“There have been so many glowing stories on the use of Linux that one might come away with the impression that Linux is an elixir that solves myriad business problems, and that it is always cheaper than alternatives. But like a lot of technologies before it, Linux has, to some degree, been overhyped.” Read the story at Forbes.
Forbes: The Limitations Of Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Linux won’t mean the be-all-and-end-all of your computer problems. Linux has its own issues and problems it needs to sort out…just like any other OS…
…and Windows hasn’t?
It is OVERHYPED!
…and we all know that.. dont we?
Yes, I use Linux for almost everything. I am running Mandrake Linux on this laptop from which I am typing this, and for a myriad of other things. However, it is far from perfect. There are tons of things that drive me batty about it, but I think this is mostly a distro problem. And not just with this one, but with Red Hat, SuSE, Slackware, Debian, Yellow Dog, etc. (I haven’t tried EVERY distro, so I can’t speak for the others, but I assume it’s the same).
But I deal with it. And I also learn something new. The same goes for Windows and Mac OS, no matter which version of these you are talking about. I learn new things about each of these environments from time to time.
Nothing is perfect, especially in the operating systems arena. But if it works for you, then great! If there’s a problem, I’m sure the next release of Your Favorite OS will be incorporating the changes (along with something else that will make you wince..hehe).
Once people come to this realization and stop overhyping things, they will be let-down much less than they are now, and probably more apt to trying something new.
The author is basically telling the truth and trying to ride the fence as much as possible….
…article summary quote…
“So, in the end, this is what we know: Linux is here to stay; it will get better; and sometimes it’s cheaper than alternatives, but it’s not right for every application. We know the very same about Windows.”
But it’s still going to lead to a bunch of mindless posts….and flames…
The problem with Linux (or unices/unixalikes in general) is that the strengths are not played to by the media simply because the media does not understand them.
Things like the network transparency that X has, which are an administrators dream, but it is not a buzz word – I mean, X has been network transparent since time began, it’s not new enough I guess.
When somebody can administrate the software for an entire department from one room, then you save costs. I believe the statistics were that you need an IT guy for every 100 Windows machines, but for Linux it was one for 400. Then again, 83% of statistics are made up.
as a windows, linux, freebsd, os-x user…i’m never surprised when the suits are “surprised”
“hey joe, check it out….linux isn’t the end all be all”
“no way! you don’t say!?”
no sh*t sherlocks.
DOERS will recognize, understand and accept relevant concepts that take months and even years to finally hit the suits in the back of the head.
“There are many companies, including Red Hat (nasdaq: RHAT – news – people ) and SuSe, producing their own versions. “Each has [its] own peculiarities,” Groenveld says. “What if you choose one that doesn’t succeed” in the marketplace?”
I wonder, does anyone know how interchangeable the distro’s are? In other words, if my company used SuSe, and SuSe when out of business, how hard would it be to switch to Red Hat? Of course, the easy answer is “it depends,” but I wonder if it’s relatively easy since they’re both Linux, or if that doesn’t make a difference.
haha ever heard of SMS ?
Sorry X windows is not something to be flaunted.
you are probably right.
but i wouldn’t smugly and proudly annouce that i’m a big fan of SMS either.
not if you didn’t want people smirking behind your back.
Not a fan, but implying that only with linux one “can administrate the software for an entire department from one room” is just silly.
(Clarity can be a wonderfull thing)
Linux is good and cheaper for a small website with one or two critical maintenance aspect done by one or two administrators who can set it up and program a little. At least, presently. On large corporations with email servers on WAN and large websites, with a lot of daily orders and a big catalogue of products, needing to have a large user base, Windows Server + SQL Server versions can be much more integrated and cheaper and easier to handle.
Applied Research Lab, says he is “no fan of Microsoft” but is distressed by the fact that there isn’t a single standard for Linux.
I just remembered a “the kompany.com” enterview here on OSNews where the problems of developing good and standard applications for Linux were said to be a real nightmare.
That is what have kept Linux in the dark. It will not change and will only get worst unless United Linux or something similar put up a real standard, or should we say a second Linux standard ? (The first being RedHat “standard” compliance).
United Linux is just a vague effort so far and SCO attitude towards Linux apparently inserted a bad mood on the effort.
