Linux Five Years Away From Mainstream

wellington wrote to mention a ZDNet blurb about a Gartner group study. Gartner indicates that 'mainstream' use of open source in IT environments may be 5 years away. From the article: "Gartner's latest Linux 'hype cycle' report shows that open source is halfway to maturity but warns the biggest test will be whether it can demonstrate the necessary performance and security to function as a data centre server for mission-critical applications. Leading-edge businesses are generally still in the early stages of Linux deployments but Gartner expects increased commercialisation and improved storage and systems management for the operating system by the end of 2005, with Linux being used primarily for WebSphere and infrastructure applications on mainframes and web services on blades and racks."

Comments

Nuclear Fusion

[AKAImBatman]

Did you know that nuclear fusion is only 20 years away? Just like it was in 1950! (No, I'm not skeptical. Not at all.)

When I wrote my article and its follow-up on directions I think a Linux Distribution could take, I expected that there would be some controversy. However, I hardly expected the shear number of responses to the effect of, "Linux is great as it is! Never change it!"

Which is surprising, because the very point of the Linux design is that different distributions were supposed to be able to explore completely different tracks. There shouldn't be any "one distro to rule them all", yet many of the respondants demanded exactly that! (Amusingly, they couldn't agree on *which* distro to rule them all.)

When I pointed this out to many responders, and mentioned the fact that I'm merely attempting to suggest a Desktop environment that would help Linux adoption, I got another surprising response: "Who said we wanted regular users? Linux is for the elite. If you're too stupid to recompile your kernel or read all the scattered HOWTOs, you're too stupid to use Linux!"

I understand that the Linux community is wide and varied, but this sort of attitude is not helping anyone. In fact, this sort of attitude causes Linux to take two steps back for every one step forward it takes in the market.

It's normal that Linux users will disagree. That's why Linux is just a kernel, KDE/GNOME are just desktop environments, and the GNU System is just a collection of Unix utilities. It's so the end distributions can build the OS necessary to meet their users. But such a design DOES NOT require that users berate each other! Rather, Linux users should understand that "idiot" users using an "idiot" distribution is okay. Gentoo users can still recompile Gentoo to their hearts content even though Ubuntu exists. Ubuntu users can still use Ubuntu workstations even though Fedora exists. Fedora users can still a have 100% "Free as in socks and gun ownership" OS even though SuSE exists.

There's no reason for this OS bigotry. It's causing confusion in the marketplace, and generally turning the public off to Linux. Just pick the distro you like, and be happy for other people who use something that works for them. K?

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[adarn]

holy shit, an intelligent first post.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[AKAImBatman]

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

If people can make some money off of Linux then good luck to them, but Linux should not change to meet some commercial wish list.

Why not? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet commercial desires? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet home user desires? Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet scientific researchers' desires?

What is wrong with different Linux distros to meet the desires of different markets? Isn't that the entire point of Linux? "It's just a kernel," we say. But then the community berates anyone who attempts to reuse that kernel in Community Unapproved Ways(TM). How does that help anyone?

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[LiquidCoooled]

Linux is complicated.

Not in the software thats available, but in sheer choice of software.

MS Has Windows XP home and Windows XP Professional, designed for the general required use, its easy to tell epopel to get the correct version.

99.9999% of home users don't ever need or want a c compiler, or 4 different word processors, or 13 ways to do the same thing, they want the most efficient simple way. The list goes on, but people suffer from too much choice, its like going into a foreign sweetshop and not knowing the names of the products.

If I could just tell somebody to go and get the "Home" version of Linux - from whichever vendor was currently hot then it would be easier to get people to switch.

After they have gotten used to their version and know their way around, then they can start customising it and adding all the perfect bits, but until that point, its just overpowering.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[l3v1]

Linux users should understand that "idiot" users using an "idiot" distribution is okay

I'm also fed up with some things, like ignorant idiotic "Linux [distro] reviews" and "Linux will be ready for [substitute as required] in 5 years" rants.

