Slashdot Mirror
NY Times on "the Fragmentation of Linux"
Weramona writes "The Times is running an article on the possibility of Balkanization of Linux, due to commercialization. To be fair, both sides are presented, and it isn't all that sensationalist. The article is aimed rather low ("Unix was created in 1969 by..."). What's funny to me is, a couple months ago, this was a favorite "Damn the Man" conspiracy theory on /. " Its the times so you need a free account to read the story, but its a pretty good piece so its worth it.
There is significant fragmentation in the Linux community, but that is not a bad thing... People have different opinions, whims, and design philosophies... It's all a part of the Linux culture and not something that should be looked at with a negative spin.
Justin, of Gnuidea Software
Seems like the open source model means that a lot of this can be avoided, but it also means that the user is going to have to know more to use the system, which may be good, but will keep Linux from being a true desktop (or general public desktop) solution.
Funny and I thought Perl == Paid employment recently located
While this presents both sides of the story, I still feel like it's just a regurgitation of old worries. There is not a valid argument in this article that would suggest in any way that Linux is more susceptible than any other open source project to fragmentation.
Werd.
It's not so much a piece on balkanisation as it is one on fears of same. To this end it's a pretty good piece, but one I felt was written purely because the author knew it was an issue with some people. The main quote that some vendors "are more inclined to chase money and less inclined to share all their toys with their friends" isn't substantiated, and as the author pointed out, the Linux Standard Base should head problems off at the pass.
I don't think the article was aimed low, btw; it's another example of a mainstream paper covering a topic with which a lot of -- but by no means all -- readers are familiar. It makes sense to include background, and it's a further example of Linux being brought to the masses.
While I still personally believe that linux is breaking up, I can also see unification in the horizon. The way Linux is maintained and the way UNIX was maintained were different in all possible ways.
Linux has been backed up with a process which is more democratic, unlike the older UNIXes which was essentially maintained by companies for economic reasons which I would call the true capatilist way of management.
FSF, Linus and the rest of the gang around the world play a very vital role in regulating code which was absent in previous UNIX.
However, thats just my feeling.... others might have a different view to it.
Nothing new in the story. Linux does not comprise of the applications running on top but of the kernel. As long as the underlying libraries are the same, I see no fragmentation problems. Hell just pick an executable off a machine running RHL and put it on a machine running Caldera. With the same libraries, it should run.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
I mean, do you include people creating distributions of the same basic kernel, and a different selection of utilities? (In which case, how is that any different from computer companies bundling different selections of software?)
Do you include distributions with different kernels (eg: L4Linux), but the same utilities? (Here, how would the average user be able to tell that there was a difference at all?)
How about a.out/elf, or libc5/glibc? Well, everyone has migrated to elf, and most have finished moving to glibc, so there seems to be a compunction to standardise, there.
What else is there? Window managers & underlying X toolkits seem to be one battle, but I'd put that in the same category as bundled utilities - no different from any other computer market, since (time *) began.
There's the directory the config files are put in, yes, but that seems to be working itself out.
There's the X vs. Berlin battle, but that won't be anything more than a possibility (not even a certainty) for a long time to come. Berlin looks promising, but it's not ready for the Prime Time.
What's left? The installer? Oh, wow! Like you have to worry about that, after you've installed the distribution.
The Package Manager? That might have been a really serious contender for causing fragmentation, but Alien and similar utils make that almost redundant. As far as your computer is concerned, all package managers can effectively interchange packages with each other.
AFAICS, that pretty much wraps up all the possible causes of fragmentation.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The main place where differences between Linux distributions are persistent are with regard to two things:
This is arguably a matter for more concern.
Tools include rpm/dpkg, and the recent proliferation of distributions based on Debian is results in RPM no longer being quite as "worshipped" as it used to be.
I regard the increase in interest in Debian-based distributions as a good thing since Debian has more automated tools for managing and validating validity of packages, which is an area where RPM had "gotten pretty stuck" for a long time.
