Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch)
Linux-Watch
predicts
the outcome from recent corporate agreements involving Linux.
"Would you have believed at the end of last summer that Microsoft and Novell would partner over Linux, or that Oracle would create its own brand of Linux? Yeah, I wouldn't have believed it either, but here we are.
So, what does it all mean? Rather than make a snap judgment I decided to sit, wait and watch before trying to make sense of it all. Now, I'm ready to give you my two-cents on who are the winners and losers in this post-deal
Linux world. First, here are the winners. Commercial Linux has taken
one giant step forward."
(Log in to post comments)
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 16, 2006 23:41 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] not sure i would peg microsoft as a loser just yet. for better or for worsethey remain a force in servers, and while there appears to be little reason to purchase vista, many people will anyway.
also not sure about pegging novell a winner. will this deal "open doors"
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 17, 2006 1:13 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Ya Microsoft isn't a loser yet. Not by a long shot. Not with the current lack of adoption of 'Linux on the Desktop'.
As long as Microsoft controls the only viable platform for delivering data, application, web and networking services to end users then there is a strong limit on what Linux can do in the server room. They control the platform and they control what people have and don't have easy access to.
Despite advances in Samba and other technology nothing Linux offers even remotely compares to Active Directory and the integration of the desktop in with Exchange and other services.
Microsoft is winning and they'll keep winning as long as they have control of the desktop.
That's my opinion from my very limited understanding.
maybe Posted Nov 17, 2006 7:33 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] Maybe some people should stop flaming about Novell and start looking a little closer at it.
Active Directory still looks like a joke compared to Novell's eDirectory, which as you may not know: runs on Linux. I suggest looking at the Open Enterprise Server before asessing what's available on Linux and what's not.
maybe Posted Nov 17, 2006 20:53 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well ya.
Novell has done more to forward the Linux desktop then any other company. Sure Ubuntu has the hype, but most things that have benifited Ubuntu's desktop came from Novell.
Unlike companies like Redhat or Sun or IBM they are the ones that actually have extensive experiance in the desktop and what is required for it to be successfull in the marketplace.
Their creations of things like NDS is what made desktops functional and managable on the enterprise level...
Novell has done usability studies, code drops, testing, has improved things like evolution. Improvements in wireless support. Desktop search. Fspot, Tomboy, Beagle.They have extensive scripts and techniques developed for help migrating people off of Windows and onto Linux.
One real disagreement, a few nits Posted Nov 17, 2006 0:42 UTC (Fri) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] "When the GPLv3 finally arrives, it will be adopted by free-software fans, but the people who build, service, and sell Linux are going to ignore the new license."
How? The FSF has copyright assignments on the major components they sponsor, like GCC and GLIBC. They WILL be switching, for better or worse. Now unless anyone is seriously entertaining the idea of a full blown fork of a hell of a lot of major pieces of infrastructure GPL3 is a reality that Microsoft/Novell/SuSE is going to have to be ready to deal with. Just having the kernel stay GPLv2 isn't enough in this case, inlike the problems with Tivo.
"It's been a while since Red Hat enjoyed broad open-source community support."
This part is true. Telling Microsoft to bugger off earned them a lot of street cred, the kind money can't buy. Big win there, especially if they can get some of the doubters to actually look at what Fedora has been up to. After all, when it comes to what goes in and what gets left out they are about as FSF pure as Debian only they usually don't get credit for it.
"... Microsoft tried that trick before with its proxy SCO fighting with IBM. And, we all know how well that worked in scaring people away from Linux, don't we?"
Actually fiaSCO has probably slowed down adoption, who can say how much? This is simply the linear extension of the same FUD game. The SCO case is pretty much over so now they have to come out of the shadows and continue the FUD flinging themselves. Same argument though. Before it was buy a linux license from SCO, to cover unspecified IP violations in linux. Now it is buy Suse and get a license from Microsoft (for free!) to cover unspecified IP violations.
One real disagreement, a few nits Posted Nov 17, 2006 3:47 UTC (Fri) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] >How? The FSF has copyright assignments on the major components they sponsor, like GCC and GLIBC.
