Feature: The End of the Tour

Stewart Rosenberger has written an interesting piece about what the success of Linux means for the users out there who are currently using it. Will it mean that the pioneers will move on to other places? Is this already starting-rather then Linux fragmenting, the user base fragmenting? Click below to read more-it's well worth it.

This is not about Open Source. The Open Source movement has taken a once-ridiculed development model and hammered it into a commercially viable bandwagon that the entire industry is just now scrambling to get onto. Open Source is to be praised for the control and flexibility it has brought to programmers and users alike. This is not about Open Source - it's about Linux. I make this distinction now because, while at the moment they are seen as something of a package deal, one is a revolution and the other is nothing more than a twinkling fad in the eyes of the computer industry.

The Linux community has done what only a handful of other organizations can lay claim to. It has posed a genuine threat to Microsoft's near monopoly over the desktop market. And those other organizations, like IBM, Apple and Netscape? They had hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal and they still failed. Well, it looks like the Linux community may just succeed, and for good reason too - they have more developers and testers than any single platform has ever had behind it. And more importantly, those developers and testers enjoy what they do. They enjoy what they do to such an extent that most of them are doing it for free. Microsoft cannot, and has never been able to, say that about its Windows platform.

To these millions of developers, testers, and users, Linux is far more than just a simple operating system. It's a way of life. It's a religion. It 's a holy crusade against the enemy in Redmond. However, on top of all that, and even underneath it, the people who use Linux do so because it's theirs. Linux is theirs, not in the Open Source sense that they are free to change and distribute it as they see fit, but in the sense that no one else is using it. Even with the community's millions of members, they are still a very small minority in the larger scheme of things and, although most will fiercely deny it, that's the way they like it.

This is meant for all the "world-domination" types who want to see Linux on every desktop in the world: You don't know what you're asking for. The day that 51% of the world's PCs run Linux is the day that you start running OpenBSD or some other, lesser-popular, OS.

And why will they abandon ship? They will blame companies like RedHat, SuSE, and Caldera for commercializing their precious operating system. They' ll claim that Linux's architecture is inherently inferior. They'll say it's not as scalable, not as portable, and not as secure as the latest-and-greatest OS. But while the reasons they give may have some merit, they won't be the truth. The truth is they'll abandon Linux because in their eyes, it will have joined the ranks of Windows as a sell-out. They'll leave because Linux isn't theirs anymore.

No one will notice either. The change will be gradual as more and more members of the Linux community move on to greener pastures. And as the tide begins to swell up against the old majority, a new community will spring up with it's own culture and icons. The elite will poke fun at "Linux Lusers" and their monolithic operating system. And why shouldn't they? Anyone who's serious about computing will be using the super-portable Hurd microkernel, right?

This doesn't have anything to do with Linux as an operating system. Linux could be the most perfectly stable, portable, scalable piece of code ever imagined and what I've predicted would still be inevitable. The Linux community isn't about using Linux - it's about feeling special. I know that sounds trite, but it's accurate. When Linux (and in particular its desktop environments, such as KDE and GNOME) have matured to a point where they are useable by the average joe, today's Linux users aren't going to feel as unique. They will seek other venues of being better than average. Some will call themselves "power users". Others will become sysadmins professionally. The rest will leave.

It bears repeating, so I will say it again: This is not about Open Source. Just because Linux is GPL'ed, doesn't mean it's immune to the sell-out syndrome that I've described above. People claim that because Linux is held under the GNU Public License that no one company can dominate it. This is true. They say that hackers like Alan Cox, Mandrake, and Linus Torvalds will continue to improve upon Linux at their own pace, regardless of what outside media and industry influences are saying. This is also probably true. The point, however, is that the Linux community, as a whole, will not stick around to watch. They won't want any part in the corporate-sponsored demographic-pandering mainstream beast that Linux will have become. GPL'ed or not, they're going to hate Linux.

This is not to say that Linux hasn't already revolutionized the computer world, because it has. What the Linux community has accomplished in the past few years can only be called "amazing" - It has been a watershed in the history of Free Software and an overall Good Thing (tm). Regardless, Linux is transient. The OS itself may continue on for some time, but the people who made it what it is won't.

It happens in art. It happens in music. And now it's happening in software. What was once an underground alternative is now becoming mainstream and commercial. The masses are coming for your kernel and you're calling them on. Once the door is open, it cannot be closed again and the Camelot of Linux will fall.

Stewart Rosenberger

[e-mail]

Foogle on Slashdot

No, it's about Freedom

Unlike the author of this article, I don't claim to speak for everyone. I know he doesn't speak for me, and I strongly suspect he doesn't speak for many people. First off, he talks of the "Linux Community" as if the label is useful, as if it describes a monolithic community with common beliefs. Secondly much of what he ascribes to the "Open Source Movement" is stuff done by the "Free Software Movement", an older and very different movement. Thirdly, he falls into the common trap of equating commercial and proprietary, which irrecoverably muddles his argument.

There are many communities out there, with much overlap between them. There's the Linux Community, the Free Software Community, the BSD Community, and so on. You cannot say that the Linux community is here because of some holy crusade against Redmond, some clearly feel that way, for most it's a lesser or non-issue. They are here because they like to hack on their own system, or they are here because Linux works better for what they want to do. None of these people are wedded permanently to Linux, but none of them are likely to leave just because Linux becomes the majority system. Also, just because Linux becomes the majority system doesn't mean it has "joined the ranks of Windows as a sell-out".

I'm sure there are some who are so committed to being a part of something unpopular as to act the way the author describes, but they are solidly in the minority. People might leave the Linux community eventually, but the reasons will be "it's not as much fun anymore" or "system X does what I need better". And those will be the real reasons, not rationalizations.

Secondly, the Open Source movement as a whole has done nothing about development models. ESR, the originator of the Open Source movement described existing development models, not only didn't that change the models, but it was before there even was an Open Source movement. What the Open Source movement did was threefold. It tried to repackage the Free Software Movement into a business suit, it tried to downplay the benefits of Freedom in software (since Freedom is apparently scary to businesses), and it started the push to coerce businesses to change their licensing schemes.

You predict a dire future for Linux, "[The Linux Community] won't want any part in the corporate-sponsored demographic-pandering mainstream beast that Linux will have become. GPL'ed or not, they're going to hate Linux." I have a little more faith in the community than the author does. The corporate influence has been here for years. Most distributions of Linux over the past year and a half have included a commercial compiler (egcs), and people cheered! Why? Because commercial does not equal evil. I for one am not fighting against commercialism, I am fighting against proprietary software. Many companies have been very helpful against this, including Cygnus and RedHat. Also, the GPL is not the only protection against such evils as the author describes. The distribution of packages is the other. It doesn't get into the kernel unless Linus says so. Most packages have similar reins.

In conclusion, I agree, it's not about Open Source, but it's also not about being a fickle part of a counterculture. For most of the community, it's about "Having something that works". For me, it's about Freedom, plain and simple.

----