PDA

View Full Version : Will Linux die in 2018?



DC@DR
September 27th, 2006, 08:48 AM
I found this article from Internet today, and it sounds not so optimistic to the future of Linux, it does have some points that we need to think about, so just check this out:
----------------------------------------------------

If we look at the future, Linux seems to be doomed to a slow death in a dozen years: DRM, proprietary hardware, technologic innovations and political choices are behind this forecast.

I really appreciate Linux, and Open Source in general: a common base, open and free, foster freedom of individuals and better distribute richness. In the last few months I took interest in Linux and Open Source in a long-term perspective. What I see in the future is terrible: Linux's death. It's just a forecast, I know: it's up to you, after reading this document, to decide if it is reliable or not.

Proprietary Hardware and DRM

In the last few years there is a silent (for the mass) and struggling battle between big corporation on one side, and Open Source movements and activists on the other side. The battle is for a plunder of 237 billion dollars (global revenues for semiconductors manufacturers), led by the three leaders Intel, Samsung and Texas Instruments, to which you can add about a thousand billion dollars for cinema industry and few other dozens of billions of dollars for music and entertainment industry. The stake is obviously if those revenues are going to plummet or not.

Once consumers are used to enjoy multimedia contents, in order to not lose that privilege they are willing to pay... or to use illegal methods, like some peer-to-peer habits, or cracked decoders, or else.

Those huge revenues are then in danger: with their doblons, industries started some sort of a witch hunt, with the result that software piracy is comparable to rape (there was a famous aggressive cinema ad here in Italy few months ago). I don't agree with this judgement, but I don't want to go off-topic. To maintain those revenues, industries started lots of initiatives to cage users' hardware, and make their PC less and less independent.

In few years, thank to the extended world network, computers will become more like terminals, without an inner "conscience", pillored to play media content using proprietary hardware, various protections, apparently-open or distinclty closed software, but... How can I enjoy open software, if the underlying hardware constrict me in well-defined (by Corporations) boundaries?

They'll become much like actual mobile phones, where the user can't operate important modifications or personalizations. I hope Apple users will not blame me for this, but also Mac OS X is moving toward this direction (much faster than Windows, actually): a surely stable and functional system, much more strict for its users.

Now the question is: what will be of Linux? What sense will an open source software have, when the hardware will block almost all my actions? Linux, with a nanoscopic economic power compared to the other already mentioned, will be probably relegated to a tiny set of geek users, but a very big percentage of common users will surrender to those new contraints.

Technological innovations

Those same technological innovations will closet Linux in obscure and specific fields: within the next ten years a new programming language will appear on the planet, maybe based on a new programming paradigm, that probably will take the throne now held by C++. This forecast derives from a simple analysis of past innovations: think about 1996, when Java and Python were still in their early stage. Today they are becoming THE main tools for programming.

Linux itself will become obsolete, substituted by a new kernel written from scratch; in the transformation the main software companies will have a big advantage, able to afford hundreds of programmers and almost illimited funds for marketing.

If you take a look at Google, considered one of the most innovative companies in the world, you can see that their initiatives regard essentially the translation of most-used computer functions and programs to the web: word processing, online purchases, photo editing, content publishing, spreadsheets, and many others arriving. This fact, together with the already mentioned tendency to transform PCs into terminals, convinces me that in few years we'll have some beautiful PCs to work, and many small wristle computers with mobile phone, handheld and laptop functions (like the "giwiki" in a modest novel of mine: www.nonovvio.it).

It seems clear that in this game software will lose importance: only the ones who manage users and media will matter. In few words: Linux out. Users will need a system easy to use, with which communicate seamlessly and transparently in respect to the technology used.

Political choices

Soon the source code of almost everything will be released: don't you agree? Microsoft, Sun and others have no other choice: governments need open formats and softwares. Some things has been already opened and, once the transformation toward an invasive hardware will be complete, there will be no more reasons not to open the code.

One of the strongest critic moved against those companies from the digital freedom fans will fall, and their number will fall also.

What still surprise me, instead, is the fact that a nation allows the existence and commercialization of proprietary hardware, of which usually nobody knows the hidden functionalities. It is not a secret, for instance, that in the past phone lines were controlled by CIA and others: Skype itself could be the new echelon of the third millenium (it's a proprietary software, remember?).

If I were the leader of a nation, I would adopt computing devices of which I know every function; also, I would also like to buy (or manufact) processors with the functions that I like, and without the ones that I consider dangerous for people's freedom, or the nation's itself.

A simple comparison: it is like my army buys guns abroad, guns potentially supplied with a mechanism that block the gun if put under a certain wireless signal: in such a case, I would not be so bold in facing an enemy, being afraid of such mechanism.

I don't think, however, that our political representatives give importance to those facts: for the average Joe, much a user and less a connoisseur of technology, those seem to be marginal facts, subordinate to taxes or security. Consequently, the politician is less interested in such things.

Why 2018?

According to numerous sources, the passage to mobile terminals in substitution to personal PCs, mobile phones and handhelds could occur in ten years, due to the inertia of existing machines and to the availability of light and long-lasting batteries, that will invade the market around 2012. The years between 2016 and 2018 will be necessary to the definitive shift to new technology... granted that there will not occur events or choices able to modify the actual tendency.

