Let's start with a brief history review. Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, somebody had a bright idea to create Linux, a "UN*X for the masses." As the story goes, the development process was initiated by a worldwide team of dedicated hobbyists who embarked on a noble quest to craft the best operating system ever. Considering the humble beginnings, it is amazing that this once purely recreational project is still going strong after all these years.
The initial push that reinforced this ambitious effort came from Linux's ability to carve itself a niche among those most dissatisfied with the predominance of MS-DOS and Windows, myself included. Not even in our wildest dreams could we imagine that our new play toy would eventually become "the next big thing." At the time, all we really wanted was to have some fun with software that was very much like the stuff that only the chosen few network administrators were allowed to touch.
Then suddenly, a mere decade after Linux was conceived, all hell broke loose. Nowadays, even in the darkest corners of the Net, one can't help but hear about the modern-day miracles of Open Source. The word is out there that Linux has evolved into one of the most crash-resistant platforms ever. Some of the most vigorous defenders of the Open Source notion go as far as to declare that their beloved system is so good that it can run a Web server for a large e-commerce venture off a single 386-based computer. While these and other exaggerated claims might not be entirely true, the fact is that this allegedly ground-breaking software is still readily available at no cost whatsoever.
The bad...
Inspired by Richard Stallman's altruism, a handful of daydreamers continue to concentrate on writing free code in a vain attempt to make the world a better place. However, for many of their colleagues, Linux is all about gaining market share, setting IPO records, executing corporate takeovers, and boosting egos. Out of the blue, it also turned out that the operating system, which was brought into the spotlight by a relatively small group of part-time hobbyists, needs hundreds of millions of dollars to continue to evolve.
In a few short years, Linux has grown from a mere curiosity into a multi-billion business that is now poised to take over the entire industry. The early nineties idealism has largely cleared the way for a corporate greed fest for the new millennium. Almost overnight, the cute little penguin has started to resemble a hungry wild predator, while also gaining the notorious status of a heavily guarded "holy cow." Anybody brave enough to say something remotely critical about Linux is risking being "flamed" to death.
Not only that, but the one attribute of the original Open Source movement that remains intact is its bitterly anti-Microsoft nature. The main difference is that it is no longer fueled by a desperate crusade of some disgruntled teenagers against the "Evil Empire." Instead, all the corporations that were once bruised by Bill Gates' furious marketing machine, are starting to see Linux as their newfound weapon. Companies like Sun, Corel, Inprise (Borland), and Caldera (Digital Research), have been selling proprietary software since the beginning of time, are unexpectedly coming out of the closet with a pledge to "reinvent" themselves as energetic Open Source supporters.
...and some more food for thought
The situation wouldn't be so alarming if not for three additional factors that must be taken into consideration. First of all, I have yet to see a solid proof that any business model based on trying to make money on something that is 100% free is sustainable in the long run. According to IDC, Linux already controls 25% of all server OS shipments yet accounts for far less than 1% of total revenue in the market. Over time, more people will get broadband access and discover that Linux can be downloaded for free. That will make it increasingly more difficult to sell any boxed CD sets at all. Furthermore, if the Linux community can deliver on the ease-of-use promise, the market for related support and maintenance will continue to shrink as well.
Second, it is still premature to claim that publicly developed products will always have some inherent advantages over their commercial counterparts. In fact, so far Linux is one of only a small number of Open Source projects that have proven to be victorious, if only in the server arena. One notable fiasco that comes to mind is Mozilla.org, a volunteer-driven organization that has yet to come up with a single meaningful upgrade to the once-dominant browser.
Third, we must not lose sight of the fact that beyond the far fetched philosophical implications of the Open Source arguments lies recycled UN*X technology, which is literally decades old. In reality, from an ordinary end user's perspective, there is hardly anything unique (or "innovative," if you allow me to use this tired word) about Linux's look-and-feel. For some unknown reason, all of the popular Linux GUIs are disturbingly similar in appearance to, of all things, Microsoft Windows. And, while Linux's interface is almost infinitely customizable, it lacks consistency that many of us have grown to appreciate. Moreover, as a matter of opinion, few of the usability improvements are revolutionary.
