“The Linux computer operating system is coming of age. Nurtured since the early 1990s by software hobbyists and adopted more recently by giant computer companies led by International Business Machines, it is on the verge of becoming a mainstream technology in the corporate world. Its maturation has potentially far-reaching implications for the software industry.” Read the article at FT.com. AustralianIT has a similar article too.
Could Linux Dethrone the Software King?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
there was a saying on the net
“Linux is free if your time is worth nothing”
The idea for the software program was hatched not by Linus Torvalds, the Finnish computing student whose name it carries, but by Richard Stallman, an American programmer who believes that all software should be free. Stallman’s open-source project, known as GNU, supplied much of the framework of the operating system but it was Torvalds who added the kernel – the central core that holds the various elements of the operating system together. Mr Torvalds still has the final say about any changes.
Typical GNU propaganda…
GNU just happened to be ready to provide the userspace… it was the kernel that made the OS happen. Look at the Hurd, a few years older than Linux, and it can’t even warm boot reliably. If GNU hadn’t stepped up and provided the userspace, others would have.
Furthermore, GNU did a lousy job with the userspace. Are there any who won’t admit that glibc isn’t a bloated, buggy piece of crap? Most GNU tools (make, flex, and gcc to name a few) contain GNU’s own “improvements” which are often times unnecessary and break compatibility with other Unix systems. Because of this, many software packages can’t be built outside of GNU’s environment, forcing anyone who wants to use software developed in such a manner to install a great deal of GNU’s userspace. Ever tried building an automake/autoconf enabled package on Solaris? Did it ever work? For me it seems to have a 90% failure rate. I guess this is just yet another way in which GPL software is viral…
most people have no problem paying something for cable tv, internet access, telephone calls, etc.
When computers reach to a certain power level, performance won’t be a matter for most users, it is the content that matters most and cost money.
“there was a saying on the net
“Linux is free if your time is worth nothing”
=====================================================
“Linux is free if your time is worth nothing”
_or_if you already have tech staff on the payroll who have
plenty of time. I would think this describes not a few
sysdamins.
Besides this was not a saying on the Net is was a MS FUD.
> Are there any who won’t admit that glibc isn’t a bloated, buggy piece of crap?
Very well said, especially about glibc.
Horseshit. GNU is the papa of Linux, whether you like it or not. Linus is not a God.
Pretty accurate. But hey, nothing is perfect, GNU is tryin g to improve, though they often prefer cut ties to the past. 😎
Pretty much what Linux is trying to do.
see Did gnu get these guys?
Actually, one of the reasons I submitted that article was
because it showed some research behind it.
So they knew that it was Stallman that got the ball rolling.
In the beginning was the GPL which begat Gnu software.
Then Linus started Linux under the GPL license in the collaberative world of the Internet.
No GPL, no gnu tools, no Linux. Plain and simple.
Don’t like it.?
Tough. That is the way it happened.
Even Stallman’s critics acknowledge this.
As to the rest of your comment, regardless of it veractiy
they seem to indicate a reflexive hostility to Gnu.
Oh well, we all have our problems.
the point is that not all things are free.
>there was a saying on the net
>
>”Linux is free if your time is worth nothing”
There’s a new saying on the net
Linux is still far cheaper than Windows when your time is worth
something. Unless Windows people are free.
In the business world, I see Linux being deployed more on the servers in the back, rather than the desktops in the front.
Depending on whether it could be deployed on business desktops would probably depend on one thing:
How much compatiblity do you need with Windows? If the answer is none, then you’re home free
On the other end of the spectrum, business users I think are more inclined to use more ‘hardcore’ professional ‘speciality’ apps, some of which I’m sure still only run on Windows. (Or maybe Mac, but this article isn’t about Macs.) It comes down to this – does Linux run the kind of apps you need and does it run them well? If the answer to both questions is yes, I think businesses would be more inclined to overcome some of the technical hurdles than would home users.
“the point is that not all things are free. ”
No, the point is that you are trolling again.
What does “trolling” mean, anyway? Does it have anything to do with trolling stones?
How many “linux saves the world” articles do we need to see in a week?
There’s all sorts of these articles analysing the situation, making stupid predictions, etc, etc. But why? it’s so pointless.
I want a real article for a change. Something which actually SAYS something I don’t already know. Something that isn’t just some guys opinion on things. No more of this:
“linux takes on microsoft”, etc type of articles. I read those every 2 days. They say nothin new.
It’s only obvious that Linux SUCKS MONKEY BALLS!! Let’s see Windows XP has better app installation support, better font’s and is a whole lot easier to use. XP UI kicks Linux’s butt every single time !
“There’s a new saying on the net
Linux is still far cheaper than Windows when your time is worth
something. Unless Windows people are free.”
$2000/year vs $1950 /year per desktop ??? 😎
“the point is that not all things are free.”
True, but I don’t think that is the point when it comes to the ” Linux is free if you have plenty of time”
It is mean by most as a dig at Linux TCO.
The point is (disengenoulsly, imho) that while Linux may be free or low cost, you will have to spend a ton
of time to get it to run and that this will cost you money.
Even if was true as far as needing lots of time, as I pointed out if you already Tech staff around, they will spend their time farting around with Linux instead of Windows. No extra money required.
however any basis for particular little piece of FUD is
rapidly becoming badly outdated. Linux is not an installation and maintenance nightmare/time sink.
In fact, quite the opposite.
However, eventually competition will force MS to drop prices so the TCO is equal. Linux still has advantages
in that is free .. of hassleware licenses, develops more rapidly,better bug fixes, better Security, aspire to a
true Standards and finally Tux as a Logo is very cool.
“linux is perfect” is that the only thing I can say without being accused as a troll ? I feel I’ve got plenty of CHOICE as long as it starts with L not M or W 8-)))))))
Little, Medium, Wide
Stop FUDING you freaking Lin-cultest troll. Everyone knows that Linux TCO is off the chart. The amount of time spent installing and supporting a windows box is waaaaay lower then baby sitting Linsuck box with all it’s secuirty holes and back doors.
>>business users I think are more inclined to use more ‘hardcore’ professional ‘speciality’ apps, some of which I’m sure still only run on Windows.
It depends on how one defines “hardcore”.
For an Engineering Design firm, for example; CAD and Spreadsheets applications might be considered ‘hardcore’.
Would the design firm, say, be willing to invest its resources (time/money/training and more) in asking its draftspersons to start using an alternative CAD program which runs on Linux? Most probably not.
On the other hand, I think for other apps (word processing/presentations, etc; not to mention email) I think businesses will not have too much trouble.
Lets face it: it Government offices (City Halls, Police stations, etc.) can make the ‘switch’, why not businesses?
“Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing” was apparently a JWZ quote.
take at this page, Redhat 7.2 update
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh72-errata.html
Linux = Only a idiot would trust their network to it.
Although Linux improves a lot over the years, so does Windows. Linux is getting better for desktop use (though my own opinion is that it isn’t good enough to confront windows), but many people don’t see the improvements on windows. The one big noticable one is the change to the NT kernel. And this made Windows good, it’s works just fine now. Did someone ever looked into Active Directory, it’s just a great technology for a network of windows computers. And as with .NET, this is also a great technology, it takes development to the next level which makes it really worthy. It’s just the fact that Windows is getting much better itself too, and I don’t see Linux taking over window.
(Note that I don’t compare by the prices and it’s monopoly position, that’s not what I aim for in my comment)
Haha, pretty funny for a nobody. What’s wrong, not man (or woman) enough to use a handle?
“Haha, pretty funny for a nobody. What’s wrong, not man (or woman) enough to use a handle?”
Come on you know that Linux sucks. anyways if you want me to use a handle then here it goes.
Everyone who uses Linux should read this book
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/
Isn’t it funny that IBM is helping Linux and the open source movement fight Microsoft? It was IBM after all that help Microsoft and the close source movement during the late 70s and 80s to fight off Apple.
Riight, until Microsoft stabbed IBM in the back with what became Windows NT and OS/2.
I’d recommend this one myself.
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html
The issue with the “GNU/LINUX” thingy is what really sucks about Linux…. NOW if we can ONLY GET RID OF ALL THE “GNU!!” code used alongside the LINUX Kernel.
I just F%$*#n Hate the “POLITICAL” baggage that GNU software drags with it.
Linux will truly be free the moment it is FREE of GNU code.
My opinion
yeah, funny. So funny infact that I feel VERY VERY sorry for you.
I agree GNU is a bunch of freaking liberal commie whinners. I say if you want to use a real OS be ready to pay some cash for it. It’s the American way, plus giving stuff away for free is what liberals and socialist commies do.
Mario:
=====
This “troll” thing is weird to me, too, since it’s not part of my culture. As my poor understanding of these matters allow, it seems “troll” is the name of a mythical entity, a kind of humanoid monster(?), who attacked folks and demanded a pay to allow them safe pass. I figure that when you’re having a healthy discussion, there comes by an idiot and starts to post aggressive or polemic content with the sole (and concealed) objective of attracting angry responses.
Though usually suspected to be teenagers, I imagine some folks may even appreciate this kind of behaviour. Go figure!
tty:
===
tty >> I feel I’ve got plenty of CHOICE as long as it starts with L not M or W 8-)))))))
Actually this is a problem for some Linux users. It would be logical to presume that specific uses would call for special solutions — so one would choose *BSD, or BeOS, or QNX, or Amiga or DOS over Linux, depending on what’s involved.