For the record, I have nothing against making one or more distribuions which would target the joe6pack masses, the "idiot" user base who doesn't know a kernel from an OS, a computer from a monitor, etc.

What I don't like is when dozens of reviews say Linux is a piece of junk because the usual computer-illiterate is not able to click his/her way through the installation process, because they can't be expected to know their hardware, and so on, coming to the conclusiont hat Linux is not ready for anything.

What I'd like my point to be here is that Linux is ready for a huge variety of things. Literally. It just takes a few energetic people and some funding to prepare a 6pack-friendly disto. Besides that, it is already ready to be used for datacenters, web server farms, clusters, developer workstations, and I could just go on with this, and many of you could even name exemples for them with known big players to back up the claims.

Stating anything that sounds like "Linux is/isnot/will/willnot be ready for this/that in 1/2/3/... years/ever" is just plain fraggin' stupid and idiotic. There is no "linux". Linux is what you make of it. One could correctly state that there does not exist a specific Linux distro that would specifically target the 6pack clicking crowd, but one should not state that such a distro could not be developed.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[b1t r0t]

Yeap, use FreeBSD. Problem solved, except of course you still have to figure out which desktop environ to run :)

I hear there's this really nice one called "Aqua". They're even porting it to other architectures now.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[AKAImBatman]

So why are you paying attention to one person's ideas as if they were important?

Marketing. As I was attempting to communicate in my original post above (though perhaps not with complete success), the perceived attitude of the Linux community is one of elitism. So even if Linux distros currently meet all the critera of a Windows replacement, many users will avoid Linux simply because they don't want to deal with the community.

As a result, all this "it's our toys, go away" nonsense is counterproductive to the stated goal of spreading freedom (as in chili peppers and nonsensical ranting*) through software.

* Sorry, I always have fun coming up with new pairings for the "freedom" definitions. Someone should make a game out of it. ;-)

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[Kadin2048]

I just wanted to second what you're saying.

As someone who has been a Linux newbie repeatedly over the years, by virtue of periodically installing some distro, trying to get it to work, getting it 90% there and then getting hung up on some random bit of hardware and eventually getting frustrated and going back to my Mac, the lack of coherent established opinions is difficult to work with.

In my longest (and still running) experiment with Linux, on a home server, I went with Debian because I thought it would avoid RPM dependency hell that drove me nuts in previous tries. In retrospect, I think this was a good move -- I'll never use anything that doesn't have apt-get again. However I'll often ask a question on how to set something up or edit a config file, and get the response "Well, that's just because Debian sucks and is broken. Use [insert distribution here] instead."

It's fine to have multiple distributions. It's fine for people to have opinions on which distribution is best. But advocating that others switch distributions constantly in response to what ought to be minor problems doesn't do a lot to inspire confidence by new users in an OS.

Also, I think a lot of users go too far the other way -- so on one hand you have distribution zealots who loudly proclaim that theirs is better and yours clearly sucks, for any reason or none at all, while on the other the people who actually have a soapbox to stand on (in trade magazines, established web sites, etc.) generally refuse to take an opinion on distros one way or another. Once in a while I'll see someone take a wishy-washy stance as to 'this distribution might be a good one' but there's very little clear guidance for new users. If you have an opinion based on real experience, for god's sake say it. But if you just like your distribution because it's yours, shut up.

Okay, I'm done.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[.sig]

Reading this post and the thread that goes with it makes me wonder if anyone else out there bothers to RTFA...
If you even read the summary here on /. rather than hust the headline you'd see that the article is about linux being 5 years away from mainstream in IT environments. No mention of joe sixpack or your grandma not knowing how to use linux.
They are 2 VERY different things, makes me wish I could mod the whole thread off-topic... (and redundant)

[Personally, I agree with the artice, linux is already moving fast in the IT sector. Depending on how you define 'mainstream' it could already be there. IMO that's where it belongs anyway. I know I definately prefer to work in a *nix environment]

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[ifwm]

"Linux is the kernel, not the OS."

While this may be true, it is not accurate.