I would like to see Linux achieve the same kind of standard Windows has, the first being package handling.
Most experts agree that there will be a shakeout amongst Linux distributors simply because the market, however large, will not sustain all the players.
You sort of get it. SDOme peoblems with Linux can not and will not ever be solved because of the nature of the development. Backwards compatibility, the file system, packaging issues, installer issues. This stuff makes it difficult to distribute software for Linux having to create seperate packages for almost every version of every distro. The best way to distribute software for Linux is to GPL it and have the distributor package it for you. But not everyone wants to release under GPL so Linux scares off non-GPL-ers.
I don’t see any of this changing in the near future and until it does I don’t see Linux “taking over the world” like so many claim it’s going to do. With all the skilled and intelligent people on the internet beating this issue into the ground I have never really seen a good literary piece on why Linux won’t take over the world any time in the near future. Years from now I can brag to people that I was one of the few who knew the truth. I am a Linux user but I have been saying this for years and I am still saying it… from Windows.
“I don’t see any of this changing in the near future and until it does I don’t see Linux “taking over the world” like so many claim it’s going to do. With all the skilled and intelligent people on the internet beating this issue into the ground I have never really seen a good literary piece on why Linux won’t take over the world any time in the near future. Years from now I can brag to people that I was one of the few who knew the truth. I am a Linux user but I have been saying this for years and I am still saying it… from Windows. ”
It seems that Windows licensing schemes will force linux to take over or gain dominance in all areas, regardless of the many weakness of linux. It’s simple economic necessity.
As much as I disklike linux as a desktop system, and I’m posting here from a Windows box just like you, it’s already achieving dominance as a server and in embedded and clustered computing. With compatible hardware (meaning Linux preinstalls) desktop linux can be easy enough for end users who are not technically oriented. This is much less of an issue in organizations with in-house staff to set up and administer linux already.
I don’t feel that the world will accept renting the right to use proprietary software when free software which is just as good in some cases or almost as good in others is available. Eventually OSS software (mostly linux) will be mandated by most governments worldwide, and that will be the end of Microsoft’s reign.
This will be the case regardless of various incompatibilites between different distros of Linux and the lack of backward compatibility (but newer versions of most apps which are actively maintained are made available for new releases of major distros already).
Why linux? Simply because it already has more support for hardware and more developer interest than other OSS platforms. More than Windows.
And I do see this happening in the near future (next 2 to 5 years). Mostly because of government initiatives in Asia and in some European nations. It’s very likely that the entire EU will mandate or at least endorse OSS within the next year or two as well.
Limitations? There would always be limitations, but with linux the limitations are a fast-moving target. That’s the best thing about it.
Yeah sure Windows + SQL is (even sometimes) cheaper than linux! :rolleyes: I really don’t know when it’s true. If you think so, you just don’t know linux enough.
There are standards. But you don’t even need to comply with them if you want your program to work.
If you develop an application properly, you won’t have problems with all the distributions… look at really big projects, like KDE and GNOME, they run on almost everything (except windows of course).
You may have some problems if you go binary only, like glibc problems (not always backward compatible) and packages maintainers won’t help you, but this is the problem if you choose this path. BTW, you don’t need to use the GPL…
And you can have problems developing applications with windows… What if you don’t want to develop in C++? Most of the time you ship the dlls with the installer, which is really stupid IMHO.
Linux might not be the obvious solution in all situations, the *bsd, all the unices, mac os, etc. might be better (But I would be scared without the source) but Windows, never! Microsoft made too much shit in the past, and they don’t stop (I guess you like the new licensing schemes!). Give me a break.
The author is right. Without standards linux will keep playing catch up to windows. The day every distro developer unite their programming abilities into one standard distro, Linux will never flourish.
Sad but true
cheaper than linux! :rolleyes: I really don’t know when it’s true. If you think so, you just don’t know linux enough.
There are standards. But you don’t even need to comply with them if you want your program to work.
If you develop an application properly, you won’t have problems with all the distributions… look at really big projects, like KDE and GNOME, they run on almost everything (except windows of course).