Aside from package management, there is then "system management," with tools like COAS and Linuxconf, where different distributions are promoting different tools. (And I'd put in a plug for the OS-independent tool cfengine that's good for lots of purposes...)
There's some fragmentation, but my old essay Linux and Decentralized Development has the thesis that the net results are positive. I haven't seen compelling evidence to the contrary yet.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Linux commercialisation has fragmented things a little bit, but in a good way.
Linux is fragmenting into specialised tools with a common base. The tools are aimed at certain core markets where it performs very, very well. Microsoft is a good example of where a product hasn't fragmented to exploit markets. Win9x doesn't know if it wants to be a server or a desktop system, and NT has grown so large trying to be all things for all people that its nearly unmanageable, and each release seems to be getting heavier and heavier, and more unstable (the Win2k test shows that even microsoft has realised this).
Linux must retain and expand these areas and make sure people understands why this is the case. If you are presented with a project that requires multi-user access, take a look at all the linux distros. Somewhere in there is a distro that will provide you with exactly the base you need to build your application on. In some cases all you need to do is to change a few variables and design a webpage.
There is no major infighting between developers over disros - this is where bad things would happen (but there is a bit of mumbling and finger pointing). The developers either tend to igore one another or work with each other. This is good.
The current trend of articles is to portray linux as a fragmented infighting collection of geeks. There needs to be more PR and education projects to get the journalists to realise that this is not always the case.
If linux was a corporation, it would take a seclection of editors off and wine and dine them somewhere expensive, and pick up the tab. It would take a selection of journalists off on a jaunt somewhere and get them drunk.
The problem Linux faces is that until recently it's not had the financial backing to do this. The RedHat IPO does give them the money to do this, but it remains to be seen if they wil follow this way of doing business. I think that they probably won't (at least not for a while yet).
They make no conclusions, but offer opinions on both sides of the issue. A good article, except for one glaring error. Free Software does not equal public domain! They really need to put an accurate Free Software entry into their style guide.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Linux as a server OS will be OK, with presure placed on commercial distributers to adopt the LSB, many of these problems will be minor. Even Caldera's integration of proprietary tools will be moot as some of the more interesting protcols mature (i.e., LDAP, XML-RPC, etc.).
We will, however, see a flurry of activity on the desktop side. There are a ton of people who do not need to run a server, but instead want a fast, stable, and cheap platform to surf the web, play games, and write letters and resumes. These people are willing to pay US$60 a pop for this (or part of it) and have payed US$400 for just the software to gain this functionality. Aside from installation, there isn't much support that is required and when it is, the establised companies are already charging per incident.
Unfortunately, this Linux desktop will probably not come from the larger distributors today. It will be a company who adopts the Linux kernel and extends it with their own proprietary GUI. It won't be X complient, or even have X available. The winner will eventually get X support through a company like Hummngbird. Early entrants will make developers pay a couple thousand for the priveledge of developing for "their" platform. That will eventually stop as competing desktop vie for developers. Free tools and "open" APIs will finally arrive.
The Linux you know and love will still be strong. Serving enterprises and power-users home desktops, but your mom will be running Linux without even knowing it. From a causual inspection, you might not know it either.
HH
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
She's just dressing, goodbye windows, tired starlings.
Try user: passwordssuck4
password: passwordssuck4
Which distribution appears to be the most dedicated to maintaining standards? Which appears to be the most likely to jump ship and cause fragmentation in a key area when the situation proves profitable enough?
I would perceive Redhat to be a likely candidate for the latter, possibly only because they seem to be the leading distribution here in the US. Although, I admit, I haven't seen them do anything I didn't like. Caldera also comes to mind.
If there is any danger I think it comes from the most popular distributions. The momentum of the sales of a large distribution like Redhat could cause fragmentation even if the rest of the community realized what was going on. In the article, the quote from the Redhat guy seems to say that there might be a problem, although most of the posts I've seen so far discount most of this fear. My reason for wanting to know the answers to the two questions above is this; If I'm going to support a company with my dollars, I want to make sure that I'm supporting someone who is devoted to the Linux community.
