Linux, the free operating system, has gone from an intriguing experiment to a mainstream technology in corporate data centers, helped by the backing of major technology companies like IBM, Intel, and HP, which sponsored industry consortiums to promote its adoption. Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, with the system's penguin symbol, will assist the Linux Foundation. Those same companies have decided that the time has come to consolidate their collaborative support into a new group, the Linux Foundation, which is being announced today. And the mission of the new organization is help Linux, the leading example of the open-source model of software development, to compete more effectively against Microsoft, the world's largest software company.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-07
It doesn't matter whose operating system is technically superior - all that matters is the applications.
That's why both OSDL and FSG do very little (if anything at all) for the desktop development (which is taken care of already by the free desktop projects), but rather concentrate on making the plattform more appealing to third party vendors.
So in effect it is "all about applications"
Member since:2006-05-19
One of the ways to make linux more competetive is to come up with better standards within linux. Software developers will be more likely to write programs for linux if they don't have to write several different versions. Personally I would like to see software installation/removal modeled on OSX. As much as I would like to see this happen I just don't think it will. Imagine Gentoo, Ubuntu and RedHat representatives sitting down and discussing software installation. I am not talking about compatability, I mean ONE SYSTEM.
Member since:2005-11-11
//Software developers will be more likely to write programs for linux if they don't have to write several different versions.//
This is a bit of a misconception. The exact same source code for Linux would normally compile without change on all versions of Linux distributions. No need to re-write, and probably no need to recompile. It should normally be necessary only to re-link against the different versions of libraries, and re-package into the different package formats, in order to produce versions of your application installable on different Linux distributions.
You simply don't have to re-write applications for different Linux distributions.
If you are just a little careful, it is even possible to make a "one size fits all" binary for all Linux distributions.
Member since:2006-01-17
Exactly. The very thing that makes Linux unique (ie. NOT Windows) is all the different versions and the fact anyone can change anything and call it a new distro. As long as that mentality stays, it will never be a Windows replacement. Don't even get me started on package managers...
Member since:2005-08-17
Imagine Gentoo, Ubuntu and RedHat representatives sitting down and discussing software installation. I am not talking about compatability, I mean ONE SYSTEM.
That would be horrible. There is a reason their package management is different.
It's not even a problem that needs solving because each distribution manages and maintains it's own packages and the software developers don't really need to worry about it.
As for applications not being available on GNULinux, I actually fine myself annoyed at the fact that most of the applications I use aren't available on windows.
Member since:2005-11-11
//I have at least dozen that require Windows.//
You have at least a dozen for which the vendor has released them only for Windows.
That does not necessarily mean they actually require Windows, it probably means only that the only commonly available binary copies are Windows executables.
If Linux makes as big a splash as it is starting to promise, it will become more routine for companies to release applications in three versions: one for Windows, one for Mac OSX, and one for Linux.
Rather like this commercial application:
http://www.softmaker.com/english/of_en.htm
http://www.softmaker.com/english/ofl_en.htm
... oops! No version for Mac OSX!
//I am not talking about compatability, I mean ONE SYSTEM.//
If a given package will install unmodified on all flavors of Linux distribution, is that not then ONE SYSTEM for all practical purposes? You can have both unification and freedom of choice at the same time that way.
Edited 2007-01-22 11:38
Member since:2005-12-31
> That does not necessarily mean they actually require
> Windows, it probably means only that the only commonly
> available binary copies are Windows executables.
You forget that Linux and Windows are not source-compatible. Those applications still have to be "ported", which can mean a major overhaul. Cross-platform compatibility isn't a simple problem, and can mean a lot of work if not considered from the beginning.
> If Linux makes as big a splash as it is starting to
> promise
Exactly: It has to be a *BIG* splash to justify the porting effort.
Member since:2006-01-15
Member since:2006-01-22
Member since:
2006-01-17
I still think this is the wrong battle. It's like Windows vs OS2 again. It doesn't matter whose operating system is technically superior - all that matters is the applications. I have at least dozen that require Windows. Linux "the OS" is getting better, but that won't matter until the developers follow suit - both OSS and commercial.