You may have some problems if you go binary only, like glibc problems (not always backward compatible) and packages maintainers won’t help you, but this is the problem if you choose this path. BTW, you don’t need to use the GPL…
No ofense fuX0r, but that is the same talk that prevents a mature attitude towards real standards on the “Operating System” as a whole.
If some developer (not me
goes binary only and doesn’t want to release the source code what can he/she do on Linux to have it running on every distribution out there ? Nothing.
He/she will have to “recomend” the distro(s) on which the software was tested and claim unreliability on the remaining distros. If you ever installed Kylix you know it is not easy … and that versions 2 and 3 of kylix run different pre-install checks (glib, gtk, etc). Just an example.
Your right, every distro should follow the same philosophy and standards. Now every version of linux will have the same advantages (and problems).
We dont need silly things like choice. I mean, If one standard controlled all of us, there would be no problems.
In fact, one company should control the source, and be the only company to change it. This way, the program would be more focused and less buggy.
CHOICE IS THE BEST THING ABOUT LINUX.
has anyone thought about what if the standard was wrong? In linux, people only have to abide by things they think are right.
Just think, Windows has a standard, and we want to be just like Windows.
Your logic doesnt’ really make sense.
When saying “Linux needs more standards”, one is NOT implying that every single distro be exactly the same, but rather have a basic guidelines for things such as graphical interfaces, filesystem layouts, etc.
By your logic, Humans are flawed because we all (For the most part) have the same standard features: Two arms, two legs, two eyes, one nose, one mouth, etc.
And the crack about windows at the end made even less sense. You may have well said “Windows runs on computers, and we want to be just like windows”.
Bleh.
The problem is windows has more limitation than linux in both server and desktop.
Linux does have standards already. Almost all GUI apps use Xwindows etc.
It just needs more standards. It doesn’t make sense to have so many different packageing formats. That is not a value add option for your distro.
” I don’t feel that the world will accept renting the right to use proprietary software when free software which is just as good in some cases or almost as good in others is available”
But we do live in a world where people will pay 20 to 30 times as much for branded water in little bottles instead of drinking water out of the tap that is completely safe. (at least in the USA) Brands, and FUD, do matter.
When it said Linux is not cheap, one thing came to my mind, this guy are trying marketing hype for some anti Linux or else she just know Linux on the weaker side.
MS calculation on costing just bullshit. I myself have setup server for very minimal cost. I download Debian and install one my system in around 5 huor. My adsl cost is about USD 25 (the exact is cheaper than that) month fixed. So let say only 28 day per month. It cost me around 0.20 USD fo that. The pirate copy of Windows cost around USD 2.5 here. The original is much higher than that (around 80 USD). If inclusive of MSOffice, or the server application the price far more higher. Only an insane man will say 0.20 USD is more expensive than 80 USD. On the hardware side, I just use self assemble parts which didn’t force me to buy any OS.
At my office service and maintenance agreement for Windows base PC cost around 1000 USD permonth for around 20 nos. The system that I using to write this (using Linux) just cost nothing seem I maintained it myself. One of our HP server which use SCO unix will cost USD 500 perday base on on called basis because the agreement didn’t give us any chance for us to maintain it although the server supposed to ours. We also have to spend fe w thousand dollar more a mont on the maintenance of other serve rthat is using WinNT.
So, this articles can lie to those who never have a system but didn’t have expertise or someone that never had a large system. But to me It just bullshit!!!!.
It is nicer if the article said there are less usable application in Linux rather than saying Linux is expensive.
Quite easy. I’ve never understood the comments about lack of Linux standards, they make it sound like the various Linuxes are as disparate as the Unixes – THEY ARE NOT. Same kernel, same libraries, same filesystem, etc. Sure, the kernel may have different patches, slightly different version, etc – but their not drastically different. Whats the difference between Red Hat 9’s 2.4.20 kernel and Mandrake 9.1’s 2.4.21? Not a whole lot. Porting over if one company dies? I doubt it would be all that involved. Back up your config files, log files (if deemed necissary), and whatever data you want to keep. Install new distro, copy back. Should be reasonably simple, I do it all the time at home. Linux is Linux, distro tweaks aside.
“Not a fan, but implying that only with linux one “can administrate the software for an entire department from one room” is just silly.”
