Slashdot Mirror
Linux Community vs. Linux Industry
RC Pavlicek
writes "An opinion about the notion that the Linux community must be sacrificed to expand the Linux industry. 'The concept that the Linux community must cease in order for the Linux industry to grow is utter twaddle.'
" (Russ Pavlicek, who wrote this, is one of the most outstanding
Linux advocates I've ever met. Well worth reading.)
Apple HATED the knock-offs like the Franklin and pineapple.
There's a nice jog to the memory! I remember all the legal stuff going around about the ROMs in the Ace. I should qualify my previous statements a bit!
The Apple][ was open from the standpiont of third party add-ons and was cloned in spite of Apple.
Speaking of BIOS, you also reminded me of those funny notices in the first clone BIOS chips for the PC "NOT Copyright 1984 IBM Corp." or something to that effect.
Yes I know Mac Zealots in the real world. I just avoid discussing computers with them. Plenty of other things to talk about. The corporate Mac users I've known usually have a legitimate gripe. Like one place that removed everyones Macs in the middle of the night and replaced them with slower PCs and then told them to open their Illustrator files in CorelDraw. Call it Anti-Mac advocacy.
The ongoing challenge of corporate MIS departments is to provide solutions. When you've got someone there yelling "Product X sucks! Use Product Y!", you've got someone with different interests, and it's just best to get the hell out of their way. And you're right about Microsoft - if someone says they've got a problem, Microsoft will try to build a solution for it.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Had Apple kept things open like the Apple][, instead of having 100% of a 3% market share, they could have had 10% - 20% of a 50% or better market share. They were killed by (justifiable) fear of vendor lock-in. The PC had lock-in on the OS, but the Mac extended it to hardware as well.
IBM made the same attempt to grab a lock-in with microchannel, and look where it got them. They have only recently made a real return to the PC market by dropping MCA and returning to the world of open (more or less) hardware.
It's sad when the better technology looses out because of 'stupid suit tricks'.
The Linux community is the antithesis of lock-in. The Community must be careful to keep itself several arm's lengths away from any stupid suit tricks from the 'Linux Industry'
Too bad that isn't going to happen because so many people contributed to the kernel. You would have to buy out thousands of developers, each of whom probably have convictions.
In other words, it isn't happening. Linux is going to stay free.
Of course you're talking to a lot of programmers and system administrators, which are currently the hub of the user community of Linux, who have devoted their lives to computers, and it could certainly become religious.
There are many in the group who also have a lot of other interests, but there are some who are interested only in computers. This probably happens in any field.
My feeling is that Linux is Linux and it will continue, unabated, in the presence or absence of business. That a cluster of businesses gather in its wake doesn't matter.
Sure, it will be nice if business continues to flock to Linux and helps it grow into a credible competitor for the desktop... But, if the Linux community ignores business and continues toward its "organic" destiny, will it matter? Isn't the solid foundation, independence, and openess of Linux the *reason* it is attactive to business in the first place?
I like this kind of inspirational article but I don't think that the challenges that inspire them are much more than wishful thinking from the minds that standardized business on Microsoft products.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
The author raises a rather important point. At the moment, Linux development can be compared with a cottage industry with all the charm of custom design and individual craftmanship. Can it evolve into the formal processes of mass production for a consumer market? This is a tough call as it pits the love and talent invested into a hand-made Rolls-Royce compared with need for testing and production control needed for an assembly-line model.
The spirit of hacking is exploring new heights and creating elegant structures. It is a beguilding song, speaking against shoddy software engineering and praising open source feedback. But who controls this dialog? Does the story-tellers shape the audience or are they slaves to the fans? Would Linux be changed by imposing the legal contracts and compelled performance of the almighty dollar? Or can the two coexist peacefully?
The software industry is a complex beast, ranging from the complete free source, to the patented intellectual property. For OpenSource to succeed in mainstream, it has to offer a superior business model than existing solutions. To a large extent, the OS is invisible to end-users as what people are interested in are the services that live on top. Linux may offer more stable platform at a lower cost but unless independent software vemdors see a viable market (and that means a financial justification for porting), then it will remain marginalised compared with Windows or even Java.
LL
I was drawn to the linux world because of the community that exists around it. I haven't contributed yet, but it is my intention to, once I understand things better. I want to share with everyone else what I can, to become part of this greater whole.
The community is what makes linux strong. We supply a great deal of man hours and expertese that contributes to a solid system. The open competition that we engage in gives the users features that they want, and the cooperation on protocols and how systems interact give flexibilty unheard of in other systems.
I believe that any business that forgets this will flounder or fail. Traditional business models are incapable of dealing with the growing rate of change that is taking place in the world. Y2K is hiding this fact from many managers, but once next January is over, and all of the projects that have been on hold start being requested, there will be a flood of changes.
There are lots of oppurtunities for making money in the linux world, and the growth that is possible is amazing. As businesses start using linux there is large systems that need to be integrated and redeveloped. Support, training, development, are simply a few of the possible oppurtunities. What about changing business policies to fit the new international commerce arena? Best practices need to be modified, cultural understandings need to be developed, processes need to be completely rearranged.
