Will the FOSS attittude forever hold back Linux as a real alternate to Windows?

[edin9]

If you were a major commercial software company, would you embrace an OS with an ethos that everything has to be open and free? On Windows of course there is always the choice to use free software, but the company behind it is an IP respecter. Add that to the fact that a lot of "free" software on Windows is likely to harm your system (in the form of malware etc), which leads to a sense of unease about anything associated with the word free, and commercial software stands a far greater chance for gaining users and revenue. So in essence, would Linux need to swallow it's pride and give up some of the core ideals that drive it to gain a sizable market share, or should it forever be hidden in the dark corner of nerds and Windows refugees, as the pretender that could have been?

[dvlchd3]

I believe you have a very valid point. I've always seen the Linux community as an open source purists. I consider myself to be an open source purist. Many open source projects have developed a plan to make a profit from open source, Canonical for example, and have actually been quite successful.

However, unfortunately, lower profits/revenue, do not make an incentive to make competitve products. Money may be the root of all evil, but it is also the driver to progress.

With that being said, I believe Ubuntu has a great plan to address your issue. I believe it is 10.10 that is going to allow developers to sell their software through the new software center. I still believe open source will, and must live on. Open source projects are what keep the commerical products on their toes, price and quality wise, however, this will also create an incentive for commerical companies to start developing for Linux.

[Chronon]

If you were a major commercial software company, would you embrace an OS with an ethos that everything has to be open and free? On Windows of course there is always the choice to use free software, but the company behind it is an IP respecter. Add that to the fact that a lot of "free" software on Windows is likely to harm your system (in the form of malware etc), which leads to a sense of unease about anything associated with the word free, and commercial software stands a far greater chance for gaining users and revenue. So in essence, would Linux need to swallow it's pride and give up some of the core ideals that drive it to gain a sizable market share, or should it forever be hidden in the dark corner of nerds and Windows refugees, as the pretender that could have been?

You seem to be a bit confused. It appears that you are confusing "freeware" with FOSS software.

You also seem confused about notions regarding respect of IP and copyright. Recall that the GPL is a license applied to copyrighted works. It only means something IF you recognize the validity of copyright. I don't think most people who pirate media are FOSS enthusiasts, necessarily. I actually think that people who appreciate philosophical underpinnings of FOSS are more likely to seek out (or produce) legal, permissively licensed media.

Linux, whether you mean the kernel or the entirety of a GNU/Linux system, provides a platform to run software. There is no restriction that prevents you from running proprietary code on your machine. I certainly don't think that Linux needs to sacrifice its ideals, since people and companies are free to produce and sell software for Linux under any license they like.

[Dimitriid]

Aye, free software philosophy refers to free as in freedom not free as in free beer: The idea that colaborative cooperation will lead to better software, in some ways similar to the scientific method but instead of just refuting people improve and built upon other people's work, whereas a closed software model depends entirely on the resources that the people with access to the source code ( always very little by comparison ) can detect or improve.

[3rdalbum]

Add that to the fact that a lot of "free" software on Windows is likely to harm your system (in the form of malware etc), which leads to a sense of unease about anything associated with the word free, and commercial software stands a far greater chance for gaining users and revenue.

I used to use the Mac OS, and I often used software that displayed shareware nags, or that expired and caused me to have to set my system clock backwards in order to keep running it. One of the first things I noticed about Linux was that NONE of my software nagged me for money, nor expired, nor had disabled features. And at that point, I realised how annoying all that other stuff was, and was thankful that I'd never have to put up with shareware ever again.


So in essence, would Linux need to swallow it's pride and give up some of the core ideals that drive it to gain a sizable market share, or should it forever be hidden in the dark corner of nerds and Windows refugees, as the pretender that could have been?

It's not hidden in the dark corner of nerds. There's nothing hidden about Ubuntu at all. Look in any computer magazine. Look at the 30% growth of Ubuntu, mostly from people who formerly used Windows, every six months.

If we can accelerate that growth by charging for the software and making everything a concession to Windows users, then I'd say F-that. Linux is not Windows. Linux is for Linux users, not for Windows users, and if they can't trust the fact that our operating system is free, then I don't think they'll be able to work with Linux. Full-stop. But nobody I've come across yet is suspicious of Linux's free nature.

[Tibuda]

If you were a major commercial software company, would you embrace an OS with an ethos that everything has to be open and free?
Linux don't have such ethos. I have Nero, Skype, Opera, Nvidia and Flash in my Linux system, and they are not open or free. Linux itself is free, but software made for Linux don't have to.

[K.Mandla]

So in essence, would Linux need to swallow it's pride and give up some of the core ideals that drive it to gain a sizable market share ...
No.

or should it forever be hidden in the dark corner of nerds and Windows refugees, as the pretender that could have been?
I don't believe that is the logical counterpoint, since that doesn't seem to be the trend.

[dvlchd3]

Wow, I retract my previous statement. I read the first sentence, and assumed this was a typical point regarding profits and open source. (You know what they say about *** U ME ing)



Add that to the fact that a lot of "free" software on Windows is likely to harm your system (in the form of malware etc),

Since when? Maybe if you're an idiot and forget to research the crap you are downloading. In fact, this is counterintuitive to Linux and open source's thinking. It is nearly impossible to sneak malware into ANY open source software. (Since the source code is OPEN!!!)

I can see the point where there is less incentive for developers to develop for Linux. But everything past that just makes you look dumb.

[kpholmes]

I believe it is 10.10 that is going to allow developers to sell their software through the new software center.

thats when ill leave ubuntu and find a new distro.

[Tibuda]

thats when ill leave ubuntu and find a new distro.

What's wrong with that? You'll still be able to get all your free-as-in-beer or free-as-in-speech software. If you don't buy commercial software, you'll still be able to not buy anything. Nothing will change for you. There are valid reasons to consider new distros (rolling release, package formats, etc), but because of sold software is a dumb reason.

[Hallvor]

If you were a major commercial software company, would you embrace an OS with an ethos that everything has to be open and free?

You mean like Red Hat and Novell have?


On Windows of course there is always the choice to use free software, but the company behind it is an IP respecter.

And those mentioned above don`t?


Add that to the fact that a lot of "free" software on Windows is likely to harm your system (in the form of malware etc)

Freeware is not the same as FOSS.


which leads to a sense of unease about anything associated with the word free,

Only if you don`t know the difference between the two.


and commercial software stands a far greater chance for gaining users and revenue.

Since when was gaining users and revenue the goal of FOSS?


So in essence, would Linux need to swallow it's pride and give up some of the core ideals
that drive it to gain a sizable market share,

Why should either of those two even be considered goals? You sell your soul for .. what?


or should it forever be hidden in the dark corner of nerds and Windows refugees, as the pretender that could have been?

You should always remember your roots and where you are from. FOSS has always been about free (as on open source) software, it still is about free software and in the future it will continue to be about free software.

[Mateo]

No, I think the hesitance to attempt bold change and the fragmented nature is what holds Linux back. Without a central command, you have to get too many people to agree to something, in order to enact change. Or you can try the impossible task of doing it yourself.

[jwbrase]

If you were a major commercial software company, would you embrace an OS with an ethos that everything has to be open and free?

Linux does not specify anything about whether software that runs on it has to be open and free. Linux just specifies that it itself is open. It doesn't even specify that it has to be free, though most distros are.


On Windows of course there is always the choice to use free software, but the company behind it is an IP respecter.