The only reason i can think of that may make that statement untrue is if the LAN is down between the administrators PC and the target PC (and the target machine isn’t dead) otherwise you can administer either via the GUI or the command line.
I’ve be interested to hear other reasons where you might not be able to administer it from one place.
use Windows and Linux in the belief that because it is cheaper, it is obviously better. Hasn’t anyone learnt ANYTHING from the NT days? it seems that the world is full of IT people and managers with personalities like Irish Setters, aka, continuely optimistic even when though it is clearly obvious that there is something wrong.
Your average worker at an office who uses outlook, and Microsoft Office, does not typically use Linux, or unix or even Open Office. Your average worker does not know what a dependency problem is, they don’t care for problems, they just want to do their work.
Now Linux is cheaper to buy and to setup. I agree.
Linux, free download, Open Office, free download.
Windows XP OEM, $280 aust, MS Office OEM, about $500 I think.. doesn’t matter. Point is on simple kindergarten example, Linux is cheapest. YAY.
But how much will it cost to train Joe User how to use Linux, and how to install programs. I can see it now “Don’t I click setup? where is the Setup.exe? Whats an RPM? This is SHIT!”
Also alot of you seem to believe that in an office environment people only ever use Windows, Office and IE, with maybe SQL and IIS on the server side. I don’t know what planet or country that is. Most companies have internal programs that are used for stock handling, accounting, error reporting, proprietry file format editing, etc etc etc
So how cheap is it to rewrite or atleast edit and recompile all the internal systems in a company over to Linux? Some will need to be complete re-writes. And then there is the testing, and bug fixes.
So setting up a machine with Linux and Open Office and giving it to Sales Department Sally, is not going to cut it. Where is her ordering system? where is her stock levels?
You have to look at the full picture.
For the home user, using Linux is usually foolproof, for a company running Windows, windows is a cheaper solution.
And for a company that is just starting out, that is 90% average joe, and 10% programmers. Windows will probably be a better choice too.
Now if it was the next Google, with 10 Linux happy employee’s, then it would be different.
Running a company is about leverage of the resources at hand, in the effort to provide a service/product, and make money. In a world of 90%+ Linux users, Linux skills of the masses would be the resource your leverage. As it is, it is Microsoft’s Windows that the masses know and use, and so it is Windows that the companies will leverage and run with.
I don’t know about your company, but we don’t LET “Sales Department Sally” install software on her machine. Only the IT department should be loading software.
Also, most of our back end business software is on a mainframe, so Sally could just access it with a terminal emulator, the same as she does on windows.
As a matter of fact, most of the office workers here probably wouldn’t even notice we switched OS’s as long as they had e-mail and a wordprocessor.
Just before I start I’ll firstly state that I run Solaris 9 x86 and my main experience has been in the *BSD area.
This is what Linux needs:
1) Standard HIG. It doesn’t matter what toolkit is used as so long as the applicaiton conforms to what ever HIG the opensource community decides on.
2) Standardise Linux distribution. Basically, a standard where by all distributions use a certain kernel with certain features so that drivers can be written ONCE and can be installed anywhere. Anything from the X-Server up can be the domain of the distributor.
We had a person talk about Mandrake running 2.4.21 and Redhat Linux 9 running 2.4.20 and stated, “what is wrong with that”. Well, I’ll tell you want is wrong with that picture. If a company wishes to create a driver, which distro should they aim for? lets say Mandrake and Redhat. Now, both have different kernel revisions meaning two different versions need to be maintained. Then to add more complication, with each version of the kernel released the company then has to go back to the drawing board, recompile and work out any quirks that may happen in the NEW kernel.
Now, it is true that you can FORCEFULLY load a module from a different version of Linux, HOWEVER, you do risk destabilising your computer.
So as a result, there needs to be two things, a standardise Linux distribution and a stable driver API where by I as a user can install a driver and don’t have to worry whether it has been compiled against 2.4.20 or 2.4.21. With a standardise distribution then we won’t have issues like “oh, but xyz uses GCC 3.2.3 which is incompatible with 2.95.4”. If all distributions use the same compiler then issues like that wouldn’t happen.