Until now I depicted a rather pessimistic scenario: now I want to concentrate on positive turning points.

Political change (and therefore technological change)

Making people aware of things could bring to a general political awareness elected by them, causing politicians to be interested in the topic: this would push toward the usage (and production) of open source hardware, deprived of useless protections (DRM) or hidden favours to big corporations, hopefully paying also attention to environmental impacts of such production (see Motorola).

Linux alone can't free itself from physical confinement: I hope that its diffusion among developing countries will prompt them to adopt an "hardware emancipation" that will eventually spread worldwide. Like the Internet is free, so the technological basis for communications must be.

Licences and mentality change

Another positive turning point is represented by "light licences" content: I adore, for example, musical groups that let you freely listen their music, earning only with concerts and other related stuff.

It is a poor earning, I know, but those earnings could be integrated with music sales if there will be available a platform able to join music with commercial ads when that music is listened online. It could be good to have also a honest price policy: if a song would cost 30 cents, I would buy it rather than pirate it, and musicians would earn fair amounts of money.

The same could be applied to other media as well, including video: a movie producer should learn to spend less and better for his movies, considering that the Cinema experience will always be more entertaining than a domestic TV, and so there would always be a reason to produce a movie.

Everything could become less profitable, and content producers will be naturally selected. In this moment there is a feature film at the Movie Show in Venezia, Italy, produced with 500 euros. Yes, you've read it right: 500 euros.

It must also be considered that, with the recent advances in instruments and computers, making content is much less expensive than before: this money save must be deposited in the users' wallets.

I can understand musicians' and producers' point of view: they are enjoying a consolidated privilege, and changing it can lead to a war. Only users, and their economical choices, can trigger this revolution. We will see.

Why do I pose so much attention to the media? Because the real Hi-tech market is dominated by media: Linux, and Open Source, can survive only if they will guarantee to users the ability to use and play and listen and watch them. Not casually, in a recent home-made survey, on 50 new Linux Ubuntu users, 33 moan problems regarding multimedia content fruition (quicktime, flash, DVD, mp3, videos).

This suggests that Linux, and the freedom and openness principle on which it is based, could survive only if people will be able to understand the importance of open and standard protocols, devices and hardware, consequently influencing political and economic choices.

I can be wrong, I know: this is only my thought, written after reading so much stuff on the net, but not for this reason necessarily right. I invite you to share with me your thoughts on this topic.

Source: http://www.ArticleOnRamp.com

Jussi Kukkonen
September 27th, 2006, 11:09 AM
The article has some pretty wild scenarios, and it doesn't have any evidence or even plausible reasoning to support most of them...

Just some points here:



In few years, thank to the extended world network, computers will become more like terminals, without an inner "conscience", pillored to play media content using proprietary hardware, various protections, apparently-open or distinclty closed software, but... How can I enjoy open software, if the underlying hardware constrict me in well-defined (by Corporations) boundaries?

The network is the computer, right? Terminal computers come up every few years (they're always just around the corner), and then they are forgotten. In the context of normal home computers, I cannot understand how that progress could happen... The strength of the Personal Computer is that it's personal.


They'll become much like actual mobile phones, where the user can't operate important modifications or personalizations. I hope Apple users will not blame me for this, but also Mac OS X is moving toward this direction (much faster than Windows, actually): a surely stable and functional system, much more strict for its users.

First of all, Apple software has always been as closed as possible. Maybe I'm missing something but that just sounds stupid.
The difference between mobile phones and computers is interchangeable, "standard" parts, in both hardware and software. Building the DRM house of cards on a mobile phone platform is easy. Building it on the PC is immensely more difficult...


Those same technological innovations will closet Linux in obscure and specific fields: within the next ten years a new programming language will appear on the planet, maybe based on a new programming paradigm, that probably will take the throne now held by C++. This forecast derives from a simple analysis of past innovations: think about 1996, when Java and Python were still in their early stage. Today they are becoming THE main tools for programming.
Huh? How does that "closet Linux in obscure and specific fields"?


Linux itself will become obsolete, substituted by a new kernel written from scratch; in the transformation the main software companies will have a big advantage, able to afford hundreds of programmers and almost illimited funds for marketing.
No evidence, no reasons how this could happen, no admission of the fact that Linux already has the support of "main software companies able to afford hundreds of programmers".


If you take a look at Google, considered one of the most innovative companies in the world, you can see that their initiatives regard essentially the translation of most-used computer functions and programs to the web: word processing, online purchases, photo editing, content publishing, spreadsheets, and many others arriving. This fact, together with the already mentioned tendency to transform PCs into terminals...
The terminal again... Think about this objectively: Google is big, no doubt about that. But are Google word processing or Google spreadsheets big? No. My prediction is that they'll remain niche, but the point is that we just don't know yet.



Soon the source code of almost everything will be released: don't you agree?
In short: No, I don't. The fact that governments and other large customers may get to look at the source code of MS Windows doesn't mean Microsoft "releases the source".


According to numerous sources, the passage to mobile terminals in substitution to personal PCs, mobile phones and handhelds could occur in ten years, ...

Numerous unreferenced sources, it seems. Common sense (and some understanding of UI design) tells me that mobile devices are not substitutes to PCs, they are either unrelated or complementary to PCs.