The linux community, and the talent, passion, and dedication of that community is what makes linux great. We continue to scratch itches and grow. Once business managers, and any other PHBs out there, understand this, and allow us to take pride in what we do, the strength of the systems that we develop at work will start to match linux.
> At the moment, Linux development can be compared
> with a cottage industry with all the charm of
> custom design and individual craftmanship. Can
> it evolve into the formal processes of mass
> production for a consumer market?
There is nothing wrong with `cottage industries'. They clearly produce superior products in every catagory: in use, flexibility, tuned to individual user needs, and desire for craftsmanship and individual expression, in both craftsman and the contracting consumer.
The only area where cottage industry falls down is in making large quantities of products. Hence the need to replace superior cottage industry technologies with the forced conformity of mass production. However, this limitiation applies only to physical world products; software production is not so limited. It is the first technology to come along where mass quantities of a cottage industry can be produced and distributed, without the straightjacket of mass production techniques.
In some senses the "Linux Community" isn't real but merely the latest incarnation of a community of instinctive engineers (aka "hackers") whose members, and fields of interest, come and go with time.
In the 1900s we would have been flyers, in the 1920s we would have been radio operators, in the 1930s we would have been experimental rocketeers, in the 1960s and 1970s some of us were building electronic devices. I hope in the near future we will be nanotechs.
The point is that "this too shall pass". The "Linux Industry" will end up "taking over" but only because we will have voluntarily moved on to more exciting and cutting edge areas. It is illogical to worry about the inevitable. Put that energy into new hacks instead.
I thought with MS it was a community of victims--you know, sort of a support group.
I agree. In the Windows community you mostly see things like "how do I avoid this bug?" and "I wish MS would..."
The Linux community is more like "Here is a fix for the bug where..." and "Linux really needs ___ here is an alpha implementation of it.
Real communities are able to plan their own future, not simply react to someone elses plans (or lack thereof).
"Yeah, so all those people who are telling others about linux are bad for the OS"
:)
:)
I think he may have ment the way some Linux users go about telling others to use the Linux OS. Like some people flamming artical writters to no end with abusive langauge and things of that nature or how some people wrote abusive e-mail to Mindcraft.
Things like that really shouldn't be happening. What it comes down to, is it seems to me it's a bunch of 12 year olds running around spouting off how great Linux is. I mean, honestly, the things these people spout off makes you wonder if they really ARE 12 years old. Yeah... That really shows a great image for Linux.
If I never would have started using Linux when it first came out I probably would totally write it off by the constent remarks I see everyday from the 12 year old Linux users.
It's just things like that, that disgust me about the small(I hope) percentage of the community.
I think all of the halfway decent people in the Linux community need to remember that the few of these 12 year olds really do stick out.
So please keep that in mind next time you're telling someone to use Linux.
"Now go and tell us what elements of Linux sucks and try to do something about it YOURSELF!"
You also have to remember not EVERYONE can go and do it themselves either. Not everyone is a programmer. Sometimes you have Administrators, Network Admins, and just plain old users who can't write programs. What are these people supposed to do when you tell them, "Go do it yourself" ? If it was me I'd say, "Well Microsoft has this product that seems to work so so, and well in Linux, it's just none exsitant or it sucks"
So remember that next time too.
You also have to remember not EVERYONE can go and do it themselves either. Not everyone is a programmer.
Not everything that needs doing is a programming task. Linux needs well written manuals, man page updates, people in newsgroups (and manning phone lines for that matter) answering questions. Identifying a shortcoming is in itself doing something about it. Finding someone to do something about it is better. Best of all (if possable) is to either fix it yourself, or hire someone who can. Then contribute the fix back into the community.
I think that's one of the mis-conceptions about Linux and it's community. It's not all programming, and not all members of the community are programmers. Getting that message out to non-programmers would be a good thing to contribute.
There is no lock-in there. If you decide to move to other software, you will have no problems BECAUSE of the GPL (the data formats are public knowledge). If you want to write a closed source app for Linux, you can. All of the standard libraries are LGPL meaning non-free software may link with them. Linux exports an API that has no license terms at all, you just use it! Where is the show stopper?
GPL is much like other licenses from your perspective. You can freely source license the code to an app you want to incorperate into your product. Like any other license, there is a price for that (if you don't believe me, call MS and ask them the price to obtain and use some of their code for your product). In GPL, the price just happens to be that your code must be GPL. Of course in the MS example, you would pay money AND agree to their license terms (that is, no GPL, BSD, etc licensing). You MAY also have the option to license the source from the author (or authors) under a different license for a fee. As in all licensing, that's at the discression of the author.
In summary, under GPL, you are GUARENTEED the ability to use the source, but you are not guarenteed to like the terms. With a proprietary license you have no source guarentees at all.
