If Linux Fails, Blame Jim Zemlin

darthcamaro writes "Everyone asks who runs Linux — to which the normal answer is either Linus Torvalds or 'the community.' But (as Master Yoda once said) — There is another. His name is Jim Zemlin and he is the Executive Director of The Linux Foundation." From the interview linked above: "'I want to be a thousand percent confident that this organization will be around for the next 30 to 50 years because Linux isn't going away,' Zemlin said. 'It's everywhere, and there is no doubt that Linux will be an important platform in the future and we're only at the beginning on the embedded and mobile side. It will be my screwup if we don't have an organization that can help coordinate and grow the development of the Linux platform.'"

Comments

Re:linux sucks

[samcan]

I will have to ask you to turn in your Nerd credentials.

Strategy?

[Elektroschock]

Do they have a strategy against software patents?

Do they lobby for open standards regulations and vendor neutrality?

Nuff said. ...ah and where is the Desktop LSB gone?

Re:Strategy?

[fishbowl]

>Do they have a strategy against software patents?

This is a natural benefit of "twenty year sustainability."

Re:Strategy?

[Yvan256]

What's a desktop least significant bit?

Re:Strategy?

[Torvaun]

Big-endian or little-endian?

Re:Strategy?

[PitaBred]

Get a working wireless card, then. Do you expect hardware that's made for a Mac to run in a PC? Hell, half of new machines any more don't even have drivers to work under XP, only Vista. And those are almost the same OS. Get a wireless chip that's supported, and you'll get wireless great on Linux. I've got 3 Linux machines on my wireless connection, and they show no signs of giving up.

Re:Strategy?

[ta bu shi da yu]

Cool, so where am I going to go for a single source of info on what hardware works on ?

Re:Strategy?

[SnEptUne]

Well, http://www.kernel.org/ is a good place to start. If your wireless chipset is listed in the kernel's device driver, it is most likely supported.

ralink is one of the most famous ones with Linux support.

There is ndiswrapper, but I wouldn't touch it unless it is absolutely neccessary as it can get hairy and create kernel panic, which may corrupt your file system. The horror.

Re:Strategy?

[Burz]

Do you expect hardware that's made for a Mac to run in a PC?

Actually I expect hardware that's made for a Mac/PC to be clearly indicated as such somewhere. However the Linux Foundation doesn't promote identifying Linux compatibility on the hardware packaging the way MS and Apple do with their respective OSes.

You might say that is so because most of the work for drivers is undertaken by kernel hackers themselves. But said hackers only list the compatible CPUs for the kernel... they do not make any single compatibility reference (HCL) for other devices.

This makes me think that the kernel hackers are really only interested in catering to others like themselves, who don't mind keeping tabs on the kernel mailing list. Their expectations of end-users patience and abilities is entirely unrealistic.

Re:Strategy?

[strstrep]

http://www.google.com/

Re:Strategy?

[Elektroschock]

what is the difference?

Re:Strategy?

[DarthJohn]

Big-endian or little-endian?

what is the difference?

One's a seven foot tall Cherokee, the other's a 4 foot tall Iroquois.

Re:Strategy?

[Elektroschock]

No.

Re:linux sucks

[McGiraf]

That makes Linux better than your girlfriend.

Wow, he does think rather highly of himself...

[QuietLagoon]

It is a shame that his ego is getting in the way of his noting the community's contributions to the Linux environment.

Re:Wow, he does think rather highly of himself...

[gbjbaanb]

I suppose he's going to give it 110% so he can be 1000% confident Linux will be on 500% of all mobile devices.

I was going to say something else but I've forgotten his name already.

Re:Wow, he does think rather highly of himself...

[Yvan256]

I'm already referring to him as "the Linux guy who can't figure out percentages".

Re:Wow, he does think rather highly of himself...

[MRe_nl]

He's obviously 50% sure about the first 20 years, and not so much thereafter.
Probably quit realistic. I should get out Nostradamus to see wat he has to say about it.

Re:Wow, he does think rather highly of himself...

[drawfour]

Who's name?

Not useful in 30 years

[Darkness404]

I want to be a thousand percent confident that this organization will be around for the next 30 to 50 years because Linux isn't going away,'

That is a bad idea. Think about how much has changed in 30 years with technology. Now accelerate that change with the internet, etc. It is a very bad idea for Linux to still be used in 30 to 50 years. Now, there will be some use for it, to see how much software has changed, etc. But for a system written in 1991 to be useful in 2038 it has to have the fundamental architecture changed.

Will there be an open source OS that is good to be used in 2038? Yes. Is Linux it? Nope. Not unless you still think that the MS-DOS system is still useful today, or that Windows 3.1 laptop.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[McGiraf]

Well one would hope that Linux would have evolved in 30 years. Maybe not one line of code from now will still be in it, maybe be it will no be written in C anymore, maybe the kernel version is going to be 2.8 (more likely 2.6.5665454871125114-rc89) but it could well be still around.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Cyberax]

Why not? Windows is still around, after about 20 years. Of course, Windows 1.0 and Windows Vista share almost nothing in common.

But Linux 1.0 and Linux 2.6.26 also share very little (none at all?) code.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[robo_mojo]

Will there be an open source OS that is good to be used in 2038? Yes. Is Linux it? Nope. Not unless you still think that the MS-DOS system is still useful today, or that Windows 3.1 laptop.

Linux 2.6 is not Linux 1.0.

In 30 years there may still be Linux, but it will be Linux 5.2.

(or maybe Linux 2.6.4159 if Linus never changes his versioning again...)

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Darkness404]

Yes but there comes a time that we have to get rid of UNIX and come up with something better. Today isn't the time to do it, and perhaps 20 years down the road isn't time to do it either, but eventually we have to come up with something that addresses some of the flaws of UNIX.

With Linux being open source, compatibility shouldn't be much of a problem to port applications to the new kernel.

The problem is, when you rely on ideas made in the '80s and code written in the '90s it doesn't help you solve the problems in the 2030s.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[dvh.tosomja]

Of course, Windows 1.0 and Windows Vista share almost nothing in common.

It share new font install dialog

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[dvice_null]

You are forgetting that Linux is an open source project, which is actively developed. It only supported 386 processors at first, but now the list is too long to be posted here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel_portability_and_supported_architectures#List_of_supported_architectures

Old versions of Linux won't be usable after 30 years, but recent versions will be.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Darkness404]

But Windows still shares some of the same design flaws as previous Windows versions. Heck, even NT still shares some of the flaws in DOS. Linux, being a UNIX-like OS will share some of the same flaws as UNIX. Now, UNIX doesn't seem to have as many flaws as DOS-based systems did, but I imagine that by 2038 we will have found them and will need a totally new system. And yes, Linux 1.0 and Linux 2.6 share little to no code, but they share the same design, and there will come a time that UNIX is a bad design for the current technology.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[hedwards]

I disagree, I'd be surprised if there were as much change to computers in 30 years as there has been in the last 20 or so. And BSD and Linux have been around for most of that. Sure they've changed, but most of the changes left to make are based upon what's already been done or to the UI.

BSD works at least as well now as it did when it was just patches to Unix, and that was decades ago. There've been quite a few significant changes since then, and the OS has kept up fine.

Linux doesn't have quite the maturity, but it's been around for like 17 years, and last time I booted it up, the distro was doing a fine job of what I wanted it to do. Definitely significantly better than when I toyed around with it five years ago.

Any OS which is coded in a forward looking fashion can keep up with changes over the years as long as changes and fixes are made when they become necessary. And there's somebody there to make the changes. Expecting to wait 10 years to fix architecture problems does not lead to good results.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Darkness404]

Yes, but by usable I mean more than just being able to run the most recent applications. I mean really relevant to that day's technology. If we get speech recognition down and that's what everyone uses 20 years from now, some of the UNIX filenames need to be renamed or the entire structure changed. And sure, Linux will be usable in the same way that Windows is usable: using a legacy system to deal with today's technology.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Darkness404]

Yes, but even the fundamental architecture of Windows has changed from DOS based to NT based. If we changed the fundamental architecture of Linux to be different than a UNIX based OS then it isn't really Linux is it? But what really makes Linux, Linux? It has to be more than just a brand, because we already have brands of Linux (Ubuntu, Slackware, Fedora, SuSE, etc). Think of it this way, we have Ford which is a brand and then there are sub-brands (Explorer, Mustang, F-150) but none of them are, say, an airplane.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Repossessed]

I always figured HURD will be ready about the same time Linux finally becomes unmaintainable.

Which means Linux needs to last a lot more than 30 more years.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Darkness404]

Any OS which is coded in a forward looking fashion can keep up with changes over the years as long as changes and fixes are made when they become necessary. And there's somebody there to make the changes. Expecting to wait 10 years to fix architecture problems does not lead to good results.

But Linux wasn't coded in a forward looking fashion. It was coded for a specific machine that Linus had. UNIX was coded in a forward looking fashion, but now it is past the machines that it was trying to get in the future. What we need is an OS that improves on UNIX and Linux. For example, Plan 9 tried to do that (http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/FAQ/index.html#INTRODUCTION) because some of the flaws of UNIX were too deep to fix with patches, etc.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Cyberax]

So? Linux systems share a lot of design flaws (like X-Windows). But they are slowly being corrected.

IMHO, Linux adapts itself to new hardware reality fairly quickly. And there are not many revolutions in hardware, just gradual evolution.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Darkness404]

Again, HURD is UNIX based. Linux will last until UNIX based systems don't work for the needs of the day. And I think that it will come before 30-50 years from now.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Darkness404]

So? Linux systems share a lot of design flaws (like X-Windows). But they are slowly being corrected.

Yes, that is what I have been saying, that there will come a point (and I think it will be before 30 years from now) that UNIX just simply won't cut it. That the only way to fix UNIX is to rewrite it from scratch.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Elektroschock]

Twenty years ago it looked like Unix was dying.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Knuckles]

Again, HURD is UNIX based.

How so?

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Apple Acolyte]

How do you know for a fact that Unix (based OSs) won't be able to cut it in 30 years? It seems to me that you're advocating radical theoretical change down the line just for the sake of radical change. There's no proof that Unix will necessarily be outmoded by then. If civilization survives another 50 years, we'll probably still be using a lot of the same types of technology we use now.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[__aaahtg7394]

Maybe not one line of code from now will still be in it

But it will still be SCO's IP!