Check out AbiWord.
Hmmm ... title starting to sound like a 1984 byline. I thought the strength of Linux was suppose to be its customisation and flexibility? That you could mix and match components/applications as you wish (for example, there are at least 3 variants of mail transport agents). Thus you can get a version that can optimised to fit the simplified hardware needs rather than a single size fits all. If someone wants to say throw together a simple drawing appliance for kids, they could whip together a mips board, touch screen, along with a stripped down Linux and GIMP. Having access to the source and packages allows one to hit small niches that a big expensive PC wouldn't be practical or affordable.
;-{, as it is well publicised, we all know that a certain company claims to have purchased the smartest CS brains alive so obviously this can't be the case :-).
Naturally this requires some smarts on the part of the integrator and, of course
Oh well, different courses for horses.
LL
Why do I always see this comparison, that Linux will follow in the footsteps of Unix. Wasn't Unix able be hide its source, whereas Linux can't. The GPL is probably the strongest reason that Linux will not fork. Any packages that are on top of Linux that are not GPL has the probability to do so. But even with KDE and GNOME, I see them merging more than I see them separating, and that is because of the ability to look at the others code and make updates or "compatibilities".
Linux core (the True Linux or kernel) will always be the same among the distros. Any distro to fork will fail since it will no longer be compatible with the rest. Or you won't be able to keep up with the "latest" by downloading.
This brings up one exception. And this was stated in the article about Unix. If different hardware architectures arise, then we may see a split with Linux. But even then, the GPL will allow any "enhancements" to be shared among all distros.
So far I have had no problems in keeping my Slackware and RedHat Linux boxes up and running the same utilities and applications. I'll raise a concern once I start seeing a problem.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Well, the fact that everyone can make their own
distro is good for us hard-core Linux types, but
bad for the general user.
A week ago I went into the local Best Buy store,
and went to the Linux section just to see what
all they had. There was a lady there who looked
confused, and just kept picking up different
distro boxes, not sure which to buy.
I felt bad, because she can go right over to the
windoze section, and buy *the* windoze 98 box.
She had no idea that SuSe, RedHat, OpenLinux,
et al were all just Linux.
In that regards, this is a Bad Thing[tm], because
it confuses the average Joe user. I do think
there would be some advantage to having The Linux
Distrubution.
Now I'm sure you'll all reply "well we don't want
people that don't know to buy Linux!", but if
we want global desktop domination, this spread
of distros will NOT help. People don't like
actually doing research when it comes to
technology. They want to be told what to buy or
have no choice. Hence the popularity of windoze.
--- witty signature
First, it talks about balkanization of Unix like the different flavors were insurmountably different. The real barriers arise with usage of proprietary very high level APIs (eg: IRIS Performer, ImageVision, video libraries, etc.)
Of course it is possible for a vendor to add value like that, but it won't be a huge problem.
The REAL issue, and one that I'm surprised that the LSB spokesperson does not even acknowledge, is the difference in how the different distributions compose packages, regardless of distribution format. It's not enough being able to force import of foreign packages. One wants to enforce the dependency constraints. That is one of the main strengths of Linux (and IRIX, BTW, where inst/swmgr is still much better than RPM, although the latter indeed satisfies the basic needs).
Regardless, Linux is still Linux. The API's are the same, the system's resources and libraries are the same, and the file system is just about the same. There are a few differences here and there (mainly in things like library/kernel versions and install script methods), but it's not the issue it is on other Unix versions, and because of the Open Source model, it never will be.
There's incentive for most vendors to package their distro in a standard format (or at least support RPM installation), because they'll have off-the-shelf compatibility with the increasing number of applications available for the platform. Forking costs you the penalty of breaking that compatibility - now you've lost control of your commercial applications market. Where things get proprietary is in places like install procedures and/or bundled goodies (or sometimes in system management - like SuSE does), but once installed, Linux is Linux. All praise the penguin.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
That abundance of choices doesn't necessarily indicate fragmentation. In fact, use of different formats for various applications creates a niche for compatibility, either through the development by the primary applications' projects (Gnome and KDE) or through a third party (RPM, Debs, and Alien).
