Slashdot Mirror
Forrester Report: Linux Hysteria Will Fade In 2000
sirch wrote to us with the latest research from Forrester Reports. The report alleges that this year's massive hyping of Linux will fade in 2000, as well as stating that it's not probable that CIOs will be switching over in massive numbers to Linux. However, the report than goes on to say that Linux will probably see continued growth, through "dominating new application segments." Not really that surprising of a report. One of the interesting points is the prediction that by 2004, the other Unices and Linux will have converged to the point that binaries for any one will probably run on all the others.
Uh..I'm still waiting for this supposed Linux hype and hysteria. When a new Debian release is accompanied by reports on the 6oclock news like a certain other OS was about 5 years, *then* we have hype. Right now, the exposure of Linux has been in a couple IT magazines, places like slashdot, and linux IRC channels. Right now, which has more consumer recognition: Windows, MacOS, or Linux?
See my point?
Oh, and power to the stocks.
Most of the posts here are rather critical. But marketing people are marketing people because they know how marketing and advertising hype works. The hype will start to die down in a few months. This is not an end to Linux that they are suggesting, far from it. All they are saying is that Linux use will continue to grow at a steady pace, and the hype will die down to an appropriate level. Linux will become more a common thing, like Windows is now. What hype does Windows have? Very little, it is just so well known it doesn't need the hype that is around Linux. As Linux becomes more familiar to the average person, the hype will fade. That is not a bad thing at all. If it fades due to a better product, well we will all benefit from that better product. If it fades because Linux is so common that the average person barely takes note of Linux software on the store shelves, because they expect it, we all benefit because it means Linux software and hardware is easier to find. Either way, we benefit, not from the loss of hype, but from the cause.
Many will respond
To this silly thread; waste points;
Scores will rise and fall
---
120
chars is barely sufficient
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
this is first haiku
i piss off moderator
he no like haiku
Why do all these marketing types think they can predict technological advances? (I'm not saying it's impossible to have cross platform binaries, I just don't really trust this kind of articles for predicting them.)
These guys think they know what's going on, but usually they don't... on the contrary, I think Linux usage will grow, from a 15% of the server market right now, to probably some 40% or 50% of new servers, be them web servers or normal data servers. I also think most other Unix operating systems will dissappear, with the probable exception of Solaris and AIX... all the rest will fade away into obscurity...
Meanwhile, Windows will continue to lose terrain, both on the server market (which has already started), and on the client market (just starting)... on many cases, the giving away of StarOffice by Sun Microsystems will be the drip that overflows the bucket, since some 90% of office users use only, well, Office.
I wouldn't doubt that we'll see articles like this every year until one day they'll have to say that "next year *nix will start to lose its #1 market share." Well, maybe thats wishful thinking, but...
I think it's only a matter of time before CIO's start to see the benefits. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it will happen eventually. I won't got into the reasons since you know them already. Forester is only saying this because of what's true today. I certianly don't look to them for future trends.
These research organiazations are simply too entrenched with the way things are today and how they were yesterday. An open source business model simply doesn't compute in their minds, therefore, it can't work.
Highly profitable open source corporations and widespread use of linux or whatever other flavor don't have to be related. Redhat doesn't need a market capitalization of $100 zillion like microsoft to have a large share of the OS market.
Self-styled "industry analysts" like Forrester, Butler Bloor, Gartner etc have repeatedly shown themselves to be clueless where open source is concerned. But they can't afford to be silent about the current biggest thing or they'd lose credibility so they try to come up with what they think are safe predictions based on an extrapolation of what they see today. The problem is that since they don't really *get* it, all they can do is extrapolate from how things appear on the surface to the ignorant.
For example, their feeling that the prominence of Linux will fade is based on the misapprehension that its rise has been based on hype, like so many other media darlings. But, as so many here can surely testify, this is not so. Linux is where it is today because of the real benefits and the real potential it has.
Their prediction that CIO's will not switch to Linux is based on a similar theory that Linux is in some fundamental way not a serious OS, and also on an assumption that Microsoft will continue to represent the safe choice for budget holders. We already know the truth about the former. My own prediction as regards the latter is that Windows 2000 will be an unmitigated PR disaster because of the risks inherent in such a bloated product stuffed with such a huge amount of new and relatively untested code. Sensible CIO's will at least recognise the possibility of major technical problems and will keep W2K at arm's length at least until the first major service pack appears. In the meantime they will be much more open to experimentation with alternative platforms such as Linux.