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[larry bagina]

in other words, linux should be converted to a microkernel.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Skreems]

Well, right now it's the '00s, and we're still using hardware architecture created in 1978 (8086 processor). Sure, we've added a couple registers and made the existing ones bigger, but it's fundamentally the same system it always was. Why does the HAVE to be a time when we get rid of UNIX? Reinventing the wheel doesn't get you nearly as far as building incrementally on what you've already got, which is the biggest strength of OSS.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Enderandrew]

Look how resistant people are to changing the file hierarchy in any *nix based system. People claim that once you know the *nix standard, you can administer it well enough, but that doesn't change there are several exceptions to it, and unnecessary redundancy. Not to mention it was designed around a precept that directory names should be three characters or less.

If Linux isn't Unix, and has no desire to be certified as Unix, then why fight so hard for all the POSIX standards? At some point, shouldn't Linux say "how do we become the best OS we can be, without tethering ourselves to things that aren't helping us?"

And I'm not suggesting abandoning standards wholesale for no reason, but the file system structure really needs improvement.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

1988 - There comes a time that we have to get rid of UNIX and come up with something better. Today isn't the time to do it, and perhaps 20 years down the road isn't time to do it either, but eventually we have to come up with something that addresses some of the flaws of UNIX.

2008 - There comes a time that we have to get rid of UNIX and come up with something better. Today isn't the time to do it, and perhaps 20 years down the road isn't time to do it either, but eventually we have to come up with something that addresses some of the flaws of UNIX.

2028 - There comes a time that we have to get rid of UNIX and come up with something better. Today isn't the time to do it, and perhaps 20 years down the road isn't time to do it either, but eventually we have to come up with something that addresses some of the flaws of UNIX.

2048 - There comes a time that we have to get rid of UNIX and come up with something better. Today isn't the time to do it, and perhaps 20 years down the road isn't time to do it either, but eventually we have to come up with something that addresses some of the flaws of UNIX.

...

2568 - There comes a time that we have to get rid of UNIX and come up with something better. Today isn't the time to do it, and perhaps 20 years down the road isn't time to do it either, but eventually we have to come up with something that addresses some of the flaws of UNIX.

...

If not now, when?

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Yvan256]

We're currently at a huge crossroad: multiple-core processors, GPUs, etc.

The days of a single CPU at ever faster speeds is already dead. Right now seems to be an excellent time to plan ahead.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Yvan256]

And solitaire.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[cetitau]

I want to be a thousand percent confident that this organization will be around for the next 30 to 50 years because Linux isn't going away,'

That is a bad idea. Think about how much has changed in 30 years with technology. Now accelerate that change with the internet, etc. It is a very bad idea for Linux to still be used in 30 to 50 years. Now, there will be some use for it, to see how much software has changed, etc. But for a system written in 1991 to be useful in 2038 it has to have the fundamental architecture changed. Will there be an open source OS that is good to be used in 2038? Yes. Is Linux it? Nope. Not unless you still think that the MS-DOS system is still useful today, or that Windows 3.1 laptop.

This sounds like typical 19 year olds trying to think clearly. Don't you realize that close to 30% of all military, commercial and government (transportation, communications, US Mail) run on OS as old or older than DOS. The entire national aerospace was running an OS fairly recently that was older than Unix for christ's sake. If you don't think Dos is useful, go and try to buy a used dot matrix printer (most commonly used on DOS or older systems) and see what it cost you. They cost more today than they did in 1990. That's because they are still being used on old systems. The youngsters get to play with new stuff but much of the work gets done on the tried and true.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[serialdogma]

No, Notepad was rewritten for Windows 2000, and then later changed for XP to comply with UI guidelines, and was changed for Vista to comply with yet another guideline change.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[KnowledgeKeeper]

But Linux wasn't coded in a forward looking fashion.

Absolutely true. The thing is we've been slowly moving to something else; samba volume shares/sshfs, java/.net/mono, virtualization, etc. Do we actually understand what is slowly happening everywhere?

The age of single machine OS is coming to an end. Even MS sees this from what I've read about Midori. I believe the future brings us a distributed OS even if it were run on a single machine. We've already got microkernel OS with services distributed throughout the net (or on a local machine) and it would be trivial to hack virtual memory subsystem to move the memory pages and process state tables around the net or integrate something like beowulf into every kernel by default. Start the local process, migrate it somewhere on the planet before shutting the local machine down and just migrate it back in the morning. Or start the process and migrate it to best available match in the available cloud.

Add some crypto, ACLs and signing mechanism, sprinkle with a bit of good will and voila!

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Kjella]

That is a bad idea. Think about how much has changed in 30 years with technology. Now accelerate that change with the internet, etc. It is a very bad idea for Linux to still be used in 30 to 50 years. Now, there will be some use for it, to see how much software has changed, etc. But for a system written in 1991 to be useful in 2038 it has to have the fundamental architecture changed.

Think about how much that's not changed. Basic subsystems like input, output, networking, storage, processing units, memory and we'll need something to sit in the middle to communicate with them. Also many times it's not the kernel that's the issue, take for example USB devices (which will be around for many many years), the kernel always supports the raw read/write functions - it's the userspace driver that's missing. I think that will only become more common, the kernel doesn't "know" what it's talking to but it'll pass it up to some higher-level layer that'll actually handle it.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[wonnage]

Well, it will be physically impossible to continue stuffing more transistors onto silicon in about 8 years, so there definitely will be some radical changes needed. Good job trying to predict the future though. Want to buy some lottery tickets?

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Dragonslicer]

Well, right now it's the '00s, and we're still using hardware architecture created in 1978 (8086 processor).

You could probably go back farther than that. The basic concepts of Von Neumann's digital computer are what, almost 70 years old now?

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Gather round, car analogy coming in.

S'pose you're an auto engineer driving along a very, very long highway with a rather nice car--that was made almost 40 years ago, and finally became usable more than 20 years ago. It works, but you've had to rebuild it. Several times. It's had myriad improvements, but there's kinks that just refuse to be ironed out--for example, it's rumored that the whole thing will explode in 2038, for whatever reason.

You're deeply, deeply attached to this car, even though it can be hot-wired and driven away when you rest at a pitstop with not too much effort. You'd too busy laughing at the guy in the Vega in the next parking spot to care.

Suddenly, you get word that a shop is working on another, even nicer car. It's one from the future. It'll run forever, prove impenetrable to car thieves, runs _much_ faster than your old car--and it's waiting for you to work on it. Go on, they'll get done faster if you help them.

Except you have to stop and help them first, and by the time you're done you could've covered another three thousand miles that the new one could've covered in a quarter of the time.

Why bother reinventing the wheel, indeed.

Oh, and you're a moron if you think Core is an 8086 with more and bigger registers.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Kent Recal]

And what kind of deep flaws are you talking about that make it necessary to "get rid of UNIX" as a whole?

Sorry but your whole post reads as if you're talking outta your ass.
I don't know what kernel version you are running but large parts of *my* kernel were thought up and written long after the '90s...

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Kent Recal]

That the only way to fix UNIX is to rewrite it from scratch.

And what exactly would this revolutionary achievement be that suddenly obsoletes all the broad concepts of UNIX? Time travel?

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[SolitaryMan]

And I bet my wifi card will still not work...

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[poopdeville]

It doesn't matter. Everything whithers. It is law.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[wellingj]

You gotta bring it back to cars for every one to understand. And when you get down to it the model T had an engine, a steering wheel, gas, brake, and four wheels. Not much has changed in cars when you look at it like that. But there has been a lot of incremental changes that have vastly improved cars on a whole. What makes you think that OS development is any different?

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[oldhack]

We are all still using "ethernet", you know.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Tubal-Cain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Trimotor

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Unix and indeed linux has handled huge amounts of CPUs for ages. The GPU thing is new and interesting, and I don't see why Linux as it stands today should have any problem supporting it - it's most useful for special dedicated tasks, so a userland library should be fine (and probably already exists).

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Skreems]

The Core has different stuff under the hood, but the interface to the OS is still remarkably similar to the original 8086, and what differences there are follow a logical progression from the original design. I'm not saying things shouldn't improve, but when you talk about reinventing UNIX, you're presumably claiming that the basic interfaces that tie it to the hardware or the application layer need to be reinvented as well, which is foolish.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Cyberax]

Why? UNIX is not something absolute and unchangeable. It's just a set of simple concepts ("everything is a file, simple building blocks which can be combined, etc."), which is unlikely to become obsolete any time soon. It can evolve, but probably won't change that much.

Besides, Linux can be used for a lot of different things, like mobile phones where users might not even know they're using a UNIX system.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Cyberax]

Then we'll start stacking several layers of transistors on one chip. That way we can get 10 more years of Moore's law. There's also a possibility of spintronics, which require dramatically less energy and promise much faster speeds.

And so on.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[chammy]

Yet it only took 20 years for them to fix the unicode bug...

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[ckaminski]

Why not... the message passing latency issue should be moot with 256 bit wide memory paths and quad-core processors.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[ckaminski]

OSes aren't really going to be written from "scratch" again. Especially not in the face of the GPL. Driver support can be culled from GPL sources like Linux. Filesystem drivers, networking subsystems...

Linux is partially about research, partially about free $$ OSes, but mostly (IMHO) about making the OS a commodity, which free $$ would seem to naturally follow.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Alpha830RulZ]

Linux will last until UNIX based systems don't work for the needs of the day.

I suspect that Linux can last as long as resources are adequately described by the notion of a file, and work against resources is done by something that can be adequately represented as a process. My simple mind can't conceive of where these two situations cease to be true, so I don't see why you would need to move away from a Linux-ish model.

What we may well see is replacement of the desktop/browser metaphor, but any new metaphor is likely to representable with files and processes, just as a command line, then an 80x24 screen, and now our GUI desktops have been. The unix file and process model has been essentially the same at the conceptual level throughout this progression so far, so I don't see why a new innovation would be unimplementable in Linux (or Windows, for that matter).

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[CycoChuck]

Of course, Windows 1.0 and Windows Vista share almost nothing in common.

