After 10 years of supporting Linux, IBM continues to challenge Microsoft on multiple fronts and aims to push Linux even further into the enterprise. While IBM has competed and partnered with Microsoft over the last two decades, the Microsoft-free PC effort is perhaps its most direct assault yet. "The idea of Microsoft-free personal computing has been in the air for a while," Inna Kuznetsova, director of Linux at IBM, told InternetNews.com. "We're just partnering with Linux distribution vendors and hardware vendors to make it happen."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-02
"IMO the main show-stopper problem here is that you basically cannot produce closed-source applications for Linux.
In situation that even two versions of the same distro are not fully binary compatible makes development and distribution of Linux applications nearly impossible."
I both agree and disagree. ID Software released Doom 3 for Linux, and Return to Castle Wolfenstien for Linux, and these are my examples. The binaries can be released as a one shot deal, and that has been proven. Those both are very closed source. if games can do it, the other application vendors can as well. I have run both of those on many different flavors of Linux, and they have worked on all of them. There is only one installer/binary that was released.
"Technically, Linux desktop is there. What holds it is in fact politics."
I definitely agree on this one.
Member since:2006-05-09
Member since:2005-11-20
In situation that even two versions of the same distro are not fully binary compatible makes development and distribution of Linux applications nearly impossible."
I both agree and disagree. ID Software released Doom 3 for Linux, and Return to Castle Wolfenstien for Linux, and these are my examples. The binaries can be released as a one shot deal, and that has been proven.
Well, these are games. They have very little bindings to the rest of system.
Unfortunately, normal desktop apps have to bind to system. For example, they have to use platform libraries to look natively. Or just to draw text.
That for closed-source applications means linking to .so present on the system. There is no way around this. And they never can be sure what .so is currently present on the system.
Edited 2008-08-06 19:35 UTC
Member since:2007-03-26
Member since:2005-12-02
"If adobe made a linux version of photoshop I think lots of distros would try to make it to run on their distro. one version with a specified set of ''needs'' is all it takes. (?)"
Exactly. No different then requiring a certain version of Windows, you can just require minimum versions of libraries, etc. I know it can be done, as the company I am the Sysadmin for develops software that is cross-platform.
Member since:2005-11-20
Actually, IMO, this is the possible way.
Somebody will produce *IMPORTANT* application for some distro (e.g. Ubuntu), but only for that specific distro.
Such application will become compatibility etalon. All other distros will need to support it, which in fact is relatively very easy. And problem is solved.
In fact, I believe and hope something like this will happen really soon...
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:2006-11-09
You might like to tell that to Adobe, who have produced binary versions of Acrobat Reader and Flash player for Linux for some time now. They make a single Linux binary for both. As an aside Adobe are one of the companies that are at least talking about opening up some of their code which is another encouraging point for Linux and other free OSs. This comment on FSM which has the details: http://preview.tinyurl.com/65nroh .
There is a side issue of whether a free[dom] OS should include non-free applications but this is largely resolved by the emergence of distro's that are happy to include non-free binaries. Thus users who want to keep their desktop "free" can do so and those who want the comfort of familiar non-free applications and formats can have them.
Member since:2008-08-07
These guys don't seem to have a problem with linux.
http://www.seapine.com/
http://moneydance.com/
disclaimer i coop at Seapine and work on testing compatibility with different linux distros with one of there products.
Member since:2007-02-17
Too bad that nobody told the developers of the closed-source commercial CAD applications on this list about that:
http://www.tech-edv.co.at/lunix/CADlinks.html
If only someone had told these people:
http://www.varicad.com/en/home/
... that they couldn't possibly make this:
http://www.varicad.com/en/home/products/description/
... for Linux
http://www.varicad.com/en/home/products/requirements/
... oh, wait.
Oh dear.
Sorry, forget it. Another OSNews poster's bad, I suppose.
Member since:2005-07-07
I would say wrong on that one. You can produce proprietary closesd source software for linux if you use libraries that have a static linking exception to their open source licenses like FLTK, wxWidgets x11/Universal (NOT GTK or MOTIF because these would have to be dynamically linked ONLY to satisfy the LGPL without the linking exception and therefore have "dependency hell" problems) and do not use the "dependency hell" creating dynamic link method of producing binary software.
If you app can give up some starting speed you can also use a Managed software system like Java to produce not just Linux but genuine cross platform software. (I use several closed source Java apps on my Linux box and am quite satisfied with them. So much so that I have started taking up programming in the Java language myself.)
Actually I think more speed for Java if it could be done could solve the whole computer monopoly problem just as Sun intended it to do by making closed or open software than can rin anywhere.
Edited 2008-08-07 05:07 UTC
Member since:2005-11-20
Well, I guess this supports my point: If you need a good integration, you need GTK - and that one is possible as .so only....
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-09-06
There is a good number of closed source used on Linux platforms. Adobe's Flashplayer is offered under a non-OSS license. Many of the developers of free projects offer a proprietary version or proprietary enhancements as there business service. Maemo Linux still includes closed source battery and network related code. Ndiswrapper is still required to make closed source Windows drivers work when no native kernel module is available. There is nothing in the GPL that prohibits using closed source in relation to an FOSS offering.
While there is a minority only concerned with liense costs, the majority of users simply need to see value in the software that justifies it's license cost versus competitive offerings.
I'd happily pay 60$ for a game provided the developers wrote a *nix native game engine and installer.
I think the other posts pointing out that developers can not see accurate user counts for the various platforms is closest to the truth though. Windows and osX have the benefit of established financial distribution channels and inflated figures due to counting every license moved weather it's wanted or even used in the end. There is no way to accurately count the number of different distributions in use.
I alone have four distributions across three boxes of hardware plus five or six virtual machines. I've even a few Windows licenses of various versions in the OS collection. The two osX rigs run on there own hardware so that puts me up by two OS licenses again. If I, as just one user, am an indication then the marketing figures are completely usless when measuring anything but balance sheet tallies.
Member since:2006-07-04
That may be, but a company called Loki Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki_Software ) existed a few years ago, who had license to port lots of Windows games to Linux, but they went out of business because they found that there's no viable games market on Linux. Why? Because a.) lots of Linux users refused to pay for software in general, so wouldn't by the games, and b) other Linux users refused to buy the games unless Loki open sourced the code (and the extremists even demanded that Loki GPL the code).
Linux users like you, that were willing to pay for closed-source games, were too few in number to provide a viable market.
Member since:
2005-11-20
IMO the main show-stopper problem here is that you basically cannot produce closed-source applications for Linux.
In situation that even two versions of the same distro are not fully binary compatible makes development and distribution of Linux applications nearly impossible.
The best you can do is to release about 12 versions for major distros and possibly extend the set with each new distro release.
Technically, Linux desktop is there. What holds it is in fact politics.