The real show stopper for commercial apps on Linux (if indeed there is one) is the stiff competition from GPL authors who are willing to give the customer quality apps under a friendly license. If quality competition and consumer preferance is a show-stopper, perhaps that show shouldn't be produced! That's how competition works.
There's something Interesting going on with all these marketing and lawyer fellows that like to make lotsa dire predictions about linux, how it's going to fail, etc. This is going to be a bit long, but bear with me please. It's bound to be interesting to us also.
People who are in marketing, lawyers, top-bosses, IT "journalists", etc, are really doing nothing. Actually, some, the more smart of them, actually know that they don't have a single valuable skill. They're like leeches, feeding off the work of those who really DO work, and --in our case-- like our work.
The thing is that they have to maintain this illusion of "work" in order to keep doing it. I mean, who wouldn't like to be propped up, made to feel like an important, knowledgeble, valuble person? It must be a heady feeling. And expensive also. Specially if your "work" doesn't actually produce anything. Nothing. Zip.
Then comes this new paradigm, which requires no money at all to enter, just true knowledge, or at least love of knowledge, true work; an expanded mind so to speak. It's only natural that they should fear it, after all, they know that they don't have anything to offer, that their lack of knowledge and work will become apparent if this new paradigm will become widespread.
Be prepared for lawyers, marketeers, "journalists", and the rest of their ilk to mount a fierce fight against this new way of life. Be prepared to fight leeches of all levels who are comfortable doing nothing, against this new form of enlightenment, where true ethics, and work, and knowledge, are the things to look for.
How many work in places where your bosses know nothing of the work that's done? How many actually respect your bosses as human beings and professionals? Very little, I suppose. It's the same everywhere. They are the ones who are gonna get purged, if this new paradigm takes hold.
But then again, maybe I'm mad, and these are just my rantings. But I do believe that this movement kicked into overdrive by Linux is much more important and pervasive than just the OS and computer arena; it can extend to every aspect of our lives, and to other's lives, if we know how to extend it.
Good luck fellow warriors.
Pavlicek cites a quote from a market analyst abou the need for the community to transform itself.
What the "market analyst" was really saying was that in order for him to get hired as a Linux market analyst, there have to be companies doing Linux business.
Of course, most end users don't really care where the software comes from. They just want to use it. The purpose of software is to be used, it does not exist so that programmers and market analysists can get work. If it can be done without the existence of a "Linux industry," well, that's how it will be done. If major publishers can provide enhancements or applications that people will voluntarily pay for, well, that's good too.
As long as the number of users keeps growing at a healthy pace, it means the users are satisfied. It doesn't matter whether anybody's making money providing the software, what matters is that it's being provided.
This is a popular fallacy. The simple fact is that the Mac lost on 4 items
from the beginning.
1 : Openness. The Mac had a single source for everything. The IBM compatible during the time of Apples decline had multiple sources for Machines ( IBM, Compaq, Dell etc... ). It also had or appeared to have multiple sources for the OS. ( IBM-Dos, MS-Dos, DR-Dos, ).
2 : Price. In terms of absolute Maximum performance when price is no object the fastest Mac was generally well ahead of the fastest PC. However, if like most people you have a set limited amount of money and a specific task to accomplish you could get a better $ 2,000 PC than a $ 2,000 Mac. This is still true today. Is the low end iMac any competitor to the $ 1,299 PC ? 17" Monitor, 450MHz CPU, 128 Megs RAM, 8 Gig HD, 8Meg AGP Video, Floppy, CD-ROM, Zip disk and room to grow. I didn't think so.
3 : Games. At one point Apple actively discouraged game development on it's platform.
4 : Software availability and cost. The factors above led to the Mac's shrinking Market share which caused most vendors to target the growing kid ( Dos/Windows ) and the vendors who remained felt obliged to charge a significant premium for any quality applications. ( 30% - 70% ).
The $700 NT Tax is giving Linux a substantial boost in just this way. The big question is weather when Linux is a viable desktop ( It isn't yet though strange people like me use it ) the $80 Win9x tax will make a big difference. $200 PCs suggest it might.
The fact that MS is not the least bit scared of Apple while it's plotting how to survive Linux suggests this even more.
"Think" -:Former IBM motto.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
By your argument, you could say that Microsoft has a community of users.
This may be shocking to your Linux-addled brain, but Microsoft does have several gigantic user and technical communities. Community != Open Source.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
5. Network interoperablity. Until recently, Apple refused to build Novell and MS/IBM client support into the OS. This forced network administrators to load semi-stable AppleShare extensions on their servers and leading to a Mac ban at many corporations.
6. Production Capablities. In the 80s and early 90s, Apple couldn't make enough Macs to meet demand (even with their 50% profit margin). A chunk of this missed opportunity probably ended up as Windows users.
7. Apple
PS - I never understand why people say "Platform X failed because their advocates are such Assholes!" I mean, the only place you see OS advocates is if you go to a flamey place like comp.*.advocacy or slashdot, and then you basically asking for trouble. It's not like OS advocates are running around keying your car or stealing your girlfriend or anything like that.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.