PDA

View Full Version : Linux destined for critical mass



Redlance
January 1st, 2007, 12:18 PM
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=7681

Heh-heh WOOT!
just in case noone posted

DC@DR
January 1st, 2007, 03:19 PM
It sounds great: Linux is ready for prime-time :-)

Yossarian
January 1st, 2007, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by DC@DR
It sounds great: Linux is ready for prime-time

I don't think Linux is quite ready for primetime yet.

There's no laugh track to let us know when something is funny, and no obnoxious advertisements.

It's a pretty good computer operating system, though.

Johnsie
January 1st, 2007, 10:57 PM
It's getting very close but it's still not compatible with existing software and drivers provided by hardware vendors. When people on all sides start taking cross-compatibility more seriously we can have a product that can keep everyone happy.

Lord Illidan
January 1st, 2007, 11:13 PM
As for me, I still don't believe Linux is ready for everybody.

It is more than enough for me, and I love it, and rave about it. Still, I get the feeling that even though most average windows users hate the inconveniences that Windows gives them and its occasional throwbacks to the 90s, they are so used to them, that they just don't care anymore.

Sammi
January 2nd, 2007, 01:06 AM
The concept of "critical mass for widespread of Linux" is intriguing. I wonder if the obstacles for mass adoption of Linux aren't becoming more and more trivial. Don't misunderstand me, I know they're there, I just think they're diminishing every day, and atm the main problems aren't in Linux it self, but more problems of missing drivers and Linux ports from vendors, and such.

But this may well just be wishful thinking from us Linux zealots :-D

Lord Illidan
January 2nd, 2007, 01:32 AM
The concept of "critical mass for widespread of Linux" is intriguing. I wonder if the obstacles for mass adoption of Linux aren't becoming more and more trivial. Don't misunderstand me, I know they're there, I just think they're diminishing every day, and atm the main problems aren't in Linux it self, but more problems of missing drivers and Linux ports from vendors, and such.

But this may well just be wishful thinking from us Linux zealots :-D

No, you have a point there. Drivers are becoming more plentiful, and GUIs are nicer nowadays.

I am a living example.

Three or four years ago, I tried out linux for the first time with Fedora Core 1. I was as lost as a fish in the Sahara Desert. I fired up google and saw instructions which didn't make any sense. I couldn't find out what the terminal was. Rpm meant revs per minute, nothing else, so I just couldn't figure out wtf people were talking about.

I became a troll. Yes, I am ashamed to admit it. I couldn't figure out what the fuss was all about. Keep in mind that I had a swollen head from being an A+ certified technician (like that means anything nowadays :mrgreen:) and was pretty competent with computers (read: Windows OS)

I switched to Windows, and forgot about Linux for a while.

However, I would occasionally read articles and stuff, and then I saw some flippin cool Gnome screenshots, and I read a review about Amarok in LXF (which required KDE 3.2 which was not supplied with FC 1).

I tried to install KDE 3.2 on FC 1 with Konstruct, and nearly destroyed my system. I tried to get some "newer" distro, and got Mandrake 10.1 which didn't work with my soundcard (and I don't know why, but no edition of Mandrake has ever worked with my soundcard. ](*,))

I flipped the bird to Linux and went back to Windows, occasionally trying to boot FC 1 and check out somethings.

Then, I got a copy of Ubuntu Hoary...and things went downhill.....I became a geek. :cool:

Flip forward to 1/1/07.

I now help users with their Ubuntu problems on ubuntuforums.org, use Ubuntu for everything, and have converted a sizeable chunk of my family to it.

Johnsie
January 2nd, 2007, 02:14 AM
A lot of big companies are starting to pick up on Linux. The biggest examples are Mozilla and Google but also IBM and HP. Even Microsoft is trying to get in on the action. The more we flood the world with Linux cd's the more people will start to notice it. I'm not sure if too many people are aware of this but Google already have a homepage specifically for Linux users: http://google.com/linux

Lord Illidan
January 2nd, 2007, 02:23 AM
A lot of big companies are starting to pick up on Linux. The biggest examples are Mozilla and Google but also IBM and HP. Even Microsoft is trying to get in on the action. The more we flood the world with Linux cd's the more people will start to notice it. I'm not sure if too many people are aware of this but Google already have a homepage specifically for Linux users: http://google.com/linux

Don't forget that RedHat and Novell aren't exactly small companies either.