3) Standardise desktop. Why do distributions try to offer every desktop under the SUN? distributions need to standardise on one and go all the way. United Linux is standardised on KDE and Redhat with GNOME. Ultimately by a company concerntrating on the one desktop, rapid improvementsc an happen in their particular distribution rather than trying to accomidate the differences of two desktops living in the same operating system.
4) A willingness for people in the Linux world to actually pay for software instead of complaining and expecting things to be given away for free. Yes, there are people out there who do pay for software and use Linux but unfortuntaely you are in the minority. The majority of new Linux users today are the Johnny cheapskates who expect things to be for free because he can’t get off his ass, get a job and pay for some software. These are the same people who complained about Windows XP because of activation then some how expect Linux to have every piece of software they need, FOR FREE!
5) Linux is overhyped. It has been made bigger than it really is and the sooner people realise it, along with the hype associated with Windows, then the sooner we can get back to reality, and instead of saying, “oh, a small amount of downtime is alright”, people will once again start expecting QUALITY in their product they buy.
And for the people who think, “what would you know”, I do remember the good old days in the Linux community. Coders working with users, users willing to part with money to buy software. Coders learning from what users wanted. Fast forward to 2003 and unfortunately the community is now filled with cheapskates, cling-on’s and freeloaders who expect everything to be just given to them.
The problem with Linux (or unices/unixalikes in general) is that the strengths are not played to by the media simply because the media does not understand them.
Things like the network transparency that X has, which are an administrators dream, but it is not a buzz word – I mean, X has been network transparent since time began, it’s not new enough I guess.
When somebody can administrate the software for an entire department from one room, then you save costs. I believe the statistics were that you need an IT guy for every 100 Windows machines, but for Linux it was one for 400. Then again, 83% of statistics are made up.
But that is not a feature unique to Linux, windows has been able to do that for years too. My first job out of college Dec 92 was at a company that use reachout for managing remote windows 3.x machines. Most of the server stuff could be done using SAF to control the OS/2 SQL Servers or Lan Manager commands. As the time moved on, different options showed up: WTS, PC Anywhere, Citrix, etc. all letting you remotely administer a machine.
And if you’re hiring one IT guy for just 100 windows boxes, you’re hiring dumb and/or lazy IT guys or you bought some really crappy boxes and they are spending all their time swapping bad parts.
1) More or less agree. The geek in me screams “choice is good” but then so is consistency. The open desktop folks seem to be trying to get Gnome and KDE to intergrate more, and everyone is moving in this direction. Look at recent efforts by Mandrake and Red Hat towards consistency regardless of the desktop you run. I’ve long favored GTK+ over QT, but then…choice.
2) Done, its called Red Hat. With the exception of Slackware, Debian, and the source distros everyone else more or less, however begrudgingly, follows Red Hat’s lead. RPM being only one example.
You said “We had a person talk about Mandrake running 2.4.21 and Redhat Linux 9 running 2.4.20 and stated, “what is wrong with that”. Well, I’ll tell you want is wrong with that picture. If a company wishes to create a driver, which distro should they aim for? lets say Mandrake and Redhat. Now, both have different kernel revisions meaning two different versions need to be maintained. Then to add more complication, with each version of the kernel released the company then has to go back to the drawing board, recompile and work out any quirks that may happen in the NEW kernel.”
There are problems with your logic. The one that leaps most immediate to mind is that you don’t seem to grasp the difference between minor releases and major ones. Subsystems *very* rarely go through major changes in a minor release (2.4.19, 2.4.20, etc) so said company with device driver shouldn’t have a problem. Besides, if their wise they’d open source it – problem solved forever. Company dies, driver is still there and updated as users continue to use it and demand support for it. NVidia’s excuse for not open sourcing their driver strikes me as valid, and yet they still manage to support *every* distro – even the source ones like Gentoo! One driver, every distro. Its not hard or impossible, Linux is Linux – minor kernel differences aside. Its not like the monsterous differences from FreeBSD to OpenBSD, which can be quite drastic.
3) I agree, but not everyone can agree on *which* desktop to standardize on. I’ve long favored Gnome, yet many others love KDE. Who gets to choose? Who gets left out? Regardless its all still open source, even if tomorrow every commercial distro standardized on Gnome theres always Slackware, or Gentoo, or Debian or even a manual way of installing KDE on your fav distro. Standardizing on GNOME wouldn’t kill KDE, at least in the short term.