Finally, to suggest that binary compatibility will be achieved by 2004 is to betray an embarrassing level of ignorance about the subject they're discussing. We already have binary compatibility by and large across a number of OS running on the x86 platform by virtue of compatibility libraries; applications compiled for Linux will already run on SCO and BSD and I believe Solaris will provide this too very soon. In any case, Linux has provided iBSCD compatibility support in the kernel for a number of years, allowing one to run compliant native SCO and (as was) Interactive Unix applications under Linux.
With Linux's current substantial (and increasing) market share and developer mind share, this level of compatibility only needs to advance modestly for across-the-board compatibility to be commonplace within two years at the most.
Their predictions are worthless nonsense. I say again, these guys have no clue; their opinions are only of interest in that they are indicative of how equally clueless PHB's think.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Not to be too harsh, but almost everyone in this discussion is confusing application development with equity markets.
:) ). Stock prices will take a header, and this is an slightly more informed guess. But Linux doesn't depend on high stock prices to continue the pace development; individual companies do. If they go bankrupt, c'est la vie.
Lots of great applications - technically proficient, even brilliant - were dogs when it came to sales.
Companies which marketed them lost money, went belly-up. IBM lost five billion dollars in a single fiscal year - more money than most third world countries take in - while holding 10% of the US's patents and an immense share of R&D expenditures.
Linux will continue to be a fine operating system. I'm quite sure of it (now, criticise *my* almost wholly uninformed guess
How many software companies from ten years ago are still in business, anyway? It's the nature of the high-tech industry: live fast, die young, and leave a pretty corpse.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Haven't taken the time to read the report yet, but I have to say that if the synopsis here is accurate, I'd tend to agree. But I'm assuming that the biggest reason Linux'll fall out of the "next-big-thing" spot is not just because all hype runs its course (although that'll have a lot to do with it), but because of Win2000.
And it's not just because, come Feb. 17, the same clueless media types babbling about Linux today will be talking up Win2K equally cluelessly. Hate to say it (well actually I don't hate to say it at all), but from all reports it looks as if MS has finally put together a competent OS. Now that they've reportedly fixed most all of the glaringly laughable faults of NT 4 (low uptime under strenuous use, DLL hell, forced reboots after minor reconfigurations, etc.), Linux will have to compete more on philosophical issues--open vs. closed source; full control and modularity vs. one consistent interface--than on obvious superiorities.
Frankly, folks, we have to realize that a big part of the reason Linux got its day in the sun this past year-and-a-half is because NT 5^H^H^H^HWin2K was about...a year-and-a-half late. Now, I think in that time Linux has made some important and irreversible changes for the better in the computer industry. For one thing, you can bet that without any credible server-side competition, Win2K would be a lot less polished than it will be now, and that's a change for the better. For another, I think even MS has to think twice nowadays about trying to fool the public into adopting new, closed standards (witness their recent support of XML in Office 2000 and elsewhere). Finally, I think the old "you can't get fired for buying Microsoft" climate is beginning to be questioned in many if not most companies.
But, suddenly Linux won't have the advantage of competing with patched-up 3-year old software. Now, on the other hand, three years from now Win2K will probably be on SP 6 or 7, awaiting the next much-delayed overhaul, while Linux (or perhaps some other free unix-alike? HURD perhaps??) will be chugging along with its steady organic improvements.
But for the next little while, Linux will have some real competition. And, while it may slow up corporate adoption in the short term, that's a Good Thing. I know most all of us here believe in the superiority of open-source development. Now it'll have the chance to really prove itself.
It's not enough for software to exist. Financial software is mission critical. It's as simple as: You project your cash wrong -- you don't meet payroll. Your friends get pink slips. You get a pink slip.
I went through this once when I worked in a busiess where it was policy set by the CEO that the financial software had to run on a Mac. This was in the days of the Mac Plus. We had to use a product called Insight. Our receivables were a bloody mess, because we were the first user with more than 2048 customers (the lookup functions failed after that). We used to ship our GL to the developer every month because we could not close the prior month with the volume of data we had (which was modest). We were constantly racked over the coals because we didn't have a bloody clue where we were financially. When it finally became clear that we were past going to hell in a handbasket, we had to go through a exhaustive search to prove the nonexistence of any decent Mac accounting software.
That said, no accounting software that was any good appeared on the Mac because the Mac had no appeal to accountants.