BarfBag
January 2nd, 2007, 02:54 AM
I could go on about how Linux has perfected itself in the server market, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Like I said above, Linux is definitely ready for critical mass in the server market (actually, it already is). I disagree with most when they say that Linux is 100% ready for the PC market, though. There's a bunch of things that need to be straightened out first. I think the #1 is the closed source driver issue. I'm one of the few Linux users that doesn't have a problem with closed source software. I prefer open source, but if it's better (and I don't have to pay for it), why not use it? It's there. I already bought the hardware, so it's not going to make a difference, anyway. I think either the open source drivers should get good fast (not likely), or nVidia/ATI should agree to sign a contract with the FSF (I can't think of anybody better) to continue development of drivers for a set amount of time. That'll give the open ones a chance to catch up, and we'll know that they're not going to pull support in the mean time. This could also happen with other companies and drivers. Another thing that needs to be straightened out is non-free format support. This is obviously going to be a tough one to fix, because it requires money. We also need support for next-gen DVD's.

I could go on and list other less important reasons, but you get the idea. While Linux is stable and works perfectly after configuration, a new user still needs help getting things working when they use it for the first time. I'll say that once Linux gets to the point where most things Windows users want (and most of us, probably) work out of the box (without an internet connection), that's when it'll be ready for critical mass.

Of course, some of us want to configure things manually, but that's why we have Gentoo, LFS, etc. ^_^ I really hope they continue the route they're on now. Better not stray this off-topic, though.

Sammi
January 2nd, 2007, 05:03 AM
You nailed it MarfBag 8)

Linux is already at critical mass in itself. It's got all the usual apps and trinkets and friendly GUI, that can be programmed under open source licenses.

Now it just needs support from outside closed source developers, which make many different things, including drivers and file formats, and a few key programs. To be used under a open source license these things must be reverse engineered, but this takes a long time, and the regular user expects these things to work now, in order to be swayed from Windows.

Please don't flame me for this:
Apparently the open source philosophy is a key factor in holding Linux back, in that it is such a large factor that's keeping the closed source software out of Linux :-D

aysiu
January 2nd, 2007, 05:16 AM
Please don't flame me for this:
Apparently the open source philosophy is a key factor in holding Linux back, in that it is such a large factor that's keeping the closed source software out of Linux :-D I won't flame you for it, but I will ask on what you're basing that statement.

I haven't seen that at all. There's plenty of closed source software. Nvidia drivers. Skype. Opera. Adobe Reader. Flash plugin. Isn't there a lot of closed source software available?

Having an open source operating system doesn't in any way stop you from running closed source software or stop companies from porting closed source software.

grte
January 2nd, 2007, 07:47 AM
I could go on and list other less important reasons, but you get the idea. While Linux is stable and works perfectly after configuration, a new user still needs help getting things working when they use it for the first time. I'll say that once Linux gets to the point where most things Windows users want (and most of us, probably) work out of the box (without an internet connection), that's when it'll be ready for critical mass..

Even Windows isn't capable of that, and it is apparently ready for the PC market.


I won't flame you for it, but I will ask on what you're basing that statement.

I haven't seen that at all. There's plenty of closed source software. Nvidia drivers. Skype. Opera. Adobe Reader. Flash plugin. Isn't there a lot of closed source software available?

Having an open source operating system doesn't in any way stop you from running closed source software or stop companies from porting closed source software.

And further I'd have to ask, where would Linux be without the open source philosophy? Some unrealized dream of a Finnish comp sci student, would be my guess.

ragadanga63
January 2nd, 2007, 08:51 AM
I won't flame you for it, but I will ask on what you're basing that statement.

I haven't seen that at all. There's plenty of closed source software. Nvidia drivers. Skype. Opera. Adobe Reader. Flash plugin. Isn't there a lot of closed source software available?

Having an open source operating system doesn't in any way stop you from running closed source software or stop companies from porting closed source software.

Yeah right. But how about those that are considered as "industry standards" like Adobe Photoshop, Corel Draw. Oh and Linux fans would say, there's GIMP and INKSCAPE which work fine but both are just not enough for those working with printing presses. Why, there's not even a Linux version of Yahoo Messenger that's as good as the Windows version (Yahoo Linux is butt ugly, and near-impossible to install). What I'm saying is, until the big software manufacturers start producing Linux-native applications, attaining critical mass will be a slow process.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a Linux convert and is convincing more and more people to join in the Linux bandwagon. But for now, I'll dual-boot.