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I actually have a case in point where recently I installed Linux-Mandrake 6.0 (RedHat 6.0 plus StarOffice and some other junk) yes -- slap me with a dead trout because that was *dumb* First of all installing any RH*.0 has been known to be a dnagerous past time. Add mandrake-soft's tweaking to it and you might have a problem. In essence, regardless of the WM, Xfree86 version, utils or whatever, X would destroy my memory and wreak havoc on the ext2 because after reboot the fs was out of sync. I ran a bunch of X stuff through gdb and lefence to no avail and franky, I was running out of time on a project. I snagged slakware 4.0 (I started out on Slakware 1.0.13) and ran it through a variety of "as close as I can replicate it" tests and nothing even near the same level of disasters was occuring (although I did manage a nice xemacs core dump - I am rather proud of that). So - if I had the time, I would have found the problem (and am in fact still running the mdk distro on a stronger system to see if I can find the evil code) because I know how, but, not everyone does. Here there may have been a case of code tweaking (I have not gotten a confirm or denial from Mandrake - actually I haven't heard anything at all) or some mismatched guts. Now, as a matter of record, I did buy Mandrake 6.0 in a rush without thinking it through. On that occasion I had bashed my previous distro and the CD was shot and - once again - I was on a project and needed a system like THAT DAY so I pretty much deserved what I got. With Slakware 4.0 I mulled over it for several weeks until finally asking around and getting the answers I wanted. I do not think Linux is fragmenting nearly as much or as rapidly as UNIX did, but I do think that potential users need be aware that the fallacy of composition does exist within the confines of Linux distros - what works on one does not neccessarily work on the other even if the kernel is the same. The point to remember is Linux can be just as complex as UNIX (which is how some of us like it) and critical thinking has to come into play before picking up a distro. In the past it was easy, you had Slak and RH. One non-commercial and one commercial (respectively). It is much more complex now and users need to have the capability in understanding the differences, where to find good data about distros and how to implement them.
" -- ow my brain hurts again -- "
I hereby annouce my accension to the position of The Monster Dictator of Linux (aka TMDL). As my first act as dictator, I announce a partnership with Microsoft. This agreement has been codified through the signing of the Hoary Elevation of Linus's Linux (aka HELL). By utilizing the powers contained within HELL, Microsoft will be able to control Linux in ways nobody has yet even imagined.
At your earliest opportunity, please register at http://www.microsoft.com/linux/default.a sp.
Those who are not with us, are against us, and will be delt with appropriately.
Sincerely,
Billzebub Gates
---
Have we told you what to do today?
Doesn't this bring new meaning to "Divide and conquer?"
It's mutating, sir. How could just one Linux be suitable for everyone when everyone has different needs? I'm glad that there is more than one ice cream and that Fords don't just come in black. This "fragmentation" is why Linux will never die. Most mutations will be bad but those will die off rather quickly. Baskin and Robins has a few dozen brands of ice cream but one could think of thousands. Pickle, beef, potato, mustard, liver, breaded, sushi and bacon. We will, in the end, have dozens of tasty flavours of Linux to choose from although there will be some that come and go. However, these mutations are needed for evolution Tin Man.
I'm new at this, but from what I can tell, working with AIX, Solaris, BSDs, Debian or Red Hat is closer than the differences between Win 3.x, Win 95, or NT. Software porting is different, but a Unix admin should be able to work with any of them. What is the huge problem with balkanization (besides perception)?
I think this is all blown out of proportion. Lets say company X wants to implement their own Linux version and adds some stuff to the kernel that Linus won't accept into the main distribution. I would think that the resulting backlash of such an action (shipping a custom kernel or for that matter a custom libc) by the hordes of Linux hackers would be enough to change that companies mind. If they persist on still keeping their custom enhancements, then they will have to re-apply their patches against every new kernel (or every new libc); no small feat in the Linux world where releases are measured in days rather than months.