It share new font install dialog

They have more in common than that. They both crash the same amount of times.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Iron Condor]

I always figured HURD will be ready about the same time Linux finally becomes unmaintainable.

And then we'll use it to play Duke Nukem ...

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[dvice_null]

> Yes, but by usable I mean more than just being able to run the most recent applications.

Kernel's job is to be an interface between the hardware, drivers and applications. That is all.

You can speech recognition? That is fine, just add an application to do that. You want to change the configuration using only speech? That is fine, just add an application which can e.g. accept a command "configure Apache to handle php" and it will execute necessary installations and modify the apache configure file if needed. The user does not need to know what files are handled in the background, so there is no need to change those.

But okay, you think that the entire structure needs to be changed? Guess what, that can be done, because it is open source. Anyone with enough skills can do that.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[ggy]

And solitaire.

Nope, they remade Solitaire for the Vista versions that includes it.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[webnut77]

Some things are so fundamental like: fire.
Me rug sticks together, make fire. Fire make man warm. Good.
Fire make steam. Steam make train go. Good.
Fire make hot gases. Hot gases make car go. Good.
Fire make steam. Steam make electricity. Electricity make computer go. Good.

I'm not so sure that the computing fundamentals will not be the same 30 years from now.

Linus make Linux. Linux make computer go. Good.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Kingrames]

It will be written in...
Ruby++!!!

Dun Dun Dun!

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[turbidostato]

"It is a very bad idea for Linux to still be used in 30 to 50 years."

If you really think so, then you didn't understand a word regarding what open source is about.

There might or might not be Linux in 30 years from now but please remember that Linux, (both the kernel or the distributions upon it) being open source don't need to share neither a single code line nor even "vision" or "strategy" with its 30 year upon the road descendant... and still being called Linux.

"Not unless you still think that the MS-DOS system is still useful today"

You forget that moving the name from Ms DOS to Windows was just a marketing campaign. Current Microsoft Windows Vista could perfectly be called Microsoft DOS 2003; would you say then that the MS-DOS system wouldn't be useful today?

Linux "2038" can perfectly be a "multidistributed, quantum-computing, mind-blowing based" OS by then. Why wouldn't you want it then?

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[HiThere]

Yes, it needs to be reinvented.

My guesstimate is that within 30 years parallel processing will be so dominant that single thread processors won't run anything mainstream. Elevators, maybe.

As such there needs to be a radical redesign. The system will probably *LIVE* on 5+ processors, which it will totally own. Two or more processors will be devoted to nothing be screen management. (Screens may be massively altered, but people will still need a video-style interface, even if there's direct neural connection.) A thread for the keyboard (maybe a separate processor...processors will be cheap), a thread or two for some kind of pointer input (possibly sharing the same processor that the keyboard uses). (Or analogues to those if we've gone to neural interfaces.) A few processors to manage access to long-term memory. These will prevent locking by standing between long-term memory and any access attempt (by an application without root privileges). Etc.

It could still be called Linux, but it wouldn't be Linux as we know it, and it would probably be a 3.x kernel, where the switch to version 3 occurred when the kernel was split between processors.

N.B.: Application threads may share processors, but the kernel would own the processors that it uses. Nothing foreign allowed except via standard messages.

Inter processor communication is the big bottle-neck in software to developing this system. It's currently being worked on, but not seriously. Think OpenMP, etc. Now think how many CPUs Intel is promising to put on one chip in 6 (8?) years.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[HiThere]

HURD is still alpha. If they see something they want to change, they just change it, and don't worry much about compatibility.

A few years ago HURD was almost working...so they did a total redesign and swapped the kernel(?).

Anyway, the point is that because HURD doesn't have a user base, it can make breaking changes. That is does so for reasons that appear to me insignificant is irrelevant. Project leaders change, and the community mentality of the HURD is such that if they saw a clear design improvement, they'd go for it, even if it broke existing code

Also, "Unix based" is a term that's either ill-defined, or so broad as to not be very confining. It includes Xenix, the HURD, Linux, AIX, and several other extreme variants. I see no reason to believe that the term wouldn't be used for ANY large OS designed to allow multiple users to work on it in safety. On what basis, e.g., could you claim that VMS isn't "Unix based"? You could eliminate the IBM DOS/TOS 360 operating system on historical precedence, but is there any other basis? (Well, that's unfair. DOS/TOS didn't allow multiple simultaneous users. Make it JES2 360/370. It has a historical chain linking back to DOS/TOS.) Or how about CMS? (I'm not sure which was first historically, UNIX or CMS.)

The point is, when you say "Unix based" I'm not sure what you mean unless you are talking about historical derivation of ideas, and ideas tend to merge from multiple sources. So if that's what you mean, then I don't see "Unix based" as imposing any significant constraint.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[schon]

How do you know for a fact that Unix (based OSs) won't be able to cut it in 30 years?

Maybe he's John Titor. :)

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[jbailey999]

The default personality for the Hurd is Posix-like, but there's nothing stopping a different personality from being implemented on top.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[joto]

If we get speech recognition down and that's what everyone uses 20 years from now, some of the UNIX filenames need to be renamed or the entire structure changed.

Seriously? Why? Do we need to change the spelling of english words as well? I mean, words like "enough" should use "f" not "gh", right?

But for the sake of argument, let's assume I agree that linux filesystem names and structure need to change. Why do we need to replace linux, just because some filenames are "wrong"? Do you seriously believe that it's easier to rewrite an entire operating system from scratch, than it is to rename a few files?

And sure, Linux will be usable in the same way that Windows is usable: using a legacy system to deal with today's technology.

Bah? What's your alternative? An OS needs to provide certain services to user-space programs. Both linux and windows offer mostly the same things: protected memory, multitasking, interprocess communication, networking, a global file-system, and lots of lots of device drivers. Unless your idea of a "new OS" deviates a lot from that, there's no reason to replace either with anything else. Linux (and unix) can adapt, and has done so many times in the past. Windows can adapt too, and today runs on everything from cell-phones to servers, just like linux (although linux currently scales better to bigger iron, such as supercomputers, clusters, etc...)

So lets hear it. There are lots of interesting ideas being thrown away as soon as someone in the OS research arena has written a thesis about it. Which one of those pet ideas do you think are so good that linux and windows will need to be obsoleted?

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[NateTech]

Oh yeah, because the end-user usability of Gnome and KDE have gotten SO much better in a decade of crap code with no end-user focus.

Face it, OSS coders don't build incrementally -- they build by throwing shit together.

It's amazingly CREATIVE but it's not designed or managed in any way to get BETTER.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[NateTech]

Some thoughts. If you think that's all the kernel's doing these days, go look at the source and the options.

Apache isn't a Unix-only application (smartly so on their part).

Anyone with enough skills can simply start over. They don't need Linux's code or it's wacky licensing mess.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[NateTech]

The modern rewrite (OS X) used BSD-licensed code and avoided the non-TRULY-Free GPL like the plague.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[NateTech]

Because other than the engine, and maybe rubber and wheel technology, none of those things really CHANGED on cars. There were incremental ADDITIONS to cars, far more than CHANGES.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[meringuoid]

Why does the HAVE to be a time when we get rid of UNIX?

Ask me that again in 2038.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[wellingj]

So we aren't still using the Von Neumann Architecture for most computing? News to me. Maybe you should submit that story to Slashdot.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[dreamsofcaffeine]

At some point, shouldn't Linux say "how do we become the best OS we can be, without tethering ourselves to things that aren't helping us?"

(Emphasis mine.)

No, it shouldn't say this, because it's a friggin' kernel, not an operating system.

Also, short directory names are very useful; not to mention something like "Program\ Files/Internet\ Explorer/...". But then, your "be three characters or less" falls short of /home or - shudder - /boot.

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[Enderandrew]

Bash auto-completion, anyone?

Re:Not useful in 30 years

[NateTech]

Not sure what the architecture has to do with incremental changes versus additions. Von Neumann architecture is still used, as is Harvard for a lot of things. (One could argue that most of us "touch" more Harvard devices since that architecture is typically used in just about every microcontroller device, which is just about every little thing that has a button or switch on it -- Von Neumann has a lock on what we would now call "personal computers", but not embedded design.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, you might want to make your point more clear, since you just confirmed what I was saying... the underlying technologies HASN'T changed. Von Neumann, Harvard, who cares? Still the same thing after 20+ years.

People saying the technology is getting better though incremental development is arguable. To do the things modern PC's do, devices beyond the basic Von Neumann processor had to be added. As far as the processors themselves, the technology hasn't changed, the transistors have just gotten faster and more power-efficient.

(Not that programmers take advantage of that... my desktop still runs about the same speed it did in the WFW 3.11 days. Hard drives and RAM got faster, that helped, but not much -- programmers stopped optimizing code for speed/CPU use a long time ago. Crank out the crap... that's the motto.

Faster transistors means someone has been working on the accuracy of the component build (smaller and smaller dies full of lots of transistors) and better doping techniques, but overall computing isn't any different from 20+ years ago UNLESS you factor in ADD ON components on the motherboard, and peripherals outside the PC case.

Blame Hari Seldon!

[gabrygenoa]

I thought there should be at least two foundations to win against the evil Bill Gates emipire!

Re:Blame Hari Seldon!

[Keill]

How do you know that the second foundation doesn't exist? (Unless you're waiting for the Mule...?)

Re:Blame Hari Seldon!

[Yetihehe]

Well, there is second foundation already. Also the Mule is out there.

The desktop years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we blame Jim Zemlin for every year that hasn't been the year of the linux desktop?

$IsDesktopLinuxYear = false; //this never changes
while(!$IsDesktopLinuxYear) {

  Slap("Jim Zemlin");
  Sleep(31536000); // omg epic design
}

Re:The desktop years.

[Daimanta]

This is also known as the Zemlin-slap-sleep-cycle.

Wow, I should go into marketing.

Re:The desktop years.

[kiddygrinder]

maybe he just wants jim to slap himself. It's probably part of his job desc.

Re:linux sucks

[r00b]

Linux is my girlfriend you insensitive clod.

Linux is dead, long live Liinux

[Anonymous Coward]

Unix didn't die because Linux came along.

Mainframe isn't dead -- far from it. It didn't die because Unix came along.