Microsoft certainly respects its own IP. Whether it respects the IP of those who can't afford as many lawyers as it can, I'm not so sure.

Add that to the fact that a lot of "free" software on Windows is likely to harm your system (in the form of malware etc),

Ha! If you get it from warez sites, where half of the "free" stuff is bootleg commercial software anyways, maybe so. But I've downloaded gigabytes worth of actually free software (as in, the author doesn't charge anything for it) for Windows without ever getting infected by one download.

Plus, it's really hard to make malware out of Free and *Open Source* Software, since anyone can look at the code and make sure that it doesn't do anything nasty.


which leads to a sense of unease about anything associated with the word free, and commercial software stands a far greater chance for gaining users and revenue.

Users, maybe. Revenue, by definition. If software is commercial, that means it's seeking revenue. But FOSS developers aren't looking for revenue, yet FOSS has gained considerable market share (ie, Users) in certain sectors of the industry: *AMP (and often LAMP) on Web servers, Linux in embedded systems, etc.


So in essence, would Linux need to swallow it's pride and give up some of the core ideals that drive it to gain a sizable market share, or should it forever be hidden in the dark corner of nerds and Windows refugees, as the pretender that could have been?

Could have been? Maybe in the desktop market. But in the Server and Embedded market, it already is much more than "a pretender that could have been".

[bruno9779]

Linux is not *******, and it isn't a clone either.

I work in tech support, and my company gives support for mac and win, but not for linux. Alas, all our servers run Ubuntu, and one commercial product of the company runs XP as VM on Ubuntu.

The day Linux becaomes a ******* clone, I hope that Haiku makes it to 1.0...

[forrestcupp]

There have been times that I thought the same as the OP, but:

1. GNU/Linux wouldn't exist without the "FOSS attitude"; it's an integral part, and it would unravel quickly without it.

2. Linux doesn't need a large market share to thrive


If you don't like it, don't use it. Pull back out your copy of Windows that came preinstalled on your computer.

[bruno9779]

Pull back out your copy of Windows that came preinstalled on your computer.

If he had Vista then adios. Nowadays you get only a recovery CD, no full installer (at least around here)

[Xbehave]

At the risk of feeding the troll i'll add this:
As a general rule people do not pay for software, they will however pay for solutions (IBM), services (google) and hardware (intel/nokia), there are exceptions (office,photoshop) but software is going back to being something you give away with hardware (from android to os X).

I would say that i don't think money can be made on software anymore, but then somebody would harp on about the iphone, but generally big software projects (excluding existing products) are not going to rake in money like they used to anymore (sorry adobe your days are numbered :D)

[betrunkenaffe]

At the risk of feeding the troll i'll add this:
As a general rule people do not pay for software, they will however pay for solutions (IBM), services (google) and hardware (intel/nokia), there are exceptions (office,photoshop) but software is going back to being something you give away with hardware (from android to os X).

I would say that i don't think money can be made on software anymore, but then somebody would harp on about the iphone, but generally big software projects (excluding existing products) are not going to rake in money like they used to anymore (sorry adobe your days are numbered :D)

I'll definitely be one to disagree with you and state that you can make money off software. It is however changing form, before users would spend 150+ dollars to buy an office suite, an OS, an image manipulation program, or 50+ for games, etc. The trend that iPhone has introduced is 1$ apps. FOSS software probably won't even touch 1$ apps usually simply because they are small and very cheap. Note I said usually.

Buying through software centre will be a good thing since it will now provide free marketing for anyone that develops programs for Linux commercially. I'm all for anything that makes it easier for a company to sell Linux based software (and distribute). It can't stop FOSS so in the end, we all win.

[blur xc]

Since when was gaining users and revenue the goal of FOSS?


Bug fix #1? Maybe not the goal of the FOSS specifically, but it is the goal of a few groups in it... I doubt people like Red Hat, Novel, Canonical, etc... went into business with the mindset to not gain users.

BM

[Regenweald]

thats when ill leave ubuntu and find a new distro.

Well bully to you, and best of luck on your journeys. Me ? I'll continue to use the 15 - 20 thousand odd free packages in the repos seeing as i don't have a credit card. Maybe one day, if I'm lucky, I'll see Adobe Photoshop in software center , but remember! since no one is forcing me to buy it I suppose i'll just mosey on along to gimp or inkscape, but still say a silent thank you to Mark Shuttleworth on behalf of all the Linux graphics designers who dual boot to use Photoshop.

[az]

No, I think the hesitance to attempt bold change and the fragmented nature is what holds Linux back. Without a central command, you have to get too many people to agree to something, in order to enact change. Or you can try the impossible task of doing it yourself.

To be honest, it's a lot easier (and cheaper) to start a task from scratch using FLOSS than using proprietary software. And why would someone shy away from using an application because they can't take it over? Is that why I don't use Photoshop?

I think what you were trying to say is that a company is less keen on investing in something which relies on the work of others when that work is distributed and not under the control of one company.

Well, the reality is that FLOSS is much more of an open market than the software industry is. If you invest in a project and base it on a proprietary solution, you can guarantee than the moment you start to make money, someone is going to come at you for a piece of your pie.

Think of any big internet money maker; Do Google, Ebay, Amazon.com, Facebook, or twitter run on Windows computers? No. They all run using FLOSS.

As well, any project that involves such a big number of developers will have a predictable behavior. The ability to fork a project is always there although is almost never happens. Can you think of any major FLOSS projects that have suddenly done a 180-degree turn in the past few years?



If you were a major commercial software company, would you embrace an OS with an ethos that everything has to be open and free?

...

a sense of unease about anything associated with the word free, and commercial software stands a far greater chance for gaining users and revenue.

The fact that Windows is proprietary is not a feature. Software isn't better simply because it's under a proprietary license.



On Windows of course there is always the choice to use free software, but the company behind it is an IP respecter. Add that to the fact that a lot of "free" software on Windows is likely to harm your system (in the form of malware etc),

I don't think that many people make that connection. If "free" means less secure, then why do you need to run an antivirus on Windows and not on any "free" OS?

[forrestcupp]

I don't think that many people make that connection. If "free" means less secure, then why do you need to run an antivirus on Windows and not on any "free" OS?
Well, he's right that a lot of "freeware" software includes spyware. A lot of Windows users don't understand the difference between Free software and freeware software.

[koenn]

Well, he's right that a lot of "freeware" software includes spyware. A lot of Windows users don't understand the difference between Free software and freeware software.
and that's the problem with posts like the OP : someone who can't even make the distinction between freeware and Free Software, not to mention the "intelectual property" stuff that shows an even greater lack of knowledge and insight, as Chronon pointed out ... yet he thinks he has a valid opinion about how development of free operating systems should be managed and what direction it should take.


sigh.
maybe we need a dedicated subforum for such posts - The Community Dungeon, or the Oubliette, or something.

[subdivision]

Well bully to you, and best of luck on your journeys. Me ? I'll continue to use the 15 - 20 thousand odd free packages in the repos seeing as i don't have a credit card.

Wow, you use 15 thousand programs?