NESFreak
September 27th, 2006, 02:28 PM
Maybe an asteroid will destroy earth before open source gets abandoned. Linux is like a disease. When trying to stop it it'll evolve.

NESFreak

henriquemaia
September 27th, 2006, 02:30 PM
I don't even know what will happen to me tomorrow...

ps: but the article is very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

djsroknrol
September 27th, 2006, 05:18 PM
The trends align themselves to the whole John Titor thing in some ways...some bold predictions there...

prizrak
September 27th, 2006, 05:31 PM
Interesting thought experiment in reality though, high mobility web based applications simply mean that the OS in unimportant. As W3C standards emerge to deal with ActiveX type things and Firefox still being used by a large number of people no one will simply care about the OS. Also if the code is going to be open for everything it would make it even easier to port things between OS's. It's not really death of Linux it's death of OS's.

Zieher
September 27th, 2006, 06:00 PM
From a market share point of view Linux is still dead. it is no where near M$.
(I'm not a frustrated Linux basher- hey after all I switched BECAUSE of M$)
Yes, it is difficult to release multimedia codecs as an integral part of the OS/GUI/mediaplayer package, as it would violate current legal interpretations. I like the general patent approach: you can build it and use it do anything that does not involve earning money with it.
From this point of view, a good click=install version of Ubuntu with all repos enabled by default and scope somewhere along the lines of automatix would be a clear winner. I know it must be separated, but guess what: I'm a user, I don't give a damn. I'm an engineer (automotive) by trade, and we would never expect the customer study ignition mapping and customization of exhaust timing to make his car run like the competition's model. I like the modularity of linux/Gnome and all little apps integrated in the distro. I also like the fact that you can customize it all day long without getting bored. but, the great but is: joe user can't get it to run without consulting the forums (even then it's not easy).
without straying further, I can imagine linux becoming obsolete through the scenario described above, I don't think it probable though. Linux is not being combatted, linux is still a disorganized mess with a huge bunch of people yakking about which media player works in their personal config and why the other one sucks... look at the incredible amount of distros around and their respective fanboys (just see easy ubuntu and automatix one level below distros). how about uniting forces to enable more stable and functional releases: less politics, more functionality.

skymt
September 27th, 2006, 06:08 PM
I'm an engineer (automotive) by trade, and we would never expect the customer study ignition mapping and customization of exhaust timing to make his car run like the competition's model.

You would if the law required it.

The Ubuntu developers don't have much choice in the matter. If software patents didn't exist, Ubuntu would have surpassed Windows in multimedia. I have all the codecs installed (even the ones I'm technically not supposed to use, due to stupid US laws), and I've never run into a non-DRM file I couldn't play.

Jussi Kukkonen
September 27th, 2006, 06:19 PM
a good click=install version of Ubuntu with all repos enabled by default and scope somewhere along the lines of automatix would be a clear winner. I know it must be separated, but guess what: I'm a user, I don't give a damn.
Just to give another datapoint: I'm a user too, and I do give a damn. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a distro like that (there should), but personally I'd go back to Debian if Ubuntu decided that "non-free is good". By the way, did you realise that the distro we're imagining would cost something if it intended to be legal?

without straying further, I can imagine linux becoming obsolete through the scenario described above, I don't think it probable though. Linux is not being combatted, linux is still a disorganized mess with a huge bunch of people yakking about which media player works in their personal config and why the other one sucks... look at the incredible amount of distros around and their respective fanboys (just see easy ubuntu and automatix one level below distros). how about uniting forces to enable more stable and functional releases: less politics, more functionality.
We obviously see Linux a little differently: You are saying that linux could be 'killed' and that we should centralize/standardize more to prevent that. I think the diversity, chaos, disorganization are parts of what makes linux (and free software in general) effective and pretty much unkillable. That of course doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for standard APIs, file formats and such...

Lord Illidan
September 27th, 2006, 06:47 PM
without straying further, I can imagine linux becoming obsolete through the scenario described above, I don't think it probable though. Linux is not being combatted, linux is still a disorganized mess with a huge bunch of people yakking about which media player works in their personal config and why the other one sucks... look at the incredible amount of distros around and their respective fanboys (just see easy ubuntu and automatix one level below distros). how about uniting forces to enable more stable and functional releases: less politics, more functionality.
If Linux were to be overtaken by another open source kernel with more power but the same philosophy, say Syllable OS, I would probably switch. I like the philosophy first and formost.

Now, about people yakking about, don't people yak about Winamp and WMP in Windows? We can yak about vi and emacs, about gnome and kde, about Ubuntu and Fedora, about everything else, because we can. We are free. Linux is not about taking 100% market share, it is about geeks who like to use computers for the heck of it.

Plus, when you have a non geek using Linux, he doesn't see KDE or GNOME, he just sees a GUI which he can use for producing. We geeks may be passionate, yes..but I see that as a plus.

You want everyone to unite? Sure..try and convince the gnome and kde devs to stop doing what they love doing and work together for your own goal. If they won't like it, they won't do it.

Shay Stephens
September 27th, 2006, 06:50 PM
What the writer fails to take into account is that there are open hardware projects that have started up. By the time doomsday hits, there will be hardware and software alternatives to the DRM machine being built now.

Case in point, the open graphics project:
http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Open-Graphics

The open bios project:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS2401026948.html

mips
September 27th, 2006, 07:05 PM
I have all the codecs installed (even the ones I'm technically not supposed to use, due to stupid US laws), and I've never run into a non-DRM file I couldn't play.