Isn't it ironic?
This whole story is jam-packed with paradoxes. A product that was developed in an attempt to fight market monopolization, is quickly elbowing its way to becoming the next monopoly (Assuming that term can be applied to open source software). The Open Source movement, which was originally positioned as a non-profit alternative to the opulent establishment, is soaking in money. And, the same people who, not so long ago, aspired to make Linux strive on its technological merits alone, are now often resorting to the same dreaded marketing tricks that turned them away from earlier commercial operating systems in the first place.
As they say, what goes around, comes around.
Stanislav Kelman is an active osOpinion.com contributor who is neither paid by nor affiliated with any of the evil Linux-hating forces. He is a big fan of BeOS, a Mac addict, an occasional Linux-Mandrake user, an OS/2 admirer, and a Windows detester. Although his primary computer is a Mac, he has recently put together what he considers to be The Perfect BeOS and Linux-capable dual-Celeron PC. Angry responses and death threats inspired by this article should be directed to Flames@LetItBe.org, while all your thoughtful commentary is welcome at osOpinion@LetItBe.org.
This article first appeared on osOpinion and is provided under the OpenContent Public License.
The biggest innovation of Linux (and there are others) is applying the GPL to an OS. Think that's not innovative? Try asking Cobalt, Red Hat, and any number of others that have built successful businesses around the availability of a GPL'd OS.
Think the new class of turnkey NT servers would have existed without Cobalt leading the way? Ditto the slew of new embedded linux-based devices in the pipeline.
The parts of Linux that were copied from unix were copied for a good reason. Try asking Be (or maybe even Apple). Look at all the software that's becoming available for the Linux platform vs what's available for Be. An all-new API doesn't do developers any favors.
There have been various discussions where the process of turning a software project over to the Open Source process. I recall reading in several of these about the timing of the transition to OSS. My belief is that Mozilla would have better benefitted from OSS if it had occurred much earlier than it did.
The code is reputed to be a pretty snarly spaghetti mess and, perhaps, opening it up earlier would have made it a better structured product. It's going to take some time for the OSS process to clean it up.
It's a bit early to proclaim Mozilla a failure.
of the revenue show how much money
can be saved by deploying a Linux
server.
Wait a second! Did he write what I think he did?
"....all of the popular Linux GUIs are disturbingly similar in appearance to, of all things, Microsoft Windows."
If he thinks that's true, he is either smoking dope or ignorant. There are only a handfull of WM's that "resemble" Win9x in any way. Besides, it's normally simply as a result of having a task bar. After that, I can think of more WM's that don't. Besides, should the look of a WM be the measure of an OS? If that's the case, then somebody is clearly more worried about appearance than substance, at which point, Linux still wins!
By the way, old isn't bad!
Big Din K.R.
It is true that many free software advocates want a monopoly. I (and the GNU project) would like to see free software packages achieve an oligopoly, because it would give us more freedom (eg: not having to interact with proprietory formats and protocols, and more leverage to prevent closed hardware specs, etc).
I have never witnessed anyone get flamed for criticising the quality of GNU/Linux. In fact, at my local Linux User's Group, Linux's faults tend to be discussed a lot!
Andrew Clausen
clausen@gnu.org
"beyond the far fetched philosophical implications of the Open Source arguments lies recycled UN*X technology"
Yup. And this is bad how? Because its recycled, you say? Because it isn't new? Au contrare. Unix is a design philosophy that works. I won't even comment about others like NT, Win32, DOS and Mac.
I am happy with all the great unix (mostly Linux nowadays) software that I am able to run on Linux. I admire and appreciate Linux because of the beauty of the design.
What are the limitations of unix? What is so bad about not being new?