Torvalds has about 50 years left on this earth. Something else will undoubtedly come along that will grab mind and market share. Perhaps it'll come during his lifetime. Whether it does or not it probably won't spell the death of Linux.

It's too early to pick who to blame if Linux fails.

Re:linux sucks

[Zeike]

Linux is the worst OS Except for all the others.

Re:linux sucks

[McGiraf]

Me too, but Windows goes down on me more often.

It has to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

That thing you usually call Linux is actually GNU/Linux. Hell, GNU alone would be a much better name than Linux alone.

So the real "leader" is Richard Stallman, not that guy.

Re:It has to be said

[Fri13]

Why GNU/Linux? What operating services does GNU tools offer for applications what Linux doesn't?

Why not call it like Linux/Gnu/Mozilla/OpenOffice/KDE/? Mayby the *real* "leaders" are Novell's CEO for Opensuse operating system or Mark Shuttleworth because he invented the Ubuntu operating system? Ain't those two totally different operating systems what users say? Isn't the operating system the whole complete software package what you get when you install one from CD/DVD? Or is it just a software what is between the hardware and the software and serves hardware resources for applications?

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

Re:It has to be said

[Dragonslicer]

No, it doesn't have to be said.

Re:It has to be said

[awrowe]

Not many truer words spoken to be honest. When I think of RMS, I tend to get pictures in my head of hippies in the seventies, with flowers and peace signs and so on. When I think of Torvalds, I think of Lee Marvin in The Dirty Dozen.

I admire RMS because he sticks to his guns about his ideals, but Torvalds is the project leader with the practicality to get things done.

That said, if Torvalds dies, that isn't the end of Linux, although it would be a hell of a shakeup.

Re:It has to be said

[dbIII]

Ok it has been said.

Thank you for your input and let those of us that had actually heard of GNU before the stupid LiGnuX suggestion and the slightly less stupid GNU/Linux suggestion get on with things.

RMS wrote a good licence, inspired many and is still doing politicial stuff that may turn out to be beneficial - but really do not need hero worship or a PR campaign to raise the profile of GNU on the work of others. Linux is not a GNU project - you are looking for HURD.

Re:It has to be said

[dbIII]

The original suggestion to raise the profile of GNU was LiGnuX - I should point out this was only a few weeks after one of the long series of silly "Linux - never heard of it" interviews with RMS. After a few years it was tried again and we had the GNU/Linux name that newbie fanboys were flaming everyone with.

Personally I think if GNU did lead linux we would have had to fork it away from them to keep it as a useful tool and not a political lever. I think I can safely say that because they are a political organisation now and most of them wouldn't want it anyway.

Re:It has to be said

[Elektroschock]

Why? even when Linux stays as it is nobody would run into trouble. "leaders" are always replacable.

But will it be on the desktop?

[FooBarWidget]

But will it become an important player on the desktop? I'm using Linux on my laptop every day, and I think it's great. But sadly, desktop Linux has a very small market share these days. In fact desktop Linux is something that people make fun of. Every time something positive about Linux adoption is posted, people respond with "Last year desktop Linux failed, but THIS year is the year of Linux on the desktop... really!!111"

People on Slashdot, OSNews and many other places are always criticizing Linux for not being desktop friendly. But sadly, it seems that the Linux community isn't exactly helping. There are developers who are clearly interested in making Linux a viable desktop platform, for both users and developers. For example, the Autopackage project has tried for quite some time now to convince distributions to support /usr/local. Yes you read that right: to support /usr/local, a very basic prefix that everybody expects to work, but practice doesn't! The problems with /usr/local includes:
- Menu item files installed to /usr/local are not recognized by GNOME and KDE by default. A lot of distributions refuse to add /usr/local to the default search path for menu items.
- File associations: ditto.
- A bunch of other problems that I don't remember from the top of my head, most of them related to not being included in the default search path.

Working menu items and file associations are among the basic things required for desktop adoption, are they not? Not having them in the default search path prevents third party software installation to work properly. I'm sure nobody wants to install third party applications to /usr just to make menu items work, right?

Autopackage has been trying to convince distributions to do just pme simple thing - adding /usr/local to the default search path. Distributors and a lot of people from the Linux community either don't know, don't care, or are actively opposing this effort.

What are we, developers who care about Linux on the desktop, to do?

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[FooBarWidget]

Hm something went wrong with TinyURL. Here's the correct URL: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.autopackage.devel/6831

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Elektroschock]

I'm sure nobody wants to install third party applications to /usr just to make menu items work, right?

Why are these pathes relevant?

People want to *run* Desktop applications and don't care how the OS stores them.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[FooBarWidget]

Are you asking why third party applications shouldn't be installed to /usr?

Well, write an installer that installs to /usr. Announce it on various Linux forums. People will burn you alive for installing to /usr. They will claim that your installer might overwrite system files and cripple the system, and will try to actively oppose you by telling others not to use your installer.

If that wasn't your question, then I didn't understand it, and I ask you to explain your question in more detail if that's the case.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[nawcom]

ln -s /usr /usr/local
waahhhhhhHHHHHHH

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are we, developers who care about Linux on the desktop, to do?

If you want users to install software not shipped by their distribution then it's probably better they install it to their home directory.

Follow the Linux Standards Base and create your menu items in ~/.local/share/applications/ where they will be read by all LSB compliant desktops.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[FooBarWidget]

But that's not the problem. The problem is that GNOME and KDE on many distributions *aren't* LSB/FreeDesktop.org compliant. /usr/local is in the default menu item search path, according to the FreeDesktop.org menu item standard. Apparently distributions are violating that, and don't care that they are in violation of the standard. ~/.local/share/applications is in a similar predicament, there are distros out there that don't support it properly.

The point of my post isn't to ask whether there are other technological solutions. It's to highlight a political problem, the problem of community members not recognizing that there is a desktop adoption problem, or the unwillingness to solve it.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[dotancohen]

But will it become an important player on the desktop?

According to TFS, 2038 will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[FooBarWidget]

Sigh, 7 replies later and I'm still getting this kind of one-liner replies. Maybe you people don't care about Linux on the desktop after all?

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[horza]

The post started badly as many Linux users don't care if it becomes an important player or not, or what the market share is. It works for *us* and that's what we care about. However you did end up on an important point. Things like menus, desktop settings, bookmarks, etc really should be centralised so I can switch between Gnome, xfce, KDE etc and not have to completely reconfigure each desktop every time. FooBarWidget has a very good point.

Phillip.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[FooBarWidget]

"The post started badly as many Linux users don't care if it becomes an important player or not, or what the market share is. It works for *us* and that's what we care about."

The problem is, not being an important player has negative consequences. For example, a telephone company in my country sells wireless Internet subscriptions for laptops. I want to use this. But they only provide drivers for OS X and Windows, and a Google search revealed no (not *any*) drivers for Linux. I like Linux. I want to use Linux. I don't want to reboot to Windows just to use wireless Internet. The fact that Linux is not an important player on the desktop market is hurting me.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[SpacePunk]

Linux as a desktop isn't going to be a mass item like Windows is because of one thing... lack of games, and commercial game development. Let's face it, that's what drives the decision between Windows and Linux for those that know.

That, and users don't care about root and userland. They don't want to be hassled with using the command line.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[A.K.A_Magnet]

What is wrong with GNU/Linux on the desktop? You said yourself you use it daily. So do I, and I have been doing so for 5 years. It's perfectly fine, user-friendly (GNOME at least), stable and offers a plethora of applications. A lot of people I know, even not really tech-savvy users (like my mom), use Ubuntu these days. Only gamers use Windows in dualboot to get access to their latest games, and corporate workers whose company (big companies, mostly) is a Microsoft site (with Exchange, Monitoring tools, etc). I know things are different in the US, but the GNU/Linux userbase (on the desktop) is growing very fast (at least in Europe). The "year of the Linux desktop" jokes are just that: jokes; or did anybody expect that all of a sudden GNU/Linux's market share on the desktop would go from 5 to 30 percents?

So what's preventing GNU/Linux from having a greater market share (personally I don't care as long as I can use it :))?

- for the gamer type, the problem is having new and visually enticing games. The game industry (and possibly the OpenGL crowd) is to blame; the DirectX suite is one of the few Microsoft products that is really great and ahead of the competition, and with the recent news on OpenGL 3.0 not having the promised features, I don't see a major improvement here, unfortunately. We need some companies (or the Linux Foundation) to set OpenGL back on the right track, put some money to really compete with DirectX and have game developers use it. The best approach, imho, would be to release a BSD-licensed library that works as a wrapper for both DirectX and OpenGL, and make it close enough to DirectX so that game developers adopt it (but use it rather than DirectX to reach the OS X / GNU/Linux userbase). Why do gamers matter? Because it's often the young who decide what computer/OS to get, the parents let them decide. And kids like playing the latest video games, and people in general (kids included) don't like switching OS, they want one global platform for all their applications. The is the first step to get (in the long term) the consumer desktop market.

- for big companies, the problems are that old habits die hard, and the general the lack of competence. Their admins only know Windows and don't want to change. Most universities run GNU/Linux on the desktop very effectively so there is no technical challenge, only the problem of the admins and the cost of switching. To get to the corporate desktop, what's most needed is raising awareness...

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Kjella]

Your post just left me at "Huh? My menu items and file associations from third party sources work fine, WTF are you talking about??" I tried to quickly understand what /usr/local is and why I should care, and from what I understand (based on the two first hits on google) is that it's a special area for the system administrator which will explicitly NOT be updated by system updates. Now, the primary examples I found was software you compiled yourself which would shadow a distro-installed binary. The thing is, why would I want third-party applications to go in there? I want them to be in my sources.list and BE updated by apt-get like say WINE (using Wine's repo, not Ubuntu's) is today, and if I don't want them updated I should pin them. Installing a third-party application without being able to use the built-in tools for updating the system would be very, very bad design on the third party application. Unless I misunderstand something, this is something for the compiling hacker, not something that has any impact on the normal desktop user whatsoever. Furthermore unless I'm missing something and you want to use it to install third party apps, then yes that's a model I'd oppose since they explicitly in the standard will NOT get updates from any source. Unless you want autopackage to act like an apt-get clone for these packages? Or leave them unsupported? Either way it's a rotten idea.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Asic Eng]

But will it become an important player on the desktop?