True, but you can even build proprietary software with those tools. GPLv3 won't change that (unless FSF has gone loopier than anyone imagines). It will certainly still be possible to build the kernel and anything else that's GPLv2 (or any other license) with them, provided those don't grab any of the source code from GCC or GLIBC. And even then, if they grab source that was there when those tools were v2, that's okay for other v2 code.
The rest of your analysis is pretty much spot on, although I think the impact of fiaSCO pretty much petered out a couple of years ago (the case is almost 4 years old now?) I rather suspect Microsoft timed this to coincide with Vista -- any earlier and the impact might have petered out by the time Vista was released, much later and it would miss the release and the last thing MSFT wants for Vista is poor early adoption numbers. (Although it may get those anyway, since Vista-Home won't (I don't think) be ready for OEM deployment for Christmas rush PC sales.)
One real disagreement, a few nits Posted Nov 17, 2006 4:14 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Ya Vista isn't going to be aviable via stores and such until after the beginning of next year.
And after that it probably won't see much adoption, at least not compared XP.
People are going to run into driver issues, and application compatability. And as far as the more attractive aspects as far as the users are concerned they'd have to buy new machines to run it properly.
Then there is the bugaboo about Vista won't support next-gen DRM unless your using the 64bit version. This is because the 64bit drivers are all new so they can be digitally signed while much of the 32bit stuff will be translated from Windows XP. I don't know how that will affect new users though.
One real disagreement, a few nits Posted Nov 17, 2006 23:25 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Then there is the bugaboo about Vista won't support next-gen DRM unless your using the 64bit version.Not wanting to play the word police here, but a bit of precision using terminology would get us a long way. I think that the TLA you want is TPM, not DRM. You are misusing "Digital Rights Management", a controversial technology to block some (allegedly illicit) uses of media files; where it should read "Trusted Platform Module", a way to only run binaries which are digitally signed by trusted publishers. Note that drag speaks about hardware drivers, which are a book example of TPMs; there are no "rights" to "manage" here. Too often this confusion muddies the waters about copyright issues. In this case it looks unintentional, but it really messes up the discussion.
One real disagreement, a few nits Posted Nov 18, 2006 3:01 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I don't know how the DRM in question works. Weither in this case it's going to use TPM or not as the first chain of 'trust' or whatever the hell you want to call it.
What I am talking about isn't weither or not Windows will run certain drivers. It won't playback certain media on systems that are not 64bit and are using signed drivers. 32bit versions of Vista won't allow it at all or won't play back the DRM'd files at full quality.
As far as TPM goes most the hardware sold today has it and runs unsigned drivers just fine. Linux supports TPM also, btw. It is going to be required as it's the only effective way to tell weither or not your operating system is running in a VM or not. When people start trying to do hypervisor-style rootkits on hardware that supports it may end up important for security.
One real disagreement, a few nits Posted Nov 18, 2006 11:18 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Thanks for the explanation, the talk about signed drivers got me confused.
One real disagreement, a few nits Posted Nov 17, 2006 6:16 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] When the GPLv3 finally arrives, it will be adopted by free-software fans, but the people who build, service, and sell Linux are going to ignore the new license.The story uses ambiguous wording to overdramatize the reality. It's a typical journalist trick. The author didn't mean that the people who sell Linux would be breaking copyright laws by distributing software under GPLv3 in violation of the license. "Ignoring" the license simply means not using it for their own projects.
One real disagreement, a few nits Posted Nov 17, 2006 8:05 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link] Copyright assignments isn't what matters most. What matters most how much developer mindshare is behind it. If the gcc developers continue to submit code under v2 then v2 it is, and v3 will be a dead fork.
Personally I think v3 has a lot of good things in it, and I expect v3 and v2 to co-exist for the foreseeable future. But speculation is not very productive.
One real disagreement, a few nits Posted Nov 17, 2006 8:45 UTC (Fri) by joib (guest, #8541) [Link] Copyright assignments isn't what matters most. What matters most how much developer mindshare is behind it. If the gcc developers continue to submit code under v2 then v2 it is, and v3 will be a dead fork.Copyright assignments certainly matter. A prerequisite for working on the FSF version of gcc (as opposed to your own fork) is that you sign a copyright assignment form. That means that any code you contribute is not owned by you, but by the FSF. They can choose to license the code under any license they want. In practice this means that gcc and other FSF projects will switch to GPLv3 (since the code is owned by the FSF and not the individual contributors), and apart from forking the latest GPLv2 release there's not much you can do about it. Or in other words, gcc developers don't "submit code under GPLv2", they donate the code to the FSF, which then releases it under whatever license they wish. Well, I guess you could try convince RMS that GPLv3 is bad. Good luck with that.
