|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Looking back at 2004

LWN, like many publications, is not immune to the temptation to make predictions as the new year comes. We also like to look back at the end of the year to see how well our crystal ball actually worked. Predictions offer a clue to how the world appeared to us one year ago, and can thus help us to understand how our view has changed.

Besides, there's usually at least one hilarious error which is good for a smile. So, without further ado, let's look back at LWN's 2004 predictions.

Enterprise Linux. We concluded that the "enterprise Linux" business would do well in 2004 - not a particularly difficult prediction to make. Red Hat's business has indeed done well, and SUSE/Novell is coming along too. The future still looks bright for the enterprise Linux field.

We also predicted a growing backlash against enterprise Linux and their supporting business models, and the possible emergence of free alternatives. Certainly, resentment toward the enterprise distributors continues to exist in some parts of our community, and some of those people are doing something about it. But many of the projects which aim to undercut the enterprise Linux business model - CaOS, Whitebox Linux, UserLinux, etc. - appear to have made little progress over the last year.

Perhaps the largest surprise in this area is the emergence of Ubuntu Linux, which is an attempt to provide the best of a 100% free Linux distribution with longer-term support options. Ubuntu has succeeded in making a big initial splash; whether that will turn into a successful business remains to be seen.

Desktop Linux. From our viewpoint, it looked as if the KDE/GNOME flame wars of the past could return, driven by the distributors' need to minimize their support costs and choose one desktop or the other. Certainly that commercial pressure continues to exist, as witnessed by Ubuntu's choice to offer very much a GNOME-oriented distribution. But the desktop development projects have little interest in fighting with each other, and the flame wars show no real sign of returning.

What we are seeing instead is increased cooperation over bits of infrastructure which are useful to both projects. And when a distribution emphasizes one desktop over the other, the community tends to fill in the gap. See, for example, the Gnoppix and Kubuntu efforts. One year ago, we failed to fully appreciate the maturity of the desktop development projects. They are far too busy creating great software to be bothered with fighting each other.

We also made the obvious prediction that desktop Linux would make great progress and amaze us. We failed to see some of the specifics, however, especially the mainstream attention attracted by the Firefox browser. Firefox has arguably become the best browser available on any platform and the world is beginning to notice.

The SCO case. We figured that SCO might find a "backbone-challenged" Linux user who would choose "licensing" over a court fight; SCO found such a user in the form of EV1Servers.net. The EV1 agreement did not help SCO much, however, in terms of public relations, stock price, or cash flow. Neither did SCO's other suits, launched against DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone. The DaimlerChrysler case appears to have died outright, and the AutoZone suit (which has little to do with Linux) looks weak at best.

We predicted that "by the end of 2004, the SCO cases will probably still be alive in some form, but the end will be in sight." That much seems about right. If IBM's summary judgment motions and Novell's copyright ownership attacks do not do the job, SCO's cash situation may well bring the whole show to a quick end.

The GPL. We suggested that the GPL might finally be tested in court in 2004. That happened in Germany as the result of an enforcement action by the Netfilter project. The GPL was upheld by the German court; its detractors can no longer say that no court has ruled on its validity. Meanwhile, SCO has backed off from its attacks, saying that it never meant to question the GPL's validity as a license. It seems that the company has, belatedly, figured out that nothing else gives it the right to continue to distribute GPL-licensed software.

Security. We worried that the string of attacks against free software development sites would continue into 2005. Certainly there were problems, such as the recent compromise of freedesktop.org, but the attack on the community as a whole - if that's what it was - appears to have stopped for now.

Our prediction that hardened Linux systems would be more widely deployed by the end of 2004 now looks optimistic. Work continues toward that end, but hardening a Linux system (while keeping it usable) is a difficult task, and progress has been slower than many people had anticipated.

Kernel. The prediction that the 2.7 development series would start seemed obvious, but it was wrong. We did sense that the development process was changing, however, and predicted that the next development series would differ from 2.5. The pressures which might lead to a new development series still seem to be mostly absent - mostly because the 2.6 development model tends to prevent those pressures from building up.

What we missed: LWN would like to apply a small patch to its 2004 predictions to fix a few bugs. So we now predict that, in 2004:

  • Despite all appearances, software patents will not be enacted in the European Union. Yet.

  • Mandrakesoft will emerge from bankruptcy, shake off much of its debt, and start to function as a profitable company.

  • Longstanding frictions within the XFree86 project will force it to split; the core of X development will reassemble under the X.org banner.

  • New FUD attacks against Linux will target total cost of ownership and intellectual property concerns; none will have much success.

  • The Debian "sarge" release will not happen, and, in fact, will appear to be no closer at the end of 2004. Increasingly, Debian offshoot distributions will handle the task of creating release-ready versions of that distribution.

  • Some large companies will publicly promise not to use their patents against Linux users, or, even better, to use their patent portfolios to defend (at least some) Linux users against patent attacks.

And so on.

We did get one thing right, though: 2004 was an interesting year in the free software world. We may just have to reuse that prediction for 2005 as well.


to post comments

Looking back at 2004

Posted Dec 23, 2004 11:30 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

IMO, LWN did decently well, except in missing the xfree/xorg thing. The
signs were there, but I think what prevented most folks from seeing them
was the institution that xfree was. Imagining the free software world
without the slow moving and insular institution that xfree had become by
the end of 2003 was like imagining the world without the Berlin Wall at
the end of 1988 -- the signs of its imminent demise might have been there,
but few believed it would actually happen. Yet, at the end of the
respective years one year later, looking back, it was rather the event
that shaped the whole year, the one people look back and remember the year
for, each in its realm, political, or open source software.