It's NOT a technical issue but a legal one....

Lord Illidan
September 27th, 2006, 07:09 PM
It's NOT a technical issue but a legal one....
Well put. IMHO, many of the difficulties Linux is facing are not technical, but are one of two things:

1. Legality
2. relucance to port software to it.

Linux can do everything Windows can do, and more. It can play games..quake 4 plays wonderfully, it can be used as a server, it can be used as a desktop...what the hell does one need more?

Pichu0102
September 27th, 2006, 07:54 PM
Well put. IMHO, many of the difficulties Linux is facing are not technical, but are one of two things:

1. Legality
2. relucance to port software to it.

Linux can do everything Windows can do, and more. It can play games..quake 4 plays wonderfully, it can be used as a server, it can be used as a desktop...what the hell does one need more?
It needs a LOT more hardware support. Laptops, namely. Laptops are a huge market, especially in businesses, where the portability and the ability to force your employees to work on stuff while off the clock is very tempting to big companies, and for Linux to work for them, it would need a lot more hardware support.
Now, there may have been many advances in Linux laptop support, but until there is a ton more support, I would expect companies to not want to use Linux if they're not sure if it'll even work on their hardware.

aysiu
September 27th, 2006, 08:01 PM
Any business buying laptops would never install the operating themselves. They'd buy the laptop preloaded. If they were really interested in Linux laptops, they wouldn't buy a Dell laptop and then install Linux themselves. They'd probably buy from a company like System 76 (http://www.system76.com).

prizrak
September 27th, 2006, 08:08 PM
Any business buying laptops would never install the operating themselves. They'd buy the laptop preloaded. If they were really interested in Linux laptops, they wouldn't buy a Dell laptop and then install Linux themselves. They'd probably buy from a company like System 76 (http://www.system76.com).

In fact many large companies (Dell included) will install Linux for you if you are a business user. Lenovo's distributors will offer the option of preloading SLED on the T60. Also a business is very likely to get a bunch of naked PC's and create a custom image for their machines. With a support contract with Canonical or Red Hat or any other Linux company it would be fairly simple to get a custom linux image.

aysiu
September 27th, 2006, 08:10 PM
Thanks for elaborating, Prizrak.

My point was simply that the business would ensure the laptops they buy work. They wouldn't gamble on whether or not hardware is detected.

mips
September 27th, 2006, 08:28 PM
Any business buying laptops would never install the operating themselves. They'd buy the laptop preloaded. If they were really interested in Linux laptops, they wouldn't buy a Dell laptop and then install Linux themselves. They'd probably buy from a company like System 76 (http://www.system76.com).

I have to disagree with this. I worked in a big corporate that purchased thousands of laptops and desktops a year.

The company used to get a few samples in, format the drive and start installing everything from scratch without all the standard crap etc that came with the pc. They did not even use the supplied restore cd's that came with the pcs. They would use a standard ms windows cd and start building on that.

Once completed and tested they would image the drive and give the image to supplier. The supplier would then image every single pc/laptop with that particular image and ship it to the company. The pc's were mostly HP/Compaq & Dell.

The images are created by the it desktop department, reviewed by the security department and tested in the field before deployment.

This is not the only comapany that works like that, there are many others that I've heard of/interacted with.

aysiu
September 27th, 2006, 08:31 PM
How is that disagreeing...?

They research and test and then deploy an workable image. They don't just gamble, buying non-Linux compatible parts and then saying, "Well, let's see if this works. Cross your fingers."

mips
September 27th, 2006, 08:45 PM
How is that disagreeing...?

They research and test and then deploy an workable image. They don't just gamble, buying non-Linux compatible parts and then saying, "Well, let's see if this works. Cross your fingers."

Well you said:

Any business buying laptops would never install the operating themselves.

Maybe I misunderstood you ?

aysiu
September 27th, 2006, 08:49 PM
I misspoke, prizrak elaborated more accurately on the idea, and I thanked him for it. The main idea is that hardware recognition is a non-issue, as any business choosing to use Linux would ensure (whether through research or preinstallation--I overemphasized preinstallation) that the computers they buy would work.

It's not like regular desktop users who buy a Windows computer and then "try out" a Linux distro and just see what happens.

In other words, yes, you disagreed with (corrected is more like it, as did prizrak) what I said in my first post, but you're not really disagreeing with the idea behind it.

RussianVodka
September 27th, 2006, 09:49 PM
I'm actualy reading a book about how computers and their programs evolved from the early post-war days. And here is something to think about.

Unix (originaly called Unics) was developed in 1969 because it's developers didn't like the Multics OS. Unix was developed by programmers and for programmers. Unix was also built to run on the terminal machines of old.

Now look at Linux. It is being developed by people who generaly dislike Microsoft (or their philosophy, at least). It is being developed by average people, and in many cases for average people (well, slightly above average as far as computer literacy goes. But it's not being developed by money hungry corporations). And if what the OP said is true, and eventualy we will revert back to terminal computers, than Linux will have a history that supports said model.

Also, it should be noted that people were saying that Linux will fail ever since it was introduced. Eventualy, it probably will fail. But not because some money hungry crackpot said it would. And, it hasn't happened yet.

