Slashdot Mirror
Fujitsu Moves Towards Linux
Bernard writes "According to the announcement on the TeamWARE web site: Fujitsu corporation is taking a strategic step towards the next generation platform offerings. Mr. Maeyama, the President of Fujitsu Software Operations, says that "Fujitsu believes that new operating environments, in personal computing especially the emerging Linux alternative, is today a viable solution platform for many customers. Providing software on Linux is therefore a logical step." Note: TeamWARE is part of Fujitsu and has interesting groupware and workflow products. The first announce is about the port of their groupware (Office 5.3) to Linux. "
As should be expected these days, there were, there are, and there will be a lot of news like this, about companies adopting Linux, porting their software to Linux, etc.. The question is, are they merely riding the hype or do they really see the value of Linux?
I mean, I've nothing against companies adopting Linux just because it's the "hot thing" right now. But I question where they are really going to support Open Source software, which is what Linux is really about. Seems that with all the media attention Linux is getting, people see Linux as some kind of "hero" system in a David vs. Goliath battle against MS. But how many understand Open Source, the very reason Linux exists?
Perhaps RMS was right when he insisted on the name "GNU/Linux" as opposed to merely "Linux". I personally have always felt that RMS is a little too fanatical and nitpicky about small issues like this, but with the current trend that companies adopting Linux suddenly become "heroic" and admired by all (esp. by people like the Slashdotters), I'm beginning to think that RMS has a very good point in insisting on the name "GNU/Linux". Linux in itself means little -- it's the process behind it, ie., Open Source, that makes it so successful. Indeed, if you want to reap the benefits of Linux as a stable, robust system, doesn't that also mean that your tools and apps have to be robust and stable too? But if so, isn't Open Source the way to achieve robustness and stability in the applications that you run on your Linux kernel?
This may sound too purist, but think about this: isn't the reason we despise MS because of their lousy products? But why don't their products "make it"? It's not a question of "we hate MS therefore let's use Open-Source", but isn't the whole reason MS products suck due to the fact that their development is closed? (Besides their goal to becoming the only software company, that is). And isn't the reason that Linux is so good because it's developed in an Open Source model? Linux is good not because it's Linux nor because the genius Linus wrote it. It's good because it's Open Source.
Now back to my point: I have nothing against companies developing proprietary solutions for Linux. That is good to get Linux into the mainstream. However, keep in mind that for a normal user, she doesn't care if the kernel doesn't crash no matter what; if her proprietary apps continually crash and screw up her report/homework/whatever, that's bad. Worse if she's running an X server that locks up. To her, that is equivalent to a system crash, even if the kernel is still running. One bad component in the system ruins the entire image of "stable and robust" for the average user. Companies to adopt Open Source, and not merely ride on Linux hype. IMHO, a company that decides to try the Open Source model of software development ought to be bigger news than if a company merely announces, "we're porting such and such proprietary software to Linux".
Alright. Enough of this rant. :-)
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.