There Is No 'Microsoft of Linux'? 252
SDenmark writes "Linux Format has an interview with Greg Mancusi-Ungaro, the director of Linux and OSS marketing at Novell. Asked if any company can become the 'Microsoft of Linux', Greg responds "Well, if we ever woke up one day and said 'Wow, Novell is the Microsoft of Linux' or 'Red Hat is the Microsoft of Linux', then the Linux movement would be over." Is he right -- is the open source world free from such possibilities? Greg also discusses the internal Novell migration to Linux."
Re:What has happened to slashdot? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What movement? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:on a related note... (Score:5, Informative)
Back in the day there were multible companies that made DOS and for the most part they were compatible with each other. Microsoft always had dominace but there were alternitives. PC DOS, DR DOS... Then when Windows Was released it was designed to run on MS DOS only (And had code that blocked other DOS varents causing some lawsuites in that case). So after time more and more programs used Microsoft Windows extentions to their application where there was more Windows then DOS. So the Microsoft of Linux would be like say Novel or Red Hat who has such a dominance on the Linux market that they feel free to add their own custom kernel and developers develop on it and Apps only work on Their Version. With no chance that it will work for other Distros with a more "pure" kernel. Of course this probably wont happen with Linux because of the open nature. But that is the Microsoft of Linux means. Getting so much control in the process and influence in developers that other products are forced to become toys.
Re:It Depends (Score:2, Informative)
To call it "ultra slow" is akin to the same Linux zealots who in my mind sour many people's perception of GNU/Linux and other open source applications.
Re:What movement? (Score:5, Informative)
Or is it just a kernel that was inserted into an OS that already existed for years prior?
Re:What movement? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What movement? (Score:3, Informative)
How about "a kernel that was combined with some excellent, already existing free software tools to create an OS".
Re:IBM IS the Microsoft of Linux (Score:3, Informative)
But I think that they've figured out that they can make money hand over fist selling services (particularly consulting) regardless of what OS people are using. At the end of the day, I'm not sure they really care a whole lot what OS everyone uses.
I work for IBM Global Services, and in the last couple of years I've worked on Solaris, AIX, various flavors of Linux, including an embedded Linux, Windows and PocketPC.
IBM Global Services couldn't care less what OS the clients want to use. We acquire and develop skilled people in everything and then try to do whatever makes the most sense for the client -- as long as it includes plenty of work for us ;-)
That said, I think IBM does have a commitment to Linux, and a good reason to continue pushing it. IBM is in an odd position, as the heavyweight of heavyweights in an environment largely controlled by others. I think that after once owning the IT industry, then getting slapped down for it, IBM has decided that if you can't control the industry, the best thing to do is to make sure that no one else can, either. Both Java and Linux play into that strategy perfectly. Java would work even better if it weren't controlled by Sun, but at least Sun isn't Microsoft. IBM knows it can beat Sun ;-)
Not only that, but from a professional services perspective, F/LOSS is extremely cool. If I'm integrating a bunch of third-party, closed-source products and trying to satisfy some client's unique set of requirements, there's every possibility that I may run into a brick wall. With open source, if a key system component won't do what I need it to, I can always fix it.
Port Lotus Notes over to it, along with the rest of the old Lotus suite (or throw money at OO.org for optimization), license the configuration tools from RedHat or SuSE (or build their own), generally make something that would be easy to roll out large deployments of.
It's been done, though not exactly the way you describe. IBM has a new product called "IBM Workplace". It's a cross-platform suite of tools that includes a Notes client, instant messaging (using Lotus Sametime), a full office suite based on OOo (well, I think it's based on OOo -- it definitely uses OpenDocument), and some other collaboration and productivity tools. It runs on Linux, Windows and OS X, at least, and probably other platforms as well. I can't comment on how good it is personally, because I haven't used it. Others I've spoken with are impressed, though.
IBM isn't making its own Linux distribution, but it is moving towards Linux as the main internal platform (not that Windows will be going away any time soon) and is also building the pieces necessary so that others can use IBM products and services on any platform. A Windows-centric world is good for Microsoft, a Solaris-centric world is good for Sun but a heterogeneous mixture is good for IBM.
Re:It would be nice in a way (Score:3, Informative)
The question can be reversed. Why doesn't Windows work like Firefox? Or, a different question can be posed: why don't you talk to your mouse vendor?
All in all... you choose to NOT ask those questions. Now, F/OSS is flexible enough to provide you with an answer -- but you don't want to apply it.
Random config files? No, but you may want to pay someone to make the modifications for you. F/OSS doesn't mean "free as in beer". After all, you PAID for the Windows 5 button driver.
Now, let's tackle another problem: how do I get my TRAVAN-1 tape drive (Colorado) working with Windows XP? I have a LOT of backup tapes, dating back 15 years (QIC-80). Sure, works fine on Linux. Is there a "random config file" I can edit for this?
Think on this; the Zen of F/OSS will become apparent.
And, given that Vista will require driver signing, will your 5 button driver be signed? Yes, this is FUD.
Ratboy
Re:It Depends (Score:4, Informative)
No, its not. X11 is wicked fast. The problem isn't that X11 isn't fast; it's that your system isn't, by default, double buffered. X11 is a lean, mean, pixel pushing machine; it carries little overhead, and is very very extensible. Make no mistake, X11 is super-duper fast; that's one of the reason it's ran on a variety of systems far, far before Windows was a gleam in Bill Gate's eye.
The developers themselves have admitted that the X protocol is inefficient (especially as used by the toolkits),
Huh?
that Xlib is not suitable for modern applications (and it's now finally being replaced)
Huh? Partially true; but it works, and in enterprise, too.
and that the acceleration architecture is simply not suitable for desktop usage.
Double huh? XAA, maybe. EXA? No way.
Note that EXA is supported on a number of X servers, and that both the Nvidia and ATI proprietary servers provide high performance X render acceleration.
Not to mention the new AIGLX and XGL hacks/intermediate steps towards a new X architecture. These two are ridiculously slick, and I use both on a regular basis. Every system in my household, my parents household, and my office run Linux (except for the OS X boxes). Every one of these runs either XGL or some kind of composite window manager, and they "feel" faster in Linux than on XP.
Furthermore, exactly what GUI server do you think they use for video editing, or any of the other high-end workstation uses that Linux has?
Please take a look here [x.org]; Xorg's performance is something that has undergone careful consideration.
I have used Windows and Linux side by side on the same machine and the Windows GUI is always faster. On my T43, for example, dragging windows on Linux will sometimes leave trails, no matter what WM/DE I'm using.
Only if you aren't using a composite manager.
I quote: