The state of Linux

Dear Readers

* (Linux is a term I chose to use. Please don't start with me philosophy debates regarding naming conventions. Besides, I'm sure everyone who reads this will understand).

I'd like to challange a little the Linux community. In all recent press, me, my friends and many other people I know are reading about Linux all sorts of information. There's one article talking about winning some deal, where Linux shines and outperfomes Windows. There's another, where we finally "Get the facts" where Windows gets the win hands down. And then there are more, where Mac is better than Windows and Linux is better than Mac, etc...

This, of course, is an endless list of PR (public relations) and other commercial stuff. (Yes, I said Linux and commerce in one sentence, and I meant it so). Each vendor shows all the cases he wins over his competitors and we know that.

But here's the thing. I'm sure it happens all over the net, but I mainly read Unix/Linux news and not Windows ones. I'd say, that in an average day I see the same number of those messages from public press on all three major operating systems. Even more than that, news about less known ones like *BSD, Solaris, etc are also pretty much at the same level.

Here what I'm trying to say: with regard to my own field of expertise, I'm saying that all 3 operating systems (and even few more) are valuable and existing choices, all offer the same features and all can do the job. Customer chooses the solutions to his/her likings and he's happy.

Let me elaborate on this.

All ... operating systems... are valuable choices. What I mean by this, is that when I as customer am coming to a vendor, and explain to him my problem, I at least expect that I will get all the possible solutions. In almost all cases (except in OS-specific problems) I want him to provide me with Windows choice. Not that I think it is the best choice (it may not be), but because I like choice. It makes me feel better and more comfortable. And also, I'm saying that all operating systems today offer similar features, so I can solve almost anything in any of them.

With all this, I come to main point. We often talk about how Linux is ready (or not), it's on Desktop (I even wrote a piece about that as well), or on server, and how its better than Windows because ....... (fill in your favorite), and how its more open than MacOS, etc. What I'm saying, its this:

Linux is ( and already for some time) ready.

It's ready for Desktops. Ready for servers. Ready for embedded. Ready for everything.

Ready for competition.

I'm saying its ready, because the community is ready. Customers are ready.

Linux stake in OS business is ~3%, and this serves (surprisingly or not) as the reason for many people to ignore it. Well, too bad. Apple has the same share, but it is hardly ignored. Solaris has probably even less, but no one ignores Sun.

So, I'm calling to a Linux developers out there (and application developers): stop worrying. Keep going. You're doing a great job. Your product is better than other ones. Keep doing what you do, because the fruits of your labor are being used by millions and this number will only keep growing. I'm handing off my hat to all of you.

There's no point in bashing other operating systems. Linux holds its place. It will get even better. But competition is good for us. It keeps us all in shape and prepared. It makes us go over the edge. It makes us think.

And want to know what is the best thing of all? The community. It will overgrow companies. That's why Linux (and other open OSes, and applications) will thrive.

Linux is ready. Welcome to Linux state.

The overestimated Death of the Linux Desktop

For the last couple of days I've been reading about the so called Death of the Linux Desktop. What I cannot understand is, how so Linux desktop can be dead if it never existed?

For few years, we've been hearing all sorts of saying, that this year will be "the year of Linux on the Desktop", that this year, Linux will conquer desktop arena, etc. So if all that is true, wouldn't that mean that it is not on the desktop yet, and hence it cannot die?

That depends hugely on point of view. What would mean, that Linux is on a desktop? I use it. On the desktop. Does that count? Some people I know use it on laptops, servers, and even embedded devices. Does this count?

Yes. Everything does. The main point of these articles, debating on the death of desktop Linux, is to address the departure of one of the major desktop proponents within kernel developers. While great thing by its own, it doesn't yet encapsulate the whole desktop on Linux, isn't it?

I think that the most important thing is that work will be kept going on, improving things we have, inventing new ones and making everything better and better. And only after awhile, we would be able to look back on what we've done, what happened and decide: That was the year of Linux Desktop. That year it made it. And only if it won't be going well anymore, we'll say - Linux on Desktop is dead.

But until then - I think we should stop jumping to conclusions, and just keep doing what we do the best - the greatest software and the best communities.

Linux on the Desktop is yet to come.

-A.

Grandma factor

I've been reading around different stories about how we're not making our systems enough "grandma"-proof (that is to be "easily" used by grandmas. Sorry grandpas, you're probably not too appealing for the cause).

In fact, I've written something like that myself some time ago. That doesn't mean I've changed my mind about that essay, I just adopted an attitude.

What I am thinking now, when considering things said in that article, is that designing a system for an "average" computer user is becoming less relevant. I do think that usability must go as one of the first and foremost important features, but nevertheless, making our systems oversimplified (Gnome anyone?) is a totally wrong thing to do.

(Regarding my Gnome remark, I just saying rather large opinion that I hear around. I use Gnome myself, and it is sufficient enough for me. But also is a Xfce and MacOS X, and in some degree Windows and KDE. I just want to say, that in some projects, craving for simplicity overshadows main goals of the projects - and that is to deliver functionality. And Gnome's "simplicity" was the factor that turned Linus Tourvalds to KDE)

In fast technology race, the functionality can be beaten by usability. But usability means "convenient use", not "simple". Any system that simplifies on expense of other important aspects, is destined to fail.

