Slashdot Log In
Linux Going Mainstream
Posted by
michael
on Sun Feb 01, 2004 04:46 PM
from the oh-joy dept.
from the oh-joy dept.
Gossi writes "The BBC is carrying an excellent overview of the growing use of Linux, by many different fields. The article says it all, really, and is probably something you should show your Boss."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Linux Going Mainstream
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 618 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:If you read about it in 1998 (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux has been becoming "mainstream" in a number of different markets over time. First it was low-end servers. Then mid-range servers. Then scientific computing (supercomputers, etc). Then workstations (ILM, etc). Then it was the embedded market. Now, its the corporate desktop. Come 2006, you'll hear again that "Linux is going mainstream" but it'll be a different market (maybe educational or public terminals?) Linux is becoming more suitable for more and more markets, and that's what the repeated articles about it "going mainstream" reflect.
Re:If you read about it in 1998 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you read about it in 1998 (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, its all a matter of what market you are talking about. Linux's support for server peripheral's is excellent, which is why it has "gone mainstream" in the server market. Its also not a problem on the business desktop, where IT purchases are planned ahead of time, and are generally conservative about hardware. The fact that Linux doesn't support Sony Minidisc players is utterly irrelevent on a corporate desktop. As long as it supports the integrated graphics and sound chips on the motherboard (and Linux almost always does) hardware support is not an issue.
This is why the predictions have so far failed to bear fruit.
If somebody predicated in 1998 that Linux was about to go mainstream in the home user market, they were full of shit. But the home user market is only a part of the overall computing landscape, and Linux has managed to become mainstream in many markets without making any inroads in the home market.
Re:If you read about it in 1998 (Score:4, Insightful)
And I think you will agree that once a manufacturer's sales drop slightly because of lack of support for a popular OS, it will ll write a driver pretty damn fast.
Re:When Matlab hits mainstream (Score:4, Interesting)
Government, yup (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://tomcopeland.blogs.com/)
So true. Running [cougaar.org] on [ultralog.net] Linux [semwebcentral.org] baby! [mtechit.com]
Re:Government, yup (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Government, yup (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait, no, they just want to spend that money on more beaurocrats and $1000 screwdrivers.
Ah, well.
Re:Government, yup (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://iantri.ath.cx/)
Because it's not like another popular operating system, who, for its own protection, we will only referred to as "M.S.W.", has a perfectly clean security record..
Linux going mainstream? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linux going mainstream? (Score:5, Funny)
Join us.
Re:Linux going mainstream? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linux going mainstream? (Score:5, Funny)
"No, we shall all start using the HURD now."
Yeah, because joining a HURD is the first thing to do when trying to stand out from the crowd.
Re:Linux going mainstream? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.gfunk007.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday May 27 2006, @04:33AM)
Re:Should be obscure enough (Score:4, Funny)
(http://blog.kcheretic.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 08 2004, @11:37AM)
I think that's because Linux bits are lighter than *BSD, so Linux washes up on the shore all the time, whereas the heavier (but more correct) *BSD bits sink to the ocean floor.
Re:Linux going mainstream? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://naikrovek.org/)
"Show your boss"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Show your boss"? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"Show your boss"? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.pierceive.com/)
Unless you're the assistant janitor, in which case he's both...
Re:"Show your boss"? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.haeleth.net/)
Yeah - it's amazing that nobody [lyx.org] has thought of writing one.
Re:"Show your boss"? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.yorrike.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 04 2003, @08:03AM)
Most of your problems take just a tiny little bit of effort to overcome.
Excel beats the ever-loving crap out of Kspread.
Have you tried Open Office [openoffice.org]?
None of the software works well together - Mozilla and Konq have no idea what software to launch when you download a file.
Yeah. If you're that fussed, tell Mozilla what to use by setting the mime type actions under preferences.
And why do I need to be root to burn a disk? Or to install the simplest apps?
That's called security. And if you really want, you can give your user the rights to do those things.
Rather than sitting around going "bitch, bitch, bitch, Linux doesn't work like Windows", why don't you take your questions to google and get the solutions.
