Slashdot Mirror
Google Gives Reason Why it is Built on Linux
Rob writes "A common reason why more governments and enterprises around the world are moving to
open source software is unhappiness, it was revealed during a panel discussion at the
LinuxWorld Conference in San Francisco yesterday. Google Inc open source programs
manager Chris DiBona said the search giant has stuck with Linux throughout the company's
life, in part, because it
was unhappy with the terms of another software company. Which borgware company is he referring to?"
Seriously-- yeah it is MS, but the problem exists with any proprietary technology. The company doesn't need to be borg-like, just closed.
I've had plenty of jobs where we got locked in on the O.S. or on applications and it sucks. It is a rotten feeling when you want something changed but it is either impossible or it will cost you an arm and a leg. (Then you have to wait on their timing too)
I know throwing apple out there is a bit inflammatory around here but it proves the point. There are plenty of bad options out there without even pointing out Microsoft.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Google does a lot of things differently than most OSes are meant for. It's only logical that they'd choose one that they can customize to their needs...
Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
He was refering to Microsoft!
The article seems to imply that. But on closer reading, it indicates that Microsoft was just used as an example. The same would have been equally true of Sun, SGI, IBM, etc. And when you really look at what they were doing with Google, I think that Sun is actually more likely to have been the target than Microsoft.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Why can't I run the really cool stuff like Google Earth on my Debian machine
if they've relied on it so much, it would be nice if some of their apps would run on linux.
When you look at copyrights like a government regulation that controlls how people use information, rather than some kind of "property" right. Then it becomes clear that Linux is truely more accountable to free market paradigms, and in the information age - as information becomes commoditized, that will be even more so - as the companies that treat unrestricted copying over the internet like a threat will loose, and those that treat it like an advantage will win.
It's good to see some company finally step up to the plate and publicly admits that free/open source software provides independence and freedom. IBM, Novell, HP always put out the "cheaper" argument which is seen as "less value".
Freedom is strength, Ignorance is peace, War is slavery.
Google can't pay $90 a CPU for Windows XP Professional Global Oppression Server or whatever. (I'm a Mac guy so I don't know exactly what Windows is calling itself now.) I bet both Microsoft and Sun are kicking themselves for not cutting Google a deal. Imagine the PR Sun could have gotten by using Google as a reference customer.
Tristan Yates
Even if he is referring to MS, it's not as if google can be considered impartial. They must have known they'd be competing with redmond on one level or another. How would it sound if someone said to them, yeah but doesn't your search technology run on Windows? Not horrible but not great either. Especially if the competition becomes even more heated.
Besides being customizable, Google uses oodles of servers. At $300 / seat for something proprietary, they are saving ungodly amounts of money.
In the end though, it is always about control.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Open source can never be very easy to use and easy to run
Ever hear of a product called Tivo? Runs Linux. Or maybe a linksys router...
I guess those products are beyond your ability to use or run...
And the price of OSS is not its main draw. I chose to develop a number of projects with Java rather than Visual Studio because VS was expensive to buy, while Java cost nothing. But then I was frustrated by my dependence on Sun to fix problems in the closed VM and class libraries. So I'm now developing on an OSS language and framework.
That one tripped me up. A communist nazi would be a very conflicted person indeed.
Let me help you out with some terms:
Communism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Fascism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Nazism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Stalinism -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
All very similar but not all the same thing.
It's a little more thana kernel really. Only the OSX GUI is really closed.
But Google would not need that part for a million headless boxes in a rack. Being able to modify Darwin would let them do as much customizing as they have done with Linix.
However of course when you have a million boxes any licencing fee is too much, so they are really better off with Linux anyway as it's been hammered on a lot more, even though they could have just grabbed Darwin and gone with it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Like whoever moderated your comment as Insightful?
If you take away your flamebait tone and your off-topic remarks about graphic and media software support which are not relevant for Google's server farm it sounds like the point you're making is to "use the right tool for the job". From this article for Google it looks like the right tool for their purposes is an OS that lets them make their own customizations.
If that is an annoying poke at Microsoft and other proprietary vendors then so be it. For this particular job they aren't the right tool.
Transmitting energy without a license.
I don't think "$300 / seat for something proprietary" really matters that much. Even if they re-bought that license every single year, it is less than $1/day to match whatever they are paying the butt that sits in the seat.
I think you are missing a couple of things. First off, Google wasn't always a multibillion dollar company. They were a startup first, and when you are a startup with no revenue, capital is damn scarce. In that environment, avoiding the cost of software licenses is an obvious way to economize.
Fast forward to the day you start earning some revenue, and maybe even an operating profit. You have lots of demands for reinvesting the money for further growth. You could put some of it into software licenses for a commercial OS, and the costs of converting your infrastructure and porting your code, or you could put it into more hardware (for the cost of OS licenses, google could probably have bought 20-30% more capacity), to handle more customers, and more engineers, to improve your product, and marketing/sales to keep stoking your growth.
The biggest reason to go with a commercial vendor is that you can take advantage of the investment they are amortizing over a large sales volume. This can be a good thing if you have rather ordinary problems you are trying to solve, but someone like google (or amazon, etc) doesn't have ordinary problems, so they are forced to create their own solutions (which also gives them a competitive advantage). Overtime, the rest of the world might catch up to the point that commercial vendors now offer solutions, but again, the value you gain from replacing your existing solutions has to be weighed against the other things you could do with the money.
Furthermore, Market Cap != Liquid Assets. Market Capitalization is the sum of the current value of all outstanding shares, not what they sold the shares to the brokers for.
Imagine a small company that sells 50000 shares to the IPO brokers at $10. Due to buzz, rumours, or manipulation, the shares go up to $1000 per share. The company's market capitalization is now 50 million, but the company only has 1/2 million in the bank.
Is this why Google Earth, Google Desktop Bar, Google Web Accelerator all support Windoze only ? Google might be harnessing the power of Linux behind the scenes, but all of its innovations for desktop users are on M$ only. Granted, that they are Beta/Preview versions .. but Linux could be a great candidate too !
I believe that it's different because they're not trying to hide what they collect, and why, from anyone.