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?"

9 of 670 comments (clear)

  1. Slackware by cbelle13013 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had a circuits professor who had either done some contract work or worked at Google back in 2000. He told me and a couple other students that they used Salckware and ran the entire site from RAM, OS and all. Before that talk I never new you could run entire systems directly from RAM. Wild.

    1. Re:Slackware by darkonc · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I never new you could run entire systems directly from RAM.

      You boot off of the net. Most PCs these days have support for it. Linux works real well that way. I've run classrooms off of one knoppix CD, using the Knoppix Terminal Server (penguin menu -> services -> Start KNOPPIX Terminal Server). Takes all of a couple of minutes to start up. No need even for disk drives (although swap space is sometimes nice).

      When Microsoft tries to FUD about 'difficult installs for Linux', they're obviously doing their damndest not to look at things like Knoppix -- The hardest thing is setting the BIOS to boot off of the NIC.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  2. OT: Traffic impact by Google Personalized Homepage by vinlud · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is offtopic, but because it didn't survive the submission I did I thought it would be best to post it attached to another Google story.

    A few days ago I noticed several websites which are linked by default in the Google Personalized Homepage show staggering increases in web traffic and page views. According to Alexa.com Wired more than doubled and also Slashdot , the NY Times and the Washington Post show remarkable growth at the end of july.

    Is this a redefinition of 'slashdotting' or is there something else going on?

    --
    Repeat after me: We are all individuals
  3. Linux success b/c of Google by bach37 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Linux is successful many say because of Google- Google being the free 24/7 searchable customer support for your Linux problem. Somewhat ironic that Google's success is in part from using Linux.

  4. Server room by Trogre · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While showing a slide show of Google's hardware evolution, which began humbly with an odds-and-ends collection of "spare computers that were lying around Stanford" (hobbled together, literally, with pieces of Lego and duct tape) and ended with a present-day photo of Google's current server room (darkened to the point of being indistinguishable, for competitive reasons), DiBona said Google has used Linux all the way.

    Forget software licensing, I just want to see the slide with their server room!

    Any links?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  5. Re:its all lies... by varmittang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, when I was in college, 2000-04, you could only get one license of all MS software, and could only install it on ONE computer. Not get the software, and load up 4, 5, 10 computers. Only the administration or the IT staff could load up multiple computers since the school had a license to do so, but the students were not on the same license. And every school is different, I asked for another copy of Visual Studio for a second computer and I got a flat out NO, only one install. And for the first install, I had to return the install disks after a week or so, or would have been given fine I believe. Of course I made copies, but we were not suppose to have copies either. And this was Penn State. Then, how are you suppose to go from students on a students MS license to an actual company. All that costs to get the correct licenses. You think MS would have let them get away without getting the correct licenses.

    --
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    12345
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  6. Re:Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    no it's not.

    my employer wouldn't be considered a "bleeding edge tech" company, but we've had to modify the linux kernel source in order for it to work properly in the networking environment it was placed. I've also had to modify getty and a couple other packages to get the system to work with the oddball hardware we use and to satisfy a user requirement. The patches went back to RedHat and whether they used them for a future product is up to them.

    I'm no Alan Cox and my changes weren't monumental, but I was still able to do it because the source was available.

  7. Re:Apple? by fermion · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The issue is competative pressure to produce an increasingly compelling product at lower costs thus increasing value to the customer. Clearly, most IT firms feel such pressure and attempt to meet changing technology and consumer demand head on. To take your example Apple has done this by providing a five user site license for the complete OS X for less than MS charges for a single full license of XP. Combine this with the fact that XP builds on an outdated OS that was scheduled to be retired by now, and OS X is a state of the art OS that MS is still a year away from matching.

    This is the same for MS Office. MS has not really provided compelling value. MS Office is aging technology, and the base price should really be $100 for everyone. The full bloat version can still be $300. We have not seen a real update in 5 years, which, for a flagship product, really indicates the indifference MS has to the market.

    I am not really defending or attacking anyone, simply stating that MS is a unique postiona and therefore has unique issues. In the timeframe that we are talking, Apple would not have been a contender. If it had, Google could have just taken darwin, as it did not need the gui. The point has not been proven because the licensing issues with MS stems from a monopoly status, in the same way that IBM once effectively was. Other IT firms, like Sun and SGI were the best in a field, and if one needed it, the price was not too much. Most of the time one was looking to solve a problem, and the licensing was often not the overiding issue. If google specifically needded transparency of source, the Linux is the clear winner as no one else can solve that problem as cheaply.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  8. BSA AUDIT by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Prior to my getting hired by the company I presently work for, there was a painful BSA audit. I can say with 100$ certainty that the BSA is the main reason for our migration to Linux.