Second, there are 2 kinds of fragmentation: API and binary. If you change the API, then you fragment and may the hordes of angry Linux hackers persecute you for the rest of your miserable days. In terms of binary fragmentation, we're there already (at least we were when some distros had already changed to glibc while others where still using libc). This however, I don't see as a major problem, as it (in most cases) can be fixed by a recompile.
In summary: Yes, someone could fork the kernel tree, but at what price? I would hate them for it (as probably/hopefully millions of other people also would), which would automatically reduce their chances of successfully marketing whatever it is they make. Plus, they would have to run like hell to keep up with the rest of Linux development. I really do think that the Linux development model (ie: the speed at which Linux evolves) is actually a pretty good defense against fragmentation: both from a technical standpoint as well as from a social one. Lets not forget that even companies like Toshiba can be swayed by enough angry emails threatening to boycot them.
What really will balkanize Linux is software which is made binary incompatible amongst Linux systems. In the BSD and SysV world, as with Linux, there is plenty of software that can be recompiled cross-platform, but it's software that was locked into releasing only on proprietary binary formats that fueled the competition between systems like IRIX, Solaris, HPUX, SCO, and OSF.
People use computers to perform various tasks other than running an OS. If software is not available for an OS, no matter how good the OS is is, it wanes in popularity and possibly dies. If companies only support RedHat with software, then no matter how good Linuxen like SUSE and Debian may be, they're going to eventually decline in favor of RedHat, because people need software to do work.
Also, many people can't handle recompiling software, so if they've got a Linux variant with a nice installer, and they can get commercial software in proprietary binary formats that have nice installers, then they are using a computing paradigm that is familiar to them...
Linuxen that have nice, easy installers and are supported by commercial software with nice, easy installers will be the ones that have the best chance of combating Microsoft... but they'll also fuel the "balkanization" of Linux...
Software vendors that don't commit to releasing cross-linux software are basically just pushing Linux towards the same situation that arose with other OSes... the difference is that it's easier with Linux to make cross-builds, so that a commercial package could be released on RedHat, SUSE, Debian, and perhaps others without as much effort as, say, a cross-build between Solaris and IRIX, and certainly more easily than a Windows and Mac cross-release...
It's up to the users to demand such things, by contacting commercial software vendors and requesting it, letting them know there is money in it for them... they're not going to do it out of the kindness of their hearts, they're in business to make a living, not prevent Linux balkanization...
However, I think most Linux vendors would be willing to support several Linux variants if they knew the customers were there, and the best way for them to find out that is the case is for the customers to let them know directly...
o/~ we are pissed, we are pissed, we have to resist... o/~ - ec8or
I seem to notice that that was not quoted(in " marks) and therefore may or may not have been his actual words. The wording was misleading, easily mistaken for quoted, verbatum speech. This is Damned again, if anyone's interested.
We trive in chaos.... in chaos we grow... In chaos we create a unity! out of chaos emerge order and unity.... wahahahah....die to Microsoft!
It seems that many mainstream publications have picked up on Linux, one run good general background article on it, and then waited a few months to run a gloom-and-doom article dismissing it (usually for some drummed-up reason like "Linux is too fragmented" or "Red Hat is another Microsoft"). I'm not sure why they would want to do this, unless they're just fad-crazy and they want to dump Linux in favor of another fad. One thing is for sure: this is sensationalism, not responsible journalism. First it's "Linux is the revolution that will topple Microsoft". Now it's "Linux is all washed up." How about being realistic and trying to find some middle ground?
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Oh come on.
Eric lives for that kind of conspiracy-theory stuff.
He uses words like "grok" for goodness sake. He quotes writers like Heinlein to make his points.
What would you expect?
At least he's not into Crowley, or not in public at least...
I can't see any of the 19 replies (don't know why), but if noone posted it, use cypherpunks as login and password for the NYTimes.