I think it's only a matter of time before we see some good financial packages for Linux. Linux has a number of virtues that appeal to accountants. In fact, a good accountant and a hacker have a lot in common. Accountants are probably the only group with a higher degree of contempt than hackers for overdecorated, wussie GUIs. Accountants don't expect everything to be easy from the get go, they only want things to repay effort. Finally what accountant could resist free beer?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
All that is required is to have a small compiler written for each system for a common language. Normally this wouldn't be done simply because each platform has it's language(s) of choice.
However, currently each platform does have an interpreter for a common language, Java. Because of this, it does not strike me as impossible that the concept of creating a Java compiler (java bytecode to machine code) for each machine would be that far off.
There are applications that this will not work with well. Applications that traditionally require massive speed and driver tweaking (Quake IV) will probably still be written in languages that let you do just that. However, it is possible to believe, especially with the current state of Microsoft, that word processors, spreadsheets, databases, and other home and office programs could be written in Java.
The payoff for doing so is large. Java programs can be created with less effort than similar C++ programs. Even when compiled they will not be as fast or as small as a well written C++ program, but let's face it, bloatware is common, speed is no longer an issue for these types of programs, and portability is a BIG selling point. When you can decrease your time to market and increase your target market you're making a good business decision.
I fully believe that the future is good for a powerful open source Java set of Office tools. (Spreadsheet, database, word processor)
I only fear someone else will be hired to do it, instead of me. I could use a better job.
No Zen is good zen
You miss the point. The original source will always remain open. The can never slap a lock on the code because when they fork the code, it is not the original code anymore -- unless they want to give back to the community.
BSD coders encourage the use of their code in commercial products.
This has been proven time and time again with BSD OS's, apache, X and a ton of other products.
Oh, and your argument that hype will kill them is as absurd as Microsofts Linux myths page killing off linux.
I for one would be perfectly happy to see this - during the "Java Hysteria", everyone was so pro-Java it was being used for all sorts of applications it wasn't suited for... hell, Java is the flavour of the month, lets write a database querying language in it! ;)
And now, where is Java? Well, the exposure it got through this "hysteria" has served it well - it got to people's attention, and is now widespread in applications best suited to it. All around success story (so far, Sun's maneouvers may put paid to that but that's another story)
So I wish the same to Linux - eventually the hype will end as the media moves elsewhere (though I predict they won't get over it until the David-and-Goliath type battle with Microsoft has a resolution one way or the other, however minor), and it will come to be used as a solid, great desktop and server environment for the technical user. and the non-techies will have their webtv boxen or interactive tv or what-have-you, and everyone will be happy.
Fross
Oh, there's going to be no stopping Microsoft's hype machine this time. Unless you retire to a Trappist monastary, there's no way you are going to escape it. However, I think there is incredible potential for fiasco.
First of all, there is a simple basic journalistic instict, even deeper and more atavistic than the slashdotter's anti-MS knee jerk: where there is left there is right, where there is up there is down. OK, everyone says Mother Teresa was a saint, so find somebody who says she was a cross-dressing profiteer who sold homeless peoples' organs to Arab transplantees. Journalists call this "balance", but it has nothing to do with fairness: it's just that where there is no conflict, there is no story. While on a relative scale Win2K hype will outshine Linux hype, the Linux hype will go nova too -- the question is which story will burn out first.
The other big factor is that guy in the funny black robes that MS definitely did not invite to the party. He's got a bucket of -- ice water? Watch out, it may be more like Helium 2.
And then there is technical risk. While it is clear that Win2K cannot reverse the tide of Linux, it may be able to ultimately marginalize the inroads of all Unices the way Windows 95 capped the potential growth of MacOS (generously helped by Apple's contempt for the bourgeousie). To do so, Win2K will have to be a nearly unqualified technical success -- not perfect, but as near as dammit. If it fails to do so, it will be a tremendous strategic setback.
This is because Win2K's heroic proportions reflects a Microsoft philosophical position: that there should be two operating systems: NT on anything that we currently call a computer, and CE on everything else. Aside from the degree to which this serves Microsoft's stockholders, MS's ideological defenders will tell you that the software market is a "network" market that benefits from consolidation. Fewer platforms to target means a more efficient applications market.
Win2K is the first OS that has the potential to do this. Current entry level desktops are incredibly powerful, and Win2K is stuffed fully of goodies to tempt the enterprise user to put all his eggs in the MS basket.
On the other hand, having two operating systems that span the entire range of applications (except maybe real time) seems rather like trying to build a swiss army knife with a functional metal lathe and a bread machine built into it. It's an impressive accomplishment, but unlikely to deliver the kind of convenience you expect in a pocket knife.