EdThaSlayer
January 2nd, 2007, 09:07 AM
All that Linux needs is multimedia to work "out-the-box" and everything will be fine. The hardware recognition on Linux is already far above M$ Windows(when I tried to reinstall Windows[for games only...]it couldn't even detect the proper L.A.N card and installed some strange but "wrong" driver. But I use Gparted to format it over later on.

Redlance
January 2nd, 2007, 09:12 AM
the article is talking about IT/Server and mission critical programs.. not everyday desktops.. Often people misinterpret it as home linux article. This article is not that.
As for home use most what people say is valid. make it a bit easier and better hardware support and it could achieve same results in time in the home arena.
But then you have to convince mom and pop that thier system although vulnerable but working just fine.. could run safer on this new yet 'i want to resist change because i know my old OS syndrome' scary alien OS. No matter how stable.
The bright side is look at it this way when most major servers/IT and Mission critical players use a varient of linux. it sends a clear message down the line. This is what we use.. You should too.
But the Win win part is NOONE owns the monopoly on linux. :) it grows and suits anyone's needs as they interpret it with a little work :) That is what won me over. Microsoft had a good deal going. but stealing everyones ideas and then supporting legacy crap apps and drm and on and on and on.. (i really could go on)
its bloated its not changing.. its a monstrous behemouth of a program with so many dependancies and licensing crap that i almost cringe when working on a windows machine.

Sammi
January 2nd, 2007, 09:59 AM
I won't flame you for it, but I will ask on what you're basing that statement.

I haven't seen that at all. There's plenty of closed source software. Nvidia drivers. Skype. Opera. Adobe Reader. Flash plugin. Isn't there a lot of closed source software available?

Having an open source operating system doesn't in any way stop you from running closed source software or stop companies from porting closed source software.
More than half og the examples you mentioned aren't working as well in their Linux variant, as opposed to Windows, including Nvidia drivers, Skype, and flash. Many of of Nvidia's drivers are in beta, Flash is also, and Skype is only available in an old edition.
I can further more mentions that Linux has lacking support for various other proprietary stuff like, .doc files, xls files, ATI grafics cards, and many printers and wireless cards.

Nobody is technically stopped from making closed source software for Linux, but there is sertainly no support for those that do.

@grte and aysiu
I fully recognise the open source philosophy. I do see the beauty in it and the need for it.
I just think that all the holier that thou behavior, some FOSS zealots seem to show, is hurting Linux more than it's helping it ATM. Right now we need to stop worrying about making everything open source, and in stead consentrate on making a effective and functional operating system for everyone.

We, supporters of the FOSS philosophy, need to recognise peoples right to run copyrighted software. ATM I am personally seeing many attack any move towards including proprietary software in Linux distributions, for example ATI and Nvidia drivers by default in Ubuntu. I believe that this behavior is hampering the growth of Linux.

Gargamella
January 2nd, 2007, 10:39 AM
really interesting, hoping it is quite true

saulgoode
January 2nd, 2007, 02:03 PM
I just think that all the holier that thou behavior, some FOSS zealots seem to show, is hurting Linux more than it's helping it ATM.

It is not "holier than thou" behavior, it is more like "I wrote this, this belongs to me, BUT I am willing to share it with you. If you wish to share it, you agree to certain conditions".


Right now we need to stop worrying about making everything open source, and in stead consentrate on making a effective and functional operating system for everyone.

The Free Software philosophy is not contingent on how popular the software is or the demographics of its distribution. Nor is there any time stipulation whatsoever. What was important ten years ago is just as important now, and just as important as it will be ten years from now.


We, supporters of the FOSS philosophy, need to recognise peoples right to run copyrighted software. ATM I am personally seeing many attack any move towards including proprietary software in Linux distributions, for example ATI and Nvidia drivers by default in Ubuntu. I believe that this behavior is hampering the growth of Linux.

Supporters of FOSS do recognise people's right to run copyrighted software (along with their right to examine, modify, and use for "unintended" purposes). The placing of restrictions on the distribution of the software is necessary to protect those rights.

Of course you are seeing resistance to inclusion of proprietary software in Linux distributions; many consider that part and parcel of the Free Software movement. It rather surprises me that members of the Ubuntu community in support of including proprietary software are so dismissive of those who protest it. I am continually seeing comments like "... use a different distribution, leave Ubuntu to us" (not to mention the inflammatory language such as "attack", "zealotry", "holier than thou", etc).