Sure it will. It's doing great in the netbook area, and Asus has shown with the EeePC that you can ship a Linux-based system that's easy to use, stable and complete. Acer, MSI, HP and a few others are also shipping Linux netbooks now.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Fri13]

I like to use Linux on my destkop. And I care about it. But, I dont like that bunch of fanatic Windows users moves from Windows to Ubuntu and starts calling it very special and different OS than Linux. Then they send ideas to Canonical's brainstorm list where they want almost everything what Windows or Mac osx has. Then when someone goes to explain why the idea is not good or there are better way to handle them on Linux world, they starts then bitching about how Ubuntu is so great and it really needs X to replace a 'nerd OS' what is so called "Linux".

I dont have anything against Linux on basic user desktops, like house wifes, old people etc because they give nice ideas and credit to those who develop the software what they use. But many teen and other young (under 30) users who has just got Ubuntu in their hands recommended by their friends, starts spreading the "negative" over other distributions, because they like to support Ubuntu so much. Maybe Linux should not be on their desktop :)

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[FooBarWidget]

You are correct. But the thing is this. If an independent software vendor is to create a desktop software package for Linux, then he has the following choices when it comes to distribution:
1. Create a package for Debian. Create another one for Ubuntu if the Debian one doesn't work on Ubuntu. Create another package for RedHat-based distributions. Create another one for SuSE. Create another one for Mandriva. Create another one for Slackware. Create another one for Gentoo. Etcetera.
-OR-
2. Create an installer which works on all of those distributions.
-OR-
3. Create a package for only a single Linux distribution, and screw all the others.

(1) takes a massive amount of man power, man power that may not be affordable or available. (3) will piss off a lot of users. (2) is therefore a logical and practical choice.

Given that (2) is chosen, the installer must have a place to install its files to. Not only application binaries, but also libraries, menu items, file associations, etc. Now we have arrived at the following issue: in what place should these files be put? There are multiple locations where they may be put. There are standards, documented on Freedesktop.org (a community where Linux desktop environment developers gather to agree on standards), which dictate where things should as menu items and file associations may be put.

According to standards, a third party software installer should install its files to places inside the folder /usr/local. However, this poses a problem: things like menu items and file associations installed to /usr/local don't work properly on many distributions. They just don't show up. According to the standards, they *should* show up, but Linux distributions don't care and don't make it work, despite going against such standards. The reason why your menus work is probably because you're only using distribution-packaged software at this moment. But suppose that Adobe one day releases Photoshop for Linux and you're a photographer and absolutely needs Photoshop, or that Blizzard one day releases World of Warcraft for Linux and you're a huge WoW fan, and both companies chose to provide an installer instead of 16 different packages for 16 different Linux distributions, then their installers are likely to install files into /usr/local.

Indeed, /usr/local is not something that the end user must be concerned with. The problem is, at the moment, they *have* to be concerned with it (even though they shouldn't), because /usr/local support on many Linux distributions is broken (even though it should work). If the hypothetical Photoshop installer installs into /usr/local, then you are going to wonder why the Photoshop menu items don't show up. The answer is because you might be using a Linux distribution on which /usr/local support is broken. It shouldn't be broken, it should just work so that you, the user, don't have to think about it. But right now, you *have* to think about it because it doesn't work as it should.

And distributions are unwilling to fix this. My point was that people are either unaware of these problems, don't care, or don't want to fix it. It is this that I want to highlight. It is going to hurt Linux desktop adoption if third party installers don't work well because parts of the distribution are broken.

At this point, you might be saying, "yeah but that's only true for closed source software". I hope you accept the axiom that a healthy balance between open source and closed source software - preferably one where open source has the largest market share - is important for Linux desktop adoption. For some things, there just are no good open source alternatives. Photoshop is the most frequently heard complaint. Or, in my case, I want to have wireless mobile Internet, but my phone company (who sells wireless Internet subscriptions) don't provide Linux drivers for the USB modem that I need for wireless mobile Inter

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[submain]

I agree with parent.

I believe, however, that there are simple but important points that no one seems to care about that are crucial for linux adoption on the desktop:

1. Corporate Support
Many important software vendors just ignore linux. AFAIK, Adobe never released a photoshop release for linux, as well as many other software companies that make programs that people just can't live without (AutoCAD, Flash, a lot of games...)

2. Official Driver Support
Linux drivers need support from the hardware firms. I have had enough trouble having to search many comunity forums for couple of hours looking out how to make my soundcard's microphone work.

Linux is a great operational system, and I use it almost 100% of my time. However, we will never see a mass adoption if software and hardware companies keep not caring about it.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Kjella]

I hear what you're saying, but I still think it's the wrong problem to solve. I'm sure the different package managers have their specialities which is why they're in use, but what's needed is some core subset of package format functionality and core packages available on every distro so that you'll write one script (autopackage or whatever) and have it translate into a native package on each system. If that is hard because of dependencies etc. then it seems to me it'd be hard to make a functioning autopackage as well and creating an complete autopackaged "shadow system" to avoid it sounds like a recipe for trouble.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Dorsai65]

I, for one, do. Just this morning, I wrote my first-ever /. Journal entry on my experience of installing and running several Linux distros -- and what I see as some of the problems slowing adoption of Linux.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[JohnBailey]

Sigh, 7 replies later and I'm still getting this kind of one-liner replies. Maybe you people don't care about Linux on the desktop after all?

Nope.. Too busy using it and enjoying myself. And next week I'm going to be installing a Linux distro on an old PC for a friend who wants to connect it up to his TV. So add another Linux user to the tally :-)

You are getting the one liners because you are taking it far too seriously, and people are making fun of you. I have no idea how long you have been a Linux user, but to be honest, you give the impression of someone who has just discovered it, and now sees it as your vocation in life to convert the world.

The year of Linux thing is a running joke. Nobody with any sense takes it seriously. Non Linux users make the year of Linux joke, non OSX users wind OSX users up by suggesting that Apple might not be perfect, and watch the rationalisations. And everyone laughs at Vista. This is the way of things.. forums are hotbeds of petty arguments and ill informed arguments. If a requirement for posting on /. was to have a valid point, then there wouldn't be very many posts.

Linux is not.....

A universal OS that every person on the planet should use..At gunpoint if required.

We want people to come and use Linux, so we talk about it. But only if it is right for them. If it isn't they have alternatives to use. And I hope they have a good time using their computers. researching a motherboard for Linux compatibility is not everyone's idea of a fun time.

The OS that is going to kill Microsoft...

They are far more likely to do that themselves. They lost me and many others at WGA, and quite a few others with Vista. And no doubt, future actions will make even more Linux users.

A cure for baldness..

Although some of the problems that I have had certainly contributed to my lack of follicle count from time to time.

Relax, enjoy Linux. Do cool stuff, and brag about it. Write a howto if you can, so others can do the same cool stuff. And if a distro doesn't do what you want, try another. If you enjoy Linux, by all means help someone to get up and running with it, but don't try to convert someone to Linux because it is Linux. Do it because it suits the individual person's use of their computer better. It's an operating system, not a religion.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[dotancohen]

Sigh, 7 replies later and I'm still getting this kind of one-liner replies. Maybe you people don't care about Linux on the desktop after all?

If I didn't, would I bother with this:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/linux_compatibility.php

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[FooBarWidget]

I've been using Linux for about 8 years now. I've been involved in the Linux developer community in those 8 years. I want to see Linux succeed on the desktop, not only because I like it, but also because for personal gain: I want to be able to use more hardware, hardware which are currently not supported on Linux.

I know the "year of Linux" thing is a running joke. My point is that I'm saddened that it has become a joke and nobody takes it seriously. It shouldn't be a joke. It shouldn't be something that people make fun of. It should be reality. Until this is reality, there is a whole range of hardware that I can't use because they're not supported on Linux.

As a developer, I tried whatever I can to stimulate desktop adoption. I did that by writing usable software with good usability, software intended to solve problems that stand in the way of desktop adoption. My point is that although such developers and software exists, the community doesn't actively embrace them, and even try to oppose them, as if desktop adoption is not a worthy goal.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Ash-Fox]

1. Create a package for Debian. Create another one for Ubuntu if the Debian one doesn't work on Ubuntu. Create another package for RedHat-based distributions. Create another one for SuSE. Create another one for Mandriva. Create another one for Slackware. Create another one for Gentoo. Etcetera.
-OR-
2. Create an installer which works on all of those distributions.
-OR-
3. Create a package for only a single Linux distribution, and screw all the others.

4. Create a LSB compliant build in a LSB compliant RPM which the majority of distributions support (I only know of Gentoo that doesn't officially support it - but one can easily get a LSB environment working through portage anyway).

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Ash-Fox]

and a Google search revealed no (not *any*) drivers for Linux.

That is unusual, I've lived in many countries over the years and I've managed to get "wireless internet" in every country I've lived in. Currently I have a ZTE MF622, which I had a few problems getting working "out of the box" at first.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[FooBarWidget]

Create an LSB RPM? Do you seriously see Debian/Ubuntu users installing RPMs, even LSB ones?

Try it. Make an LSB RPM, post it on Debian/Ubuntu forums, and watch yourself getting flamed left and right.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[dbcad7]

The point of my post isn't to ask whether there are other technological solutions. It's to highlight a political problem, the problem of community members not recognizing that there is a desktop adoption problem, or the unwillingness to solve it.

Which is why install through package managers is better, because then you are dealing with one entity (the distro) for compliance with standards.. as opposed every joe blow writing programs and installing them wherever he decides to.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[FooBarWidget]

Then do you expect me to create 16 different packages for 16 different Linux distributions, as opposed to a single installer that works anywhere? Where am I suppose to get that man power from?

Yes, there's the LSB. But suppose that you're a Debian user. Will you accept it if I only provide LSB RPMs?

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Ash-Fox]

Create an LSB RPM? Do you seriously see Debian/Ubuntu users installing RPMs, even LSB ones?

I have and they have no problems doing so.

Try it. Make an LSB RPM, post it on Debian/Ubuntu forums, and watch yourself getting flamed left and right.

Nobody has ever complained about my LSB RPMs of glfrontier before in #ubuntu or #kubuntu.