I thought this was a fairly good article, in terms of expressing many people's opinions about code drift. But I still don't feel like it's anything like when Unix split. Perhaps that will happen once MSFT ports their apps over onto a commercial GUI shell, but I think it's just the usual paranoia about lack of control expressing itself.
Will in Seattle
Abundance of choices can indicate fragmentation. End users want to make choices at the level that they deal with their computer. They do not deal with their computer at the lowest level, nor are they inclined to do so.
A summer ago when I was Mr.RighteousLinuxUser I would walk into a store like CompUSA and act all huffy and cool. "I only buy hardware here" and suchlike, because there wasn't a damn thing other than hardware I could buy and use at the store. It was fun, it let me engage in a degree of zealoutry and elite thinking, but I look back now and realize how lame I was being.
I'm having a lot of fun the last few days playing Heretic II on my machine. Yesterday I bought a cool Chinese Language CD that included a microphone in the package, and voice recognition software in the box. Seems really cool that I'll be able to do feedback-driven language training on my PC. At Best Buy I walked by literally hundreds of software packages I can buy and install on my machine.
None of them run on Linux, unless you kludge it, and then if you're lucky you get a Windows 3.1-grade user experience.
Anyhow, fragmentation means there is no unified user experience. There is no clearly defined User Interface for commercial vendors to design around. Yep, some of you are gleeful that you've pushed commercial software vendors out of your world.
Be prepared for the last verse of the song. I mean by this the song "The Farmer In The Dell."
"The Cheese Stands Alone"
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Username: slashdoted
Password: slashdot
Note that there's only one "T" in "slashdoted", for some reason.
I'm also posting this at the top level of the discussion tree.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
I'm concerned.
The balkanization of FUD is causing numerous problems, most importantly several not quite compatible variants of FUD. I have seen FUD from one company saying that since Linux is free it is worthless, and FUD from a different company saying that Linux is in fact more expensive to deploy than, say, Windows.
I think it is important that all producers of FUD work together so that needless incompatibilities can be avoided. It is of course important for vendors to be able to differentiate their FUD in the market, but this needs not cause incompatibility. I applaud the efforts that Microsoft does to provide basic FUD to VAR's such as ZD and NY Times, who are then able to add their spin, creating different but compatible FUD.
Benny
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Username: slashdoted
Password: slashdot
Note that there's only one "T" in "slashdoted", for some reason.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
And why cast the the KDE vs. Gnome thing into the mix anyway? Doesn't the NY Times know that you can run KDE apps from the Gnome desktop and vice versa? You can install one, none or both as well as a wide selections of WMs with or without the desktops. It's not rocket science to do it either.
I often wonder what the world would be like if we had the same sort of choices in Windows. I think it would be great, but the concept seems to be so foreign to folks in the Windows World that it is made into a negative instead of the positive.
Since cypherpunks doesn't seem to work anymore.
In a cnet article about RedHat supportin linux on Compaq machines I saw this:
"As part of the Compaq deal, fixes created by Red Hat personnel will be contributed to the open-source community, Red Hat said. "
-johnE
the article
A friend and I were discussing this a few days ago. UNIX is fragmented in the sense that each vendor places a particular "spin" so to speak on each type to differentiate it from the competition. It seems to me to be a natural process that HP, IBM, Sun etc. would all do things differently.
What I find interesting is the fragmentation taking place with in MS O/S. E.g., Win95, Win98, WinNT workstation, Win CE, embedded Windows, Win2k (which has enterprise, desktop and home user flavors). I think this is a bigger story, when one organizantion cannot standardize within itself.
Any input?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
All-In-One Linux is due out soon, which should break the barriers set by different Linux distributions, making installation of one package system designed for on distrtibution a breeze on AIO Linux. The only catch is that AIO Linux did not get it's name for it's supposed ability to bring the distributions together. No, no, it got the name because it will not support subdirectories of any kind. Everything is install in one directory. You won't be able to make new directories, but you will be able to have files of the same name, accessable by a special character sequence plus a function key pressed while running commands. The ls program is being re-written from scratch, featuring over 2000 switches to facilitate directory listing. Spintek software has already released a freeware program called AIO Mark, a shell which will cross refrence files in a large master file, creating virtual subdirectories.
