopoly" can be their response to a judge.
Soon, hopefully, Linux won't be at MS's whim that much. But for now...they're letting us get any gains we have.
Buying decisions are made by suits, though. Most CIO's are former CFO's working towards becoming COO's. They don't give two shits about what "hackers" like.
If it were not from grown-ups (in suits) working for Red Hat and IBM driving the Market, Linux would still be a nifty project on University campuses, instead of the multi-billion-dollar industry that it is.
Not even M$ has the change to buy IBM and they are the biggest 'Linux' company out there.....
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
I agree with part of that. The quality of Linux is the #1 selling point. The fact that it's licensed under the GPL is really just an added bonus.
However, I don't think there's as much difference between what hackers and suits want as you think. It's more of a marketing distinction: hackers just want to see the code, no marketspeak PLEASE; suits want marketspeak, no code PLEASE. To illustrate: hackers may want a content management system, while suits want to make their workflow more efficient and flexible for their mobile information workers--turns out it's the same thing in some cases. Microsoft is just really good at marketspeak.
Stop saying that! They might own the desktop (tell that to mac users), but they have never owned the server room. If anything the server room has changed from being filled with proprietary Unix boxes to being filled with Linux boxes.
I have seen headlines about the linux revolution for a few years now.
I use linux at home and love it.
Wake me up when linux breaks double digit market share in the desktop world and then we can call it a revolution
"Windows is built by a company that listens to its potential customers and tries to fulfill their needs. Linux is built by a group that listens to itself and tries to impress each other."
IBM's Linux division isn't listening to the needs of its customers? AFAIAC, this post is nothing but FUD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD gives a brief history of BSD and its evolution since the 70s.
www.DIYTVAntennas.com
BSD probably wouldn't exist if not for linux (correct me if I'm wrong but it uses the linux kernel right?)
No, BSD predates linux - and Linux does borrow some things from the BSDs...
Solaris, Aix, HPuX? Tighly bound to [insert name] hardware
Solaris is available in SPARC and x86 versions, but the others you mentioned are pretty much tied to their vendor hardware. HPUX? way too retro IMHO, and damned expensive.
What other OS would have become the MS competitor in the server market?
It could well be that most of the current linux developers would have been BSD developers, and perhaps FreeBSD would be the dominant force in the server room today.
I read somewhere an interesting theory that companies (and organizations) that don't try to compete directly with Microsoft (plan their buisness around beating Billy) and just concentrate on making a good product end up succeeding. (Imagine that!).
One of Microsoft's tactics over the years is to bait companies into direct competition with them. Usually companies that take the bait lose.
As long as LINUX continues to improve NOT because of MS but because people are interested in making better software, then I think success will continue.
I'd imagine it's as if you were playing some game like raquetball or tennis and some dude is at the fence trying to get you to "compete" when you are perfectly content to play whatever you are playing, and get better.
The turning point for Linux will only come when desktop Linux users become willing to pay money for software on linux; non Open Source software at that.
With great OSS projects like Open Office, Gimp, and others, Linux desktop users have become accustomed a totally free desktop, and dislike free solutions that only provide binaries. This is not a very inviting environment for commercial companies to jump in, given the effort porting would take, and given Linux's penetration into the Desktop market (not meager, but not massive either).
Apart from the obvious ad-hominem, are you suggesting that worship of the dollar must be part of everyone's path to adulthood?
What a sad, distorted view of life.
Microsoft is not worried about losing their Windows dominance to Linux. They aren't worried, in other words, about losing 100% of their server OS business-- they are worried about losing 10% of it. That's all the fight is for now.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
What's stopping someone from writing an entire environment like OS X from the ground up, around and on top of Linux, and creating an OS X like environment that is as complete and modern as either OS X or Windows?
Nothing at all. Get started, I wish you luck on that.
IMO, something as polished as OSX or Windows can only be created in a corporate setting. There are too many egos wanting different things, it'd be impossible to get a team of 100 coders to all agree to work towards the same set of goals. One guy wants X, another wants Y.
There comes a point when you need someone to say "we're going with X, like it or find another job."
There's more than enough talent to get the job done, but not nearly enough leadership, or talented people who are willing to volunteer their time to take orders to create something - even if it's not exactly what they want to create.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
But is Linux really growing?
I mean, Linux in early 2004 was a lot bigger than in early 2003, but does it look any bigger in early 2005?
I see stagnation.
It kinda makes me scratch my flea-ridden head... There's an endless stream of articles heralding linux as enterprise ready, Msft's achille's heal, etc. Yet when you look at novell and redhat's stock you see something much like this: \ What gives?
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
People who don't think Linux is progressing are ususally thinking about the desktop segment, where Linux is weak.
But servers are another matter. Server are where expensive hardware and support get sold, which is why Linux has such strong corporate backing as described in the article. Joe User is irrelevant to servers.
As for the desktop, I'm afraid hardware support is a major barrier. I've run Linux as my primary desktop at home for years, and at work for the last 3 years, but it's frustrating when hardware you want to buy isn't supported. It's even worse when the hardware is supposedly suported, but after laying out the cash you find the drivers are only partially functional, and crash-prone. Reverse engineering just isn't sufficient. Best would be if companies provided open-source drivers and documentation, but I doubt they will.
