Posted on 07/08/2009 8:57:44 AM PDT by Willie Green
Google's revelation that it will create its own operating system will bring just one reaction from operating system enthusiasts worldwide.
"Not another Linux distribution," they'll cry.
They'll say this because if there is one problem that the Linux and open-source community has suffered repeatedly over the past two decades, it's been fragmentation.
It was bad enough that the Unix operating system fragmented repeatedly through the 1980s and 1990s. Systems administrators (like myself, earlier this decade) were forced to learn several different platforms: Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, FreeBSD...the list was always growing longer.
But the hojillion different directions Linux has taken over the past several decades has even dwarfed that problem. Depending on what part of the world you live in, odds are that you (and sometimes the company you work for) have personally switched among different Linux distributions several times over the past decade, as one or the other gained prominence.
Personally, I started off using Red Hat, which split off into the official Red Hat version and a community edition dubbed Fedora. I toyed with Mandriva and Suse for a while, before settling on Slackware for some years, and then moving to Debian. Throughout that time, I've had to learn quite a few different package management, configuration, boot, and window management systems.
Of course, I have also used a variety of Microsoft operating systems and Apple's more focused Mac OS X and its predecessors.
Now, over the past few years, some of us had begun to believe that we could see a bright light forming at the end of that confused and heterogeneous tunnel. Out of the ferocious Linux distribution wars, one contender has emerged with the seeming strength to take on the rest--at least when it comes to the Linux desktop platform.
I speak, of course, of Ubuntu.
Mark Shuttleworth's juggernaut has, over the past few years, blasted through the Linux community like he blasted into space, drawing in all like some kind of monstrous black hole.
If you attend conferences like Linux.conf.au these days, where you used to see Debian and Slackware die-hards, you'll see a massive wave of Linux laptops proudly sporting Ubuntu paraphernalia. I switched the Linux half of my home desktop PC to Ubuntu four years ago, and my media center followed this year, as I said goodbye finally to the venerable Windows XP.
The growing dominance of Ubuntu (at least on the desktop, the server room seems to have been won by Red Hat) has delivered the Linux community a serious advantage in its ongoing war against the incumbent Windows and Apple platforms because of its ability to give software developers a single platform to concentrate on and polish to a degree not seen previously.
In this context, Google's decision to create its own Linux distribution and splinter the Linux community decisively once again can only be seen as foolhardy and self-obsessive.
Instead of treading its own path, Google should have sought to leverage the stellar work already carried out by Shuttleworth and his band of merry coders and tied its horse to the Ubuntu cart.
If Google truly wants to design a new "windowing system on top of a Linux kernel," there should be nothing to stop the search giant from collaborating openly with the best in the business. I'm sure Linus Torvalds would have something strongly worded to say about Google's plans to "completely redesign" the underlying security architecture of Linux.
There's no doubt Google has made moves in this direction with its pledge to open-source Chrome OS, the same way it did with several previous projects: the Chrome browser itself and its Android mobile OS.
But doubts still remain about those projects also. For example, where do they fit in between true open-source projects, maintained and supported by the community, and to what extent are they extensions of Google's online advertising empire?
Android is a great mobile operating system, second only to Apple's iPhone platform. But Google still controls most aspects of Android's development. Also, anyone using Android would have no doubt that the operating system ties in very nicely with Google's cloud offerings (for example, Gmail). But things are a lot trickier if you prefer Windows Live or other rival systems.
Chrome too, is a great browser that I use for much of my daily needs. But it's mainly still in Google's hands, and so those of us who prefer true competition to exist in the browser world take great comfort from the fact that Mozilla Firefox is completely independent and not pushing anyone's agenda.
Who are you going to trust and believe in? The noncommercial Ubuntu Foundation (and wider project), which has developed an open-source operating system second to none and virtually ended the Linux distribution wars? Or Google, which also makes free products (well, mostly) and packages advertising in (sometimes)?
You can e-mail Torvalds or Shuttleworth directly and get answers to your Linux questions, sometimes within minutes or hours. Try that with whoever is in charge of Android or Chrome development.
Google makes great products. But it's currently trying to tread a nice middle ground between completely embracing the open-source community and keeping control over software it has developed. That's an impossible path to walk and one that leaves it open to being criticized for the same sort of arrogance that operating system vendors have been accused of for decades.
I started with RH and still use RHEL on servers. A couple years ago, I switched to Ubuntu. I’ve since moved to Mint, which is the most polished and most ‘it just works’ of all the Linux distros I’ve used.