Poor article. You use loaded words and extreme examples to distract attention from the flimsy thesis - that the commercialization of linux will be the distruction of linux.
Further, you misunderstand (or misrepresent) linux, the open source philosopy, the free software foundation, and human nature.
Money is not the only motivator. If it were, how many people would have children, much less raise them? How would churches or charities accomplish anything? Fact is that money or profit is only one of many things that can motivate people to spend time and effort on a project.
It is true that businesses cannot continue for long without money, but it is equally true that businesses are willing to pay other businesses for products and services. Just because the linux os cannot bring in lots of money for a company does not mean that companies cannot profit from an open source business model (ie services). This model is currently being tested. The results are not in yet.
However, keep in mind that linux is the os, not the business. Thus, even if the services business model should fail, linux will continue for as long as anyone is interested in it.
Of course companies that lost to the ms windows monopoly are looking to linux. They lost partly because the playing field was not level. No doubt companies like Corel will go to great lengths to get people using their products again. If they support linux and help bring new users to the fold, then where is the problem? Microsoft is free to compete in the linux application field. It would be interesting to see how well they could do.
Do you really believe this "30 year old technology" garbage? We aren't talking about equipment, here. We are talking about sound development / software engineering practices - which do not change everytime someone invents a faster chip or a bigger hard drive.
Your whole final paragraph is jam-packed with bs:
Osugi SakaeThis whole story is jam-packed with paradoxes. A product that was developed in an attempt to fight market monopolization, is quickly elbowing its way to becoming the next monopoly (Assuming that term can be applied to open source software).
Interesting question, but hardly a paradox, since as you pointed out, the consumer can roll their own anytime they want. So where is the paradox? And is it really on its way to becoming the next monopoly? Even if you are correct, there is a difference between a monopoly and a standard.
The Open Source movement, which was originally positioned as a non-profit alternative to the opulent establishment, is soaking in money.
I think you are FUDding on this one. Who is the "open source movement" that is soaking in money? Red Hat? VA Linux? Guys named Eric? How many open source licenses expressly forbid making a profit or charging a fee for the software? Did someone actually accuse the establishment (which is who?) of being "opulent"?
And, the same people who, not so long ago, aspired to make Linux strive on its technological merits alone, are now often resorting to the same dreaded marketing tricks that turned them away from earlier commercial operating systems in the first place.
Often are they? Examples would be nice.
This really irks me. Do people say to themselves, "Gee, this addition and subtraction stuff is really old. I'm not going to use it anymore."? Of course not. If I write a really good protocol stack, then it doesn't need to be changed every year "just because it's old." Come on people, pull your head out of your arse and stop spreading this non-sense. Unix is BETTER because it's "old". There's been more time and more eyeballs to examine the code a tweak it.
I see the point in this, if you are looking at this from the point of how all software distribution has evolved into: profit margins. Profits are not bad, but when you are dumping piss-poor software that is not quite done yet - free or not free - the users are the ones who pay in lost time, system crashes, lost data, etc. The idea behind the Mozilla.org project is one I support. Spend more time with it. Make sure it works. Netscape 4.6 and 4.7 have been total pigs on 6 of my 7 systems (the RedHat 6.1 box works fine) and using IE 5 is the only way for me to keep the system from crashing all the time when I am browsing.
Another issue that I had trouble with is the idea of innovation and consistency. First off, the GNOME and KDE projects are in place to implement such consistency, and they are beginning to pay off. If you want your tools to all work the same way, as they do in the Mac, then run one of these environments with the apps designed for them. If you don't care, then don't use them.
This brings up the point of customizability, which was mentioned in the article. The customizability of linux comes straight from its decent from the aging UNIX paradigm that you don't seem to appreciate the benefits of. The entire system is based on components that communicate with each other, allowing you to rip one out and replace it with something you like better. You can run GNOME, KDE, or neither. You can run vim, emacs, pico, or none of the above. Hell, you can even toss X all together and run straight from the command line and virtual consoles. The point is, that this not only opens up the field for someone to customize their system the way they want it (just try dumping the GUI in windows or mac) but it also allows someone to implement new ideas in the way a system should work. Windows or Mac shoves you in to their paradigm, and you're pretty much stuck there. With Unix, I can run my interface the way I want it. This might not look like a great leap to you, but the inherent flexibility of the system allows me to customize it so I can be as comfortable and productive as possible. This is the true goal of UI design, and the fact that I can design my own UI is the true innovation. Free software merely increases my options by providing a lot of software to try, but also the ability to change what I want to change. That's the innovation underneath the apparent chaos, and I absolutely love it.
They lost against microsoft and now they are trying to find a new way to make money and at the same time punch Microsoft back. And Linux gave them this opportuinity.
The problem here, is that, we, the users and programmers get fooled into this.
The truth is that, a good product will dominate the market till another better one comes along, and those who think of having a monopoly are completely wrong.
Monopolies don't work in the High Tech world of today, since the products are evolving all the time and users demand more all the time.
As an example of this, look at Borland, they dominated the market, but like any other company that gets to be pretty successful, they got pretty greedy and arogant and neglected a major sector in the market and were not advancing in it at all, i am talking about the borland c++ compiler, which used to be 1 of the best compilers, but when windows came, borland didn't model its c++ compiler to really be a RAD and this is where microsoft took advantage of the situation and managed to make headway and from that day on, borland was going down the drains.
when they realized this, they came with Delphi which is great, but still nothing for c++ till a couple of years ago when they came up with c++ builder, but it was too late and microsoft was way ahead of them.
Also, c++ builder had some drawbacks since you had to stick to forms, unlicke the MS product, which also had drawback, the forms were harder to make, but do-able.
anyways, both had defects, but MS was still better.
and it was too late for borland.
Atari was the hottest game console in the early 80s, late 70s, but now, we have sega and nintendo.
At some time, Atari was dominant, but now, it doesnt'e even exist.
This is all because of bad corporate policies.
Linux is not giving us anything new till now, on the contrary, i still find that windows is better than linux when it comes to GUI.
But the existence of Linux is important because it is actually keeping microsoft on its toes and making them work like hell, so there is competition.
i think that if we don't have competition then the evolution os OS systems will come to a hault.
Competition is important.
But in the same time, we must all realize that Linux can't be for free, let us face it, you can't make a life or a carreer while working for free, you need to earn money to support yourself and your family.
Some companies, out of greed are adopting linux because it is lower in costs, well , that is fine and dandy, but the problem here is that those people are very greedy and they have it in their minds that they will not pay for software any more.
This makes me wonder, isn't this like them having those linux developers working for them as slave, for free.
the developers make no money, while those company executives milk the customers and make loads of money ?!!?
apparantly, those companies have made fool of the poor linux developers.
I say, develop linux, it is good for competiton, but charge for it.
you see, people can't make a career out of working for free.
and corporations can't rely on software that is developed for free since there is not time frame for enhancements not company plan to evolve it to solve certain problems.
corporations have deadlines to meet.
sure, linux is good now for web-servers, but can it replace windows ?, i don't think so, you would have a lot of coding to do and a lot of hours.
so develop it, but charge for it.
and cut out the "we hate MS stuff", since it is childless and baseless, the people who sell linux now, will do worse than MS if they had the chance.
It is all about money.
I don't think having principles and acting on them makes a person a 'daydreamer'. Quite the opposite, in fact - the Free Software movement was built on the 'show me the code' (not hot air) philosophy. Free Software has already made the world a better place. :) The corporate webservers I run use Apache - versatile, stable, an overall joy to use. To contrast, the corporation also uses some non-free software, which could use a bit of under-the-hood refining, but for which the source code is unavailable.
... we must not lose sight of the fact that beyond the far fetched philosophical implications of the Open Source arguments lies recycled UN*X technology, which is literally decades old.