If even that is too much effort for you, stay with Windows. Enjoy MyDoom.
Re:kspread? Ew. (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.jphoude.qc.ca/)
I must say I was also very disappointed by RH 7.5. This is probably one of the worst RH release I ever downloaded!
Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
With the way games are written these days (requiring massive amounts of time and money), game development will have to undergo some pretty radical changes before it will fit successfully into the OSS model and we continue to have the quality of games we have today.
Of course, the other path is that the PC is removed from the entertainment picture and consoles take over that role completely (woe be that day).
Re: Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Until Linux is a complete entertainment package
Sounds like all the more reason for corporations to adopt it.
Re:games is right (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://blog.kcheretic.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 08 2004, @11:37AM)
Desktop Conversions: I'm not sure about anyone else, but my company ( a multinational telecommunications company ) rolls out new desktops of MicroSloth crap at least twice a year, and spends the intervening six months trying to make the stuff they just did work - the same crowd that says "You can't have XP because it will bring down the network."
Network Migration: What the hell, guy, are you still running NetBEUI or something? Linux has done SMB (through Samba) for-freaking-ever (in computer years, anyway). Outside of that, even MicroSloth doesn't really attempt to take on Linuxs' networking pedigree.
User Retraining: I would hope that your computer users are somewhat more savvy than, say, my grandfather - who converted to Linux eight months ago; or my wife, who converted over a year ago; or my Aunt Jill, who converted seven months ago and uses her home PC for work tasks. All in all I've had far fewer 'help me' calls from them since upgrading them. The hardest 'retraining task' was getting them to understand network logins and remember their passwords.
Consultants: LOL... Consultants won't recommend Linux conversion, on the whole, not yet. Mostly because their purpose is not to solve a company's technical problems, but to bill hours (and yes, I've been a consultant and I have been told that I 'solved a problem too rapidly').
When you combine all of these costs, double them, and then subtract the cost of troubleshooting and fixing SoBig, MyDoom, and the other litany of M$-based crapola, and, as the previous poster mentioned, the recovered gaming time (since you can't play a lot of the popular games on Linux) and reduced support hours, I think Linux becomes a clear win.
Re: Games.... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://wtc.thefineline.org/)
You mean, no one has written Solitaire for Linux yet? What more does the average office worker need?
Re:Games.... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.interlingua.com/)
<...zzzzzzz> <snort> huh? wassup? oh, nuther 'doze fudster.. <yawn> $799 emac [apple.com] <snort> $1099 ibook [apple.com] ... grmbl ... fudspewers are boring ... <yAAAaawn> <zzzzzzz...>
Re:Games.... (Score:5, Informative)
at $319, less than half that $799. That gets you
2.4 GHz CPU which is prolly on par with that 1 GHz
G4 in an eMac (yes G4's are faster but not that
much of a difference). You get same 128 Mb RAM,
and 40 Gb HDD in both. There may be a few places
where eMac is clearly better or there may not be
(too lazy to compare thoroughly). Oh, and this
eMac has got a 17" CRT so we add $100 to Dell's
price. In the end the Mac barely gets out of being
twice as expensive as a PC.
Macs are quite competitive in notebooks though.
Re:Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.parateam.com/)
There's no obligation for the game development to fit into the OSS model. Games can continue to be proprietary if they simply intall and run fairly under Linux.
Re:Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://ekj.vestdata.no/)
Thus, to say that "If only we had Windows-like selection of games, then we'd be ready to take over the world" is sorta self-defating. The games won't come before the people come, and the people, according to you, won't come before the games are already there, thus nothing changes.
Fortunately you're wrong. What happens instead is that every day Linux improves. (with Linux I really mean Linux + the apps) And with every improvement it becomes acceptable for more people. And with every new person who uses it, there's one more reason to consider making a game available also for Linux.
Re:Games.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.groowe.net/)
Times change.
Do your part! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.ak10.net/)
I do that too (Score:5, Funny)
I do that too. They make quite a racket when I play them in the Kenwood. However, I've found that with 800 watt sub-woofers, anything can sound quite impressive.