I don't do the forums thing outside of Slashdot.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[dbcad7]

So.. how do the people who wrote the 24,405 available packages in my software repository get by ?.. they are not all not big like Mozilla, or OpenOffice either... and although I don't have an RPM distro to check against, I am pretty sure that all the things that I have installed are available in RPMS as well... and most package managers have an installer as well for things that are not in a repository.. example gdebi.

You will never be able to achieve a perfect stand alone installer that will work will all flavors of Linux, because of dependency issues.. sure you can go the Windows route and overwrite dlls, or add more dlls (libs), but really the dependency checking of apt, and programs like gdebi is the better way to go.. Linux is not Windows.. and should not be.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[JohnBailey]

I know the "year of Linux" thing is a running joke. My point is that I'm saddened that it has become a joke and nobody takes it seriously. It shouldn't be a joke. It shouldn't be something that people make fun of. It should be reality. Until this is reality, there is a whole range of hardware that I can't use because they're not supported on Linux.

Is it really important? Was there a year of Firefox? a year of XP. a year of OSX, a year of Palm? No.. Each one gradually got to a point where it was profitable to develop for the specific platform. And practically every pundit you ask will give a different year and a different reason. Linux is heading this way too. But not rushing headlong into a market share that could end up wrecking it. I've seen adoption figures ranging from .01% to 5-6% which is right, and which should be seen as the one to use for the year of Linux announcement?

The only thing there can be is a year people may look back on and say this was where Linux started to really go mainstream. It could be last year when the Dell Ubuntu PCs came out, or when the Eee started selling like hot cakes. Or this year with the surge in interest in low power computers from many mainstream OEMs that put Linux in the hands of the great unwashed, or it could be next year when something else comes out, or it could be a decade or more ago when people started putting Linux on servers and super computers. Who knows.. Perhaps someone will discover a hole so big in Windows that Microsoft can't possibly patch it, and Microsoft get dropped like a bad habit.

the year of Linux is a nice idea, but a pointless goal. It has been and will remain a joke.. and will continue right to the point where Microsoft threatens to take the FSF to court for anti competitive practices or something equally daft. And even then, someone will still say that Linux is not capable of being a desktop OS.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Leolo]

Linux currently kicks ass on the desktop. I have it on my desktop, my laptop and my step daughter's computer. So far this year, I've replaced roughly 100 windows computers with LTSP diskless terminals. Linux on the desktop is a done deal. Anyone saying otherwise is living in the dark.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Burz]

Debian doesn't support it because Debian doesn't have a proper 'rpm' command for the user to execute; alien doesn't count.

Furthermore, package names often differ somewhat between various distro repositories, so the dependencies too frequently can't be resolved.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Elektroschock]

I mean it is an extremely nerdy issue right? It concerns the internals.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[FooBarWidget]

Sure it is. But it's an issue that people - my users - care about. As a developer, I have the responsibility to please my users.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Elektroschock]

No, you have the responsibility to make it right.

Generally speaking all the /usr is something like tech religion. We can ask ourselves if the tree is really important and how much of it a user needs to see to work with applications. It is very much internal. When you are concerned that your tree gets messed up against the rules than it just concerns an internal policy which an application user does not need to notice. Like programming style which maybe will cause better longterm maintenance of code or faster development but you won't notice from the surface.

Re:But will it be on the desktop?

[Ash-Fox]

Debian doesn't support it because Debian doesn't have a proper 'rpm' command for the user to execute; alien doesn't count.

"The standard does not dictate what package format the operating system must use for its own packages, merely that RPM must be supported to allow packages from third-party distributors to be installed on a conforming system."

''By using alien Debian is LSB-compatible by all practical means, but according to the description of the lsb-package, [the presence of the lsb-package] "does not imply that we believe that Debian fully complies with the Linux Standard Base, and should not be construed as a statement that Debian is LSB-compliant." This theoretical possibility of Debian's non-compliance to LSB might be considered a valid criticism, however slight''

Gray area.

Personally, I consider it a non-issue since Debian users can double click the .rpm in question graphically and get it installed just fine.

Furthermore, package names often differ somewhat between various distro repositories, so the dependencies too frequently can't be resolved.

LSB dictates what is included with the system, if it isn't included, you need to package the required libraries with your application.

What?

[bmo]

Wait, isn't the summary contradicting itself?

Jim isn't saying that if he fails, Linux will fail. He's saying that "The Linux Foundation" will fail. Linux will go on with or without him, and that's what he's saying in the quote.

And he's right. Many organizations fail because of bad leadership. The fish rots from the head down.

I thought that editors were supposed to be steeped in English grammar and should be able to diagram a sentence, thus finding the subject, verb, and object, blindfolded, underwater, with sharks with frikkin laser beams swimming all around.

Gott im himmel.

--
BMO

Re:What?

[onefriedrice]

You're right. Should be tagged badtitle.

Re:What?

[value_added]

I thought that editors were supposed to be steeped in English grammar and should be able to diagram a sentence, thus ...

They are. In fact, most writers are able to do the same. The consensus, however, appears to be "This is Slashdot and we like it like it that." meaning that editing is non-existent, being able to write (or type, for that matter) is irrelevant, and that anything else wouldn't be in the spirit of things.

It's a written medium. Go figure.

Re:What?

[pcgabe]

Billy: The fish rots from the head, as they say. So my thinking is, why not cut off the head?
Penny: Of the human race?
Billy: It's not a perfect metaphor.

You know, I had never actually heard this phrase before.

Re:What?

[ignavus]

I thought that editors were supposed to be steeped in ...

... boiling water?

(Well, it works for teabags.)

Master Yoda...

[dubz]

But (as Master Yoda once said) â" There is another. His name is Jim Zemlin and he is the Executive Director of The Linux Foundation."

Another there is. Jim Zemlin his name is ...

MOD PARENT UP.

[kwabbles]

How is this modded troll?

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[FooBarWidget]

"How is this modded troll?"
That's what I want to know too. I sincerely want Linux to succeed on the desktop. All of my claims are based on verifiable facts. If you need proof that people make fun of Linux with "THIS is the year of Linux on the desktop", then just browse a few Linux Slashdot articles. If you need proof that distributions and Linux community members are opposing, then just browse the relevant mailing lists.

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[larry bagina]

How is this modded troll?

Well, slashdot hands out moderator points to certain people (based on how long they've been slashdot readers, how frequently they read, their karma, etc). When you have moderator points, you can moderate a post (funny, insightful, underrated, troll, etc). That's how.

No, if linux fails

[nurb432]

There was no market for it.

Re:No, if linux fails

[value_added]

There was no market for it.

Not sure what market you're referring to, but if it's the retail one, I hear that advertising campaigns featuring retired comedians are considered an ideal solution to such problems.

On a more serious note, I've often wondered why it is that Linux doesn't get advertised given the existence of groups like the Linux Foundation. I'm not suggesting a Super Bowl spot, but if the recent success of Firefox is any example, some form of media coverage could be beneficial. The decision makers subscribing to glossy magazines would take note, as would the general public, and I'd like to think that even long-term users would respond positively. Besides, everyone loves Penguins, right?

Re:No, if linux fails

[nurb432]

Free is also a market.

documentation and interfaces stability

[sergstesh]

Linux will fail unless developers change their attitude to documentation, specifically, documentation related to drivers. And it's time to stabilize kernel interface - I have a friend who is an embedded Linux developer, their stuff developed for 2.6.9 stopped working on 2.6.24.

Re:documentation and interfaces stability

[Tatsh]

I disagree. Why didn't they keep up with the kernel as it progressed instead of now having to do a complete overhaul if they want their 'stuff' to work with 2.6.24? Things change in the kernel for good reason. If it's an embedded device I would not be worried much about using 2.6.9 vs 2.6.24 or eve 2.6.25 (also somewhat incompatible with 2.6.24).

Re:documentation and interfaces stability

[serviscope_minor]

Well, your friend can do one of three things:

1) keep using 2.6.9

2) Port his stuff to 2.6.24

3) Demand his money back

Re:documentation and interfaces stability

[sergstesh]

The company that employs my friend is simply moving away from Linux - to Lynux - look it up.

Re:documentation and interfaces stability

[$pace6host]

The company that employs my friend is simply moving away from Linux - to Lynux - look it up.

Just did! ;)

Perhaps you should have been more specific about WHERE to look it up!

Of course, by the time you read this, there's every chance wikipedia's entry will be updated.

Re:documentation and interfaces stability

[ToasterMonkey]

3) Demand his money back

I'm not saying you don't have the right to give something away and be an asshole about it, but don't expect any fucking reach arounds.

Yah, I could have said that in a cleaner manner, but of the spectrum of things the word "free" is associated with, one would think you'd be aiming for the better end of it. Like free healthcare, not free food behind the dumpster.

Re:linux sucks

[bigplrbear]

That makes Linux better than your girlfriend.

People on Slashdot have girlfriends?

Re:linux sucks

[nawcom]

Windows goes down on you? Windows usually locks up on me. Rigor mortis ftw.

Re:Blame Microsoft

[Elektroschock]

They are behind Zim as they are behind Apple. The whole Linux thing is a Microsoft conspiracy to help them to create fear and despair of their developers to force them to write code for less money and develop better software in the Seattle software sweat shop. Before they already used Richard Stallman to combat the vi, then he and Torvalds were instrumental to crush Unix. SCO got it and sued back but it was too late. You can read the whole story on Microsoft's news channel Groklaw.

What they want? Global might and terror!

Yes but...

[nganju]

does he run linux?

Sorry, had to be said.

Re:Yes but...

[Teisei]

Does Linux run him ?

The packaging hell

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA :

The Linux Foundation is also the leader of the Linux Standards Base (LSB), which is a carry-over effort from Zemlin's FSG. The LSB aims to provide baseline standards for Linux to make it easier for developers to write applications for multiple Linux distributions. LSB 4.0 is due out later this year.

At the FSG, Zemlin also was trying to come up with a unified Linux-packaging solution, it's an initiative the doesn't seem to have much momentum at the Linux Foundation. Today mechanisms and formats for Linux packaging abound and can be a potential barrier for software developers. According to Zemlin, the issue has little to do with technology.

"Packaging is not a technical issue to solve," Zemlin argued. "Everyone just has a different approach, and they can't agree on just one. It's really just an issue of discipline within the industry and the community," he said. "I'm not the cop here on this stuff, and I would rather see community members coming to a rough consensus rather than us saying what to do."