If Google wants to do an OS, good on them, but I wouldn’t want the invasion into my privacy that would surely come along with it.
Unless, it made Compiz work with 3 monitors and Xinerama. Then, I’d be forced to install it immediately.
If Google wants to do an OS, good on them, but I wouldn’t want the invasion into my privacy that would surely come along with it.
I couldn't agree more.
I finally escaped the MS monopoly about a year-and-a-half ago.
Although I applaud Google for taking them on, I'm leery of the global adware that Google may embed in their system.
Bookmark
I agree. Did I read recently that Obama was colluding with Google to "gather" information?
Willie? That you? Get tired of the childishness on LP? Welcome back!
Hey,....I was first...:LOL!
Yours is a good, related article Ernie.
But I don't think it goes far enough in mentioning the Linux alternative.
BTW, I don't know how the author came up with this assertion:
Who are you going to trust and believe in? The noncommercial Ubuntu Foundation (and wider project), which has developed an open-source operating system second to none and virtually ended the Linux distribution wars?
Ubuntu based distros certainly deserve praise for their contribution to the Linux community.
But I think it's way too premature to declare that all the other non-Ubuntu distros have dropped out of the race.
From what I can see, the competition is healthier than ever!
Willie? That you? Get tired of the childishness on LP? Welcome back!
But what the heck... the marxists control the WH and both houses of Congress
and I figure the GOP isn't gonna get rid of them without knowing how to use a pitchfork.
I've beeen trying the latest OpenSolaris offereing and am impressed....runs well on my lowend X2 2 gig machine....as a Browser machine.
Has issues of course,...Flash and codecs have to be installed....Mint and Sabayon are tough targets,.
xubuntu here
....runs well on my lowend X2 2 gig machine....as a Browser machine.
You call that "low end"???
Holy smoke... when I made the switch last year, I dumped Win '98 off my 233 Mhz Pentium MMX with 256 Mb RAM.
The only reason I shelled out $40 to "upgrade" to a used PIII-800 w/256 Mb RAM was so I could watch the YouTubes.
I've tried several different distros.
Spent most of my time with a fluxbox version of PCLinuxOS, but I'm currently running Mint 6 "Felicia" Fluxbox CE.
Trying to get up the courage to install Archlinux.
I figure it should be a good learning experience: no pain, no gain! LOL!
I just did a clean install of KUbuntu 9.04 on my other hard drive. Being pretty much a know-nothing about Linux but what I scare up at KUbuntu forums (when I have a problem), why would I like Mint better? (I’m always interested in that which is not Microsoft or Macintosh.)
With Mint, you have less of the hassle associated with setting up the machine. You can install Mint and fire up the browser to Youtube and Flash just works. You can listen to Real streams or WM streams right away too, without any tweaking or hair-pulling. Mint also uses Gnome instead of KDE. I started with KDE as well, but looking back, I’d say it was an impediment to the switch. I never was able to really get comfortable with it the way I took to Gnome. Of course, I know KDE has improved in the years since, but I’m still partial to Gnome these days. Mint’s also an off-shoot of Ubuntu, so for 85% of problems you have, the Ubuntu forums will still answer your questions. Mint, IMHO, is also better looking out of the box.
My last Ubuntu install was the happiest I had been with my computer since I could remember...once I got everything the way I wanted it. But then, there would be situations where I wouldn’t want to deal with upgrades, because they might bork things that I didn’t have time to deal with for whatever reason. With Mint, that problem is gone. and I’m even happier. I’ve got an XP installation running in Virtualbox seamless mode for all the Windows apps that I just have to have and if I have to do anything major, like 3d rendering in 3ds Max, I can boot into Windows, which I’ve set up to use all the same open source apps that I use on Linux: Thunderbird, Firefox, Azureus, etc. I set their data up on a shared fat32 partition, so that I can pick up right where I left off no matter which OS I’m using. I still hate going back to Windows. Ruins my whole day when I do... :)
Presumably Google’s key twist will be, in true Google form, quietly gathering all the information they can about users, usage, data, etc. so they can aggregate, leverage, and sell it.
It’s definitely low end nowadays. I just built an X2 as an HTPC, 2gig system with onboard Geforce 8200 with HDMI. Board and processor cost me $120 shipped to the door. I may have to end up adding another video card to it in SLI mode to make it play HD, but I’ll worry about that after I figure out how the hell to get Linux to put sound through the HDMI.
I just priced out an AMD quad core for a friend and I found that I could do a pretty respectable system for well under $400.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.