One real disagreement, a few nits Posted Nov 17, 2006 9:51 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link] This is true, but you are missing the larger picture. To begin with, all code in gcc as of today is licensed under v2 OR v3. That means that if the contributors prefers to continue working under v2, they can continue to work (on a "fork" if you will) with the latest tree licensed under v2. You can not relicense old stuff retroactively (that would make licenses unusable).
Further, take a look at the copyright assignment used by the FSF. It is as all their legal work a bit intimidating and complex at first sight but very thought out. You do not only assign copyright, you also grant yourself a perpetual license to your own work. I would expect that to mean that you could relicense your own work later on without any involvement from the FSF.
IANAL, of course.
The important point is that this is not decided "from above" but by the people actually doing the work, and that's probably just how it should be.
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 17, 2006 4:46 UTC (Fri) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] The battle on the desktop side won't ever be won by Linux if any Linux distro don't find a way to have videogames built for it.I mean real videogames,the ones you could buy on stores.Linux distros should find a way to make easier porting games to Linux,because you can say to a windows user "Use Linux, you can view movies,bowse the web, write docs,as you do with windows!",but if He\She bought a 500$ video card to play games,you can't say to him/her "hey, use Linux,you can even use those binary blob drivers and have full hardware 3d support,you can do everithing,just like with windows;well except games!".I think that this is one of the worst problem that Linux has to overcome to win the desktop war.
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 17, 2006 7:38 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Not really. When at least 10-15% of the desktop will belong to Linux - we'll have drivers and we'll have game developers, etc. And desktop rarely need games - only home desktop does... Don't rush and don't overdramatize. I can see why unfree codecs can be needed on corporate desktop, but games ? Good riddance...
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 17, 2006 12:32 UTC (Fri) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] I was talking about home desktop.
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 17, 2006 16:49 UTC (Fri) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] Yeah, but the corporate desktop is much more significant than the home desktop.
As for games -- get a PS3 if you want new games. Linux and Wine (esp. Transgaming's version of wine, Cedega) will run most Windows games.
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 17, 2006 22:26 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I don't know if the business desktop is more relevent then the home desktop.
the major difference is that there is probably more money to be made in the business desktop and it also seems to be acheivable.. were as the Linux has absolutely no chance at this time for home desktop systems.
business vs. home desktop Posted Nov 18, 2006 15:02 UTC (Sat) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] I think the business desktop is strategically more significant, since it will have a large influence on home use. People who have become familiar with linux desktops at work will be open to trying them out at home, and may even prefer to have to learn only one system. It doesn't work nearly as strongly in the other direction, since most employees have little influence on what software they use at work.
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 18, 2006 16:41 UTC (Sat) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link] Why do you say it doesn't have a chance as a home desktop right now ?I'm using it exclusively since 1997. Ok, this doesn't count, I'm a developer. But since a bit over 4 years now my girlfriend too uses Linux exclusively on her notebook and of course on our box at home, and she doesn't have real problems. (and she's no geek/developer/UNIX specialist/web designer/...) Surely no bigger problems as she would have if she would have to care for anti-virus/worm/etc. software under Windows. So, right now, if you have somebody who knows a bit about Linux, it works. That's one of the main differences to Windows: there the number of users you can simply ask in real life is much bigger, so it is easier to find help for a newbie. Alex
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 19, 2006 12:30 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] For it to have a chance on home desktop it realy needs one or both of two things:
1. Enough people around with common knowledge of how it works.
Kids interested in Linux so that they can help Mom and Dad fix things when X doesn't start up after a upgrade. Somebody like that.
Support elements in the community.. For instance if a computer power supply fails and they take the machine in to have it replaced somebody at the place will have to know what to do when they try to boot the system up and fsck fails to finish without human intervention.