Re:I do that too (Score:5, Funny)
Makes up for their recent writeup on SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Earlier BBC story [bbc.co.uk]
Still, I suppose that the latest story is written by someone who has Clue. I'm told that they exist, even at the BBC.
not so suprising (Score:5, Insightful)
In my openion the main problem is people, in general, don't even knwo open source exists. And those that do only vaguely recall that they've hear about it somewhere. Hopefully its only a matter of time before people (especially in the US) catch on.
Seen IBM's new linux commercial? (Score:3, Informative)
It's very interesting in that it doesn't mention technology at all, only some stuff about the "open" future.
You can watch it here [ibm.com].
IBM commercial (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seen IBM's new linux commercial? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're meant to generate interest in a product, not explain it, so that the PHBs then go to IBM and ask them about it, and IBM happily gives them the whole sales pitch.
Pretentious? You bet! They're fscking IBM! They do their best to look even bigger than the 800 pound gorilla that they are so, that the PHBs, who are business people, are sure that IBM is the winning team; cuz that is who the PHBs go with: the ones they consider to be the winning team.
Re:Seen IBM's new linux commercial? (Score:5, Informative)
There is the ASCCI ART(?) version available:
Open on Linux boy, close-up on his face, while you hear Ali's voice. Cut to boy sitting in front of old black and white television with old Mohammed Ali fight footage playing.
Male voice: Never. Never make me no underdog. And never talk about who's gonna stop me. Well, there ain't nobody gonna stop me. I must be the greatest. I shook up the world. (Inaudible background voices) I shook up the world. I shook up the world. I shook up the world.
You hear the television being turned off. Cut to Mohammed Ali sitting across from Linux boy.
Ali: Shake things up.
Cut to Linux boy face. Cut to full screen shot of Ali and boy. Cut to shot behind boy, facing Ali.
Ali: Shake up the world.
Cut to Linux boy, slight smile.
Title: Linux
The Future is Open
IBM
I tried... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://seenonslash.com/ | Last Journal: Friday May 11 2007, @04:02PM)
They wouldn't even look at it. Our lead developer thinks Microsoft is the best producer of software and that
how can it go mainstream? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.seasonalwallpapers.com/)
Ok, I'm a software developer. I want to port my software, written for windows, to linux so that the average joe will be able to use it. Is it so simple? Well, which distro will I do first? Mandrake? Redhat? Suse? Debian? Then what about those who use *BSD? There are so many choices. I mean its a great kernel, I use different distrobutions for all of my servers. I have no desire to mess with Active Directory or IIS.. But how can it take over the mainstream market when each distro is different.
Re:how can it go mainstream? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://billposer.org/)
For most software, the differences among Linux distributions are immaterial; if you port to one, it will run on all. In fact, in most cases, so long as the CPU is the same, the binaries will be compatible. For that matter, most properly written software will be portable, at the source level, among POSIX-compliant systems, meaning not only Linux but a wide range of other UNIX systems.
Except in the very unusual case in which different distributions use different versions of the kernel that differ in what system calls they support, and where your software makes use of these system calls, the differences among distributions are entirely a matter of what versions of what libraries they come with, and what other software. That means that software that compiles and runs on one distribution can always be compiled and run on another; the difference will be that in some cases the person doing the build will have to install a library or a program that did not come with the distribution. That is generally not a big deal. If your software requires something exotic, you can also provide statically-linked binaries that incorporate it for those who don't have the necessary library.
I've never encountered a problem due to differences among distributions. I have been using Mandrake on my own machines for the last several years. I have had no problem compiling software that I write on the Red Hat machines in our lab. In fact, I rarely encounter any problem compiling my software on our Suns. (When I do it is almost always because I am using GNU extensions that Sun libc does not support.)
The variety of distributions may seem confusing and chaotic to non-Linux people, and at the level of the desktop, I can see how inexperienced users would find the differences offputting. But it really isn't a problem for developing or porting software.
Didn't quite get all the facts straight (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday January 17 2004, @06:01PM)
There are other GPL'd operating systems, and the BSDs are all open source, aren't they?
