Linked by snydeq on Tue 16th Jul 2013 23:43 UTC
Linux Serdar Yegalulp offers a long view of the current evolution of Linux, one that sees the open source OS firmly entrenched as a cornerstone of IT, evolving in almost every direction at once - including most demonstrably toward the mobile and embedded markets. "If Linux acceptance and development are peaking, where does Linux go from up? Because Linux is such a mutable phenomenon and appears in so many incarnations, there may not be any single answer to that question. More important, perhaps, is how Linux - the perennial upstart - will embrace the challenges of being a mature and, in many areas, market-leading project. Here's a look at the future of Linux: as raw material, as the product of community and corporate contributions, and as the target of any number of challenges to its ethos, technical prowess, and growth."
Thread beginning with comment 567285
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: changed my thinking
by Laurence on Wed 17th Jul 2013 14:59 UTC in reply to "changed my thinking"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I really took to the idea of Linux being a Raw material, i really like the concept. It's been hard sometimes to quantify what Linux actually is

It's actually quite easy. Linux is a kernel. Like NT. In fact NT is a great example because Windows Phone, tablets, desktops and servers run NT - but the userland (ie all the crap on top of the kernel that the user actually interacts with) changes.

As for the abuse of the term "Linux", well it's a little like how laymans don't distinguish between different NT platforms. So when people in IT talk to laymans, they will say "I'm running Windows", but when they talk to other professionals, they will say "I'm running "Windows Server 2003" or "Windows Phone 8", etc.

The same is true for Linux. If you're talking to a layman, then it's rarely worth elaborating who's bundle of userland you're using; so you'll often just say "Linux". But if you talk to someone else in the industry, you'd say "Debian Wheezy", "RHEL" or "Ubuntu 13.04". The exception to this is the more embedded and re-branded stuff like Android, TomTom and such like. Few non-techies would even realise that beneath all that branding beats a Linux kernel.



I am interested in seeing where linux goes in the future, it's getting more and more mature all the time and it's great to see really big concepts being introduced, better battery/power management is the first that comes to mind.

Linux is mature. Has been for years. And the power management issues are more down to crappy drivers not power-saving beefy hardware (eg graphics cards). But that's a desktop Linux issue and often due to hardware manufacturers not supporting Linux so devs having to reverse engineer their own drivers (which is never going to be a recipe for perfect hardware support). But since embedded systems tend to have their drivers purpose written for that device, driver support isn't really an issue in the context of what you're talking about (ie bespoke applications). And proof of this is how Linux has been running quietly inside satellite boxes, on satnavs, routers and (most recently) phones for quite some years.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: changed my thinking
by tylerdurden on Wed 17th Jul 2013 18:38 in reply to "RE: changed my thinking"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


It's actually quite easy. Linux is a kernel. Like NT.


It must not be that easy, since your equivalence is off. ;-)

NT refers to an entire OS architecture (HAL, kernel mode, and user mode), not just the kernel. Microsoft never gave the kernel any "witty" code project name, so it is basically referred to as the "NT Kernel."

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: changed my thinking
by Delgarde on Wed 17th Jul 2013 23:39 in reply to "RE[2]: changed my thinking"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Microsoft never gave the kernel any "witty" code project name, so it is basically referred to as the "NT Kernel."


And why would they? They've never had any reason to make a strong distinction between the actual kernel, and the kernel-oriented parts of userspace. There's a distinction in the code itself, of course, but since they're not separate projects like in the Linux world, there's no need for a distinct name...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: changed my thinking
by Laurence on Thu 18th Jul 2013 09:37 in reply to "RE[2]: changed my thinking"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26



It must not be that easy, since your equivalence is off. ;-)

NT refers to an entire OS architecture (HAL, kernel mode, and user mode), not just the kernel. Microsoft never gave the kernel any "witty" code project name, so it is basically referred to as the "NT Kernel."

Fair point, though any such comparison was never going to be perfect even if NT did categorically state just the kernel as Windows uses a micro-kernel vs Linux's monolithic design. So there's some subtle differences between the two architectures in where different managers reside.

But for the sake of a general overview, I think the comparison I made works. It's just a question of how far you want to draw the comparison as, like with any analogy, there's always going to be aspects that don't compare perfectly.

Edited 2013-07-18 09:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3