It might be wishful thinking, but I really couldn't agree more on this issue. Installing software on Linux when it does not exist in your distribution repository (or with an outdated version) is a royal PITA. Having to compile from the sources is out of the question (I don't want to waste time to find - an worse, having to compile too - the necessary libraries or why there are compilations errors even when the the configuration matches the requirements). If I am lucky I might find a precompiled tarball, which works, can be installed without su privileges (oh, and wtf why should I have to be root, even through sudoing, to install packages which are not part of the core system, like a desktop game or a word processor ?). Installers are the exception (not that it is my preferred way to install Software, I prefer Mac's way rather than Windows's way :) ).

Even if I'm not fond of packaging systems, I recognise that having a cross-distribution functional one which supports several versions of the same software would be a huge step forward. Hell, even a RPM which would work on all RPM-based distribution and a DEB which would work on all DEB-based distribution would be nice (I see neither Red Hat abandonning RPM for DEB easily, nor Debian/Ubuntu abandonning DEB for RPM ^^ ).

(Posting AC because I already moderated)

Re:The packaging hell

[Enderandrew]

This is why the Linux Foundation should be working with distros to actually support the LSB. Find out why they don't currently support it better now, what their gripes are, and try to draft a new version of the LSB that people can center around.

1 - I'd love to see one major package management system.
2 - It shouldn't care if the package is a .deb or a .rpm, though the distinction there shouldn't be necessary anymore. .deb was created because of problems with .rpm that don't really exist anymore, and the LSB does say people are supposed to standardize around .rpm, though it certainly wouldn't be impossible for one package manager to read both .deb and .rpm files.
3 - Package management should know how to handle source packages with a recipe/ebuild/instructions to build it from source.
4 - There need to be better standards for where files are kept. This is a major failing of the FHS in Linux, because of the redundancy and exceptions, one distro will put something in /opt and then another in /bin or /sbin and it gets ridiculous.
5 - Linux will never have much of a coordinated marketing effort because it is so fragmented, but the Linux foundation could work with and encourage marketing for each major distro to help raise visibility of the brand.

Re:The packaging hell

[Tjebbe]

while you're making a wish list, please incorporate

6 - it has to find a way to automatically work with different versions of software it is dependent on.

Otherwise 2, 3, and maybe even 4 are kind of useless.

Re:The packaging hell

[techno-vampire]

though it certainly wouldn't be impossible for one package manager to read both .deb and .rpm files.

I've long been thinking the same thing. Actually, all it needs is the ability to call on whatever package installer (rpm or apt) is native to the distro, as well as to alien to translate as needed. Call it "install," let's say, so that the user can just type:

install package.foo

and everything gets done correctly. I'd also like to see it able to recognize programs that need to be configured, made and put into place and know the correct sequence of shell commands (and what to do in case of error) without any user input. Once you have that, Aunt Millie and/or Uncle Elmer will be able to install software on their own Linux boxes without calling you over to spend a few minutes typing and an hour or so eating brownies, chocolate chip cookies or pizza.

Come to think of it, that might be going a tad too far.

Re:The packaging hell

[badkarmadayaccount]

I think you would like pkgsrc. There is a slack ver, i think.

Re:linux sucks

[reallyjoel]

ouch..

Re:linux sucks

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

atleast she's tight, everytime I've used Windows lately it's been one open hole after another.

Linux will survive till 2038

[gwjgwj]

But only to January 19th

Re:linux sucks

[A.K.A_Magnet]

Winston, your wisdom is infinite :).

Wrong meme for silly season

[symbolset]

Blame Bush.

Re:Wrong meme for silly season

[Jorophose]

No, blame Canada!

Re:Reminds me of the Fortran joke

[Yvan256]

Or Mac OS XXX.

The Internet is, after all, for porn.

If FALSE then ANYTHING!

[John Allsup]

Linux won't fail, so it's pointless to consider the consequences if you want to think logically...

Additional filesystem views

[CustomDesigned]

While the hierarchical filesystem has been great for programming, it doesn't work so well for end users. I've been coaching customers and my wife on organizing email for decades. Creating folders and filing messages in them is *not* what they want to do. Many are not even capable of it.

What an end users wants to do is not "file" anything any "where". Let the email pile up in the INBOX, and click on columns to sort, or use a query to find emails. Is the imap server not handling that practice efficiently? "Bad imap server", *not* "bad user". (We switched from uw-imap to dovecot since the latter is efficient for multi-gigabyte inboxes.)

In the same vein, users want their desktops to work like email. No folders. Just a desktop view with columns pulled from file content like in thunderbird, instant sorting and searching on any column, and a simple query screen to search by logical combinations of columns. The current filename, filetype, modified, size columns are insufficient. For open office documents, the document properties should be searchable.

So maybe there is not a single set of columns that is useful for all kinds of documents. Maybe the hierarchy should be a class hierarchy. The base class has bare unix file properties (name, modified, size, permissions, etc). Email extends that to add subject, sender, to, etc. Office software extends it to add author, title, subject, lastprinted, revision, template, etc.

Re:Additional filesystem views

[427_ci_505]

That pretty much sounds like hell to me, having non-organized files.

Re:Additional filesystem views

[oilfinder]

Well, I suppose maybe I'm gettin' old, or at least old-fashioned, and probably (mis)formed by years of working how the 'system' told me I was supposed to work, but...
I want folders! I do exactly the opposite of what you describe. I file my files and e-mails in (for me) logical hierarchies of directories (that what we called them folders when you were still wearing diapers, boy). I hate 'my documents', because it doesn't show me where it fits in the hierarchy (which disk, which sub-dir etc..). I have work, private and archive pst files in Outlook, each with folders per topic or project and I (usually) know where to look for a particular e-mail. And I've never understood the desire to put everything in one 'Explorer' which changes columns depending on what you're looking at, or 'unified search engines' (No Google Desktop or WDS for me!). If I'm looking for an e-mail I'll go to the relevant Outlook folder, and occasionally search for it (Outlook has the relevant fields for finding e-mails). If I'm looking for a file, I'll go to the relevant directory, or if need be, use find or Windows search, which have the relevant fields for finding files. Makes sense to me...

Now get of my lawn with your newfangled search-don't-file ideas!

Re:Additional filesystem views

[try_anything]

Is the imap server not handling that practice efficiently? "Bad imap server", *not* "bad user".

May God grant you long life and free beer. A successful approach to supporting applications at the filesystem level will make it much easier to write scripts that manipulate application data. Just eyeball the data stored in the filesystem using standard filesystem tools, write a script that manipulates it, again using standard filesystem tools, and voila -- no hidden metadata to find, parse, and massage to get things to work.

Linux nerds like scripting and command-line work, but occasionally we also like big, integrated applications. When big, integrated applications can't use the filesystem in a straightforward way, they develop complex, inscrutable storage solutions that can't be directly manipulated by casual usernerds.

Some agree, some disagree.

[khasim]

4 - There need to be better standards for where files are kept. This is a major failing of the FHS in Linux, because of the redundancy and exceptions, one distro will put something in /opt and then another in /bin or /sbin and it gets ridiculous.

Major agreement. It seems that they pillaged every *nix out there for its file directory.

Why?

Why not look at the most complicated set-up there is in Linux and standardize THAT in the MINIMUM number of mandatory directories? And to your list I'll add /media and /mnt. If you really NEED to distinguish between temporarily mounted LOCAL media and REMOTE media then make a single directory with two sub-directories.

What about /srv? Have you EVER seen an app put anything there? Why does it exist if NOTHING uses it? Which gets back to your /opt example. I'm running Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) and NOTHING is in /opt.

1 - I'd love to see one major package management system.
2 - It shouldn't care if the package is a .deb or a .rpm, though the distinction there shouldn't be necessary anymore. .deb was created because of problems with .rpm that don't really exist anymore, and the LSB does say people are supposed to standardize around .rpm, though it certainly wouldn't be impossible for one package manager to read both .deb and .rpm files.

Sort of agreement.

I'd prefer that the LSB publish a standard for packaging (packages that end in .LSB instead of .deb or .rpm) and wait for the various package management systems to incorporate that standard. So I could use apt to install .deb OR .lsb packages.

So if the software vendor publishes a .lsb package it should work on your LSB-compliant system.

3 - Package management should know how to handle source packages with a recipe/ebuild/instructions to build it from source.

That is FAR more complicated. It would be nice to have, but it would also require a compiler be part of the base system for the LSB.

5 - Linux will never have much of a coordinated marketing effort because it is so fragmented, but the Linux foundation could work with and encourage marketing for each major distro to help raise visibility of the brand.

Maybe. I'm less concerned about marketing than functionality at this point. If you build it right, and keep it FREE, it will gain marketshare.

Re:Some agree, some disagree.

[Enderandrew]

That is FAR more complicated. It would be nice to have, but it would also require a compiler be part of the base system for the LSB.

Not necessarily. Make package-build-environment a dependency for any source-based package. You don't have to install a compiler unless you want to compile.

Re:linux sucks

[McGiraf]

You should have stuck with Windows Me instead of going Vista.

Possibly.

[khasim]

But if they implemented a .lsb standard, wouldn't that save time for everyone? The programmer runs a script that compiles his program and creates the .lsb package and everyone downloads that.

Now if the LSB wants to help, they'd help writing standard scripts for programmers to use to do just that.

Re:linux sucks

[pcutilisateur]

Oh my lord, it seems Linux is a having threesome with us.

Re:Choice is very nice, but...

[Larryish]

We're already there.

People who want an "easy" distro go with Ubuntu.

People who want stability run Debian.

People who want to tweak things, or who just like to type "make" (for whatever reason) have so many options that it isn't funny.

I don't want any credit but feel free to blame me.

[jzemlin]

To be clear. I am only responsible for the "Linux Foundation." We all get that credit for Linux success rests with thousands and thousands of people not any single person or organization.

If the "Linux Foundation" is not helpful then you can blame me for that.

In addition, feel free to blame me for high gas prices, most of the pot holes in San Francisco, and for the crappy wifi at every single Linux Conference.

Jim Zemlin

Bad News

[phulegart]

I just got back from 2045 in my Ubuntu controlled time machine...