Large companies have been benefiting from Linux for years now. They use it to run large servers and networks.
Small companies have arguably been benefitting more: I know from my experience that it's easier getting Linux into a small company than it is into a large one.
"This is something that a lot of people in developing countries have. It is a natural for them to make do with little, and to produce something of value out of nothing."
This is just patronising.
How about pointing out that people whoever they are all benefit and can run the same software without the discrimination that high prices cause.
Some worry, though, that large corporations may be reluctant to share their Linux-based software with others. And that, say long-time Linux programmers, would violate the tenets of the open source philosophy.
More importantly, it would also be copyright infringement if they ever distributed it, and would cause them no end of trouble keeping their version of the code up to date.
But other than that, refreshing to read an article about linux that doesn't mention either Redmond or Utah.
the real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
the IBM ads (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://home.centurytel.net/mraymer | Last Journal: Tuesday May 03 2005, @06:13AM)
I think that if your boss does not already understand the ways of Linux, perhaps reading an article on a Web page won't be enough to convince him.
Get a hold of one of the new IBM ads [ibm.com] and play it for him. Seeing a major, big name company back Linux with a TV spot would carry a lot more weight than someone's opinion on a Web page, no matter how eloquent that opinion is presented. But then, I'm not even employed right now, so I shouldn't be giving advice on what to show your boss. ;)
Still, it's hard for anyone to ignore the opinion of IBM. Or rather, it's a lot easier to ignore the opinion of an author at the BBC.
"Mainstream" is such a funny word (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.misscellania.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @11:47PM)
Government computing is not homebased computing.
To be mainstream, could mean that the software is being embraced by the majority of teenagers using computers, or it could be that the majority of corporate users will start using Linux somewhere in their business this year.
I've seen Linux evolve a lot since I first tried to use it in 1997. I couldn't figure it out then. In 2000 I used Red Hat 6.0 for the first time, and found it easier to understand, but still not useful to me. Now in 2004, I could make it be almost as useful to me as my Windows machine. Do I really think that this year there will be some killer distro that will blow Windows away? No. But it is possible...
Good article and something else to say... (Score:4, Insightful)
I was doubtful three years ago but now I say for sure - Linux and Free Software has a future, and it is right here - in Gnome, in KDE, in OpenOffice.org, in all those new ideas, which pop-up instantly in mailing lists, forums, freedesktop.org, gnomedesktop.org. I like that creativity which grows and grows and seems to be unstoppable.
Linux is here to stay. Is also here to stay and be viable alternative for your desktop usage. Whatever you choose it or not, it's upon you. Because it is about the choice, not about pushing you to use it.
Trust the BBC? (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday July 13 2003, @10:38AM)
[if you dont know what I'm talking about, google for 'Hutton Report' or see BBC news main page
Baz
Yes, its coming... (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.angelfire.com/il/macroman | Last Journal: Friday March 30 2007, @07:17PM)
I'm in a local pizza and gaming establishment (rhymes with lucky sneeze), and lo and behold, I'm looking at a linux boot up screen on an arcade game.
And then I'm at a local clothes retailer, and I look and see Red Hat 6.0 sitting on the register display.
It's coming, folks. It's just a matter of time.
Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate middle management is not interested in facts. They are not interested in improvement. They are not interested in efficiency that is not accomplished by either making people shovel shit or firing people.
Middle management seeks to maintain the status quo, and to do nothing unless it is absolutely necessary. Incompetence, bankruptcy, waste, stupidity, anything is better than trying and failing.
They have failed to learn that the raw materials for success are failures. They have failed to learn this because they do not listen. They do not seek the advice of people who know better than they do. Faced with irrefutable truth, middle management will very often if not always follow the path of maximum stupidity.
Therefore, middle management will very often if not always refuse to allow Linux to be used to improve their business. No accomplishment, no fact, nothing will change this. Discussing Linux with a middle manager is nothing more than an amusing waste of time.
Re:Ok (Score:5, Informative)
> facts. They are not interested in improvement.
> They are not interested in efficiency that is not
> accomplished by either making people shovel shit
> or firing people.