This is why it may be important for things like the PS3 or hackable embedded devices. Since everything is identical on every machine you should be able to provide people a install were they just close their eyes and hold down on the 'enter' key then they have a 99.9% chance of having a working system when they open their eyes. Once you get the kids involved then it may help out spreading Linux.
(In all seriousness; just a few hours ago somebody called my roomate and during their conversation mentioned (which was a long one) that her that he would like to talk to me about getting Linux on the PS3 that he was going to buy. He heard that it may be able to run Linux and he knows that I knows Linux. In all actuality I was quite suprised, this was out of the blue; I may have mentioned it once to him when he was asking advice on what sort of system to get for doing audio work.)
It's not so much a problem when everythign is working nicely.. Anybody can use Linux for a desktop. It's a problem when things go bad. Need to have it so people can walk down to the store and pay somebody 50 bucks to have a working system again, or have their kid fix it, or go and buy a linux book for dummies and have them fix it themselves if they have enough time for it. (right now go-and-buy-the-book is the only option.
Right now you can go down to a community college and see night classes full of people learning how to use Microsoft Windows. You don't even have that option for Linux.
2. Having Linux pre-installed on the computer.
Having to download and burn is ISO image and perform a installation of a Linux machine, although as simple as a Windows install, is still a such significant barrier that it is beyond the reach of most people.
That's all.
Right now it's not so much weither or not Linux is better then Windows.. It has to be so significantly better that your going to get people to run down to the store or get the nerdy kid down the street and pay them 75 bucks to replace their windows system for them. Linux isn't that much better.
It is hoped (as noted above) that if you have a significant successfull push of Linux on the desktop in business it will prepare the way for linux on the home desktop. One of the significant reasons people have computers is to be able to to work at home and it is hoped that successfull Linux business desktop will drive the market for Linux at home.
As for day to day use.. Ya. Linux kicks-ass. Anybody can use it as long as they have the ability to call on somebody to fix issues or install software or the odd random stuff that pops up time to time.
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 24, 2006 1:32 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] As for day to day use.. Ya. Linux kicks-ass. Anybody can use it as long as they have the ability to call on somebody to fix issues or install software or the odd random stuff that pops up time to time. The difference to Windows being...?
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 17, 2006 17:37 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] > The battle on the desktop side won't ever be won by Linux
does anyone really care about this anymore?
people use windows today because they used it yesterday, which is the same reason they will use it tomorrow. monoculture in consumer habits just doesn't play to microsoft. look at all of the vendors unsuccesfully trying to make even a small dent in the ipod market.
microsoft faces bigger competition from ipod, tivo, razr and playstation3, the competition on the "next" platform(s) is far from settled. the desktop computer on the other hand, is, for 97% of the world, a settled issue. you'll have to settle for them using firefox over ie for your open source triumph.
the good news is that there are far and away enough people playing in the open source pool (linux, bsd, etc) to sustain it. the communities are vibrant, the companies are making money, users more or less have their needs met.
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Nov 17, 2006 21:08 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well you have to realise that Windows is the only viable platform currently for the majority of users for delivering internet and other services.
Your phones have to sync up with it. Games have to work with it. Despite all the predictions of people moving away from the desktop and to more specialized devices it hasn't happenned at all yet.
Linux hasn't been successfull in embedded devices were human interaction is done. Things like smart phones and PDAs and such are still much more Windows oriented.
In other words since Microsoft controls the desktop it cripples Linux development in other related areas. Linux is only successfull were it does not have to come into contact with normal people.
Winners and losers in the New Linux World (Linux-Watch) Posted Dec 1, 2006 14:08 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] ... dent in ipod market: Strange enough, iPod is near-monopolist only in the USA. In Australia and Japan, it has more than 50% market share. And in the rest of the world, iPod is just in the low-two-digits or even single digits figures. Same e.g. with the TiVo: They tried in GB, and failed. They now won't try again in any other European country. They have zero market share. Their subscription model doesn't work with European customers. And their GPLv2 in spirit violation won't work out under European law (excluding GB). So if you expand your vision to the rest of the world, it may well be that Linux can displace Windows. Especially in those places where desktop PCs aren't everywhere today.
|
|||||||||||||