4) Do not confuse end user hobbyists with commercial end users. If that was universally true Oracle wouldn’t be making money with Linux, but the elitist end users do not speak for all of us. I, for one, have bought commercial software for Linux (Loki Games, mostly) and I’m not alone. I have nothing against purchasing software, I merely prefer open source most of the time. If Macromedia were to port DreamWeaver I’d buy it tomorrow.
5) Blame the media. Linux, as a desktop, has been overhyped since 1998. Thats when I first tried using it, and boy was I in for a shock. It wasn’t ready then, and for many its still not ready now. But we have progressed leaps and bounds. For servers much of the Linux hype is spot on, theres a reason why its so widely used on the web. Linux isn’t quality? Do you know how many times Linux has crashed on me? Only when the hardware was flacky (in whcih case FreeBSD or Win XP would also crash) or if I was running a development kernel. Else I’ve never had a crash, never lost data, never been hacked (not that Linux is in any way immune).
Thanks for the post, its a great way to start my morning. 🙂
In my company it seem that the IT department have to change version of Windows and MSOffice about every 2 years wihout any discount from MS. Why? the compatibility issue. When the top rank staff got his system upgraded, the other staff just cannot use the older system to read the file save by the newer system. And I myself cannot installed the version of Photoshop that I got on my new XP machine just because it is not compatible. Do I we need to buy new Photoshop too???
Yeah it is true many company use computers for stock handling, accounting etc. but the higher majority just use office application. Here at may place a lot of the company that involve in stock handling, large integrated office system normaly use mainframe and the end user just access through dumb terminal. But I think it is true any company doesn’t have to dump what they already have which also works for them but It is not right to summarised that the cost of migrating to Linux is higher since these type of company will incurred higher cost.
At my office one of the department just got their custom web base reporting which was built for Win200 Server. This nearly 20,000 USD system is required since the existing system which also Windows base just not enough and the cost of upgrading is too high. Otherwise the unit under me already have this type of system half a year ago at the cost of my monthly salary (which without the system that I made, they still have to pay). One thing for sure is that the server run Redhat 7.2 and still can save a lot of time when preparing montly report or special report for BOD meeting etc. And you know what, my staff just don’t even know what platform they are accessing to!!!
Many more I can compare at my workplace since we have various OS running such as SCO,QNX,WinNT,Win2000 Server, Win XP, Win98 and of course Linux although the COO just give the blink eyes when reading my memo asking for permission to install Linux long ago. An I know a lot on the cost that incurred especially on the maintenance side.
I thought this was a very well thought out and put together article. I’ve known for a long time that there is no magic bullet solution for every situation you could possibly encounter, but try and tell that to the pundits who swear by it. Personally, make mine BSD. It’s more mature and centralized, and runs Linux progs better than Linux most of the time. As far as Linux is concerned? I think it will continue to hog the limelight for a few more years and then eventually implode on itself due to a lack of centralization and a host of interoperability issues.
I’m always surprised to read complaints about the lack of standards for linux. People are so used to monopolistic practices they forget that with the same kernel, different distros can be built. It’s all about choice.
What most of you guys are asking for is uniformity : you’d want your linux desktop to act and look the same, whatever the distro. Well, tough luck for you : stick with the proprietary OS you’re using right now.
A few words about the myriads of linux applications that apparently do the same thing : unless I’m wrong, this applies to the Windows and MacOS world too. In case you disagree, just go to Tucows or CNET.
The fact that drivers are packaged in different ways (rpm, tgz, deb, …) doesn’t mean the underlying code is different and the author rewrote them many times. Do you really believe that PPP (for instance) behaves differently whether it’s a debian or a suse package ?
What happens if a distro maintainer decides to stop working on it ? If you’re so scared at that prospect, consider these examples : Debian and Slackware exist since 1993 and there are people waiting to jump on those bandwagons to keep up the good work. Another instance is AtheOS. That other free OS isn’t actively maintained by its creator ? No problem : others have picked up the slack and created a fork (Syllable).