> Middle management seeks to maintain the status
> quo, and to do nothing unless it is absolutely
> necessary. Incompetence, bankruptcy, waste,
> stupidity, anything is better than trying and
> failing.
I'll call bullshit on this.
Corporate middle management (MM) now faces the repercussions of CIOs and senior management telling shareholders "we'll reduce the cost of IT by 20/30/50% in the next 12 months". Middle management then gets told "do this or die"; either they slash their costs by A LOT within 12 months or they're out the door. Whatever was the case in the past, MM is now *all* about efficiency.
A sizeable chunk of MM has worked out "Hmm, if we keep doing what we have been doing, we'll keep getting the same results, so now we have to try something different". In many cases, they don't yet know what "something different" is or should be, but they are on the lookout for something - anything - that means they won't be leading their team into the unemployment office in 12 months' time.
**Now** is the best possible time to go to these MM guys with your ideas.
I'll give you an example: want to put e.g. Postfix/procmail in front of Internet-facing MS Exchange servers and use it to (a) de-evil incoming email with evil HTML content such as @ signs in URLs, and (b) filter out email from known open relays? Collect some figures on how much time/money has been lost in your org fighting spam and the latest HTML-based email virus, drop those figures on your MM's desk along with the costs of implementing your solution. If you do it right, your MM will realise, if it's done right, it'll slash his costs hugely and maybe get him a few percent closer to keeping his (and your) job intact.
The trick is to present data that makes sense to your MM. Don't tell him "we'll block 13432 incoming spam messages per day"; tell him "we'll block 13432 incoming spam messages per day that cost us $2300 per day in storage costs. My solution will cost us $3000 to implement, so it's paid for itself by the 2nd day". He has to talk in terms of financial outcomes, because that's what his boss wants; if you want to get your ideas across, you have to do the same.
Many techos, and I've done this myself in the past, present their ideas in such a way that it comes across as "It'd be really cool if we did X, and there might even be some benefits for the company if we did it. We're not quite sure exactly what X will cost, or how long it's gonna take to do it, but we should do it anyway because my geek buddy did it and he's really smart". It only took about 300 rejections before I worked out that this approach never works unless your boss has a goatee...
Re:When did FS get edited out of the story? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not a facetious answer but the fact is that Open Source software does not begin and end with Linux - there is a huge amount of Open Source Windows software (by virtue of it being Open Source, many people port applications to Windows from Linux and vice versa), just go to Sourceforge [http] and see for yourself.
There are zealots in every movement, you just need to read between the lines a little and see for yourself...
GNU/Linux, Windows, and refusing to support MS (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.thejemreport.com/)
As with most people in the IT field I get a lot of requests for help from friends and family. It's almost never a hardware problem that they have -- it's always some virus or spyware program or some Windows corruption someplace. I found that I was reinstalling Windows every time I worked on someone's computer. And I was using my copies of Windows because they never had their own.
The first thing I want to know is, just how many people are using pirated copies of Windows? I don't even know one person who is now using a legitimate copy of Windows. Why pay when your pal can get it from work, or now from the net? How does this figure into the estimates of Windows domination and market share? Surely if you only counted legitimate, purchased and properly licensed copies of Windows, the home user market share would be drastically lower. Businesses are more or less forced by threat of litigation, fines, and raids, to be legitimate. That's why the first wave of GNU/Linux migration has been happening in the business sector. No matter how many bullshit Gartner studies "prove" that Windows has a lower TCO, it just doesn't. It costs more to buy, it costs more to maintain, and it costs more to upgrade.
I think the best thing that could happen to GNU/Linux right now is for Microsoft to crack down on home user piracy. Activation schemes are a step in the right direction. With more hassle, increased costs and the apparent (or at least, apparent to those who don't know how to get an activation crack) inability to get a copy from a friend, GNU/Linux will look like a much better choice to home users.
But back to my main point: service. I have continued to refuse to service a Windows machine unless it involves replacing the operating system with a Free alternative. Don't like it? Find someone else to do the work... but it'll cost more. I think if more people refused to work on Windows for friends and family, the death of Windows as a dominant desktop platform would be much more speedy.