P.S. Wasn't Linux's 15 birthday not too long ago?

mips
September 27th, 2006, 09:56 PM
P.S. Wasn't Linux's 15 birthday not too long ago?

Remember years back a friend was into linux and he used to download it one stiffy at a time over the university wan. In those days it looked like dos to me. At that time I had my first intro to unix on some ibm box, cant even remember what unix version it was....

cunawarit
September 27th, 2006, 10:06 PM
Do you guys really think it will fail?

With such a large community out there that is so committed and so proud of their principles I find it hard to believe it will. The Linux kernel might eventually go out of fashion, but I don't think the open source community will go away. It might never become mainstream, it might for ever remain the domain of techies, but I really don't think the community and the will are going to go any any time soon, certainly not by 2018.

Lord Illidan
September 27th, 2006, 10:14 PM
Do you guys really think it will fail?

With such a large community out there that is so committed and so proud of their principles I find it hard to believe it will. The Linux kernel might eventually go out of fashion, but I don't think the open source community will go away. It might never become mainstream, it might for ever remain the domain of techies, but I really don't think the community and the will are going to go any any time soon, certainly not by 2018.


Linux might fail, but open source will certainly not. I mean, let's say we all move to BSD...so we port opensource apps to BSD, and carry on from there..

cunawarit
September 27th, 2006, 10:45 PM
Hopefully not, I have to say part of the reason I am moving towards Linux is because of nostalgia for the more "free" days of the web back circa 1994-96. Before it all went commercial, dumbed down, DRM ridden, and just plain not fun... Sadly I have been to busy to give Linux a serious try before, but I am making time now.

The other reason is that learning new stuff is fun! The number of choices available in Linux is fun! Sadly I don't think the average user cares enough about the technology to find it fun.

RussianVodka
September 28th, 2006, 12:40 AM
Oh, and I also want to point out that the original post is based on the idea that Linux will not advance with the times and will stay where it is now.

raul_
October 5th, 2006, 11:03 PM
i actually don't think that linux will die. More and more people are using linux. I live in portugal, i'm in college studying computers engineering (roughly translated) and every year 170 new students arrive, and we give ubuntu cd's to everyone. Professors almost "force" students into using linux (in the good way) to program in C, Java, in Operating Systems we mainly focus ourselves on UNIX, and this is done by professionals. The guy in the article was talking about the "average" user, but i think that the "average" user is the one who will die, because this industry is growing so fast. u can't name a science area that doesn't use computers in some way.

I apologise for my bad english :(

Zieher
October 11th, 2006, 10:11 AM
Hopefully not, I have to say part of the reason I am moving towards Linux is because of nostalgia for the more "free" days of the web back circa 1994-96. Before it all went commercial, dumbed down, DRM ridden, and just plain not fun... Sadly I have been to busy to give Linux a serious try before, but I am making time now.

The other reason is that learning new stuff is fun! The number of choices available in Linux is fun! Sadly I don't think the average user cares enough about the technology to find it fun.

This is what I was talking about. On the other hand, the average user will be represented by two different types in the near future. The split is already noticeable and it will manifest itself with "trusted computing" and the terminal type desktop. there are enough people for which this (terminal) is sufficient (the majority of which thinks Bill Gates is a nice guy). on the other hand most people here feel this might not be the smartest thing and prefer a free policy on software and hardware with open standards. great, but this is what I was talking about: I'd prefer to see a certifying body, which is not a company. ubuntu is doing quite well. I just think this extreme stance on compulsively being legal and only concentrating on free formats, just won't convince people who live in an environment saturated by M$ products. See skype as an analogy, yes wengo and the like might be open, but many people I know use skype, I can only reach them via skype, skype's format is proprietary... now either we only communicate with people using open formats or we "breach" into the formatting system. to stop the enthusiastic: this will be a nonoption in near future: trusted computing as a hardware implementation.

So as I still see it, it's either or. If Linux community is too small when the hardware will only support "trustworthy" codes (status being bought in form of a license) we (linux users) will be stuck with old hardware. unless we pay to be trustworthy - I like picturing rants about this :mrgreen:

The critical mass of open source users needs to be large enough to keep hardware manufacturers producing open source compatible hardware.

neoroses
October 11th, 2006, 12:10 PM
will linux die? ..NOPE! lol

simone.brunozzi
October 11th, 2006, 12:23 PM
Hello there!
I'm the article's AUTHOR (wow, so cool to find just by accident a post about my article!!).

The article is not AGAINST Linux, is just to stress the risks, and try to stimulate people to react against those risks.

All the best,

clint1010
October 11th, 2006, 12:48 PM
Linux and open source software will evolve to overcome hardware compatability issues and limitations should they arise in the future.

Ben Sprinkle
October 11th, 2006, 02:56 PM
Linux will be here forever and ever.

edited by PriceChild: Please mind your language.

argie
October 11th, 2006, 03:19 PM
At first, I thought the whole discussion was about that thing in how time is calculated or something like that. I remember all POSIX OSes have that problem. Someone else know what I'm talking about? I forget.

Anyway, if by saying "Will Linux die out?" you mean "Will Open Source die out?", then I'll say "no, definitely not." What's going to stop people from contributing what they can when they want? Otherwise, I guess it's possible, there may well be a better design which no one's thought up yet.