Let’s go on the proprietary side of the fence. HP has neglected so much OpenVMS, it is now in a comatose state… too bad for the customers. Sun offers a x86 port of Solaris but, by all accounts, it pales in comparison to the Sparc version. Mac users waited so long for QuarkXPress 6.0 they thought the Quark staff either fell into a blackhole or became infested with Magog eggs.
Microsoft (for fear of competition) has decided to halt all development of Internet Explorer for MacOS (at least they got a taste of their own medicine). Oh… did I mention IBM, which probably forgot the existence of its offspring named OS/2 ?
Unfortunate businesses that still rely on DOS can’t expect Microsoft to update that clunky stuff. Instead, they must resort to antics such as running DOS in emulation (in linux, mind you).
It’s not an exaggeration to say that the graveyard of proprietary products and companies is so full it’s over capacity.
Linux users are blamed because most of them don’t pay for their software. May I suggest to their accusers to read documents such as the Debian Social Contract or the essay “Why Software Should Be Free” by Richard Stallman ?
My point is : if the creator of a software says it’s free, what’s wrong with using or modifying it accordingly ? This is important : corporations like Microsoft and Apple make millions out of software they got for free (BSD TCP/IP stack anyone ?), yet individuals are blamed for using (not even selling) that same software for nothing. A little consistency would be appreciated here.
A contrario, people who pay for proprietary software can’t even share it legally with their close relatives. By the way, if linux users are the only free riders, how come the BSA is all over you, Windows pirates ?
It’s true linux lags in certain area compared to other operating systems. However, its users find solace in the fact that many strive to improve the penguin.
Only my 2 cents 🙂
I don’t particularily trust Forbes, but to all those, including the author, talking about the need for “standards” in Linux, I agree.
In the 80s the competing music gear companies adopted the MIDI standard (musical instrument digital interface). While this set of parameters instructing a keyboard how to play “notes”–velocity, sustain, etc–is primitive by current standards, say, of a “Hayes-compatible” modem, the act of agreement between the companies was something that the computer industry should learn from. With MIDI, your Yamaha keyboard could control the sounds inside your Roland keyboard, all by connecting one wire, or two, if you wanted the Roland to control the Yamaha as well. All the major players, reluctantly or readily, agreed to comply to the MIDI standards. Now a musician could buy, and hold, two, three, four, keyboards, and not make an expensive commitment that tied hrim to one manufacturer.
The MIDI implementation resulted in an explosion of the keyboard industry. It didn’t hamper competition, it allowed competition to play the same “game” on the same “field”. Consumers really did benefit. (Meanwhile the movie industry was complaining about VCRs).
Assume KDE and Gnome, for example, are like two different musical keyboards. The way these two systems “talk” to each other, or coexist in the same machine, should be STANDARDIZED. Let each desktop system develop in its own way, but each must develop in a way beholden to a STANDARDIZED way of talking to any other major component of a Linux OS. This inner-interfacing must be STANDARDIZED among all distros. If you click on a Gnome app while in KDE, Gnome with no bullshit >snaps< open along with the app. Coming up with better and better ways of installing, and uninstalling programs–RPM, Apt-Get, etc– is NOT the answer to one of the major Linux plagues. ELIMINATING the whole “dependency” issue is what must be done. A user shouldn’t come across that word very often, if ever. It’s as if Linux was born with one leg–no offense to anyone–and now everything Linux does is done in accordance with that handicap, which has come to be presumed to be a given.
I have no idea how “dependencies” can be made to disappear, or even “if” it can be done without killing Linux itself, but I don’t care. I have wanted to switch out of Windows, but have concluded–not yet. Linux ain’t ready. The needed modem drivers for my machine, you see, don’t yet quite have V. 92 capability …
Despicable as MS and Gates are, by dint of their monopoly, and a quality passable enough to get them by all these years–who knew?– they created by default a universal standard, not only for Windows, but for all effing computer OSs everywhere. Gates’ programs are taught in school. No one even questions that. I’m sorry to tell you what you already know, genius. But if there is a good side to the MS monopoly, my young pseudo-anarchist friend who would disagree, it is that the STANDARDS this monopoly created allowed the computer industry to explode across the planet, and now look at all those cool games, and listen to the guns rumble in the subwoofer behind your sneakers.
