Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Gives Reason Why it is Built on Linux

Posted by samzenpus on from the google-google-google dept.

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?"

9 of 670 comments (clear)

  1. Apple? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  2. Unsurprising! by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
  3. Not so sure by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. giving back by mattfite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if they've relied on it so much, it would be nice if some of their apps would run on linux.

    1. Re:giving back by Fjornir · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Ignoring, for instance, the Summer of Code (and all of the other grants they've made) Google has made one contribution to Linux users everywhere: google.com.

      To start with, Google is the most well-known poster-child of Linux success. If you don't think that adds value to every other opensource project, well... *shrug*

      As a more tangible and direct benefit I can say that google.com is an immense resource as far as answering any Linux question which comes my way. Between the web search and usenet search features they provide to everyone free it makes using Linux a lot easier. Stop in on any Linux IRC channel and you'll see what I mean. I volunteer off and on doing Linux support and I can tell you that without Google there would be a lot of questions that I would be unable to answer.

      Just a thought...

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
  5. Finally... by darthgnu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. goooogle by gadzook33 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Licensing restrictions = per-CPU licensing by darkonc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    RTFA. Paying for an entire OS when you're essentially using it as a boot loader wasn't the biggest thing to stick in Google's craw. Having to go ask for permission to be able to stick your nose deep into the kernel and pull out, tweak or seriously crank parts of the OS is what really irked them -- and now that Bill considers Google to be their competition, I can easily see Microsoft yanking them around on a chain at every opportunity.

    Imagine being a Professional Nascar team, and having to ask Gates Motors (GM) for permission every time they re-tune their machine ... then finding out that the President of GM has gotten into Nascar racing. ... Then they start asking you to provide full details of your tuning methods "to ensure that our cars don't get a bad safety reputation".
    It's all downhill from there.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  8. OSS Advantages by Mandrel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm amazed at how increasingly irrelevant Microsoft products are becoming to my use of computers, both privately and as a developer. With OSS, the fact that I can fix it myself trumps any modest disparity in features, maturity, or price.

    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.