Yes, I know some others don't see the comparison, but I /did/ say "IMO"...
Anyway, that LWN missed it while it seems obvious now, is hardly their
fault. Who else would have dared predict it?

Duncan

Looking back at 2004

Posted Dec 23, 2004 11:57 UTC (Thu) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link]

It should be noted that the fd.o attack was just a random script kiddie slamming a large IP range with a string of attacks (presumably with some script he downloaded off IRC): it was indiscriminate and not actually targeted at free software.

That being said, it still sucked.

Looking back at 2004

Posted Dec 23, 2004 12:34 UTC (Thu) by rdorsch (guest, #5833) [Link] (1 responses)

I see Debian sarge a lot closer to be released than a year before.

Looking back at 2004

Posted Dec 24, 2004 3:43 UTC (Fri) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link]

Approximately one year closer, no?

Looking back at 2004

Posted Dec 23, 2004 17:06 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (2 responses)

LWN would like to apply a small patch to its 2004 predictions to fix a few bugs.

Hey, I like that concept! I wish I could do that with my estimated taxes. :-|

Increasingly, Debian offshoot distributions will handle the task of creating release-ready versions of that distribution.

I believe this would be a Good Thing for the Debian project - it would free up a lot of developers to work on more interesting things. Fixing other people's bugs has never been my idea of a good time.

I don't know if this will happen though. Debian puts a big emphasis on multi-platform support, and it would probably be very difficult to find people interested in producing stable releases for some of the more obscure platforms.

Looking back at 2004

Posted Dec 24, 2004 11:13 UTC (Fri) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] (1 responses)

I believe this would be a Good Thing for the Debian project - it would free up a lot of developers to work on more interesting things. Fixing other people's bugs has never been my idea of a good time.

I disagree: stable releases are necessary for any project, even if they are far and wide in between. It may be more interesting to work on cutting-edge stuff, but for some people things just need to work. And on most servers (and soon that would apply to desktops, too), cutting-edge stuff is not necessary, the crucial part is to have timely security updates that don't break things. Which is exactly what Debian/stable provides.

Looking back at 2004

Posted Dec 24, 2004 21:03 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

It may be more interesting to work on cutting-edge stuff, but for some people things just need to work. And on most servers (and soon that would apply to desktops, too), cutting-edge stuff is not necessary, the crucial part is to have timely security updates that don't break things. Which is exactly what Debian/stable provides.

So does Ubuntu, but it's a lot nicer.

Looking back at 2004

Posted Dec 23, 2004 17:09 UTC (Thu) by tmattox (subscriber, #4169) [Link]

That is a great article, except for this statement:

> But many of the projects which aim to undercut the
> enterprise Linux business model - CaOS, Whitebox
> Linux, UserLinux, etc. - appear to have made
> little progress over the last year.

I take exception to this statement on several points.

The cAos Foundation (not CaOS) does not aim to
undercut the enterprise Linux business model. IMO the
enterprise Linux business model is one of supplying an
active and extensive support system, such as the Red
Hat Network. One of the Foundation's project areas is a
series of CentOS Linux distributions which are
trademark free rebuilds from the Source RPMs of the
various RedHat Enterprise Linux distributions. These
CentOS Linux distributions are for those who want the
free and open source software (FOSS), but who do not
feel they need to pay for external support services.
When people come in to the IRC/mailing lists asking for
a free replacement for Red Hat Network, we send them
back to RedHat, since that is a service that is not
FOSS, and is outside the scope of CentOS and the cAos
Foundation.

As for making "little progress" over the year, I am not
sure how you measure that. From my perspective, the
CentOS distributions have shown they have wide
community support, with a growing and global mirror
system, and a repeatable history of rapid passthrough
of security fixes (see the CentOS mailing list
archives to do your own date comparisons).

As for progress on other fronts, the cAos Foundation
has made considerable progress in filling the void of a
stable and free RPM based Linux distribution. The
cAos-1 Linux distribution was released as a prototype
and demonstration of a system for a self hosting RPM
based distribution built from the source files pulled
from each individual FOSS project. The community of
developers that formed around cAos-1 has been making
great progress refining the build system, and support
infrastructure and applying "lessons learned" to the
next major release, cAos-2. The cAos-2 Linux
distribution has just entered alpha stage and has a
very nice modern set of packages:
http://caos.caosity.org/features.html
Sure, cAos-2 feels like it is taking longer than it
should, but what software project doesn't? ;-)

Disclaimer: I'm only one of the many people in the cAos
Foundation, so I can't speak for everyone else, but I
could not sit back and let that overly broad and
unsupported claim go without comment. I've been a
happy LWN reader for many years, and think LWN is
and continues to be the premier source of Linux News
condensed to into a weekly format. (For that matter,
the best in any format, weekly or otherwise.)

Looking back at 2004

Posted Dec 28, 2004 10:08 UTC (Tue) by csamuel (✭ supporter ✭, #2624) [Link]

> Certainly that commercial pressure continues to exist, as witnessed by
> Ubuntu's choice to offer very much a GNOME-oriented distribution.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Ubuntu or Gnome user.

When Jeff Waugh did his talk for LUV here in Melbourne I did ask "why GNOME only?" and Jeff's answer was that they didn't have the KDE expertise in the team.

He pointed out that they did do builds of the Sarge KDE packages for Ubuntu, but that they couldn't customise or fix them to fit Ubuntu in the same way they could for GNOME.

I wish the Ubuntu crowd all the best, it's a good distro from my brief experimentation with it.


Copyright © 2004, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds