Linux and the New Computing Order

Chris Siegler writes "An Op-Ed over at Dr. Dobb's, on whether Linux can change to meet the needs of the mainstream user, and the consequences if we don't. " Interesting piece-talks about the potential for fragmentation, and that all of the big name companies coming to play are probably the greatest potential cause of that. I'm not incredibly worried about fragmentation, but more about how things change can alter the community. What do you folks think?

Comments

True, but...

[deity]

On the whole, I liked this article. I just have a few things to comment on.

What if the Linux community continues to do things like change the C/C++ libraries and compilers, as they did recently, which triggered so many compatibility problems?

Now, I don't consider myself an elite hacker or anything, (I do write and compile a lot of software though) but I haven't noticed any compatibility problems on either of my machines. But maybe that's because, like most of the world, I don't try to be bleeding edge. Neither will the mainstream. Companies like Red Hat are terribly concerned with compatibility issues, and because their money is on the line, they make sure that compatibility will be a matter of upgrading x number of packages. The cooperative and open nature of the open source community makes the turnaround time on fixing broken stuff much shorter, we all know that. But why? Because if someone with a large stake in Linux needs compatibility with new libraries or compilers, they can easily

1. fix it themselves
2. use their resources to aid the developers in charge of the project(s) in bringing it up to date

History seems to show that Linux companies usually choose the second option, since that is the fastest and most efficient way to go.

What if someone decides to do something you hate with your program, such as make changes that preserve compatibility with prior versions and break compatibility with your latest release, and then spend millions of dollars to promote their version?

This is the new Coke dilemma. Sorry, I just had to say that. Seriously though, this does happen. It's the problem best exemplified by EGCS. EGCS was a split from the main development track of GCC, but eventually it proved to be more promising than its predecessor and it was brought back into the fold. Our community is better for it.

Like our mythical political party, the community has to learn to compromise and be more understanding and accommodating of the mainstream.

To a point. The Linux community, through projects like GNOME and KDE, has made the important changes that the mainstream will want. But as a partisan, I have to say this: Let's not forget our Free Software roots. It's terribly important that we focus on the ideals that got us this far, like unabashed source availability and respect for the owners of open source projects (go here if any of this is new to you). These are the ideas that have protected and nurtured the movement this far, and they will continue to do so in the future.

-k

Begging the question

[twit]

This begs the question: what is it to win, and should linux strive to win at it?

The implicit assumption is that linux will become a mainstream, Joe Lunchbox operating system, to the detriment of Microsoft (Apple, Be, etc).

I really don't see the advantage in that. It'll certainly up the demand for commercial applications, and corporations will move to fill that demand. Is that what we really want?

So many linux users (both way back when and now) couldn't give a rat's ass for free software; they want applications. I'm afraid that if we court the commercial market too strongly, we'll lose, not gain, developers - that great mass of developers who create free software.

What linux should strive to gain is more developers and especially more free software developers. Commercial ventures seeking to distribute non-free software for linux should be given a run for their money; they should be pressed to advance the state of the art as fast as they can. The point is that we, as a community, don't need more users; we need more developers. Linux users should aspire to become developers, and existing developers should aspire to use their skills on Linux. If we slowly give that up and let corporations handle it for us, then we're also giving up control of Linux, GPL notwithstanding.

--

Re:Can Linux meet the needs of the mainstream user

[Jburkholder]

I agree with your points, but not your conclusion. (just realized I was replying to the reply, this actually goes to the original post).

Never say never.

The points you bring up are certainly going to make it much harder for Linux, or any *nix-like OS, to become a 0-skill, entry-level, first day OS. Look at DOS and Windows. Same old DOS still sits under W95 and is still just as ugly as ever. The new user is shielded from that.

To do the same to Linux is probably not impossible, though not very desirable. My opinion is that Lunix is moving in the right direction to make it more accessible for the novice enthusiast, but will/should probably stop short of the "mainstream" user who has no computer skills and does not want/need them to do their job.

I'm a big fan of choice. I'm not eager to see Mickeysoft wiped out completely, just put in their place. I can see a world where Linux is a powerful, well entrenched, well supported platform for whoever wants to use it for whatever use provided they have the knowledge to put it to work. And then alternate, less powerful, less entrenched equally well supported platforms are available for those whose skill sets are outside of computing who want to have an easy to use tool to make their work easier.

My $.0199967352