Try getting a pair of good TWO-way speakers these days … Yes, even the speaker industry has come along for the ride, on the back of standardized gaming platforms, mostly Winodws, of course.
Much progress has been made among the distros, but the blizzard of “choice” can dilute progress. Take one step foward, and take one, if not back, then off to the side–and so now what?
Use the MIDI model. Learn in novel ways from others who came before you. What MIDI may have to teach us may not be in the technical realm, but in the political realm.
You know, people, back in the day computers were ALL geeks’ toys. If you wanted a computer, you went to your local Heath store, bought a kit, built it and installed something like CP/M on it. Or you bought something already build like and Osbourne. And then what did you do with it? You programmed it.
Then came little Billy Gates who more or less reverse-engineered CP/M to make DOS, which was the geeky OS of its day, especially when compared with Macintosh.
And now we have a similar situation with Linux. Computers became mainstream appliances, and DOS grew into Windows XP. Who says miracles don’t happen? Don’t write Linux off yet, you guys. Anything is possible.
I’m a musician too, and I fully appreciate MIDI…it’s what allows me to have a project studio at home. Since I have no room for a drum kit, all my songs feature MIDI drums which I pains-takingly tweak till even my drummer friends are impressed.
But I was under the impression that KDE and Gnome are pretty much standards in and of themselves. When a distro features either or both GUIs, they are the unmodified versions of themselves. Except in the case of RedHat, who unabashedly modifies KDE to suit their own purposes.
In addition, I’ve always thought that the OpenGL policy of Linux means that anyone can change, modify, improve (pick your favorate superlative) any such program, but that change needs to be sent back to the original developers for incorporation into the legitimate version of the program. That also should allow for each program to be standardized. Otherwise we might have some 25 different versions of OpenOffice (for instance) running around.
And by the way, MIDI has no copyrights…it’s essentially freeware. No chance of a monopoly there.
I am software professional working on Microsoft eCommerce server with .Net integration. After using this I came to a conclusion that Microsoft has Mature and understood the e-business and e-Commerence solution on which every Corporates depends. I had never seen Linux used as ecommerce server.
That’s why there is freebsd.
Limitations? What _doesn’t_ have limitations? the reason I run linux is because of it lack of limitations. Try and customize a windows desktop and you’ve got to get 3rd party software which hacks the registry and makes the os unstable sometimes. On the server end, all you’ve got most of the time is the idiot wizards that are so limited that leaves a sysadmin muttering, “assholes,” out loud every ten minutes.
“one might come away with the impression that Linux is an elixir that solves myriad business problems” Bullshit. I don’t know of anyone who has even hinted at such a claim… except ms in their fud, which the author is rehashing.
“Last year, Microsoft sponsored a study by International Data Corp. that found Windows systems to be cheaper than Linux over a five-year period.” Duh. And any study sponsored by ms would claim different? The study has been ridiculed and dismissed by everyone from the osnews-ites to the gartner group. yet this idiot quotes it like it’s hot news with an insightful perspective. The fact is the study is a damn lie. Just from the support view of things: one linux sysadmin is easily worth 10, if not 100, ms sysadmins. I’ve consulted at many places where the sysadmin is nothing more than a paper tiger who doesn’t know his ass from his elbow and I get paid big bucks to set silly little problems right.
The lack of commercial software is a real issue with linux: many s/w companies vehemently oppose any linux development of any kind. But I’m noticing more and more commercial apps out there for linux anyway. The companies who have now
started to develop for linux are the more technically disposed ones. The less technically disposed are developing in ms propietary shit like visual basic, so it’s probably a good thing that crap like this isn’t ported anyway.
“distressed by the fact that there isn’t a single standard for Linux” Makes it sound like we’re talking apples, oranges and pomegranates; we’re not, it’s all varieties of the same fruit, so to speak. The difference are pretty damn small. I personally hope there will never be a single restrictive linux standard especially with malicious companies like the canopy group (trolltech, and also owns sco) having such an entrenched hand into kde. I wouldn’t be surprized to see trolltech pull the exact same shit that sco is doing right now. diversity means freedom from such assholes.
The author is so far lost in yesterday’s news that i thought the article was mistakenly re-posted from 6 months ago. What an hack writer.