-JemMainstream, maybe, but not at my home.... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, things changed a big bit for me a year ago: I've got a girlfriend. Being a typical person who can uses computer to a level (M$ Word, IE, WinAmp, etc), making her use Linux was difficult. It was just simply too difficult for her. So I had no choice but to installed Windows for her. Even that, I tried to make her use Mozilla or Firebird for web browsing. That failed, too. She simply use IE whenever possible. So, forget about OpenOffice.org, etc. There are people who refuse to use any other word processors because "it's not Word", and any other browsers because "it's not IE"... (the list goes on).
That's fine with me, whatever, I can still use Linux in another partition.
But, there was a problem: I usally run process as backgrounds and I want to do that when she's using Word or we both watching movies. And having all my works in Linux partition wouldn't allow me to do this!
So, I decided to get a Mac. OS X seems to provide me a reasonably good solution. First, it is a nice and very user freindly Desktop OS, one of the most friendly out there. Learning to use anything in OS X was painless, even for my girlfriend. Second, if she insists on using Word, then there's Office v. X for Mac (even though there're some compatibility problems). Third, it's UNIX with X11 so I can recompile most of things I need to do my works.
So, while I hope that Linux will eventually become more favorable for Home Users, I don't expect it anytime soon. This is simply because, more than anything else, convincing people who don't really know anything but stick with "name" of programs is very difficult. (Ex. There are people who won't buy anything but a computer wih Pentium-brand CPU, regardless of what he/she's doing with it.)
Re:Linux needs a lot more work... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~dwm/)
And then you complain that managing 1000s of libs is a pain in the neck, saying "it needs to get a real system to distribute packages" -- after admitting that you use Slackware.
Worst. Critique. Ever.
Re:Linux needs a lot more work... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're thinking of this, you really have to ask yourself why you want widespread linux adoption at all. If you're just going to create an equally crappy system to replace windows with, what's the point? We already have a crappy system on 90%+ of desktops.
And it needs to get a real system to distribute packages and make it a standard.
Compared to windows which has er.. no package management at all. Just a haphazard bunch of proprietary binaries putting their files wherever they want, overwriting whatever libraries they feel like, and having no versioning system. That isn't package management.
In windows can you do 'apt-get install application'? Using your logic I could say that therefore windows isn't ready for the desktop because it doesn't behave like the rest of my systems. Windows looks massively inferior from where I'm standing.
I think before you boot your slackware system again you have to repeat the mantra: "this is not windows, this is not windows...".
Linux needs games (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.this-way-out.net/)
Re:Linux needs games (Score:5, Insightful)
I do actually wonder, though, if when people say "Linux isn't ready for the desktop", they really mean (like you quite rightly say) "There aren't enough games for it".
The reason why I say this is because I look back to Windows 95, for example, which was accepted on the desktop yet both Gnome and KDE are far more advanced as GUIs - yet people still make the "not ready" statement.
Incidentally, before anyone flames me for not saying KDE and Gnome are better than, say, Windows XP, my reasons for comparing to Windows 95 was because it was far more reliant on command-line usage and didn't have stuff like "Active Desktop" which a lot of Windows people seem to like (can't think why though...)
A bit too optimistic? (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 26 2002, @11:59PM)
I think Linux expansion on the server end is doing more good than some think. If a small, mid, or large company migrages to Linux servers then they are more or less forced to drop prorietary crap like MAPI and open the door towards accepting standards over closed-proprietary standards, protocols, etc. With this mechanism in action tat means more competitors, less vendor lock-in, and a healthier IT market all around.
I don't see Linux as a MS-killer, Apple-killer, but as a carrier of open protocols and standardization. If Linux can deliver this than most of the problems in the IT industry will disappear. As we've seen many times before its much tougher to make a monopoly without proprietary protocols, vendor lock-in, etc.
Right now I would say the fastest way to getting things more "open" in general would be OSX on the desktop and Linux in the server room. Its a shame Apple isn't seen a serious player in the corporate environment, especially with their prices so low.