EdThaSlayer
October 11th, 2006, 05:04 PM
Computers will be like terminals connected to the net? Well...if thats the future iam going to keep my pc in storage until that time comes! So...basically...stock up old pcs...

I did enjoy reading the article though(some points were difficult to understand but...i kind of got it)

And i do kind of wish that the hardware companies would release some code so that the developers of linux can make hardware more compatibable with linux!

simone.brunozzi
October 11th, 2006, 09:35 PM
I wish it too.

Cheers,

Miguel
November 5th, 2006, 02:30 PM
I disagree with the author.

going on with the car analogy, are today's cars much more "integrated", more polished and more difficult to modify than the cars made 25 years ago (before, let's say, fuel injection was mainstrem)? I'd say yes. Does it keep some people from looking at the engine, modifying it, and even more obscure parts like the electronic mapping? No. And this is why "linux" will not die.

Linux was born when a minix user was fed up with it and made his very own clone. It just happened that some guys, dissatisfied with the legal unability to modify software to their needs were looking for a kernel. You see, hunger meets famine. As long as there are geeks that need to be in control, as long as a guy sees a computer not as a media centre or as a tool for work but as a hobby and an instrument for fun and creation, "linux" will be alive.

Oh! Just one more thing. Although the KDE vs. GNOME issue was nicely settled with the "KDE folks will not forcedly work in GNOME" point of view, I'd like to add something. "Linux"' goal is not wold domination. It's not kicking windows in it bottom. As they say in distrowatch: "put the fun back into computing, use Linux/BSD".

Just my two cents

PS: If science survived the middle age, or luterans survived the inquisition, Free software can survive the DRM age.

daynah
November 5th, 2006, 03:31 PM
According to numerous sources, the passage to mobile terminals in substitution to personal PCs, mobile phones and handhelds could occur in ten years, due to the inertia of existing machines and to the availability of light and long-lasting batteries, that will invade the market around 2012. The years between 2016 and 2018 will be necessary to the definitive shift to new technology... granted that there will not occur events or choices able to modify the actual tendency.

Maybe others have said this (I'm acting the n00b and only reading the first post!), but why wont other "companies" be affected by this expansive and sudden market change sparked by the hardware advances? Linux is cutting edge, consistantly for many uses... but those uses may not be the desktop. The reasons you've pointed out why Linux will die are all mostly for desktop use... multimedia, end user hardware, ect.

As for political offices using Linux... I would prefer my government to use Linux. You can take a linux kernel, and modify it however you want, and keep that version of linux just for your government. Red Flag Linux is just for China, but not just for the government, and I have no doubts that they have a different version for the innards of their government. What about the ideas of a "Goobuntu?" This is taking a linux and customizing it to your company or government. If it's a big organization, this is definately worth the money. With a Windows or a Mac, every person who made Windows or a Mac knows how to get in. Not that they're bad people, but you mentioned the CIA, here. That's serious information that a whacked out, overworked programmer who's had too much MSG from his daily chinese food might want to get into. With a personalized Linux made internally, this helps security and gives the company more control.

Hardware, proprietary, licences... the attitude change seems to be favoring towards open source. Note the explosion of "Web 2.0" pages. No one I know (and I know a lot of students) has a legit copy of Word or Windows. Some of them were even given a copy of Windows by the school, to try to keep all students legal, but the students didn't know how or didn't want to use it, so they kept on computing with their stolen copy. No one's paying now, but they're doing it illegally. I'm in the marketing team and it always amazes them when I explain to them that "No, I didn't pay for anything on my computer and yes that's all legal, and that's all free. Yes, any lawyer could go through my computer and find nothing wrong with it." That's one of the reasons to switch to them! Often times, yes, the fear of switching is still a bit to great, but their eyes light up... Free? AND Legal? And clean?

Of course, everyone can only see their little section of the world. This is the world looks like from my blind mice vantage point.

Dual Cortex
November 6th, 2006, 12:35 AM
pffft ... 2018 will be 6 years after the End Of The World so stop worrying about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012#Apocalyptic_beliefs_about_2012

mrgnash
November 6th, 2006, 01:02 AM
i actually don't think that linux will die. More and more people are using linux. I live in portugal, i'm in college studying computers engineering (roughly translated) and every year 170 new students arrive, and we give ubuntu cd's to everyone. Professors almost "force" students into using linux (in the good way) to program in C, Java, in Operating Systems we mainly focus ourselves on UNIX, and this is done by professionals. The guy in the article was talking about the "average" user, but i think that the "average" user is the one who will die, because this industry is growing so fast. u can't name a science area that doesn't use computers in some way.

I apologise for my bad english :(

That is so cool to hear :D

HW_Hack
November 6th, 2006, 01:28 AM
Interesting article and no doubt DRM and media merging / accessability is a growing problem that will affect software - hardware - OS - etc.