All I want is that technically oriented crowd would differentiate between the so-called "average" user and everyone else. My wife (wife to be in a short while) uses a computer without significant problems. She just doesn't like how some things are done (such as MSN Live upgrade forced up on her. She liked it the way it was, and she doesn't like to be forced to do anything, as we all don't).

In the world I live in, there's almost everyone knows how to handle a computer. For better or for worse. And you know what? My dad is a grandpa now, and he can handle complicated computer tasks very well. Do you know how? I'll tell you how.

Because he's a grown intelligent person, that can take his time to learn a new thing. Just like he did once when remote controls for everything began to appear.

What I'm trying to say, is that we should probably stop using a "grandma" factor as a major "usability" measure. Many computer users are not that illiterate anymore. Almost all newly grads for last 10 years (who lead many businesses today) are comfortable with computers. Many college students grew up with one.

So, I think there's a need for yet another level of usability. A community needs to find another type of a person that will test a usability of a product.

It should be an advanced computer user, who are not afraid to try new things, who understands what a new product is and what is usability and how can it be assessed.

Try me for that.

Licensing issues

I've read the article from Jem Matzan, about how latest ramblings around licensing issues prove that reality will prevail the idealizm.

And you know what? I agree.

I always choose to use an open source software when I have the choice. I do it both idealistically (because I can easily connect to developers and users community, and get help and assistance), and because of technical merit (I find often that open source software is much better than many commercial ones), and definitely because of the cost (just bandwidth to download stuff) and mostly because I don't want to get into licensing debate with larger bodies.

I just use computing as tools. Think of it as when you buy a hammer, it comes with sort of a license agreement that only allows you to use it with specific type of nails. Sure, noone will really check what exactly for and how exactly are you going to use it, but license is there nevertheless.

I think such thing would be extremely stupid and worthless, but I'm not the one who decides. I just want my hammer as something heavy and convenient, and I do want to hit something else with it sometimes.

So it is for me with computers and software. My choice of open source software is a choice that assures me, that I can do anything I want or need with tools I get.

Now, what is the problem Jem describing here? The problem, as FreeBSD Foundation President put it, is that many think that what Free Software Foundation thinks is the right thing regarding the licensing. I disagree with their approach.

In a free world, as they would like it to be, anyone entitled to a free software, exactly as I am. But sometimes, for my own personal advantage, I would not like to open source to my product. Someone doesn't like that? Either close your code too, or shut up. It is a free world after all, I can do whatever I want. Many GPL proponents seems to care to their freedom only.

With all those additional open-source licenses, the only one more thing you get is the one thing that you're trying to avoid - DRM. The curse word in digital world, meaning that every single bit is restricted, and you can use the bit I created only under my own conditions, and if you don't comply, I'll sue you to death. But it's all ones and zeros, folks. Nothing more.

That's why I side with Linus on licensing issue (he was never bothered by commercialization of Linux, and in fact I think he's even happy about it).

I like the most the BSD license.

Free for all and for all purposes. Just don't forget to mention who created it.

The best ever.

-A.

Killing open source

Did you know that Open Source (yes, I chose to write it with capitals) can be killed? Yes, that is at least what Dana Blankenhorn from zdNet thinks.

I've written last week about my opinion on what Dana thinks. I really like to read his articles, because they get me pissed every time. But that is a good thing. It makes me think about an issue on hand, and sometimes I change my mind about them. Sometimes I don't, because I make my opinion even stronger.

So, this time Dana talks about two possible ways to "kill" open source (just like that - no mentioning whether is he talking about specific software, generally open source software or the concept):

1. Spam it to death. (He mentions that this is what killed newsgroups).
   
2. Keep it from getting raw material.
   

I personally think that both reasons are dumb. I'm not sure about the possibility of "killing" open source as whole, but this sound like a very cool journalistic trick to draw attention.

So, regarding the first his suggestion - spamming the open source to death...laughable, isn't it? I just can't understand how "open source" can be spammed to an unimaginable death.
If it is software - a specific one at that - then such vendors as IBM, Red Hat, Google, Novell, Sun - might have to say something about it. If it is a community - then spammers will shoot each other's way of life, because many of them use and are actual member of open source communities. And if it is a concept - how can one "spam" a concept with a useless info? I have no idea.

The second suggestion - keep open source from getting raw material, is somehow a good point. If content providers would not allow me to consume their content with my open source tools, that would be a problem. But then, wouldn't that make me to search for another content provider? Such as one that allows me to use the content, especially if I'm ready to pay for it? This would benefit me and that provider, and the former one that never agreed to me using his content with my choice of software/hardware, will loose.

While loosing me is not such a big deal, I believe that loosing such big communities as Ubuntu/Debian users, Fedora/Red Hat users, Solaris users and SuSe users would be a major loss, because these are potential millions of customers who's money will go to other vendors.

And finally, it open source [community/concept] can be killed, then, please, let me know how do you do it with Creative Commons song, book or beer.