Behind Open Source lie people who want high-quality software they can fix themselves. There is nothing inherently "recycled Unix" about it. In fact, there's even a Free reimplementation of MS-DOS (which shares its recycled decades-old CP/M technology lineage with Windows). For some alternative GPL'd options on the OS front, check out ErOS at http://www.eros-os.org/ and GNU Hurd at http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
For an a nice collection of Open Source projects, have a look at http://www.sourceforge.net/softwaremap/ - in addition to the Unix-like bunch, there are BeOS, MacOS, PalmOS and even Windows projects going on.
The Open Source movement, which was originally positioned as a non-profit alternative to the opulent establishment, is soaking in money.
The "Open Source" movement was originally positioned as a corporate-friendly alternative to the Free Software movement. Neither of them was positioned by the creators as "non-profit". Perhaps some journalists put that spin on it, but neither Free Software and Open Source have discouraged profit. In fact, if a piece of software prohibits profit, it's referred to as 'non-free', or 'not open source'.
One notable fiasco that comes to mind is Mozilla.org, a volunteer-driven organization that has yet to come up with a single meaningful upgrade to the once-dominant browser.
Taking the time to do it right is hardly what I'd call a fiasco. The 'upgrade' you speak of has been essentially a ground-up rewrite. And, its beta starts in 25 days: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000320/ca_netscap_1.html
This whole story is jam-packed with paradoxes. A product that was developed in an attempt to fight market monopolization, is quickly elbowing its way to becoming the next monopoly.
Linux was developed to provide a usable Unix-like OS for common folk with 386's and without the funds to pay the exhobitant licensing fees asked by the proprietary Unix vendors. GNU was developed to provide a free (as in Freedom) operating system and applications. The central theme is "freedom", not "anti-monopoly". Breaking monopolies of proprietary vendors can be an effect of that freedom, but is not the reason for Free Software's existence by any means.
And, while Linux's interface is almost infinitely customizable, it lacks consistency that many of us have grown to appreciate.
That appears to be quite an odd statement for someone who describes himself as a fan of BeOS, Mac and OS/2 simultaneously. Where's the consistency between those? With Linux, you can at least take all your applications with you when you decide to switch window manager/desktop environment.
As for the lamenting over corporate interests "taking over" Linux/Open Source/etc., it's about freedom and choice. I don't have to use products from Red Hat and their corporate competitors (and in fact, I don't). Debian/GNU Linux is alive and well as a non-profit project. However, many corporate users are not looking to deal with a non-profit entity for their OS needs. That's where the Linux companies come in (and, as an added twist, VA Linux Systems sells support for Debian). The point being - commercial and non-commercial options are by no means mutually exclusive.
Chris
"According to IDC, Linux already controls 25% of all server OS shipments yet accounts for far less than 1% of total revenue in the market. Over time, more people will get broadband access and discover that Linux can be downloaded for free".
Linux profit is not about selling boxes with penguins on them, it's about service. Concerning braodband access, boxed software as a whole will be threatened, not just Linux. The way I see linux in a mainstream environmnet is that of a subscription service like phone, or cable. You pick the distro that suits your needs and you subscribe for a small fee to the updates, service, support,etc. needed to run a company smoothly. Look around you next time you walk the streets...do you really think everyone wants to "learn" linux? Those people need serice and will pay for it..heck, I might even subscribe to a service if it's good enough. We need to stop thinking of software in terms of units sold and think in terms of units supported. That truely is the problem with software today, they sell us some half baked "alphaware" and try to support it later. Think how much better software would be if the revenue was on the back end and not on the front end??
My $.02
Jim
Please share a comment:
You are posting anonymously. Create an account.
Please note that comments are moderated. This is done by a volunteer staff. In other words, not all comments will actually be posted here. All of your comments are appreciated though, so please contribute a comment and we will try to post as many as possible.
Please also note that your comment may be displayed alongside your name, email address and url, as supplied on your account details.