But I think the author wrote this with a static world view - esp concerning hardware and the fact the the GPL will have to evolve over time

First the hardware - PCI-Express basically took a 32bit parallel / Gfx bus and serialized those bits into just a few lines (and its congigurable -- want more BW then just add a channel or 2 more). Why did Intel do this ?? When it comes to chips - its all about "pin count" / die size / actual chip size. Right now to physically route a high-perf processor or memory-GFx controller and keep the motherboard at only 4 layers (the industry sweet-spot for cost) they are at the limits of managing sub-nano second timings. PCI-Express was just round one -- by '08-2010 Intel CPUs (and chipsets) will be using serialized data and address buses ... instead of 64 separate data lines (a routing nightmare) they will route say only 12 serial data lines and probably be passing effectivly say 96bits of data. Why is all this so important - 2 reasons: they can basically maintain the same size of the existing CoreDuo ... but now have a dedicated address/data bus for each core -- think of the implications of a quad core chip not having to share a single address/data bus as the CoreDuo has to. Second reason plays right into DRM --- serialized data is harder to "snarf"(steal) than parallel data -- and its very simple to encrypt a serial stream(s).

These concepts were in full discussion for future processors/chipsets when I left Intel in 2004. And you can bet that plans are in the works for full platform encryption (end to end). The platform encryption key could be ever changing based off of some thing random like the "heat noise" in one of the chips (already being done by the TPM circuits)

As to the OS / application I believe this will evolve into a "black-box" ---- be it OS X -- Vista -- or Linux .... an "authorized" media player will contain a "sealed module" plugin (GPL will have to "accept this) to interface with the encrypted platform --- everything else can be open source .... but no one touches the un-encrypted data

goodfella
November 6th, 2006, 02:24 AM
I agree, Linux is for people who actually like computers instead of just using them to get something done. It is for people who go to the forums looking for questions to answer and maybe some answers to questions for themselves.

I also think that the different distros is good for Linux. This isn't my idea I have heard it alot. It is sort of like species and genes. Species that are all the same are more likely to be extinct. However, species that have differences are better equiped to handle things like diseases or changes in the enviroment. They teach this in biology 101. A butterfly that was all white during the dawn of the industrial age was nearly extinct because the trees turned black from the coal factories. However, the black butterfly which had a very small population thrived because it was better camoflauged.

I just recently started using Ubuntu on my home system in May and I love it. The only reason why I still have Windows is in the event my Ubunutu goes down I have windows :( to use. I think people who complain about how Linux does not have all the multimedia support should sit down and learn to program and implement it themselves. The people who work on Linux and Linux apps are probably more worried about giving everyone a system that works well. All the other bells and wistles can come later. I am happy with being able to play my mp3's and go on the internet. I like OpenOffice way better than Microsoft Office, and this may sound stupid but doing stuff through the terminal makes me feel smart :D.

I have read alot of articles about how microsoft is giving in to the DRM people. That is fine for Microsoft but I am currious to see how everybody is going to deal with DRM. I don't think people will like to buy a new monitor or television to use HD. People are too used to things being free like radio and the ability to do what you want with your music. I think the time to do this sort of protection was when MP3's came out.

Toontwnca
November 6th, 2006, 03:23 AM
I'll probably be dead by that time.
So I'll not worry about it.

Jiganto
November 6th, 2006, 07:41 AM
I feel like a certain point can be made here, which is also related to a point the original article had.

The point is in regards to future means of delivery and the sources of content on your computers. The original author of the article made numerous references to these "terminals" of the future, which simply connect to the global net of information and draw their content there; computers as simple interfaces for the web of information.

That's not as far fetched as it may seem. Right now, there's a very clear and definitive trend in digital content delivery toward "On Demand." Take iTunes, GameTap, Yahoo Radio, YouTube, Digg, MySpace, etc. for instance. These days, we can get any form of content, information, or media in a matter of hours. The only thing we are limited by is our network bandwidth, but as time progresses and bandwidth increases, so does the speed and ease with which we obtain all this content.

I personally believe that it will get to a point where computers are simple interface devices for the global net of information, when we will be able to access any content we want be it applications, media, or games in seconds and physical storage of personal content will be obsolete or at the least down to a minimum. I personally have ceased to make physical copies of all the content on my network a couple of years ago. All my movies, music, apps, and games are stored on a file server. My computer has a single, small, fast hard-drive. If I need to install something I transfer it off of the filer server and install it on the computer, if I don't need it anymore I remove it. With media, in most cases I simply stream it directly off of the file server directly to my media center connected to my HD TV.

I will take this speculation even further. I predict that all our computing needs will be met but a single, compact, wireless device. It will be our camera, phone, organizer, music and video player, web browser, gaming system, etc. Basically, every computing need we have will be met by this device, and it will do it by accessing it instantaneously through the network.

Sound ludicrous? Just go to an electronics store or hell, just visit Japan and take a look at their cellphones. Most of the devices already available to the consumer combine (to a greater or lesser success) 3-4 or aforementioned functionalities. It's only a matter of time they are all integrated seamlessly into a single device.

I'd liked to also make another point, and that is in regards to the actual content that we are being delivered. I feel like the author of the original article missed entirely.

As I see it right now, there's a revolution going on in our society. People are rebelling against traditional content producers and means of deliveries. The Peer-2-Peer war, the rise of YouTube, MySpace, the whole blogging phenomenon, the entire idea behind OPEN SOURCE. These are all visible signs of this revolution. Since the beginning we've been spoon-fed content by a handful of corporations and media giants, and now people are given a means of circumventing traditional sources and opt for ones that are far wider, more dynamic, ones that evolve as their tastes do, and ones that they directly contribute content to.