Just my 5 cents.

-A.

Technorati : [ Gentoo, Linux, Ubuntu, technology ]

Bitter commentary in free software world

I've been long-time reader of Linux Watch, and its journalist Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (S.V.N).

He recently wrote a column, about Debian's latest release - new stable version, 4.0, codenamed Etch.

His comments, while harsh towards Debian Linux, are correct. He's mostly talking about decisions made by Debian developers in making this version, such as name changes for some applications, or flame wars led on developers mail lists.

But now, I've read comments by Debian developer Thaddeus H. Black, and some more by other journalist (can I say Debian-zealot? probably I can) Sam Varghese. These comments, while being probably correct by fact, sound like a bitter cry for me.

So, ok, Steve has very strong views and opinions about free/open software. But such comments are not adding anything to the issue. They seem to me, as like a developer being defensive and trying to justify and explain problems (nuances for my taste) in S.V.N's article, and Sam Varghese article sound totally like disgruntled guy got offended by some "mistakes" and opinions. He's much more offensive in his articles, bashing everything not truly "open" with much persistence.

Some people don't get it, ain't? That's why combined, OpenSuse and Ubuntu have almost 5 times the rating of Debian, according to Distrowatch.

I don't really understand, why these people are so offended by personal choices of other people. If I decide to use non-free (in RMS sense of the free) software/product, it is like I'm being treated as heretic. It is like such a thing is a total abomination.

I think, all people should be more tolerant to each other and respect each other's opinions and decisions.

If S.V.N likes Ubuntu - let him. If I like Ubuntu let me. If I choose Gentoo let me.

So, just let me be with my fully functional system and I will let you do with yours, however incomplete it may be. I don't care if it is not "free" enough to you. It is free enough for me.

It is my choice after all.

Gentoo week and other stuff

Man, it have been a boring week. Besides a Bugday which took place last Saturday (and still have to check out the results of that), there's almost nothing.

The only thing thing that I've noticed on forums is kinda twofold: one user considered moving from Gentoo to Ubuntu, and wanted convincing to stay, and other wanted to try Gentoo while he's using Ubuntu and wanted points to help him out.

This actually caused me thinking. The question here, of course, is more general, and I would say it like this:

• How does one picks the most appropriate distro for himself/herself and what can we do to make that Gentoo?

Now, this issue is not so simple. While I could understand ones' choice of Linux over Windows or MacOS (and don't start with me on GNU, its semantics for me). But how would one choose a distribution?

On one of the forum threads, someone said "when you choose a distribution, you are choosing the way of thinking, the philosophy and an approach". This is the most accurate characterization I heard about "what I get if I choose {your favorite distro here}?".

So, in a nutshell, one chooses a distro by a most suitable way of doing things on a computer, not according to applications list. I don't care for how long my computer boot, because I have uptime of months, and I reboot it once in a long while. So will it take 20 seconds or a minute, doesn't matter to me.

But if I create a Media Center, I would like it to turn on instantly, and I do turn it off all the time. See, the purpose is an important thing, but the way of doing it is much more important.

Does my mom care what OS her TV runs (or if at all)? Does my dad care for his cell phone OS? Of course not. They want a predefined set of tasks, but these tasks should perform flawlessly.

If I want distribution, with predefined set of tasks, I want them be performed flawlessly. In the end, in screenshots you'll see a standard X with standard window manager with custom theme and icons. How does this provide a mindset of a distro? How would I know whether we're good for each other?

I see many users complain that Gentoo is not Fedora, Ubuntu or Suse. I suppose that after a move to these distros they complain how Fedora, Ubuntu or Suse is not Gentoo. We like to complain.

My friend started his second grad year, started using Red Hat in uni, because thats what they have. According his main complains, its like he's complaining that Linux is not Windows (he doesn't say that directly, he says something like "why don't I have {...} in Linux as I did in Windows. It was so simple!!").

So, why would a person leave Gentoo for other distro or other distro for Gentoo? 2 reasons:

• He/she did something (or, although more rarely, something internal happened in distro structure) which broke his system and he/she either couldn't recover it or it took a lot of effort; and
  
• The perceived mindset of other distro (or Gentoo) seems to be more suitable to this users' mindset at the moment, so user believes that other distro is "better" because it would allow to do things the way he/she can't at the moment with the distro he/she uses.
  

So can we do anything withing Gentoo to help that? Meaning, keeping more existing users and luring more of a new ones?

I believe so. There are many things that can be done, but the main thing I believe would be creating an easy ways around Gentoo. These would include, some but not limited to:

• Easier processes for installing and maintaining. (we're close but it's not perfect)
• Better documentation (either more fun, interactive and comprehensive)
• Better change notification
• Better feedback and support.
• Better accessibility of developers to users and better interaction within community.

I can't say how exactly to do these, I'm trying to figure things each at a time. But as a part of user-user community relations, and part of users-developers relations, all ideas that are out there should be checked (and that's partially what userreps are there for), and in the end I believe we would have the best distro.

The best for out mindset that is.

Feel free to throw more ideas for making it better.