[starcannon]

If you were a major commercial software company, would you embrace an OS with an ethos that everything has to be open and free? On Windows of course there is always the choice to use free software, but the company behind it is an IP respecter. Add that to the fact that a lot of "free" software on Windows is likely to harm your system (in the form of malware etc), which leads to a sense of unease about anything associated with the word free, and commercial software stands a far greater chance for gaining users and revenue. So in essence, would Linux need to swallow it's pride and give up some of the core ideals that drive it to gain a sizable market share, or should it forever be hidden in the dark corner of nerds and Windows refugees, as the pretender that could have been?
It hasn't yet. In my opinion it has been misconceptions about what it means to port software over to a Linux or other FOSS based operating system has certainly held things back a bit. But "attitude", nah; people making money and finding new markets generally ignore the idiots, and just move on to sell goods/services to those they consider viable. Lack of education about what FOSS is, and what ones rights are as a commercial vendor I think have been far more damaging than the blusterings of a few beards.

[Regenweald]

Wow, you use 15 thousand programs?

My needs are ridiculous :P

[murderslastcrow]

I think anyone who's willing to play a commercial video game ported to Linux should be equally open to other closed source programs, either for the sake of profit or exclusivity, since a game uses the same practice.

It's going to be many years before professionals who use computers at work will be able to use open source programs according to company standards, making Windows the de facto for business environments.

It would be best if Linux gets the commercial vendors at first to catch on in school and business environments rather than just the home market, because it would open up more opportunities to use open source components rather than the commercial ones. Commercial software is necessary, and is already picking up as it is.

Of course, seeing how viable Wine currently is, imagine how much better it could get with more rapid and financially-supported development. If Wine had 100 percent compatibility, it would give us all the commercial vendors at once without any work on their part.

Wine would basically be the proprietary software layer at that point XD. Either way, until that moment arrives, only about 75 percent of the current market will be able to deal without Windows in some form (VirtualBox, Dual-Boot).

[edin9]

To answer a few points. I didn't understand the difference between freeware and opensource until I installed Linux. I'm pretty sure if you asked most general users (i.e non-nerds who don't have/want a vast knowledge of the OS/software ecosystem) what the difference between freeware and opensource was, you would get a lolwut response. I've seen friends and family who have installed a "free" program, get some kind of malware, and either go and get some "safe" commercial version, or the slightly smarter will go and pirate said commercial software. As for Linux not wanting to gain market share, what do you think the entire point of Ubuntu is? Do you really think Canonical back it just for fun? They are a business. A larger market share = chance for more profit.

[Mateo]

To be honest, it's a lot easier (and cheaper) to start a task from scratch using FLOSS than using proprietary software. And why would someone shy away from using an application because they can't take it over? Is that why I don't use Photoshop?

I think what you were trying to say is that a company is less keen on investing in something which relies on the work of others when that work is distributed and not under the control of one company.

Well, the reality is that FLOSS is much more of an open market than the software industry is. If you invest in a project and base it on a proprietary solution, you can guarantee than the moment you start to make money, someone is going to come at you for a piece of your pie.

Think of any big internet money maker; Do Google, Ebay, Amazon.com, Facebook, or twitter run on Windows computers? No. They all run using FLOSS.

As well, any project that involves such a big number of developers will have a predictable behavior. The ability to fork a project is always there although is almost never happens. Can you think of any major FLOSS projects that have suddenly done a 180-degree turn in the past few years?

No, I meant what I said. Linux (not FLOSS) is held back because it is a community effort without central command. Therefore innovation is very difficult to achieve. It requires the cooperation of many parties who don't all agree and have no motive to agree.

Here's one example: apt is fundamentally flawed. It's a great system, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't built intelligently and needs a major overhaul if it is to reach its potential. Specifically the versioning system is just 100% wrong. But fixing it affects probably a dozen (or more) other projects, which then need to be modified to prevent existing functionality from taking a nosedive. So it becomes an administrative nightmare when you don't have a command structure in place. So it usually doesn't get done. And innovation doesn't get done. Just my opinion.

[koenn]

To answer a few points. I didn't understand the difference between freeware and opensource until I installed Linux. I'm pretty sure if you asked most general users (i.e non-nerds who don't have/want a vast knowledge of the OS/software ecosystem) what the difference between freeware and opensource was, you would get a lolwut response.I've seen friends and family who have installed a "free" program, get some kind of malware, and either go and get some "safe" commercial version, ...
so, by that reasoning and what you say in your OP, Linux distributions that charge money would have to be the ones attracting the most users.
So there's hope for Linspire yet ...



or the slightly smarter will go and pirate said commercial software. Your idea of 'smarter' is , err, interesting


As for Linux not wanting to gain market share, what do you think the entire point of Ubuntu is? Do you really think Canonical back it just for fun? They are a business. A larger market share = chance for more profit. No, they intend to make distributing free software profitable, there was never any confusion about that. How does this support your point that "FOSS attitude is holding back Linux" ?

[koenn]

No, I meant what I said. Linux (not FLOSS) is held back because it is a community effort without central command. Therefore innovation is very difficult to achieve. It requires the cooperation of many parties who don't all agree and have no motive to agree.

You got it backwards, it's the lack of central command that drives innovation.

Maybe some coordination between projects/distros would help to make things easier towards 3th parties - M. Shuttleworth launched a few ideas about that in the past couple of months



Here's one example: apt is fundamentally flawed. It's a great system, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't built intelligently and needs a major overhaul if it is to reach its potential. Specifically the versioning system is just 100% wrong. But fixing it affects probably a dozen (or more) other projects, which then need to be modified to prevent existing functionality from taking a nosedive.
I can see some issues with how some packagers/distros handle dependency versions, but that's merely an implementation issue, nut a fundamental flaw. Changing that is a matter of packaging, which is done by distributors, not by the upstream projects, they just deliver source code. So it looks like your opinion is based on misconceptions, unless I missed something.

[Mateo]

You got it backwards, it's the lack of central command that drives innovation.

Maybe some coordination between projects/distros would help to make things easier towards 3th parties - M. Shuttleworth launched a few ideas about that in the past couple of months

Could you name some recent innovations (let's say within the lats 5 years) created by non-central commanded projects?




I can see some issues with how some packagers/distros handle dependency versions, but that's merely an implementation issue, nut a fundamental flaw. Changing that is a matter of packaging, which is done by distributors, not by the upstream projects, they just deliver source code. So it looks like your opinion is based on misconceptions, unless I missed something.

I meant the way sources is handled. With the version of ubuntu (or debian or whatever) you are using being stored in a flat-file. I didn't mean the versioning of software in the sources. Sorry for the confusion.

[aysiu]

FOSS attitude isn't holding Linux back. Look at how successful Linux is as a server or embedded OS. Google uses Linux. Now the London Stock Exchange does. Android phones and the Palm Pre use Linux.

The issue mainly has to do with marketing: People need a physical product to buy. The vast majority of computer users do not install and configure operating systems themselves. So in the case of servers, a company buys a Linux server in the form of a support contract with Red Hat or hires their own server admins to handle installing/configuration in-house. In the case of embedded, people buy the product it's embedded in (TiVo, mobile phone, eReader, etc.). With laptops and desktops, there's very little choice in buying Linux preinstalled, and individuals don't generally want to pay someone to install and configure a relatively unknown OS for them when Windows already comes preinstalled and preconfigured. Having centralized repositories is awesome. Unfortunately, no one marketed it for Linux in an awesome way, so we got stuck with "Why isn't it easy like Windows? Where is my setup.exe?" instead of what Apple got ("The app store has 85,000 apps in it!"). The iTunes App Store is basically package management but marketed properly. It turns a disadvantage (not being able to install anything you want) into an advantage (installing from a central location, having some quality control). No one has heard of Linux except Linux users and Windows power users. The vast majority of people say "Are you a Mac or a PC?" and by PC they mean Windows PC. Linux doesn't even figure in as a bad alternative. It's not thought of generally as an alternative at all. Marketing and availability are really the problem. If lack of a unified vision or lack of corporate backing (which is actually untrue--there's a lot of corporate backing for Linux) or some FOSS "attitude" were really holding Linux back, it would also be held back in the server and embedded markets... and it's not.