Not so with pro-Windows people: they feel totally cool with Windows having 90% of the market. In fact, give them 100% and they’ll throw a party…
But I also feel W-starting choices are going to be fewer and fewer in the near future.
To my dear doppelganger. You like my handle so much that you have to steal it. I’m flattered. You can do better than that though you putrid excuse for a forum troll.
“GNU is a bunch of freaking liberal commie whinners.”
This coming from a whining anonymous coward. Being a little pussy AC isn’t the American way.
After the rush to implement Linux in the corporate sector, it won’t matter a dog’s left testicle how many years’ exposure you have, or to what level, or even if you were a core developer of the system. To get a job involving Linux you’ll need an IT degree and several years’ “commercial” experience to even get an interview in the new market. I won’t go so far as to say IBM will provide official certification courses, but that could also happen. They have to recoup the investment somehow.
Linus Torvalds was once asked if he made any money out of Linux, and replied, “No, I just got a better job, that’s about all”. There are some things worth more than money. I’m sure the guys who contributed are feeling fairly pleased with themselves right now.
Pity about the toolchain though, it really is crap.
On the off chance that someone is looking for more than troll fodder…. The TCO arguments are quite complex and depend critically on the assumptions of the analyst.
The emperical evidence is that:
1) running on Intel-compatable hardware saves money Advantage Linux & Windows – Disadvantage most propietry Unix.
2) *nix can be more efficiently administered. Windows is ‘easier’, but doing the same #%^$ menu driven commands on each server is a pain. If you can enter unix commands, you can write a shell script. Running that script N times is pretty efficient, if you can do it. The evidence is that a typical Win admin can mange about 10 servers. For linux, 44 servers per admin. So, the higher paid *nix admins are quite cost effective. Advantage Linux, Unix. Disadvantage Windows.
3) Free software is free, but this is the least signficant source of cost savings. But remember, companies rejected Unix workstations in favor of Windows in part because they were paying as much to lease Unix as they were paying for the hardware. Today, that is also true for Windows – if the server is under $1000, the cost of the software is a major percentage of the total purchase price. Advantage – Linux.
4) Software audits cost money. Minimizing the number of packages to audit saves money. It also reduces the risk of failing an audit. Advantage – Linux.
5) Availability of low cost admins. Advantage – Windows.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The TCO for linux can be very good.
In the beginning was the GPL which begat Gnu software.
Then Linus started Linux under the GPL license in the collaberative world of the Internet.
No GPL, no gnu tools, no Linux. Plain and simple.
Don’t like it.?
Tough. That is the way it happened.
And if Linux had never happened, there are several operating systems which would have taken its place, such as FreeBSD.
Remember, FreeBSD 1.0 came out months before Linux 1.0…
pity about the toolchain? right right, Visual C++ .NET produces much better Hitachi SuperH code than gcc. LOLOLZ. one day you’ll learn to “think outside the box” in this example the “pc case” when you do the sheer power of gcc to target something so ripe for exploiting as a SEGA DreamCast (which uses a Hitachi SuperH CPU, as luck would have it) will become an obvious advantage to… M$ tripe.
Bascule: why would you write software on an OS called GNU’s Not Unix and expect it to work on Unix?
the mind boggles.
“I agree GNU is a bunch of freaking liberal commie whinners. I say if you want to use a real OS be ready to pay some cash for it. It’s the American way, plus giving stuff away for free is what liberals and socalist commies do.”
Heh. You know, you sound like a follower. A sheep. I really don’t think you understand both what a communist is, nor do I think you understand what GNU is. That said, I dont think you really understand the US Constitution, asuming you are from the United States of America, but anyways, it states that as an American you have the right to speak what you want, and that is the basic ideas behind open source. So I don’t think you’re whole “COMMIES=GNU DEVELOPERS!” arguement is really valid, especially for the fact that you are an idiot.
>> “If GNU hadn’t stepped up and provided the userspace, others would have. ”
> Horses**t. GNU is the papa of Linux, whether you like it or not. Linus is not a God.
If you could put two clues together you would realise that there are many other free software implementations of almost all of these tools. They mightn’t be as feature complete but I’m very sure that they would be if RMS didn’t exist.
As for “Linus is not a God”. Correct (and well said). The reason Linux took over from other free variants like Minix and the BSDs is because everyone liked its licencing. If the other options were licenced under the GPL with no big vendors chasing after the code (BSD) or selfish individuls who wouldn’t let their code turn into something useful (Minix) then I think the story could have been very different.
Windows for lamers who buy their computers off the shelf and have no idea what it is to set it up.
Linux for people who know what they are doing with regards to computing, who don’t like MS licensing and Spy Ware built in and understand that in many instances the more GUI crap you put into a system the less computing resources are available for other tasks.