What do I mean? When people discuss "Linux" they are talking about the OS that is built on top of the kernel. Yes it's only the kernel that is Linux, but that semantic battle was fought and lost a long time ago.

Linux is an OS now. Carrying on with "it's not an OS it's a kernel" talk is a waste of time.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[hackstraw]

Linux is complicated.

Oh really?

How is it that millions of people use it every day without even knowing that they are using it?

The Tivo was so revolutionary and user friendly that it has become a brandname/product synonym like jello or kleenex.

The Linksys WRT5x series of wireless routers are some of the most commonly used end user products of its type, and it runs linux.

People use google millions of times daily.

People use millions of websites that run Linux daily.

Linus was even surprised to buy a digital picture frame for his wife and found out that it runs Linux.

Seems like Linux is pretty mainstream to me.

Oh, the infamous Linux on the desktop is that what mainstream means?

The issues there are simple. There is not a compellingly different or better GUI subsystem and there is a lacking supply of easy to install and use software.

As soon as those two issues are taken care of, linux will be mainstream on the desktop, otherwise its on embedded systems and servers where it is currently better suited.

Re:Nuclear Fusion

[einhverfr]

Reading this post and the thread that goes with it makes me wonder if anyone else out there bothers to RTFA...
If you even read the summary here on /. rather than hust the headline you'd see that the article is about linux being 5 years away from mainstream in IT environments. No mention of joe sixpack or your grandma not knowing how to use linux.

Hmmm.... What percentage of web servers run Linux?

What percentage of DMZ hosts run Linux?

What percentage of closed email relays run Linux?

THese are all mainstream IT environments and Linux is quite capable there.

Now, if you are talking large database managers, LDAP infrastructures, etc. there is still a little ways to go. But it is still possible today (just not as mature as the above examples).

Gardner makes one extremely serious error in this study: they underestimate the resources that IBM, SGI, and other traditional big-iron vendors are throwing at Linux. I would not be surprised of, in 5 years, IBM is retiring AIX in favor of Linux.

Just my $0.02

As for the corporate workstation, I think 6-8 years is a good estimate (not a question of whether Linux is ready for the desktop but a question of when people will decide to migrate and how long these migrations take).

they're a little late

[spiderworm]

Linux was mainstream five years ago.

How many times...

[mpathetiq]

Must we hear the same spiel before it becomes the truth?
- to the tune of "Blowin' in the Wind"

Everything takes 5 years

[foQ]

How come every thing is "5 years away" but never seems to get here. I'll bet the writers for the Jetsons anticipated space cars in 5 years too.

In other news...

[C3ntaur]

Gartner Group was reported to be five years away from becoming a credible news source for the IT industry.

Only 5 more?

[spooje]

Hasn't Linux for the desktop been 5 years away for the last 10 years?

2015 called...

[RichardX]

..they want their article back.
Maybe John Titor can help.

What does 'mainstream' mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, 'Running the majority of web servers worldwide' doesn't count as mainstream.

Wrong article title

[Decaff]

In spite of the title, the article does not state 'Linux Five Years Away From Mainstream'. In states that 'Linux is five years away from mainstream use in Enterprise IT infrastructures. This is all about high-end data-centre stuff - a niche use. This article is confusing a very specialised use of Linux with it's general use as, for example, a mid-range server where it has proved it's successfulness for years. There is further confusion where the article mentions that 'many are re-evaluating Linux use' (many turns out to be 5 CIOs out of a panel of 12).

I don't know whether this article is deliberate FUD, or just a confused mess. I suspect the latter.

Major player on the Desktop

[hummassa]

Depending on whom you ask, Linux is already a major player in the desktop.
It au pair with OSX in raw number of desktops installed in a lot of places, and was pushed in a lot of countries to the desktop. Ubuntu Hoary / Fedora Core are every bit as easy to install than W2k/XP, and work equally well. Choose your desktop environment for your users and you're set.