Desktop/laptop has its own issues, nothing to do with attitude, though.

P.S. Don't even pretend Linux on netbooks was implemented/marketed properly. Crappy non-mainstream Linux distros with absolutely no marketing or proper information means fail miserably. I bought an Eee PC with Xandros preinstalled and promptly replaced it with Ubuntu because Xandros was awful. I also bought an HP Mini with an HP-modified Ubuntu, and it was terrible, and I promptly replaced it with vanilla Ubuntu, which was much better. Neither one was marketed by Asus or HP properly. In fact, the HP one could be found only if you were looking for it, and HP did not tout any of its advantages. In fact, it "recommended" Windows for people on its website (same way Dell does if you're on a Ubuntu Dell computer page).

[sudoer541]

me personally I want to have a taste of both worlds and I am completely fine with buying software that works on ubu. If some of you think that paying for something is unethical, then how do you live? Dont you pay rent/mortgage? electrical/water/heating? dont you pay for food? dont you pay for things that you may not need? Dont you pay for a high speed internet? why do you need a fast internet if dialup does the job? what about paying for companies who make shoes or clothing by taking slaves and pay then 1 cent a day, and the worst part is you gladly pay for it. So if you pay for companies who take advantage of slaves is worse that a company trying to sell software or try to make people pay more for their products.
I personally prefer to give my money to a company who is willing to rip me off instead of feeding a company with my money who is gonna make me feel bad by making a fellow human being suffer for 1 cent a day to live. Sorry if this is offensive but this is how things are you know?

[Frak]

me personally I want to have a taste of both worlds and I am completely fine with buying software that works on ubu. If some of you think that paying for something is unethical, then how do you live? Dont you pay rent/mortgage? electrical/water/heating? dont you pay for food? dont you pay for things that you may not need? Dont you pay for a high speed internet? why do you need a fast internet if dialup does the job? what about paying for companies who make shoes or clothing by taking slaves and pay then 1 cent a day, and the worst part is you gladly pay for it. So if you pay for companies who take advantage of slaves is worse that a company trying to sell software or try to make people pay more for their products.
I personally prefer to give my money to a company who is willing to rip me off instead of feeding a company with my money who is gonna make me feel bad by making a fellow human being suffer for 1 cent a day to live. Sorry if this is offensive but this is how things are you know?
Who?


It is nearly impossible to sneak malware into ANY open source software. (Since the source code is OPEN!!!)

20,000 packages, and you think it'd be hard to just put malware into one? Nobody is constantly reviewing the source code. If someone were to place obfuscated code into a project (say the maintainer) the damage would have already been done before it would be found and/or patched up against. It's possible because:

1. Millions of lines of code would have to be covered with strict review.
2. Every developer would have to have keen eyes, and be able to spot malicious code (very difficult in many cases).
3. Malware is dangerous because it can spread.

[koenn]

Could you name some recent innovations (let's say within the lats 5 years) created by non-central commanded projects?
I'll ignore your 5 yrs limit, since I don't track dates, and most inventions take a couple of years to reach maturity and broad acceptance. Besides that, I tend to ignore new stuff until it becomes tried, tested, and mainstream, so I would hardly know about what's the latest in any given program.

Anyway, how about
tabbed web browsers, xml, odf, rsync, most encryption algorithms and their implementations, html5, Ipv6, and just about anything in the field of interoperability.

[Mateo]

I'll ignore your 5 yrs limit, since I don't track dates, and most inventions take a couple of years to reach maturity and broad acceptance. Besides that, I tend to ignore new stuff until it becomes tried, tested, and mainstream, so I would hardly know about what's the latest in any given program.

Anyway, how about
tabbed web browsers, xml, odf, rsync, most encryption algorithms and their implementations, html5, Ipv6, and just about anything in the field of interoperability.

Very sparse, isn't it? Tabbed web browsing is ancient. Even if you ignore the recent requirement, if you have to put that on your list then the list must be really, really sparse. And if you have to list stuff that's not even close to being complete (html5) then that says something too.

I guess some of other count, i don't know. i would fall asleep trying to find out what they mean.

Here's one technology that uses a central-command type model that qualifies as a recent innovation: e-ink display readers. See the diff between that and your list?

[koenn]

I meant the way sources is handled. With the version of ubuntu (or debian or whatever) you are using being stored in a flat-file. I didn't mean the versioning of software in the sources. Sorry for the confusion.
I still don't get it. flat files are a problem ?

[Mateo]

I still don't get it. flat files are a problem ?

no, getting information from a human-editable file that can be got programmatically is a problem. There is no reason to have the version of ubuntu in sources.list. Any program can find out what version of ubuntu through code. Fundamental flaw that will not be fixed due to the reasons i previously laid out.

[benj1]

No, I meant what I said. Linux (not FLOSS) is held back because it is a community effort without central command. Therefore innovation is very difficult to achieve. It requires the cooperation of many parties who don't all agree and have no motive to agree.


so you would prefer a dictatorship over democracy then?

yes maybe progress may seem to be slow, but i bet at the end of it better decisions are made,
dont forget you get to see all the discussions (see arguments) in public, with microsoft it happens behind closed doors, all you see is the shiny new operating system every 3 years, and finally if microsofts improvements happened incrementally on patch tuesday, you wouldnt see major improvements day to day. go and look at ubuntu 6.10 (released the month before vista)and compare that to karmic koala, is development happening any slower than with windows?

[koenn]

Very sparse, isn't it? Tabbed web browsing is ancient. Even if you ignore the recent requirement, if you have to put that on your list then the list must be really, really sparse. And if you have to list stuff that's not even close to being complete (html5) then that says something too.

I guess some of other count, i don't know. i would fall asleep trying to find out what they mean.

Here's one technology that uses a central-command type model that qualifies as a recent innovation: e-ink display readers. See the diff between that and your list?

Hm, one is "ancient" while I've been browsing without tabs a lot longer than I've been browsing with tabs, The other one doesn't count as innovation because it's too new (they're still working on it) ... hm.
But yes, I had to think for a few minutes to make that list, because innovation is not a very high priority to me

I guess you're interest and mine differ. To me, e-ink display readers are a nich product. innovative? maybe. relevant ? remains to be seen.

Got 4 more or is this it ? :)

[Mateo]

Hm, one is "ancient" while I've been browsing without tabs a lot longer than I've been browsing with tabs, The other one doesn't count as innovation because it's too new (they're still working on it) ... hm.
But yes, I had to think for a few minutes to make that list, because innovation is not a very high priority to me

I guess you're interest and mine differ. To me, e-ink display readers are a nich product. innovative? maybe. relevant ? remains to be seen.

Got 4 more or is this it ? :)

easily. amoled screens, laser televisions, multitouch screens, universal search, integrated application linking (thinking of the sharing feature of android), cloud document editing, the dyson fan. just to name a few.

[koenn]

no, getting information from a human-editable file that can be got programmatically is a problem. There is no reason to have the version of ubuntu in sources.list. Any program can find out what version of ubuntu through code. Fundamental flaw that will not be fixed due to the reasons i previously laid out.

flat files and text as interface between programs is a unix design principle. Old ? Yes. but also tried, tested en proven, great for troubleshooting with standard tools, and simple enough to allow any program, past, present and future, to deal with it - especially handy in an environment with distributed development.

