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.)
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.
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.