As I've said before, the opposite of NT isn't Linux: it's having a range of OS's each suited to each purpose.
Win2K may open up some new enterprise markets for NT, but somehow I doubt it can do much to seure the low end: the workgroup and small business servers. It may also prove problematic on the desktop, as we enter the era of near zero cost computing power and ubiquitous networking, and as free desktop systems get sufficiently good to be usable by people who think of an RPM as a something an LP has 33 1/3 of.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Another report reassuring the PHB's that they didn't screw up when they ignored Linux. No need to get worked up, just another case of the blind leading the blind.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
With the internet and linux in general, things change so fast, that I find it extremely hard to give any credit to people who write reports like this. Not that they're idiots, or that I'm flaming them, or that what they have to say isn't important, I just don't think it's going to be very accurate.
Consider that linux is much much bigger than a few hackers or even a large group of hackers. I've been using linux since the brand new 1.0 kernels, and things have changed so incredibly fast.
Really, if Linus were to write a report about where linux is going to be in 4 years, I don't think I'd believe him either.
I don't think I'm the only person who thinks that as far as technology is concerned, 4 years is practically forever. There are also so many other companies (like transmeta) that have things cooking that nobody knows about yet, I think it's foolish to make predictions about what things are going to be like 1 year from now.
That said, I'm not sure what purpose articles that try to play fortune teller serve.
Just my $0.02
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Jumped on Forrester's site and did a search for linux and came up with a few, do it yourself and look at the negativity towards linux (and positivity towards linux companies that commercialize... does forrester even have a clue whats going on in the linux *community*?)
pointless banter
-=chiphead
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Strangely enough, I agree. Sort of.
Linux has been over-hyped somewhat in the past year. By over-hyped I mean that valuations of Linux-related stock has far exceeded revenue. Fair enough - it has, by huge margins. Most likely this overvaluation is exacerbated by the paucity of Linux stock out there; most of it remains in the hands of their directors. This is endemic to the high-tech industry, of course, but it does mean that when they do cash in (hello, ESR) stock values will plunge.
I work with a number of business analysts (I'm not one, but they make for good lunch-time conversation), and they've come to the same conclusion: Linux doesn't offer strong enough added value to induce a CIO to switch corporate desktops outright. On the server side, it may well, but the majority of OS licenses are sold on desktop computers rather than servers (good thing that Linux isn't in the licensing game, no?).
In any case. While companies may come and go, and I fully expect at least a couple of Linux pioneers to fold in the new year, it's important to remind ourselves that no company has a monopoly on Linux. If Red Hat should fold, it would be a tragedy to lose so many talented developers who would have to work elsewhere for their suppers, but it would not be the end of Linux as an operating system. So long as people contribute to it, Linux as a phenomenon remains vital.
We all may be a bit sadder for a crash in stock values, and some of us much poorer, but it's nothing unexpected and nothing to worry about.
Hysteria indeed.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Just a quick reminder: It's the linux hysteria that's going to fade (according to the report; I reserve judgement). Not the market share; not the value; not the number of users. But look for Linux IPOs to be less spectacular; look for linux announcements from companies to slow down (partially because, hey, many are already on the bandwagon!); and, look for Linux stock prices to drop. Possibly a lot. The day traders and capital gains types will eventually figure out that a company that doesn't make money (with apologies, many do not, at least yet, turn a profit) isn't a "good" investment.
Just some thoughts.
-Strauss
Trifle not with Dragons, for you are crunchy - and go well with catsup.
Think about it. Why has Linux been so successful this year? I think it probably boils down to other OSes not being successful. Microsoft's much-hyped Windows 2000 won't be out until February. Macintosh released OS9 to little fanfare knowing that their next biggie is going to be OS X. There haven't been any major operating system developments this year and when there's a vacuum, something will fill it. That something, in this case, is Linux, as for most people, it is a relatively new thing and it did come out with a major kernel release during the past year.
If Microsoft could've released Windows 2000 this year, I think the hype for Linux would've been drowned out by the hype for Windows 2000 which, face it, has a much bigger hype generating engine.
This says nothing about Linux's capabilities, only about its marketing. Linux didn't need much this year because in terms of news, it didn't have much competition. While this may benefit Linux's acceptance into the marketplace, I think the larger overall effect will be that Linux will be seen as a bright supernova that fades once again into the background when the sun that is Windows rises again in 2000 (and I'm not making quality judgments here, I'm just making statements about perceptions of visibility).