[benj1]

Could you name some recent innovations (let's say within the lats 5 years) created by non-central commanded projects?


could you name any recent innovations by centrally commanded projects?
and for a special bonus question, one by microsoft ever.

you didnt really define the question very well, i assume central == 'traditional' proprietary development model and non-central == open source.

i would say there is alot more innovation in open source, open source developers have the freedom to do want they want, and want to do something new, closed source paid developers are constrained by their employers who are only interested in incremental improvements, innovation isnt profitable for encumbents, only incremental improvement is.

ps to answer your question bit torrent

[Mateo]

flat files and text as interface between programs is a unix design principle. Old ? Yes. but also tried, tested en proven, great for troubleshooting with standard tools, and simple enough to allow any program, past, present and future, to deal with it - especially handy in an environment with distributed development.

i don't have a problem with flat-files. i have a problem with storing any information unnecessarily in flat files. In this case, you can AND SHOULD get OS version information programmatically. Getting it from a flat-file is 1) Unnecessary and 2) Potentially problematic (if the files are not properly updated, if the files are edited by a human) and 3) Prevent innovation. For example #3, if sources.list did not have OS version information, I could create a browser plugin that automatically installs software from a PPA in 1 click. Unfortunately that cannot be done in a user-friendly way with the current way APT works. And I laid out the reasons why I believe this. Because it represents a fundamental change to the way APT has always works and would require the cooperative of multiple projects. The incentive for them to do this and not just say that the current method is "good enough" (and for the record, I believe that the current method IS good enough, but that's what I'm against, the "good enough" mentality).

[Mateo]

could you name any recent innovations by centrally commanded projects?
and for a special bonus question, one by microsoft ever.

Sure, I listed several in the post a couple up from yours.


you didnt really define the question very well, i assume central == 'traditional' proprietary development model and non-central == open source.

Not necessarily. A project can be open source but is still de facto centrally commanded if 1 person is doing all of the work (or 1 company/team).



ps to answer your question bit torrent

i looked it up online and this seems to be a centrally commanded project. 1 guy wrote the protocol on his own, the same guy who owns the company that currently maintains it.

[benj1]

easily. amoled screens, laser televisions, multitouch screens, universal search, integrated application linking (thinking of the sharing feature of android), cloud document editing, the dyson fan. just to name a few.
and i wonder how many of those innovations stem from a eureka moment by a individual?

yes they were brought to market by the big corporations, but for example
laser televisions/amoled screen-- televisions were invented by which mega corporation?
dyson fan-- where did the money come from to make that?
cloud document editing-- sounds suspiciously like a wiki to me, wikis were developed by the mega corp ....
universal search--wouldnt describe it as an innovation, certainly not compared to the original search algorithm, developed by google.... before google even existed.

[koenn]

easily. amoled screens, laser televisions, multitouch screens, universal search, integrated application linking (thinking of the sharing feature of android), cloud document editing, the dyson fan. just to name a few.
Hm, not bad.
But since we're talking information technology mainly, my main interest is more along the lines of : will the data format i store information in today, will still be readable in 10 years ? Will the programs I need to render that data, still be available ? Will the media I store my data on, still allow me to read that data 10, 15, 30 years from now ? (The place I work has some pretty interesting legal obligations when it comes to archiving). So I'm more interested in (new) developments in open standards, open formats, interoperability, open licenses etc than, say, a fan - no matter how revolutionary that fan is.

[benj1]

Not necessarily. A project can be open source but is still de facto centrally commanded if 1 person is doing all of the work (or 1 company/team).

i looked it up online and this seems to be a centrally commanded project. 1 guy wrote the protocol on his own, the same guy who owns the company that currently maintains it.

right so any project by one man is centrally commanded. well by that definition you could say the linux kernel is centrally commanded, infact i struggle to think of anything that isnt centrally commanded, debian has votes on certain things, but i still bet there is a core membership who holds most of the influence.
by that definition i struggle to think how innovation could happen at all, how would it work, someone posts "i want to create x" and everybody justs adds a line of code, without anyone overseeing it?

[Mateo]

right so any project by one man is centrally commanded. well by that definition you could say the linux kernel is centrally commanded, infact i struggle to think of anything that isnt centrally commanded, debian has votes on certain things, but i still bet there is a core membership who holds most of the influence.
by that definition i struggle to think how innovation could happen at all, how would it work, someone posts "i want to create x" and everybody justs adds a line of code, without anyone overseeing it?

individual projects are centrally commanded, but projects are often interconnected. So if project A has a major flaw or some type of major innovation that it can bring, it is not likely to fix that flaw if doing so will cause problems for project B, C and D.

That's the problem I'm referring to. Certain central, long existing elements of linux are "cemented in". Innovation can only be done through add ons. You add on to the end of the tree. but you can't touch the roots. That's why you have to list small/boring innovations like rsync.

[utnubuuser]

hi

No, I meant what I said. Linux (not FLOSS) is held back because it is a community effort without central command. Therefore innovation is very difficult to achieve. It requires the cooperation of many parties who don't all agree and have no motive to agree.

how much more innovative do you want it to be?

[benj1]

individual projects are centrally commanded, but projects are often interconnected. So if project A has a major flaw or some type of major innovation that it can bring, it is not likely to fix that flaw if doing so will cause problems for project B, C and D.

That's the problem I'm referring to. Certain central, long existing elements of linux are "cemented in". Innovation can only be done through add ons. You add on to the end of the tree. but you can't touch the roots. That's why you have to list small/boring innovations like rsync.

i understand what your saying about there being no central command for the entire linux ecosystem, there rarely is, and if it is its called a monopoloy, which certainly isnt good for innovation.


we started on this subthread because of this statement

No, I meant what I said. Linux (not FLOSS) is held back because it is a community effort without central command. Therefore innovation is very difficult to achieve. It requires the cooperation of many parties who don't all agree and have no motive to agree.
in the open source world individual programmers are much freer to innovate.
yes you can say that an individual project is centrally commanded (nearly all are) but the combined result is an ecosystem with alot of innovation, and no central command.
take bit torrent, it wasnt designed by committee it was one man who went and made it, it succeeded because people liked it, would a large company have invented it ? no, theres no money in it for a start.

i suggest you read this
http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/christensen.htm
it looks at an incumbents motivation for innovation.

[earthpigg]

Why are we limiting the criteria to Linux, and not free software in general?

i have no loyalty to any one kernel.

by only discussing Linux, you are assuming that Linus Torvalds will remain forever the ultimate dictator. something i certainly don't accept as set in stone.

you are free to branch Linux and escape Linus' oversight entirely - you just can't call it Linux in your documentation or advertising (http://www.linuxmark.org/) :D

you say a central oligarchy or dictatorship is a superior development model to the semi-organized-chaos that we as Ubuntu Linux users are familiar with.

ok. this is where *BSD steps in. if your prediction proves true, then many of us will likely be using either *BSD, BSD/Debian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_variants#FreeBSD_variants), or a some derivative thereof within a few years. So what? the FOSS outlook and Natural Selection prevails.

Free Software as a whole is currently using every development model, all at once - the only caveat being that the end result must remain Free Software (yes, you can often turn Free Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_OS) into non-free software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X)... but then we can't call it Free Software :D ).