Re:A bit too optimistic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Be careful though... even Windows IT departments only tend to support a fixed number of hardware platforms on the corporate intranet - i.e. there will be a specific hardware vendor for laptops, servers, etc.
Plus, IT departments never use preinstalled PCs anyway, they usually "Ghost" on an image of the corporate platform straight onto the hard-disk...
At that level, Linux is no different - you can use a distribution that will pick up all the hardware on one laptop perfectly fine but on another you'll need to play about with drivers and config files.
The hurdle here isn't Linux itself, it's actually about having the people who can create custom disk images in Linux as well as they can in Windows.
But Microsoft *is* our local economy (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://livethetrinity.net/)
"If you spend a dollar with a local company working on Linux, that dollar stays in your economy," said Simon Phipps of Sun Microsystems.
"When you spend a dollar with a multi-national corporation as a license fee for a piece of software, that dollar leaves your country."
"It's about keeping the money in your local economy, developing skills and developing the local economy to be strong in its own right in a global context."
At first I wondered, "Wait a sec. Microsoft is an American company, right? So if other nations pay fees to M$, then the 'local economy' is... the American economy. 'We' are the economy that this benefits!"
Obviously Phipps wants China and other nations to recognize that if they develop open source software (presumably Linux based) then whatever money the government spends on software supports their own people.
One has to ask. "Where does Phipps live and work?"
Do not misunderstand me. I love Linux. I want it to grow and expand and compete effectively with Microsoft. Especially because I want poorer nations to have a solid alternative that works - and works well. Even discounted M$ software imposes a burden on Third World nations.
My only point is that is struck me as odd that an American(?) like Phipps working for Sun Microsystems would invoke the "we want them to invest in their own nations' economies" argument.
show your boss? (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.linuxplatform.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 16 2003, @04:31PM)
If your boss doesn't know about Linux at this point he/she should be fired.
the BBC uses Linux. (Score:3, Informative)
Speaking of mainstream (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.uniquekings.com/)
Half of the people at the campus-wide superbowl party turned around and looked at me like I was insane, while the Comp Sci club all raised their fists in the air in victory.
It is good to have allies with deep pockets. Let's just hope it stays this way.
Scary or ludicrous? (Score:3, Insightful)
"So it's not just cost-based, but also the concept of open source software. They just like the idea of saving the people money, but also giving back to the people what they created."
So now government will get in to the business of writing it's own code and releasing it to the public? Just think about that and reflect upon what projects have governments undertaken that you personally would hail as successful, efficient, and inexpensive.
Didn't we the public just spend a decade crying for how government should be more business-like e.g. outsourcing? But we should change that for things like the software that makes government "run"?
Hey... wait... something's missing (Score:3, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Where is the obligatory Gentoo-freak? Everyone knows you can't mention the word "linux" without one jumping out to scream, "Use Gentoo, just like me!"
Screw it! (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 29, @09:35PM)
I'm just going to leak an ISO onto the net of RedHat, and change the name to:
"Windows 2005 (unreleased) [pirate] NO KEY NEEDED.iso"
Thousands of people "upgrade" to Linux, and everyone is perfectly happy. They will recieve a small error message when they try to play their games of old programs that they are incompatible with the new version of Windows, and should request a new version from the company (nothing new there, Windows upgrades always do that crap). Meanwhile it'll lead them to free equivalents.
Bingo. Linux takes over the world overnight. Companies are suddenly getting hundreds of thousands of requests to port their software to Linux, and many are happy using the free equivalents.
Accountability? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even worse, what if a government agency develops some software which it releases. Will it be held responsible should there be a flaw which adversely affects other users? In this day and age there is no doubt that someone would try to sue esp. if it's a government agency. And let's face it, a government agency is fundamentally accountable to "the people" for its actions.
Lack of liability is already bad enough. Moving to oss would seem to exacerbate the problem. And should you doubt any of this, ask yourself, when you've bitched about a really thorny problem with some oss software how often have you had the response that "Hey, it's free. Don't like it then take a hike." That is not an option for a responsible agency with a critical need, nor is it a response they can make.