Oh the Anon FUDder, if Linux was suck a lame OS with poor tools and high Cost Of Ownership (of which you have no idea), why is it being used in the Movie industry? You know all those pretty scenes that wowed you in Star Wars Attack of the Clones and nearly every other movie without a decent script (not counting Lord of the Rings). They are using it for their 3D post production work writing their own specialist programs on Linux and using BeoWolf Clusters for Rendering of CGI scenes. Makes you wonder doesn’t it.
Now where is Windows and SGI Unix?
If you try to use Linux just like you use XP in the business place – you will save very little installing and using it in comparison to XP. However, if you use the flexibility that Linux offers to deploy a lean low maintenance system you can rack up some real savings. Stop play acting at XP with Linux start looking at Linux as its own system.
No one can out Windows Windows, so stop trying. The hard cold fact is that if you set up an all Linux network system from the ground up as a Linux system you can save some really big bucks. The estimate is that for every 10 to 12 Windows work stations in an all Windows network you need 1 IT tech, On an all Linux network you will require only 1 tech for every 40 Linux work stations. If those work stations are Linux thin clients the number is 1 for every 85 to 100 units.
Don’t take my word for it. Ask Largo, Fl (an all Linux city), or the makers of Gibson guitars (they say they saved $100,000.00 a year using Linux).
During my 10 years as a computer user, the CPU cycles I’ve wasted on GUI mechanisms have been negligible.
Certainly, the more GUI waste you put in your system, the more resources you waste, but (fanfare!) Linux and its associated GUI mechanisms (The X Windowing System Release 11, KDE, GNOME) are experts at wasting resources.
So don’t try to claim that Linux is a mean, lean system. That’s just bollocks, and if you didn’t have hundreds of MHz to waste, you’d not spread such lies.
Since the late nineties, Linux has been the number one OS for teenaged nerds trying to define themselves as alternative, in the process boosting their egos. It’s the computing equivalent of listening to groups ranking in the lower top-40 and thinking you’re difficult and alternative.
You strike me as one such teenager.
Trolls in this forum make most of the posts usless gibberish. They contain no real info nor any real opinions. They are designed to create a sort of I’m right your wrong thread rather than an actual useful argument from which you could gain knowledge.
For them, it’s just another OS that they pay for the media nad the support.
Linux needs to get simpler to use, SuSE & a few other distros are doing a good job. RPMs are a good easy way to install software, then you have to search for the file, & deal with dependency issues. A install process more like windows would be good. Linux users need to stop calling windows users stupid to, I know everyone can’t be a genius, but lets face it people don’t like to be called stupid. I read about programers not knowing howto do stuff in linux, does that mean s/he is stupid, no. It need to get more convinyet to do some stuff to. Everybody doesn’t want to compile some program. The main diference between Linux & Windows is that 90% of computer users uses window becuase it is easy to use.
I disagree with the notion that Linux must become simpler. I subscribe to the concept that things should be as simple as they are, and no simpler. I believe, for the most part, Linux is at this point already.
In my opinion, if people want to run Linux, then they should be willing to invest some time towards learning Linux. Sure, people can create tools like Linuxconf, YaST, Webmin, etc. but no matter how pretty companies like SuSE make Linux appear, Linux will never be Windows so people are never going to avoid the need to learn something new.
I can understand new users becoming frustrated with Linux; I was when I first used it. What I can’t understand is the mentality of exacting revenge for one’s frustration against an inanimate object; in this case Linux.
Just as a carpenter, who hits his thumb with a hammer and then curses the hammer and throws it into a well to get even with it, is out a good hammer, new Linux users, who can’t figure out what they are doing, that log onto OSNews and piss and moan about how much Linux sucks, are out a good OS. How productive or useful is that? Does it help them learn Linux better? No. Does is dissuade Linux users from liking Linux? No. It is a complete waste of time for the whiner as well as everyone who has to sift through their whiney posts in an effort to find something of value to read.
10 years ago most processor intensive applications were actually running directly on top of DOS and no I’m not crapping on about MS Office on Windows 3.1.
Don’t give me this GUI crap doesn’t chew CPU cycles. Your example of Xfree highlights it but have you tried using a non Gnome/KDE window manager? There are some simple easy to use ones that are very effecient. Now take a look at both MacOS X and Windows XP; both have kiddie pathetic GUI’s that chew the F out of ones hardware. The reccomendation with XP is to piss off the Fisher Price GUI and resort to the Classic GUI with no effects. Still functionable and yet very responsive for Windows. Oh BTW did you know that underlying both these OS’s is a command prompt that allows you by pass the GUI and get dirty with the OS. Same for Linux and same for my personal favourite BeOS.
I bet most Medical and Science computing systems use very clean and efficient GUI’s that are not based on Windows/Mac or any other resouce hogging piece of ####.