Proprietary software generally operates as a line: it changes directions and sometimes travels along a few paths at once, but it is ultimately more-or-less linear. Ballmer decided that Windows 7 would boot faster, run with less resource overhead, and have better user priveladge control. so, those are the lines Win7 is traveling on - and it may indeed be traveling fast, but many other areas are neglected to a great degree.

Free Software, taken as a whole, generally operates as a circle constantly expanding in all directions. there are spikes wherein one area or project advances faster than the rest of the circle - we are witnessing one such 5-year-spike on the "Percieved Ease of Use" axis of advance.... but the entire circle is still expanding. firefox is still getting better. the kernel continues it's steady progression. et cetera.

These are generalizations. I will immediately concede that Free Software is a bit linear, and Proprietary software is a bit circular.

[koenn]

For example #3, if sources.list did not have OS version information, I could create a browser plugin that automatically installs software from a PPA in 1 click. Unfortunately that cannot be done in a user-friendly way with the current way APT works. ...
I think i'm starting to see what you mean - you're referring to the release names in the (partial) URL's in sources.list, (I think).
Well, that's hardly fundamental - it's just the way debian and ubuntu manage their repos. I agree that this isn't always convenient, and it doesn't handle 3th party apps very well. That might become problematic at some point. But it can be fixed. There are (newer/different) package managers emerging left and right - they'll gain interest if/when problems with current package managers become problematic - or maybe even some people will sit down and start from scratch on a new software delivery system, better suited to the evolving needs.
I remember ipchains being replaced with iptables - the guy who wrote it decided trying to keep on working at ipchains was too much hassle, better start over and do it right this time. Same can happen with apt, or any other program. And those that prefer the old stuff can take the existing code and keep on using/developing it.

I think your either too pessimistic, or frustrated about something that you'd like to do today that doesn't fit in with the current way in which Ubuntu handles software delivery. But then maybe you should rethink your approach ?


Anyway, bed time for me, I'm off.

[benj1]

and Natural Selection prevails

good point, evolution, the ultimate innovator

[aysiu]

Why are we limiting the criteria to Linux, and not free software in general? Take a look at the thread title: Will the FOSS attittude forever hold back Linux as a real alternate to Windows?

That's why we're talking about Linux.

[blur xc]

me personally I want to have a taste of both worlds and I am completely fine with buying software that works on ubu. If some of you think that paying for something is unethical, then how do you live? Dont you pay rent/mortgage? electrical/water/heating? dont you pay for food? dont you pay for things that you may not need? Dont you pay for a high speed internet? why do you need a fast internet if dialup does the job? what about paying for companies who make shoes or clothing by taking slaves and pay then 1 cent a day, and the worst part is you gladly pay for it. So if you pay for companies who take advantage of slaves is worse that a company trying to sell software or try to make people pay more for their products.
I personally prefer to give my money to a company who is willing to rip me off instead of feeding a company with my money who is gonna make me feel bad by making a fellow human being suffer for 1 cent a day to live. Sorry if this is offensive but this is how things are you know?


PAYING FOR SOFTWARE IS NOT UNETHICAL!!! Free does not mean free lunch- it's freedom as in liberty.

Free software is defined by Richard Stallman's 4 freedoms. I don't recall them exactly, but to badly paraphrase, it's the freedom to use the software how I want. The freedom the share the software with whoever I want. It's the freedom to modify the source code how ever I want (whether I do it myself if I have the skills, or hire a programmer to do it if I don't), and the freedom the share my modified version of the software.

EULA's hold back technology and innovation. Say I want a program to do something- there's one on the market that's pretty good, but not quite what I need. It's proprietary. So, instead of working on innovating and making a few changes to some code, I pretty much have to reinvent the wheel of I want to make my own program, rather than use what works form an existing program. That's inefficient. I have to do the same thing someone else already did, spend countless hours bug fixing, testing, etc., to get to where the proprietary program already is, before I can even get to the feature I need it to do. That is a waste of resources.

BM

[earthpigg]

Take a look at the thread title: Will the FOSS attittude forever hold back Linux as a real alternate to Windows?

That's why we're talking about Linux.

Point taken.

however: the "FOSS attitude" itself, as i understand it, does not grant any Magical Powers of Perpetual Flagship Status to anything, which (in my mind) renders the question a bit irrelevant in it's original form.

Firefox is regarded by some/many as the flagship of Free Software web browsers, for now.

Linux is regarded by some/many as the flagship of Free Software operating systems, for now.

For Now. And if some other Free Software project ends up surpassing either of those two... good! The result is that we now have a better web browser or operating system. yay competition! yay natural selection! yay Free Software!

(Unfortunate for Mozilla and IBM and other companies that have spent billions on the respective projects, though. I am not a stock holder in any of them, so I suffer no loss and get a better product. and the end result may be that IBM, etc al., are encouraged to step up their game and commit more resources to Free Software development. I see nothing wrong with that, as I may end up with software that is better yet again!)

so, i question the question. :guitar:

and from the sidelines while i use and very much enjoy Linux, i cheer for the success of any and all Free Software alternatives to Linux.

I want to see tie-breakers in double overtime, not 100 to zero victories.

(recall that it is not a zero-sum game. there is a very real possibility that a given dozen hypothetical programmers working on FreeBSD would never have worked on Linux under any circumstances. maybe they think Linus is funny looking. maybe they think penguins are dumb. maybe Company X hired them to work on *BSD, but would never have hired them to work on Linux.)

i will immediately concede that i am being a bit pedantic and willingly accept such criticism in stride.

[aysiu]

however: the "FOSS attitude" itself, as i understand it, does not grant any Magical Powers of Perpetual Flagship Status to anything, which (in my mind) renders the question a bit irrelevant in it's original form. I agree. I don't think there is one FOSS attitude, and I also don't even see it currently holding Linux back, so I don't see how it could hold Linux back "forever," considering it never held Linux back in the first place.

[edin9]

I really should have made my reason for the thread title clearer. The reason I say the FOSS attitude is because after reading several blogs and the experience of interacting with some of the core people responsible for Linux's existence (kernel, xorg devs, etc), many of them seem to be FOSS purists to put it as politely as possible. There's also the fact that the major driving philosophy behind Linux and FOSS, is, unsurprisingly, free everything. Free software, opencode, etc. This, obviously, contrasts heavily against the closed source, IP respecting side of Windows, where most of the biggest commercial software companies currently reside.

[az]

Of course, seeing how viable Wine currently is, imagine how much better it could get with more rapid and financially-supported development. If Wine had 100 percent compatibility, it would give us all the commercial vendors at once without any work on their part.


Wine has been developed by paid programmers from Codeweavers for years. Transgaming also contribute. It has led to the improvement of two marginal products: Crossover Office and Cedega. Had this development been made by a community of developers, all that code would be in Wine and not in those forks. So in this case, I would say that the proprietary developmental model is less than spectacular.



Wine would basically be the proprietary software layer at that point XD. Either way, until that moment arrives, only about 75 percent of the current market will be able to deal without Windows in some form (VirtualBox, Dual-Boot).

Running Windows software on Linux is not the way to make Linux more attractive. They are two different OSes.



Here's one example: apt is fundamentally flawed. ... And innovation doesn't get done. Just my opinion.

As already stated, there are many many package managers out there. Ubuntu uses APT, but if you don't like it, you are not limited to it.


If some of you think that paying for something is unethical, then how do you live? ...Sorry if this is offensive but this is how things are you know?

