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?"
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.
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
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.
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
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-----
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.
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 $300. We have not seen a real update in 5 years, which, for a flagship product, really indicates the indifference MS has to the market.
I am not really defending or attacking anyone, simply stating that MS is a unique postiona and therefore has unique issues. In the timeframe that we are talking, Apple would not have been a contender. If it had, Google could have just taken darwin, as it did not need the gui. The point has not been proven because the licensing issues with MS stems from a monopoly status, in the same way that IBM once effectively was. Other IT firms, like Sun and SGI were the best in a field, and if one needed it, the price was not too much. Most of the time one was looking to solve a problem, and the licensing was often not the overiding issue. If google specifically needded transparency of source, the Linux is the clear winner as no one else can solve that problem as cheaply.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Prior to my getting hired by the company I presently work for, there was a painful BSA audit. I can say with 100$ certainty that the BSA is the main reason for our migration to Linux.