Is the expression of any displeasure with decisions made about Ubuntu's development forbidden? Is Ubuntu a dictatorship where any who disagree with Mr Shuttleworth are to be banished from land? I should think those who disagree deserve their voice just as much as you deserve yours.

aysiu
January 2nd, 2007, 05:19 PM
More than half og the examples you mentioned aren't working as well in their Linux variant, as opposed to Windows, including Nvidia drivers, Skype, and flash. Many of of Nvidia's drivers are in beta, Flash is also, and Skype is only available in an old edition.

Nobody is technically stopped from making closed source software for Linux, but there is sertainly no support for those that do. I don't see how these two statements are related.

I certainly agree with the first. Linux ports are often crippled versions of their Windows counterparts (hell, even FileZilla for Linux is a crippled version of the Windows version--and that's an open source program), but how is the open source philosophy discouraging proprietary software manufacturers from porting to Linux? I don't see that.

Nothing about the open source philosophy stops Skype from making a better Linux version or stops Adobe from making a better Flash player. Linux just gets low priority because of its low desktop market share. Apple has a low desktop market share, too, of course, but it's in the spotlight, in the mainstream, and its users aren't perceived to be pirates, hackers, and do-it-yourselves who wouldn't pay for commercial software anyways.

If you view that perception as being linked to the open source philosophy, then I could understand why they wouldn't port certain applications (say, Adobe CS3), but why would that philosophy or perception in any way encourage people to make crippled versions of their closed source software for Linux? And the original statement I was replying to seemed to imply that open source Linux couldn't run closed source software... which, as my examples point out, is simply not true. In fact, just about every package in the Multiverse is closed source.

Cirdan7
January 2nd, 2007, 09:06 PM
Why don't we write polite letters to said major companies that have horrible or no support for Linux drivers/software/hardware. Maby if they get a big mass of letters, they would see how many people actually use Linux and would buy/use their product.

I think it would be easier to convince a company to produce a closed source Linux variant then to produce an open source variant for Linux, such as Adobe Photoshop. They are more likly to agree to make a Linux closed source then to make an open source version. Maby someone like nVidia or ATI would be more willing to help out or start creating open source drivers.

What needs ot be done is let those major companies there is a market for Linux. Right now Mac and Windows are the only two they see. When asked "What about Linux?" they either see it as a server, an OS that only hard core geeks use, , or something that hackers use(a bit far fetched). But we really need to let them know that we want their product on our OS and prove to them that its become more and more accepted as another player in the desktop arena.

Sammi
January 3rd, 2007, 01:06 AM
It is not "holier than thou" behavior, it is more like "I wrote this, this belongs to me, BUT I am willing to share it with you. If you wish to share it, you agree to certain conditions".

The Free Software philosophy is not contingent on how popular the software is or the demographics of its distribution. Nor is there any time stipulation whatsoever. What was important ten years ago is just as important now, and just as important as it will be ten years from now.

Supporters of FOSS do recognise people's right to run copyrighted software (along with their right to examine, modify, and use for "unintended" purposes). The placing of restrictions on the distribution of the software is necessary to protect those rights.

Of course you are seeing resistance to inclusion of proprietary software in Linux distributions; many consider that part and parcel of the Free Software movement. It rather surprises me that members of the Ubuntu community in support of including proprietary software are so dismissive of those who protest it. I am continually seeing comments like "... use a different distribution, leave Ubuntu to us" (not to mention the inflammatory language such as "attack", "zealotry", "holier than thou", etc).

Is the expression of any displeasure with decisions made about Ubuntu's development forbidden? Is Ubuntu a dictatorship where any who disagree with Mr Shuttleworth are to be banished from land? I should think those who disagree deserve their voice just as much as you deserve yours.
Of course we can disagree and have different opinions. It's part of being a a Ubuntu community. We're all equal human beings with equal rights to opinions :D

I regard myself as a FLOSS enthusiast. I love the open source philosophy and software that came of it, like Thunderbird, Firefox, OpenOffice and most of all the Linux kernel. I'm just of the opinion that it is impossible to expect the whole world to become open source.
It won't happen cause it can't happen. Some things have to remain close source and secret in order to keep the world of commerce going. Nvidia and ATI really can't open source their grafics card's specifications, because it would rid them of their marketing advantage. Same with many other pieces of software.


I don't see how these two statements are related.