Re:Finally! *My* chance to be an angry Lunix zealo

[GPLDAN]

I think it's really important to distinguish from Linux the server platform and Linux the desktop platform, as you say. I run GNOME from an Ubuntu distro on the desktop, and it's.... pretty good. But it's not XP. No Quicktime or WMV plugin means a lot of websites like CNN and Yahoo don't really work well. Xine is ok for DVD content, but overall it's a bit slow and uses more resident memory than what I consider an equivalent XP system does.

Linux as a server has arrived, and has been here for awhile.

5 years is not much to a large enterprise

[RMH101]

researching, designing and implementing (smoothly, including migrating your data to your new environment with no impact to the business) a change to a new operating system *always* takes a long time. here, we're not moving to XP from 2000 as it's not worth it: we're moving to longhorn as and when it emerges. it'd take just as much planning (probably more, in fact) to shift to linux. think upgrade cycles. think win2k going off support as a driver to change. 5 years doesn't seem all that long to me...

Its not the hardware

[tempest69]

The problem isnt hardware support, it's install hell. When your RPM requires lib blah.bla.o and lib blah.blip.o, then you need to satisfy those dependencies, but sometimes those arent able to run with your current kernel. or need a compiler that you dont have installed. Before you know it your trying to install a compiler, and getting dependency errors for it, wondereing just how many hoops you need to jump through just to get one dinky peice of software to work. Once the Install-HELL is gone and the hardware "works by default" then linux has a go at the desktop. Then there is "Directory Hell" where the average user never wants to learn why a folder isnt a file, and why you cant view a folder full of family photos when you click open.

Until you can get the easy things doable by the masses, then you have a chance at taking the desktop.

Storm

Re:Its not the hardware

[MrNemesis]

Most Linux advocates don't just hand their grandma a copy of Linux From Scratch and leave them to it, you know...

My first ever experience with Linux was Mandrake 8.2 Beta. I found the installation of the OS much easier than (my first) windows install two weeks previously; It Just Worked. Once I'd gotten my head around how it handled installing things, it was easy.

These days it's brain-sputteringly simple. Every desktop distro worth its salt has a graphical package installation utility that explains exactly which packages are available, and what they are used for - usualy sorted into relevant categories. Heck, even installing things as complicated (in the Linux world) as kernel modules/drivers is usually simple.

Granted, some pre-alpha drivers require some confugling, but once they go stable and are added to the kernel, it becomes practically impossible not to set things up properly, thanks to the marvell of things like hotplug. Even relatively complicated pieces of software (that no Joe Schmoe would install anyway) such as Apache and MySQL have GUI configurators available. In the realm of pure desktop productivity/leisure software, I've not encountered a single package that didn't just install and give me a nice clickable button in my K/foot/whatever menu.

If there's anything wrong with the way modern desktop distros handle packaging, it's educating the users away from the "download arbitrary .exe from random website, double click to install" mindset. Whilst I agree that a unified packaing system would be great, different distros are tuned for different usage models, so (to me at least) it makes sense that they'll handle things differently. Forcing Linux to adopt the windows method of software installation will create more problems than it'll solve.

FWIW, my girlfriend is entirely happy with the Gentoo/KDE box I've donated to her.

Re:Windows Developer: Linux is mainstream now

[BeanThere]

It would be easy to blast Linux for not automatically doing everything and retreat to M$ land, except that Windows 64 bit doesn't even have drivers out of the box for my SATA hard drive

You hit the nail on the head. People hold Linux up to different standards than Windows. If you try bring Linux into an organisation, even the smallest hiccup will be met with criticism and "told you so"s that you 'shoulda stuck with Windows'. But the Windows server can crash several times a month and nobody even blinks, because, well, "that's just normal" ... the "server down again guys" routine. The fact that so many other people on the planet also have problems with Windows somehow "validates" its crappiness in the minds of its users - managers often don't really understand computers, so they probably subconsciously reason "as long as everyone else has these problems it must be normal" right? Meanwhile you're bringing in Linux because it's presumably better, so people automatically look for flaws, especially if you're basically trying to "prove the managers wrong" for their decision to use Windows ... managers who like to think they know a lot do not like people who know more than them about something questioning their decisions. (This pretty much describes the situation at my last job.)