And I'm going to speculate again here, that we are moving toward a future where the general public are the sole creators and distributors of content. A future where there is no corporation and media giant that control what we see, hear, play, and use. Now I know that, that it's stretching it a little bit, but isn't it a future we'd all like to see and work toward?

Anyway, the point of this is, that because of the evolving means of delivery and type of content being delivered, that none of this DRM stuff is really going to matter. Those companies that choose to create proprietary content and means of delivery will lose in the end. There's a general move toward Open Source content, (Microsoft and SUN opening up their code for instance), and those companies that still choose to swim up-stream are simply postponing being swept away downstream along with everyone else.

Linux, I feel, as at the forefront of this revolution and movement. Because it's maintained by people, and because it's so dynamic, it's not going away. In many ways, linux is driving this revolution. The more the mainstream content delivery moves toward proprietary technology, the more linux is going to thrive. Just as demonstrated in this thread; people will not like it, and even if it works at first, as people become better informed, those companies will go the way of AOL.

TitanKing
November 27th, 2006, 01:20 PM
Linux has survived the toughest times, if Linux would go extinct it would have been extinct years ago when it was still its raw form, but it did not, it evolved and is the system it is today. To many rely on it, for it just to die. People put their hearts and souls in it.

What you might want to ask is, Will Microsoft survive till 2018, chances are very good that they will soon fail to compete as a desktop OS as they already lost the server OS. With Microsoft buying Novel, they will now steal allot of what Suse have and market it as their own like they always do. This is very unethical but could push Microsoft back in the server race...

gus sett
March 27th, 2007, 01:59 AM
I agree the probability of demise as projected is unlikely. Critics for years
predicted the passing of Apple as well as BMW, so little wonder why naysayers
are neither clairvoyant nor visionary. It's about where you focus your enthusiasm.
What is likely is the projection that notebook computing sales are expected to
outstrip desktop sales around 2011, so we shouldn't hesitate to compare notes on
dual use peripherals, etc. I would expect newspaper to disappear before Linux--why
would the masses come so far to enjoy the benefits of open computing, and then
return the keys to whomever within a dozen rotations round the sun :?: :?:


From a market share point of view Linux is still dead. it is no where near M$.
(I'm not a frustrated Linux basher- hey after all I switched BECAUSE of M$)
Yes, it is difficult to release multimedia codecs as an integral part of the OS/GUI/mediaplayer package, as it would violate current legal interpretations. I like the general patent approach: you can build it and use it do anything that does not involve earning money with it.
From this point of view, a good click=install version of Ubuntu with all repos enabled by default and scope somewhere along the lines of automatix would be a clear winner. I know it must be separated, but guess what: I'm a user, I don't give a damn. I'm an engineer (automotive) by trade, and we would never expect the customer study ignition mapping and customization of exhaust timing to make his car run like the competition's model. I like the modularity of linux/Gnome and all little apps integrated in the distro. I also like the fact that you can customize it all day long without getting bored. but, the great but is: joe user can't get it to run without consulting the forums (even then it's not easy).
without straying further, I can imagine linux becoming obsolete through the scenario described above, I don't think it probable though. Linux is not being combatted, linux is still a disorganized mess with a huge bunch of people yakking about which media player works in their personal config and why the other one sucks... look at the incredible amount of distros around and their respective fanboys (just see easy ubuntu and automatix one level below distros). how about uniting forces to enable more stable and functional releases: less politics, more functionality.

bone2006
March 30th, 2007, 11:54 PM
Are there any articles out there about the prediction or trend of linux? It seems that with DRM and vista that more people I'm talking to are trying linux. I've been trying to find some scientific report/prediction and a report on the trend.
I found one on firefox and it showed it's up to almost 15% now and each month the numbers seem to increase.

I did find this article about linux having a death by 2018, which I totally disagree:
http://www.articleonramp.com/Article.cfm?ID=64

Any links or articles I'd love to read
Thanks

Hex_Mandos
March 31st, 2007, 12:16 AM
It doesn't seem too well substantiated. I don't really understand the reasoning, actually. Linux IS moving towards better compatibility with media formats.

aysiu
March 31st, 2007, 12:21 AM
I've merged this thread with one on the same article.

You might also want to read this thread:
Statistics on usage, growth, and Ubuntu success (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=354232)

Punker
March 31st, 2007, 12:54 AM
I'll probably be dead by that time.
So I'll not worry about it.

...this is what I thought too hahaha... but I don't think Linux is going to die but their is alot of good points in their but this guy kinds sounds like a fortune teller or something I have to disagree with most of the articial

Nils Olav
March 31st, 2007, 01:24 AM
hooray truthiness!

DoctorMO
March 31st, 2007, 02:50 AM
After reading the OP I release that the main problem is that he sees a user market where as the real market is corperate, server and super computer levels where millions of computers are sold.

Does the OP honestly think that intel has many developers working on the linux kernel for some kind of fun day out? no it's because Intel knows full well that their kit MUST work with linux if they are to sell all those server computers, high tech rack units and even super computer components.

migla
March 31st, 2007, 03:12 AM
I don't feel up to reading the first post entirely at the moment, but I'll answer anyway:

No, Linux will live on, if not in any other form (absolute worst case scenario), then it will atleast always be there in the way books are there in "Fahrenheit 451", the novel by Ray Bradbury / Film by Francois Truffaut. Viva la revolucion!