Never. I will say that again because it feels good. NEVER! If you are going to be a Linux Distributor. You will be using a kernel blessed by 'the man' Linus. Okay. Now you can have 3rd party Device drivers etc. etc. But one important thing remains. The ability to change your operating system. As long as they arent using some proprietary library based on there 3rd party kernel drivers. (at which point it is some mutant and not really Linux and will most likely be a bad attempt at a windows clone thus not really Linux at all...) Then you can always remake your kernel. You can always. DOwnload any library delete any library and recompile anything you see fit. You dont like that WM? Get rid of it and use a different one. You cant use that binary? You can change it. Its all a matter of perspective if Linux is ever fragmented. Versus the true fragmentation of the linux market. Granted It may not be a novice thing that he or she can just do. But the ability is there. And always will be for anything that will really make it with anyone beyond your average first time user. (Granted a 3rd parted proprietary Linux could keep its development costs pretty cheap and flash and amaze the user. Its not such an issue. )Eventually If you ever use Linux for an amount of time you will realize How linux works and what it means to be in control of your OS. And at that point you will search for something other than your third party proprietary linux? Ehh? Far fetched you say? Its coming for sure... Just wait a lil while.
Well Red Hat releases all their software under the GPL, as well as most of the other Linux distributors. Caldera is one of the few exceptions. They didn't OpenSource the Netscape FastTrack e-commerce server but it wasn't theirs to do. Also they didn't OpenSource the Novell NDS stuff but that may soon be pointless since I have heard from several Novell higher ups that Novell is strongly thinking of OpenSourcing their NDS to all platforms especially Linux. If that happens then there really isn't that much that distros have that are propriatary. Caldera has their own installer (Lizard) that they are opensourcing and that and some other things they are opensourcing but not much commercial software anymore.
I personally don't worry about it to much at this point.
but what will happen when Linus shuffles off this mortal coil (god forbid) ?
has this been thought out?
-------------
7e
When Unix fragmented the situation was very different from today's Linux vendors. Back then software was just a means to make hardware do enough so that you could sell it (and services for it) for a lot of money. In that vain each company needed an OS that could take full advantage of their paticular hardware needs. At the same time they had spent a lot of time and money developing this hardware. They couldn't share their OS code without giving away bits of information about their hardware.
Today, the tide has shifted. Linux vendors use hardware as just a means to run the software well enough so that they can sell it (and services for it) for a lot of money. They don't have a need or desire to change the guts of Linux. Sure the outsides are changed but that is true of other very successful software products as well. Windows comes in many forms, including versions "adjusted" for certain hardware vendors. There are applications that run on Win9x that do not run on Win3.1, apps that run on WinNT that do not work anywhere else, and apps that run on Win9x that do not run anywhere else. Heck, there are applications that seem to only run on specific versions of Win9x! Has this hurt the market share Windows has enjoyed? Nope.
Finally, if the fragmentation of Unix was so bad...why are all these versions of Unix still alive and kicking? The only reason Irix is fading out is because SGI is in trouble, and that is not even from Irix problems. Sun's Solaris, HP's HPUX, IBM's AIX, and Compaq's True64 (the OS formally known as Digital Equipment Corporation's Digital Unix) are all still around and not going anywhere soon. All the companies still make money off of them and the hardware they run on. Fragmentation didn't kill them. Unix is not dead. Unix is alive, kicking, and profitable.
So relax; there is nothing to worry about.
-- soldack
C'mon folks! Here's ESR telling reporters from the Times that this is a NON-STORY, and that they should better examine their motives for writing it! Kudos to Raymond for being so politic about it that the writer didn't catch it. The single quote above is the only thing in the article that actually made a modicum of sense.
