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.

Comments

Depends on what you mean

[jd]

by fragmentation.

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.

Re:Depends on what you mean

[jd]

You're right that it is a case of perception, rather than reality. (Stampede is one of the few -possible- exceptions, but only if you're talking about a raw install, rather than progressive upgrades.)

WRT the meetings, I can understand such concern, but think that it's largely born of fear, uncertainty and doubt. (That is VERY different from saying that such discussions produce FUD, but that if the technical issues were understood, and the fears allayed, they would never have occured in the first place.)

A case in point:

Let's say that you want to produce some program, Z, which needs to run under Linux. However, you don't know which distribution of Linux it's going to use. What do you do?

Answer: Simple. Scan the distribution to see what resources exist and where they are, then install anything extra you need. (Configure isn't confined to Makefiles - I've used it as a nice installation tool, as well.)

But what about versions of libraries? Not a problem! Just install your own, and make sure your installation directory is at the head of LD_LIBRARY_PATH.

What about Gnome/KDE/Motif? I answered this in an Ask Slashdot, not too long ago. Write or use a generic interface, and dynamically link to the toolkit, via a symlink. To change the toolkit, change the symlink. A single ln -sf operation.

What about directories? Most directory layout information can be plucked out of the environment variables and standard utilities. ("which" is VERY handy, and "find" is invaluable.)

What about different processors? Do what the old DOS programs did - probe! In this case, it's easy, as you can find out with uname. Then, just have binaries for each processor and install the right binary.

What about different kernel versions? Same as above, for toolkits and processors. Anything that is kernel-specific goes in a seperate .so file, and which .so file you use depends on which kernel uname returns.

Conclusion - you CAN guarantee software will run on ANY distribution that exists or ever will exist, without having to maintain it specifically FOR that distribution.

Some Fragmentation Illusory, Some Good

[Christopher B. Brown]

Consider that most of the critical pieces of software (things like GCC, GLIBC, Perl, SAMBA, Linux Kernel come to mind) involve Dipping Into The Same Source Code Stream. Thus, while distributions may pick different versions of these components, the differences are not persistent since the next releases will pick a later version from the same stream of development.

The main place where differences between Linux distributions are persistent are with regard to two things:

1. Installation tools

   ... In the case of "initialization" stuff, the custom tools built by Caldera versus RHAT versus SuSE versus ... may be permanently different, but this is relatively uninteresting since you only run this stuff once.

2. System Management tools

   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.

I tend to disagree

[CormacJ]

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).

Re:I tend to disagree

[hey!]

What I don't understand is why some people think that competition is always good except in the software arena. It seems to me that people who create their own distributions do it because they think that they can put together a better mix of components than anyone has thought of before, or because they see a niche that hasn't been addressed. It seems to me that open source enables the right combination of cooperation and competition. If everyone who wanted to create their own distro had to become part of Debian (my personal favorite distro), Debian would not have any focus at all. This way, developers are free to break free and form whatever combinations are seem best, and consumers benefit from both diversity between competing offerings and coherence within a single distro. The market for commercial software has not shown the ability to support diversity between products, and has for some time been showing a tendency towards loss of coherence with each subsequent release of new versions.

Linux != Unix

[nevets]

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

some evidence...

[Darth Maul]

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.

The consequence of Fragmentation under Linux

[RNG]

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.

A plea for cooperation among FUD vendors

[amorsen]

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