Solaris is the only OS in use.

Apparently MS could not comply with the federally mandated "No Home without a Computer" program, which was necessary with the abolishment of Congress in favor with what was dubbed "Cell Phone Democracy". In order for every citizen to be able to vote on issues, every person needed a cell phone. In 2032, every citizen was issued a cell phone, or credited for their existing one, providing that their individual unit could interface with a home computer. This meant that every home needed to have a computer. MS refused to supply an OS at cost, arguing that their $499 sticker price for an internet based OS was a bargain.

Linux continued to grow a fraction of a step multiple times per day, but never completely left their idea behind that they could make an OS work on any hardware, as long as it was installed properly, and that the user picked the right boot loader (Grub and LILO are still the only two main choices... for software). With the birth of the AIOS (Advanced Input Output System), both Grub and LILO were now obsolete, but Linux developers refused to let go of these loaders, arguing "This AI thing isn't Open Source, and we'll make it comply!"

Solaris embraced the AIOS and net boot concept, developing a three stage OS that would start with the IOS (initial Operating System, distributed freely on a PinkyNail drive) which users would log into via DNA sampling and retinal scanning, followed by the DemocratOS which would connect to their cell phone, and finally by the CUOS (common user Operating System) for general use. Java apparently is not dead, and is in fact living quite comfortably these days.

Sorry guys. I guess Zemlin might have dropped the ball...

Re:Choice is very nice, but...

[J. Random Software]

Deciding is out of their lives, by personal philosophy

What do we do? How about we stop trying to cater to these drones who have abandoned their membership in the human race. If you don't think, you don't matter.

His four step retirement plan...

[calmond]

1. Find popular open source program with lots of community support
2. Build foundation around project & become head of it
3. ????
4. Profit!!!

/sorry - had to be said!

What about some standards?

[Dorsai65]

It will be my screwup if we don't have an organization that can help coordinate and grow the development of the Linux platform.

So... any plans to address the growing problem of distro incompatibilities?

Linux 5.0

[Waccoon]

Sure, Linux could still be around in 50 years. No matter what the code looks like or what the development philosophy is, they may still call it Linux... or whatever they want. How many times is a product rewritten and it still keeps the same name?

Even in the world of free open source software, don't overlook the value of a good marketing campaign. Firefox Download Day, for example.

Re:I don't want any credit but feel free to blame

[GaryOlson]

From a perusal of the Linux Foundation website, I will address an aspect I believe you have not emphasized adequately: Linux in Education. University faculty do not have time to develop coursework or supplemental materials for a single software platform -- be it Linux, Oracle, Visual C#, etc. Much of the software used in education has been specifically created with the educational market in mind. Googling for relevant Linux material is not the answer either.

If you are serious about being helpful, the Linux Foundation website needs an entire section directly devoted to helping teachers, faculty, and educational staff.

Bahh, bullshit

[49152]

Blame me, it was always my fault.

Sorry...

Yeah, so I f...ed up linux, what have you done then? ehh?

Re:I don't want any credit but feel free to blame

[JerkyBoy]

Jim,

Thanks for the hard work on the Linux Foundation. This is probably the first time that most of us have even hear of you. I would suggest that your role is probably to take a lot of the flak that people give you and turn it into shinola. A demanding job, I'm sure. With that being said...

In addition, feel free to blame me for high gas prices, most of the pot holes in San Francisco, and for the crappy wifi at every single Linux Conference.

Sarcasm is almost never a productive or endearing characteristic of a leader. An unflappable upbeat attitude, however... One of my favorite people in this regard has been Tom Higgins, now at Unity 3D. He was booted off of the Macromedia Director team as the product advocate and he never once made an unfavorable remark about it, to anyone, even though he knew that he was going to have to start all over and that Director development was being shipped off to India (and the original development team was simply wiped off of the map) where it has since met its demise, for all intents and purposes. Higgins remained upbeat throughout, and remains a heck of a nice guy, and a heck of an advocate:
http://unity3d.com/blogs/tom/

Just my two cents, and remember that most of us Linux users are pretty nice people who enjoy the Linux community and what it stands for. Thanks for being our representative!

Re:I don't want any credit but feel free to blame

[MaryBethP]

IMNSHO, Jim's doing a great job advocating Linux to companies and persons who might not have known there were alternatives to closed systems. And they support solid engineering as well. Someone commented earlier on patents, and The Linux Foundation is doing its part to support prior art research, the Patent Commons project and legal defense. They are doing what a great FOSS Foundation should do--support legislative research, sponsor development, build/support the community, and inform the masses.

Now and then. Useful and useless.

[Per Abrahamsen]

> Think about how much has changed in 30 years with technology.

Well, 30 years ago we were also using Unix. Of course, it was quite different from what we call Unix today.

> Not unless you still think that the MS-DOS system is still useful today, or that Windows 3.1 laptop.

MS-DOS sucked when it came out, so did Windows 3.1. Compared to the the Unix and MacOS versions of the time.

Re:I don't want any credit but feel free to blame

[jd]

How about this - I won't blame you, but I WILL blame some of the egotistical b* who have happily caused harm to Linux and the free software movement in order to plunder corporations and organizations and destroy genuine attempts at real innovation for the sake of raking in the cash and fluffing up their egos. You've probably encountered some, I certainly have. I won't name names because I happen to know they can afford considerably better lawyers, and some accusations are - by nature - rather hard to prove. But if Linux fails, it is because it has been sabotaged from within, it is because innovators and inventors are being given a raw deal far too often.

(Yes, I'm extremely angry. Not at just one person, but many who feel that they are far more important than the free software that they ride the coat-tails of. Over the past 12 years, I've seen enough to convince me that Linux' success is by the fortune of competent, ethical developers outnumbering the highway robbers. The Linux Foundation and its members' biggest contribution will be on how well they ensure it stays that way.)

Re:linux sucks

[supernova_hq]

You might want to make a trip to the clinic and get tested.

Re:linux sucks

[a_claudiu]

And Windows lovers needs to endure that monthly period with headaches and patches.

Screw that...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Screw "open standards" and "vendor neutrality". Lobby for preferential treatment!

What? It's not like MS deserves anything less.

Re:Screw that...

[Elektroschock]

You mean Jim Zemlin should got for preferential treatment? So far as I can see they don't go for lobbying at all.

Yes, fork it!

[arth1]

From what I can tell, he seems interested in keeping his bureaucracy around for 50 years.
Linux itself is his resource and not a goal, much like music is the RIAAs resource and not a goal.

I think the important question is how will Linux survive despite bureaucracy like this. The vision statements might be laudable, but regulation is in itself anathema to the natural selection process, and serves to stifle innovation.

The one thing the bazaar doesn't need is more cardinals.

Re:Yes, fork it!

[NateTech]

Oh Linux will survive, because it's built for developers and not for end-users.

Any time you coddle to massive code-heads like the (mostly corporate paid now) kernel devs, it'll keep being re-written and re-written and re-written, but never have to actually meet any quality or professional documentation standards.

Nowadays something like 60% of the kernel devs who actually get code in the kernel are PAID to create this sloppy, nasty, crap -- and think they're professionals.

Re:linux sucks

[Oktober Sunset]

So what are you saying? Linux is either like fucking a prepubescent girl or an old menopausal woman?

Re:The operating system is GNU, not Linux

[Ash-Fox]

You don't name Windows by its kernel so you can't name GNU by one of its kernel (Linux).

Precisely, and this is why I name "Linux systems" by their distribution instead of generic terms.

What you want

[YetAnotherBob]

It sounds like what you want is a beter file manager with good metadata on the files.

Look around, I think that exists. don't change file systems, just change file managers.

Re:What you want

[badkarmadayaccount]

He isnt changing the FS structure, thats in the kernel, he is changing the directory tree setup and interface paradigm. Not a bad idea i might add.

Re:linux sucks

[thegnu]

Ubuntu is a prepubescent girl, definitely.
Debian is an old menopausal woman.
Arch Linux, you have to deal with the monthly headaches, but she's much hotter than that blubbering lard-ass Vista

That dog doesn't hunt...

[Burz]

There is no hardware compatibility list anywhere on that page (which is barely readable as it is).

Let's face it: The closest thing to a concise 'compatibility' list to kernel hackers is a listing of supported CPU architectures.

Re:That dog doesn't hunt...

[NateTech]

Isn't that quaint? Sure would be nice if Linux had some professional grade documentation someday, eh?

Re:That dog doesn't hunt...

[SnEptUne]

You need to download the kernel source code and grep for it.

Re:That dog doesn't hunt...

[SnEptUne]

You bet, it would be nice. I wonder if that will ever happens.

Relying on others is wishful thinking in my opinion; which is why I never bother with asking others for help. People code because it will also benefit themselves. If we have some creative way to create incentives for people to create such list, it may happen.

Re:That dog doesn't hunt...

[Burz]

Why should someone jump in just to create a list for something they may not understand? Plenty of others from the outside have failed at making a Linux HCL.

People who need such a list in the first place are not likely to be able to compile a good one.

Someone already in the position of coordinating additions and updates to the kernel should create and update a hardware compatibility list. It should be a very simple task for a Linux Torvalds or an Alan Cox.

Then, someone else can take that information and turn it into a search page that your average PC buyer can understand and use.

Linux is not primarily x86

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Sure most geeks using Linux (me included) are using it on x86 desktops so that's the view they have. However the majority of Linux systems are phones, routers and the like, using ARM, MIPS, PowerPC etc. For every Linux PC there are probably 10 ARM-Linux based phones.

Large inbox

[CustomDesigned]

Dovecot uses standard mbox format mail files. It does so efficiently for the usage I described because it builds a cached index. The index is thrown away and rebuilt on any hint of discrepancy - in which case that operation takes as long as uw-imap (a few seconds). Appends to the mbox file are handled without rebuilding. Reading one large mbox format file sequentially to build the index is much more efficient that reading 10000 individual message files, for any current filesystem including xfs. With the index, user queries are instant.

A thousand percent...

[KlausBreuer]

...I have no confidence in somebody who talks about " a thousand percent confident", sorry. Sounds like he's read too many cheap adverts.

awful summary.

[nimbius]

slow day on slashdot or are users just not clicking articles fast enough?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion