Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

There Is No 'Microsoft of Linux'?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the because-seven-eight-nine dept.

SDenmark writes "Linux Format has an interview with Greg Mancusi-Ungaro, the director of Linux and OSS marketing at Novell. Asked if any company can become the 'Microsoft of Linux', Greg responds "Well, if we ever woke up one day and said 'Wow, Novell is the Microsoft of Linux' or 'Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux', then the Linux movement would be over." Is he right -- is the open source world free from such possibilities? Greg also discusses the internal Novell migration to Linux."

8 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. on a related note... by jonastullus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    what exactly is Microsoft(TM) the microsoft of?

    1. Re:on a related note... by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Informative

      DOS.
      Back in the day there were multible companies that made DOS and for the most part they were compatible with each other. Microsoft always had dominace but there were alternitives. PC DOS, DR DOS... Then when Windows Was released it was designed to run on MS DOS only (And had code that blocked other DOS varents causing some lawsuites in that case). So after time more and more programs used Microsoft Windows extentions to their application where there was more Windows then DOS. So the Microsoft of Linux would be like say Novel or Red Hat who has such a dominance on the Linux market that they feel free to add their own custom kernel and developers develop on it and Apps only work on Their Version. With no chance that it will work for other Distros with a more "pure" kernel. Of course this probably wont happen with Linux because of the open nature. But that is the Microsoft of Linux means. Getting so much control in the process and influence in developers that other products are forced to become toys.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Open Source != Linux by guitaristx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Asked if any company can become the 'Microsoft of Linux', Greg responds "Well, if we ever woke up one day and said 'Wow, Novell is the Microsoft of Linux' or 'Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux', then the Linux movement would be over." Is he right -- is the open source world free from such possibilities?

    Linux is only a subset of what open source has to offer. There's much more to open-source than Linux. A pedantic note, maybe, but I'm tired of the "open source = linux" thinking that pervades the business realm and even leaks over into the IT realm.

    --
    I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
  3. It Depends by saberworks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It depends on what part of Microsoft you are comparing it to. If you are talking about their monopoly, probably not. However, if you are talking about their operating system loaded with a bunch of crap, ultra-slow, difficult to use, full of bugs, prone to viruses, then yes, there can definitely be a Microsoft of Linux. I think there already are a couple, but I'll leave the naming of names to others.

  4. IBM IS the Microsoft of Linux by NewWorldDan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, because I tend to think of IBM as the Microsoft of Linux. Or maybe the McDonalds of Linux. In any event, they've got the problem solved: There's not much money to be made in putting together a distro. On the other hand, they're raking it in on hardware and services.

  5. What a great question by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sorry, guys... philosopher by training so I might get abstract here.

    Microsoft is the microsoft of software, obviously. What does it mean to be the "microsoft" of something, though? I think it means to provide a very specific service: hiding complexity. I'm reminded of Neal Stephenson's analysis of what the Windows startup routine looks like to the user, as against that of Linux. If you're used to a blue screen that says "Here comes Windows! Aren't you happy?" then the screen output while Linux starts up is going to look broken.

    What would it mean to hide the complexity of Linux? Ubuntu, Linspire, et. al. sorta do this, but note:

    Hidden Linux is not Linux. It's very nature is to be transparent. Linspire and Ubuntu are still Linuces b/c it is still possible to get in there and fiddle with the code. What they hide (or rather, de-emphasize) is simply the 'invitation' to come in and fiddle.

    So if being-microsoft means "making it easy to do the lowest-common-denominator things with software" then there will be one of those for Linux.

    But if it means "achieving the above by limiting what the user can do, and what she can modify" there cannot be one.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  6. Re:not until.... by eklitzke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perhaps not... but once upon a time, Microsoft did sell its own variant of Unix.

    --
    #include ".signature"
  7. Re:not until.... by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This BS again.

    "touching up" the desktop side of things isn't the point. Never really was.

    This is the "Caldera Fallacy". The main problem that Linux faces against Windows is that it doesn't have all of the 3rd parties that support Windows doing the same for Linux. A prettier wifi configurator isn't going to help so long as the wifi drivers aren't there to begin with.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.