Who said that? Developers of the same competencies who work full-time for FLOSS companies are paid the same salaries as developers who work for proprietary companies. The difference between the two is that at the end of the day, the code written by the proprietary developers belongs to their company, whereas the code written by the FLOSS developers "belongs" to everyone.

[benj1]

I agree. I don't think there is one FOSS attitude, and I also don't even see it currently holding Linux back, so I don't see how it could hold Linux back "forever," considering it never held Linux back in the first place.

i think the foss attitude does hold linux back, but only as far as due to the fragmented nature of foss there hasnt been the one version to market, if linux was today packaged up, closed up and marketed as linux desktop edition tm, by linux plc, linux would undoubtedly be more popular,
The problem is it misses two points, first, linux would not be here today if it wasnt for open source, second, linux loses its greatest strength, its community.

[jwbrase]

I agree. I don't think there is one FOSS attitude, and I also don't even see it currently holding Linux back, so I don't see how it could hold Linux back "forever," considering it never held Linux back in the first place.

Well the OP specified "forever hold back Linux as a real alternative to Windows."

In other words, he was gloating that Linux has not yet crushed the hegemony of Microsoft underfoot, and trying to insinuate that it never will.

But as far as I'm concerned, Microsoft will eventually fail like any other human organization, and that something will eventually crush it underfoot matters more than if Linux crushes it underfoot.

[earthpigg]

edin9:

can you please edit your last post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8137209&postcount=60) to replace the word "Free" with "Gratis" or "Libre" in all cases, to remove any potential ambiguity?

i want to make sure i have the proper context when reading/processing your post.

[edin9]

To address aysiu. I am talking only about desktop Linux here. Not server, not embedded. I do however accept netbook variants as a valid point.

[edin9]

Well the OP specified "forever hold back Linux as a real alternative to Windows."

In other words, he was gloating that Linux has not yet crushed the hegemony of Microsoft underfoot, and trying to insinuate that it never will.

But as far as I'm concerned, Microsoft will eventually fail like any other human organization, and that something will eventually crush it underfoot matters more than if Linux crushes it underfoot.

I use Linux as my main OS. Why would I be "gloating that Linux has not yet crushed the hegemony of Microsoft underfoot"?

[az]

I really should have made my reason for the thread title clearer. The reason I say the FOSS attitude is because after reading several blogs and the experience of interacting with some of the core people responsible for Linux's existence (kernel, xorg devs, etc), many of them seem to be FOSS purists to put it as politely as possible.

There's no reasons to mince words. When you say "put it politely", you imply that publishing code under a free license is in some way derogatory?

I want the freedom to know what my computer is doing. This is a bad thing?



There's also the fact that the major driving philosophy behind Linux and FOSS, is, unsurprisingly, free everything. Free software, opencode, etc. This, obviously, contrasts heavily against the closed source, IP respecting side of Windows, where most of the biggest commercial software companies currently resides.

"IP respecting?" Are you assuming that FLOSS encourages piracy? Please read up on the topic of IP before you make assumptions about FLOSS. Fundamentally, what FLOSS does is allow you to have more freedom with the software you use than with proprietary software. FLOSS uses existing copyright law to extend of subset of the rights (as in "all rights reserved") to the users. When only some rights are reserved, you (the user) are entitled to do more with the program than if all the rights were reserved.


Free everything? No. Just a level playing field. Do you want to make money in the field of proprietary software? It's easy. Go to law school. You'll make at least twice the salary of a Microsoft developer as a lawyer. And there's nothing wrong with that except for the fact that I want nothing to do with it. And Floss gives me the option to avoid it entirely.

[sudoer541]

MARKETING is the magic word. <-----maybe Google can help us out?

[edin9]

There's no reasons to mince words. When you say &quot;put it politely&quot;, you imply that publishing code under a free license is in some way derogatory?

I want the freedom to know what my computer is doing. This is a bad thing?



&quot;IP respecting?&quot; Please read up on the topic of IP before you make assumptions about FLOSS. Fundamentally, what FLOSS does is allow you to have more freedom with the software you use than with proprietary software. FLOSS uses existing copyright law to extend of subset of the rights (as in &quot;all rights reserved&quot;) to the users. When only some rights are reserved, you (the user) are entitled to do more with the program than if all the rights were reserved.


Free everything? No. Just a level playing field. Do you want to make money in the field of proprietary software? It's easy. Go to law school. You'll make at least twice the salary of a Microsoft developer as a lawyer. And there's nothing wrong with that except for the fact that I want nothing to do with it. And Floss gives me the option to avoid it entirely.

No I mean that a lot of them rant on at closed source being evil in the same way that Ballmer has classed Linux as an IP cancer. You're seriously misreading my context.

I understand IP perfectly, but if we are going into this sort of area, may I suggest you read the GPLv3 in it's entirety.

[edin9]

Are you assuming that FLOSS encourages piracy? Now you're just being ridiculous.

[az]

I understand IP perfectly, but if we are going into this sort of area, may I suggest you read the GPLv3 in it's entirety.

I have. What's your point?



Now you're just being ridiculous.

Fair enough. So what did you mean by "IP respecting"?

[aysiu]

To address aysiu. I am talking only about desktop Linux here. Not server, not embedded. I do however accept netbook variants as a valid point. I know you're talking about desktop Linux. But desktop Linux is developed with the same "FOSS attitude" as server and embedded Linux, yet server and embedded Linux succeed. So the logical conclusion is that it's something else and not the "FOSS attitude" that prevents Linux from succeeding on the desktop.

I outlined the major reasons (there are other minor reasons) for this, and none of them has anything to do with a "FOSS attitude."

If "fragmentation" or "freedom" were prohibitive to success in the commercial marketplace, then Linux would not succeed in server or embedded markets either.

[edin9]

I know you're talking about desktop Linux. But desktop Linux is developed with the same &quot;FOSS attitude&quot; as server and embedded Linux, yet server and embedded Linux succeed. So the logical conclusion is that it's something else and not the &quot;FOSS attitude&quot; that prevents Linux from succeeding on the desktop.

I outlined the major reasons (there are other minor reasons) for this, and none of them has anything to do with a &quot;FOSS attitude.&quot;

If &quot;fragmentation&quot; or &quot;freedom&quot; were prohibitive to success in the commercial marketplace, then Linux would not succeed in server or embedded markets either.

Server and embedded serve very different purposes to Linux desktop, so that is a self defeating point.
I'm not even getting into the fragmentation argument in this thread. That is a whole different discussion.

[Frak]

I know you're talking about desktop Linux. But desktop Linux is developed with the same "FOSS attitude" as server and embedded Linux, yet server and embedded Linux succeed. So the logical conclusion is that it's something else and not the "FOSS attitude" that prevents Linux from succeeding on the desktop.

Wheels work when planes take off, and they work when cars first start, but when I put wheels on my boat, it sunk to the bottom of the lake when I shoved off.

Of course, the wheels have nothing to do with it, it worked for the planes and cars! The problem must be elsewhere.

Not saying you're wrong, just saying you're not "logically" correct.

[aysiu]

Wheels work when planes take off, and they work when cars first start, but when I put wheels on my boat, it sunk to the bottom of the lake when I shoved off.

Of course, the wheels have nothing to do with it, it worked for the planes and cars! The problem must be elsewhere.

Not saying you're wrong, just saying you're not "logically" correct. But that's a contrived example. Obviously the wheels don't work for a boat because of water. What is "water" in the Linux example? And why are wheels necessarily the "FOSS attitude" part of the analogy?