--B
The absence of closed-system mention plus the very guarded tone of the piece gave me that goose-bumpy feeling that the NYT lawyers and advertisers proofed the piece closely. Also interesting that they didn't do it on CIRCUITs Thursday morniing where it will flag more attention [although the Monday NYT Business section is the strongest NYT biz page of the week]. I'm pretty sure Redmondiacs may try to feed agitprop to NYT trade reporter staffers. And drop advertising hints.
The article raises a couple of points that aren't new but worth addressing.
First, Unix is fragmented. This is definitely true: every Unix system is a toolbox of utilities and components; competing tools are often installed together on the same system. Most every tool or utility has to face the consequences of being compatible with a couple of different methods for doing the same thing. Even if the end users don't always notice, it is a serious concern for the sysadmins, distributors, and developers.
Second, fragmentation is due to commercialisation. This is a highly questionable statement. Commecrial ventures have an active interest in protecting their unique added value, and some added software can be part of that. But on the other hand, they have an interest in building a well integrated system that appeals to a wide range of users. Therefore, with commercialization you see many incompatibilities between vendors, but once you go with one, a well integrated environment; in a free software environment it's a jungle of competing developments that all try to be compatible with whetever the authors happen to be familiar with. To me, a Linux system, looks more fragmented than a commercial Unix system.
As a person who tests bleeding-edge hardware against the four major Linux commercial distros daily (and others as well, but mainly the big four - Caldera, SuSE, RedHat and TurboLinux) I strongly agree with the NYT article: Linux is fragging to the point of looking like a massive gibbing in a Quake fest.
No longer can the user be sure that any generic code will work on any one distribution. No longer can the user even be sure the basic functionality of the kernel will work consistently from one distribution to another.
The source of all this incompatibility? How do I loathe these commercial distros, so let me count the ways!
Lack of strong, pro-active support for the LSB
by the commercial distros: Lip service spewed
simply to avoid getting flamed doesn't quite
serve the purpose of getting a solid LSB.
The commercial vendors really don't want a LSB,
at least their marketing folks don't: One very
strong concept in marketing is DIFFERENTIATION!
You need to make your product different enough
and drone on about the "superior" aspects of
the variety to get the consumer to buy the
product.
Money counts more than quality. The commercial
vendors have to be concerned with money first
and their products show it. Redhat is buggy
crap when running X; Caldera's install won't
even let you make a boot floppy during install
(hey, you know those newbies just gotta love
that); SuSE has so much proprietary patching
done to their kernels that I often can't get
common drivers to work; and the list goes on
and on and on....
The frickin' long-term libc vs. glibc6 mess.
This has opened the door to all sorts of
opportunities for the differentiators to make
trouble. Any LSB should deal with this ASAP!
Perhaps dual-library cross compilers as a
standard feature? Make the effort to ensure
glibc6 is fully inclusive of libc5?
To sum it up: The commercial distros are desktop manager happy and want the entire Linux world to look and act like Microsoft product, apparently to the point of being sloppy, unreliable crap just like their favored model. The commercial distros care far more about making money than they do providing a quality product. One commercial variety of Linux will not be consistent in the way it works and the programs the user can use with it when compared with another commercial variety of Linux.
What do I use? My control testing box is Slackware-based, I don't use either one of the slow, and unreliable desktop managers (both Gnome and Kde sucketh in a big, bad, buggy kinda way) except when I'm testing X/video related stuff. I've tried using both Gnome and Kde, they are both buggy, unreliable and offer very little functionality for the loss of speed and increase in instability that comes with them. IMHO, both are still beta-stage code.
A prediction? If there isn't a strong LSB in place
soon, Microsoft will continue to dominate the Desktop, will make a turn-around in server space, and Linux will have been a flash-in-the-pan. Why?
Because users won't abandon one buggy, unreliable mess for another: Better a known evil than an unknown evil, to paraphrase an old saying.
Be prepared Linux-folk, the commercial vendors will try every way possible to either sink the LSB or render it a toothless (i.e., worthless) tiger because it is not in their best interest, which is making money.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Linux is Linux?
Not in security patch administration it isn't. There things are already quite fragmented.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see fragmentation, but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist if it does, either.