I certainly agree with the first. Linux ports are often crippled versions of their Windows counterparts (hell, even FileZilla for Linux is a crippled version of the Windows version--and that's an open source program), but how is the open source philosophy discouraging proprietary software manufacturers from porting to Linux? I don't see that.

Nothing about the open source philosophy stops Skype from making a better Linux version or stops Adobe from making a better Flash player. Linux just gets low priority because of its low desktop market share. Apple has a low desktop market share, too, of course, but it's in the spotlight, in the mainstream, and its users aren't perceived to be pirates, hackers, and do-it-yourselves who wouldn't pay for commercial software anyways.

If you view that perception as being linked to the open source philosophy, then I could understand why they wouldn't port certain applications (say, Adobe CS3), but why would that philosophy or perception in any way encourage people to make crippled versions of their closed source software for Linux? And the original statement I was replying to seemed to imply that open source Linux couldn't run closed source software... which, as my examples point out, is simply not true. In fact, just about every package in the Multiverse is closed source.
We seem to be talking straight past each other :D

Of course open source and closed source software can work together in the same software enviroment. I don't see how or where I could have implied anything else.

To answer the question, which I have highlighted in your quote: it's not the open source philosophy in it self that is in any direct way stopping closed source programs from being made for Linux.
It is the way many FLOSS enthusiast seem to accept only open source software and nothing else. I never liked these kind of "all or nothing" solutions. At some point one has to accept closed source programming as the only viable solution to a software problem. This shouldn't be done for OS's, files systems and document file types, because the fundamental buildingblocks for a whole computer system, and the format that you save your data in, need to be transparent. More demographically narrow software can on the other hand be provided by closed source software providers, in my humble opinion.

@Cirdan7
I agreed with everything in your post.

aysiu
January 3rd, 2007, 01:57 AM
it's not the open source philosophy in it self that is in any direct way stopping closed source programs from being made for Linux.
It is the way many FLOSS enthusiast seem to accept only open source software and nothing else. I never liked these kind of "all or nothing" solutions. The vast majority of Ubuntu users on these forums use some kind of proprietary software (and I'm not just talking what's available in the Restricted repositories).

The open-source-only users make up 20% at best, but it appears to be more like 15% (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=95718&highlight=how+free+is+your+ubuntu)

Johnsie
January 3rd, 2007, 02:20 AM
people essentially use what they need to use or what works best with their hardware. If it's open that's cool but most people dont want to be restricted to open software which isn't always as good.

saulgoode
January 3rd, 2007, 02:50 AM
Nvidia and ATI really can't open source their grafics card's specifications, because it would rid them of their marketing advantage. Same with many other pieces of software.

As a customer, I can certainly demand that any company provide me with what I want or, if they do not, refuse to purchase their product. I don't feel I need to make any special concession for "blackbox" hardware.

You recognize the benefits of open file formats and I would imagine you grasp the usefulness of interface standardization for communication buses (USB, PCI, Ethernet, etc); why not demand those same benefits from your graphics adapter (or digital camera, or scanner...)? I am not asking that Nvidia provide the source for their drivers, but I am asking that they provide the information required to write a driver. How can that "rid them of their marketing advantage"? The only way they would even be affected is if the driver I wrote was better than their proprietary one, and since they aren't selling their driver to begin with, there is no loss.

----

Regarding the use of proprietaty software on Linux, I am all for it. I have bought programs for Linux in the past and will do so in the future without reservation if it suits my needs (this does NOT mean that I endorse its inclusion in a Linux distribution). Nonetheless, I consider it a foregone conclusion that Free Software will eventually surpass its proprietary counterparts in nearly all areas* of endeavor because FS is continually building upon its past.

It may take time, but I feel it is inevitable that the GIMP will have more features than Photoshop, that Blender will outstrip Lightwave, that Cinelerra will surpass Premiere -- all because once something is implemented in FS it is never lost ("ignorance is fleeting, knowledge is forever").

I disagree with the concept of a "critical mass for Linux" -- Free Software will continue to grow because of the developers, documenters, and testers who continually contribute to its improvement. I do predict a huge increase in the use of Linux in the not-to-distant future, but this will be owing to its excellent support for non-English languages and the growth of computer use from a world-wide perspective.


* I say "nearly all areas" above because certain programs, such as income tax preparation programs, require so much effort and expertise to keep current that it is unreasonable to assume it would be performed on a volunteer basis.