If you were a major commercial software company, would you embrace an OS with an ethos that everything has to be open and free? ==> The idea proposed in the original post is that Linux cannot succeed because it is about being free and this freedom (in cost or license or both) somehow interferes with commercial markets and business. I'm saying that the same "attitude" exists for server and embedded, and server and embedded are both successful in commercial markets and business. So there must be other factors (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=8136671#post8136671) determining Linux's success (or lack thereof) on the desktop. That is my point.

In your analogy with transportation, wheels would actually be "FOSS attitude" and water would actually be the other factors. That would make more sense.

[dj-toonz]

It's not all FOSS software on Linux now, in the past couple of months I've paid out over £500 for Linux software i.e Renoise (music d.a.w) at £300, ultramixer (professional dj'ing software) at £279. I know about mixxx & the FOSS applications but I don't understand them. No the FOSS attitude won't hold Linux back, make it stronger. that's the good thing about Linux having the source code to play with & making the software / Application better (try doing that under windows) :-p. Linux is getting better with every distro that comes out & the software companies are now seeing that Linux is getting bigger & now supporting Linux. :guitar:

[Frak]

But that's a contrived example. Obviously the wheels don't work for a boat because of water. What is "water" in the Linux example? And why are wheels necessarily the "FOSS attitude" part of the analogy?

In your analogy with transportation, wheels would actually be "FOSS attitude" and water would actually be the other factors. That would make more sense.

2 other computers/vehicles, that work in 2 other environments, and one variable that comes into question.

Makes sense to me.

[aysiu]

2 other computers/vehicles, that work in 2 other environments, and one variable that comes into question.

Makes sense to me. But the parts of the analogy do not correspond in relative attribute. It is contrived because you constructed it in such a way as to defeat my assertion. There isn't any reason the water in this instance should be desktop Linux.

[edin9]

But that's a contrived example. Obviously the wheels don't work for a boat because of water. What is &quot;water&quot; in the Linux example? And why are wheels necessarily the &quot;FOSS attitude&quot; part of the analogy?

==> The idea proposed in the original post is that Linux cannot succeed because it is about being free and this freedom (in cost or license or both) somehow interferes with commercial markets and business. I'm saying that the same &quot;attitude&quot; exists for server and embedded, and server and embedded are both successful in commercial markets and business. So there must be other factors (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=8136671#post8136671) determining Linux's success (or lack thereof) on the desktop. That is my point.

In your analogy with transportation, wheels would actually be &quot;FOSS attitude&quot; and water would actually be the other factors. That would make more sense.

Those are completely different markets, with completely different ecosystems, so again that point doesn't really stand.

As for other factors, yes there are plenty.

[Frak]

But the parts of the analogy do not correspond in relative attribute. It is contrived because you constructed it in such a way as to defeat my assertion. There isn't any reason the water in this instance should be desktop Linux.
I didn't use it to defeat your assertion. I was just saying that it's impossible to say that "if it works with X and Y, then it must work with Z". That's not logical unless x = y = z. In this case, they don't equal. My game system and a server halfway across the world does not equal my desktop. The environments are different, their markets are different, and their pros and cons to each party are vastly different.

A "FOSS" attitude can entice embedded developers for it's value as a ready-to-go base for a product. A "FOSS" attitude can entice servers, since many of the programs needed to run a server are open source, and in that way, are a tad more secure. As a desktop, though, the end user probably won't care if their system is supported by a "FOSS" attitude or not. In the end, they still expect to browse the internet, finish their spreadsheet, and do whatever X. Windows is basically "free" for them anyways, why should they have to worry about another product that may not run their software. The "FOSS" attitude may be totally irrelevant to an end user of a desktop system.

[Mateo]

I know you're talking about desktop Linux. But desktop Linux is developed with the same "FOSS attitude" as server and embedded Linux, yet server and embedded Linux succeed. So the logical conclusion is that it's something else and not the "FOSS attitude" that prevents Linux from succeeding on the desktop.

I outlined the major reasons (there are other minor reasons) for this, and none of them has anything to do with a "FOSS attitude."

If "fragmentation" or "freedom" were prohibitive to success in the commercial marketplace, then Linux would not succeed in server or embedded markets either.

I agree with your post about marketing. However, I think the difference between the server and desktop markets is that on the server market the product just needs to work well. That's really all that matters. On the desktop market you have to set yourself apart from the competition. Simply doing the same thing as good or better than the competition is not enough. You have to do something that will actively draw interest. And I don't believe that desktop Linux currently does this because it is both culturally and structurally slow to accept change.

[steveneddy]

IBM and Canonical are pitching Ubuntu + cloud computing to US companies as we speak.

I believe they will be successful.

[earthpigg]

IBM and Canonical are pitching Ubuntu + cloud computing to US companies as we speak.

I believe they will be successful.

source on the IBM part?

not calling you a liar, but i'd like to read the full story :guitar:

[dj-toonz]

source on the IBM part?

not calling you a liar, but i'd like to read the full story :guitar:

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS195115+20-Oct-2009+PRN20091020

[earthpigg]

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS195115+20-Oct-2009+PRN20091020

thank you, sir.

[VertexPusher]

I don't believe that desktop Linux currently does this because it is both culturally and structurally slow to accept change.
Linux accepts change faster than Joe Sixpack can handle it.

[t0p]

individual projects are centrally commanded, but projects are often interconnected. So if project A has a major flaw or some type of major innovation that it can bring, it is not likely to fix that flaw if doing so will cause problems for project B, C and D.

That's the problem I'm referring to. Certain central, long existing elements of linux are "cemented in". Innovation can only be done through add ons. You add on to the end of the tree. but you can't touch the roots. That's why you have to list small/boring innovations like rsync.

See, now you have revealed the flaw in your argument.

You said Linux suffers because it's not "centrally commanded". You gave an example of problems with apt.

Well, because Linux isn't "centrally commanded" in the way you define, you are able to bypass apt, use a different packaging system, even create your own "perfect" packaging system and, because of Linux's modular nature, you will be able to slot your packaging system into place alongside other parts of Linux and create your own "perfect" distro.

And if there are problems (say of incompatibility) between your improved apt and other parts of Linux, you are able to fix those other parts in any way you wish. Because there's no "central commander" telling you that you can't.

All that is possible because there isn't a single "commander" dictating how every part of Linux must work.

[Tibuda]

individual projects are centrally commanded, but projects are often interconnected. So if project A has a major flaw or some type of major innovation that it can bring, it is not likely to fix that flaw if doing so will cause problems for project B, C and D.

That's the problem I'm referring to. Certain central, long existing elements of linux are "cemented in". Innovation can only be done through add ons. You add on to the end of the tree. but you can't touch the roots. That's why you have to list small/boring innovations like rsync.

This also applies to Windows. Do you think Ballmer commands all Windows applications out there? And those applications can't "touch the Windows root".

[Xbehave]

This also applies to Windows. Do you think Ballmer commands all Windows applications out there? And those applications can't "touch the Windows root".
Find me a way of replacing kernel modules or core system components like windows update and you might have a point.

I'm currently on fedora and i can
1) replace my entire kernel
2) replace my package manager with apt (by default its yum)
3) replace my window manager with kde (by default its gnome)
4) replace the windows system with a prop one (by default its xorg)

last i checked you could do 0 of the above in windows, ballmer does have control of the core operating system.

To get root on windows you need to hijack the boot process, otherwise the best you can get is administrator (which is a limited root).