Posted on 01/21/2005 9:34:02 AM PST by ShadowAce
Linus Torvalds once led a ragtag band of software geeks. Not anymore. Here's an inside look at how the unusual Linux business model increasingly threatens Microsoft
Five years ago, Linus Torvalds faced a mutiny. The reclusive Finn had taken the lead in creating the Linux computer operating system, with help from thousands of volunteer programmers, and the open-source software had become wildly popular for running Web sites during the dot-com boom. But just as Linux was taking off, some programmers rebelled. Torvalds' insistence on manually reviewing everything that went into the software was creating a logjam, they warned. Unless he changed his ways, they might concoct a rival software package -- a threat that could have crippled Linux. "Everybody knew things were falling apart," recalls Larry McVoy, a programmer who played peacemaker. "Something had to be done."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
Everything the opensource community does is not to hurt MS, its designed to interact with windows..
Good website. Lots of knowledge to search. I've been using UNIX for a while, but no admin stuff. Sort of like riding motorcycles without knowing how they work.
Some of Apple is open too, but they are not bound to the GPL license like Linux, that allows foreign governments to rename them, resell them, etc., without any return revenue to the US. "Red Hat" Linux from North Carolina allows the Chicom government to rename their product "Red Flag", and remarket it in Asia, potentially costing the US that entire emerging market from all US software vendors, as China has named "Red Flag" the official operating system of the PRC. And why wouldn't they, if some idiots in the US are willing to give them complete and total control of their new code and features for free?
Actually, it's more likely the best, and owns the greatest market share of all available Unix products in the US. It could have been the same worldwide, if all your free foreign versions of Linux hadn't popped up as the new "official" operating system of every country who put in a language pack, stripped off Red Hat's name, and substituted "holy motherland operating system" on there instead.
Oh please. You have no clue what you are talking about. I am a hardcore UNIX admin with about 15 years experience. Name a version of UNIX and I have done it. Solaris, SunOS, IRIX, OSF1, Ultrix, NextStep, HPUX, AIX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, etc.. If it has been used in the past 10 years, I have at least hands-on experience with it.
The decision to use an O/S has nothing to do with the cost of the O/S itself. The actual cost of the software is meaningless. Yes, if you are putting it on every desktop it becomes an issue, but when it is used on a server, it is a very small piece of the pie.
The major costs come from hardware and the people needed to run it. When picking a solution, if the company is smart, they will go with a solution that is not going to become some legacy O/S in a few years. They also need to take into account how difficult it will be to hire/train and retain people to run the systems. One of the main reasons Linux is so popular, aside from the fact that it works, is there are a lot of people out there who are familiar with it and there is almost no chance the O/S is going to go into the dustbin anytime soon.
I absolutely love Solaris, but can you guarantee it is going to be around in 5 years time? If you asked me that 5 years ago, I would be 100% sure it would be. Now, I don't know. My gut feeling is it will not be. (SUNW is currently trading at $4.17 a share.) Then what happens to everyone who is using it and has to transition to another platform?
I have worked in shops that have transitioned from Solaris to Linux. The cost of the O/S had absolutely nothing to do with it.
But since that time, IBM decided to (likely illegally, case is in US Federal court now) port Unix features to Linux and give them away for free, and since that time we've seen an explosion of Linux worldwide since the foreign governments could now obtain this software completely without cost, at the expense of the US Unix vendors. Just because you weren't aware, doesn't mean it wasn't happening.
Do you have an updated chart? What about one with a breakdown of which O/S is dominant on x86 platforms? As I said before, in 2000 I also thought Sun would continue to dominate the market for a very long time. They haven't. Why? Blaming it on the various Linux/BSD packages being free sounds good in a sound-bite but there are much deeper reasons for it.
"...specific software routines..."
Well, here we have a small discrepance of concept.
When I referred to "how to do" vs. implementation it was, in specific, to avoid the copyright issue. "How to do's" are protected by patent law, implementation by copyright law, AFAI understand.
The problem is that, actually, by just filing a patent, a developer is by definition bound to reveal the "how to do" to everybody in the world - even to those lovely commies.
Patent law was created to encourage disclosure. Thanks to it, thousands of discoveries that would have been kept as a secret are published and available (for a fee, or not, depending of the owner) for inventors that otherwise wouldn't have such a large body of knowledge to their disposal. Even with the risk of revealing it to the bad guys the advantage to our progress is worth it. If it's definitely too sensitive let the NSA do their work and keep inventing.
I'm going too long in this post; this is a complex theme. My point is, if IBM gives Linux the "how to do" to make multiprocessor scheduling, yes, they're giving technology away. But it's not at all different of publishing it on a book - or filing a patent, since we know very well that an enemy doesn't care about patents when working in secret against us. IBM is, by disclosing, expecting an advantage for themselves just like a patent filer does.
When IBM gives *code* away, as in, actual implementation, well, that's not a big deal. Even a high schooler can successfully implement that kind of technology by reading a white paper. Trust me on it, I have lots of code with my name on it.
No. Mac OS X is the most widely distributed UNIX-based operating system. And it's the best operating system available anywhere.
Since BSD allows exactly that (and more), his arguments seem (to most of us) to be quite circular in reasoning and they make very little sense. Hence his perception that we are attacking him for his views as opposed to the lack of logic in his views.
As has been stated on this thread earlier, Solaris is now open source. He would prefer we use that rather than Linux because of the license. I see no difference between the two, as far as revenue or ip sharing is concerned.
For the worse, which was my whole point, why else would I have shown it? There's hundreds of foreign clones of Unix out there now, since free linux now contains some of the best features of US Unix. Except we don't get paid like we used to, nor can we control the flow of technology since they aren't branded as US property anymore once they leave our shores and are renamed by foreign governments. Check the link I provided above, hundreds of versions out there now, Chinese Red Flag, Asianux, Thailand Linux, Malaysian Linux, my prediction before much longer: EUnix. Unfortunately, some will love it.
Do you have an updated chart? What about one with a breakdown of which O/S is dominant on x86 platforms?
There are none that I know of for *nix because there is no way to know anymore. The copying is rampant, and no known way to measure, except estimates by Dataquest and IDC, and those aren't free to post. As for currently dominant on x86, easily Microsoft, look at the charts from the parent article that show 60% of all servers sales including *nix, and over 90% of all desktops. Of course you'll notice the freeware crowd has their sites set on Microsoft next, once they finish their piliage of Unix. Thankfully, it may be some time away, allowing us the chance to adapt our laws and overcome the dangers, based on warnings such as mine.
That may be your opinion, and possibly an educated one at that, but I simply do not agree. China has cracked the top 10 in supercomputers in the world recently, thanks to specific donations to linux made by IBM. Now that they have the code, and the current pledge of these select vendors to keep providing it, there's ultimately no reason for the Chicoms, Vietcongs, etc. to return any favors. Do they ever?
Quanity of Linux systems passed Apple last year, as you've repeatedly been shown. I'm tired of doing everyone's homework, and since I've provided several references to this before, you'll to start providing some proof of your assertions for once, if possible.
GPL is different, yet you push it without even understanding how it compares to the other licenses. BSD allows commercial companies to use it in their products without having to give the resulting code away to the rest world for free, as GPL requires. Sun's new license doesn't allow foreign entities to take that code, rename and resell, without return to Sun, as GPL does. Significant differences, to those who actually understand them.
Should have been Quantity, I'm out on the deck using a handheld PC (H/PC). Tired of repeating the same lessons, about to go for a boat ride. Good day to all.
That was the whole reason I pinged BSF. :)
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.