IBM has more developers working on Linux than RedHat has employees. I'd say that makes them as much a Linux company as RedHat, wouldn't you?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
If it were not from grown-ups (in suits) working for Red Hat and IBM driving the Market, Linux would still be a nifty project on University campuses, instead of the multi-billion-dollar industry that it is.
Not quite. Companies still need to earn a profit (at least some of the time). If Windows were a complete pile of shit, they would be flocking to Unix in droves. Actually a couple of decades ago they were, but I digress. But because Windows is mediocre, it's much harder for Unix to make headway.
p.s. Note that I'm using the word "Unix". In the real world (outside of Slashdot) Linux is merely another flavor of Unix. It may not be genuine Unix, but it looks, smells and tastes like it. And it doesn't require expensive hardware either.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
In Europe as in US the situation is just the same as in Latin America, only us wessies don't do it that public because of the taboo.
But if you would look at some things that could not happen without bribe, in the EU the push towards Software Patents and in the US Bush (twice).
So it is just the same shit , just not the same color.
Bah and Humbug...
1 - The X protocol can be easily and widely implemented. There is a free reference implementation that (a) works, and (b) is free.
It is *easy* to implement X on anything that has a frame buffer, or is scan-line writeable.
2 - Drivers? Init the hardware and get going. Yup, you may have to figure out the reverse engineering. Suck it up.
3 - The attempts to be "better" than X failed -- because -- (wait for it), they weren't better. They may have been more "Windows" like, or "Mac" like, but certainly not better than X.
And that's all there is to it.
What is "Better than X"?
To start with, it would have to support the features of X. And NONE of the attempts (including the Current Mac OS X) does so.
Not that it couldn't be done, it just hasn't been. (why is left to the reader).
-- Network transparency
-- Extensible
-- Reference implementation
-- No OS, device, or platform specific features, except as extensions.
-- Good performance across a wide range of platforms
-- Support for multiple visuals
-- Good event support
-- Easy porting
And the final "killer" feature:
-- Should be able to support legacy X (easy), and also (with efficiency) drive X as a back-end.
The final point would be a testament to portability (Note to gentle reader: X does this already, with XNest: X in X).
With all of this in place, I would certainly consider replacing X Native -- I would have nothing to loose. I could even start by "staging" NewGUI on X, and as applications used NewGUI, finally replace X.
But, if X is being used purely as final rendering tool, it can only be replaced if an alternate rendering protocol is arguably better. And this hasn't happened.
Instead, X Extensions tend to take up the slack, and we proceed.
In other words, X *IS* the driver interface to render visuals. Unfortunately, Apple disagrees: putting X *on* OS X, instead of OS X *on* X. Making the Mac useless to quite a few people.
If Apple were confident that OS X protocol were more efficient (less network traffic) than X, why not compete?
Either (1) it isn't more efficient, or (2) the user base doesn't care about that feature. And, it's a major feature to lose. At least for those who use hetergenous platforms.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Microsoft has had the Mom & Dad users since 1980.
WalMart, with its enormous purchasing power, can't sell a Linux system off the web that undercuts it's Windows equivalent by more than 50 bucks. Simpler and cheaper to call Dell, avoid the sales tax, and get free home delivery.
...then please, for sanity's sake, buy and read "Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines". You will find that Apple actually researched what makes an intuitive interface & then did a damn fine job accomplishing it. The current Linux GUIs suffer from the same problem as Windows; they're completely arbitrary.
I hate when background windows force themselves to the front on MS Windows, and it makes me sick to see that happen under Linux. I hate selecting some bit of text under Windows, only to find that releasing my finger from the button caused some last-second movement that totally screws up my selection. Linux's GUIs do this too. Macintosh knows people are human beings & it filters out last-second movements like that. And so on, and so on, and so on.
So please...if you're going to write a proper Linux GUI...HEED STRONGLY WHAT APPLE SAYS!!!
(Disclaimer: I am a major Linux head, but was once a Mac developer. OS X looks awesome, but unless Apple stops being the sole source of hardware, I'm not buying a Mac.)
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
It could well be that most of the current linux developers would have been BSD developers, and perhaps FreeBSD would be the dominant force in the server room today.
I've thought of that myself. Thing is, a major driver behind Linux has been corporate adoption. The GPL effectively prevents a company from taking the software, improving it and keeping the improvements to themselves.
Unlike the BSD license, where Big Company Ltd. could write a whole bunch of improvements, release them to the world - and three weeks later find Microsoft has taken their improved software, improved it further, slapped a £9.99 price sticker on it and chosen not to release the source. Bit of a disincentive for Big Company Ltd?
For this you'll be moderated +10 Insughtful.
I suspect he meant that it was only through Bush's connections that he got in, especially with respect to the Florida recounts in 2000. Or it could have meant that he only got in because of the blatant propaganda spread via the major media outlets who refuse to project Bush in a bad light or ask the tough questions because they get blacklisted for key opportunties offered by the Bush admin (embedded journalists, White House invites, interviews, etc.). Such opportunities could be considered as bribery and are certainly working in that respect.