Future of Linux

[ral]

I found an interesting article in the May 2002 edition of Linux Magazine entitled Too Many Servers by Steven Vaughan-Nichols. In part it reads:

 

"I think Linux will become a brand-name operating system for millions of business users. But they're not. going to be running Linux on desktop PCs, they're going to be running appli cations on a Linux virtual machine (VM) running on a high-powered cluster or on a mainframe.

 

You could see signs of this coming change at this January's LinuxWorld. Shirts and ties far outnumberedtie-dyed shirts. The big news of the show wasn't that IBM was pushing Linux on the mainframe: they've been doing that for awhile now. And it wasn't their TV ads featuring Linux or their new slogan, "Linux is real business." The big news, according to Bill Zeitler, head of IBM's server group, is that out of the bil- lion dollars IBM poured into Linux, "We've recouped most of it in the first year in sales of software and systems." That's not, "Oh, some day we'll see a retu,m," or "Oh, it's worth it because of good will," that's "IBM is making money from Linux today."

 

x x x

 

How is it being done ? IBM is doing it by running Red Hat, SuSE, and TurboLinux as VMs on their S/390 mainframes and other "big iron" models. VMware is also in the picture with its ESX Server, optimized to run on IBM's Intel-based eServer xSeries systems.

 

Compaq and Platform Computing are using clustering to follow a similar path on the Alpha. In addition, there are at least four open source VM projects, Free VSD, Plex86, User- mode Linux (UML), and v server. Commercial efforts in the same line come from SWsofr and Ensim.

 

You might be asking, though, "Why bother with virtual machines?" After all, it's not as if your generic Linux box is going to run out of resources for ordinary server programs.

 

But there are several good reasons to go the VM route. One is security. While the Unix/Linux security model is strong compared to Microsoft's, mainframes are muchhard- er to crack. Even if a cracker does get root access to a single server running as a VM on the mainframe, he's still no clos- er to getting into other Linux VM servers or the mainfr~me operating system.

 

Another advantage VMs have is stability. Half a dozen Linux VM servers can crash, but the other two dozen will still hum along normally. A standalone Intel-based Linux server simply can't compete with that level of stability.

 

x x x

 

What's clear, though, is that Linux's biggest future role isn't as the revolutionary operating system for PCs; it's as the heart of corporate big-iron systems. There's something ironic about that, but it's the price of success. Linux is proving to be too good, too advanced for the desktop; instead its fate is to be the center of the enterprise. Who would have thought it?"

 

Comments?

[johnnyv]

Another advantage VMs have is stability. Half a dozen Linux VM servers can crash, but the other two dozen will still hum along normally. A standalone Intel-based Linux server simply can't compete with that level of stability.

 

 

Ahhhhh!!!!!!!!!! my mandrake 8.1 file/mail/gateway/database server has been running for around 150 days now ahhh it gonna crash any second :P It's has never crashed, i did acidentally pull out the power cord which ruined my uptime :(

 

I agree big companys need that kind of redundancy but there are many smaller networks that will not need this, it'll be server in the back room as usual.

 

Hehe i had a guy call the other day wanting me to move all my companys data offsite and run terminals at my work, microsoft solution aswell!

 

I'm gonna host my companys commercially sensitive data offsite on somebodys datacenter ummm not likely. And one running windows? Muahahahahahahahaahaha

 

Desktop is here for me and others it will be for more later.

[Guest frew]

It isn't really news that linux will be more for business than for end-user (for a while anyway) but the VM stuff is cool.

[ral]

Found another interesting article:

 

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/sto...2875934,00.html

 

"An ironic fate for Linux?

Adopters of Linux-based data centers will also have to deal with a key strategic issue. The novelty of working on an OS as a public service will ultimately wear off. When the open source fever dies down, one of two things is likely to happen: First, the companies benefiting most from its existence--processor manufacturers, hardware OEMs, IBM, set top manufacturers, and software makers--will have to fund a new company with a profit motive for enhancing the operating system, if Linux is to grow.

 

The second likely scenario is that these same companies will create their own enhanced, incompatible Linux versions in order to differentiate themselves. Linux could become like UNIX in the 80s. And the need for a unified platform on which to build large volume applications will drive people toward their only commercially viable option-Microsoft Windows."

[Counterspy]

I don't see it quite that way. There is enough momentum being generated now for people to take a look at Linux desktop machines. Once they take a look, they are sensitized to the fact of an alternative to Windows. The problem is with the distro manufacturers who seem to enjoy participating in a "War of the Business Models", the only problem being that none of them will ever reach the level of being taught as successful at the Harvard Business School. Most of the executives need the equivalent of a Grade 11 business course and most won't get it.

 

IBM and HP do know how to run a business and when they think the time is right for the desktop, they'll be there. And they hate Microsoft with a passion, but not a passion that affects their bottom line. And don't forget, one of these days we'll be hearing "Here comes the judge".

 

Counterspy.

[ral]

I don't see it that way either. I think we will see a few more "commercial" approaches to Linux (i.e. SuSE and Redhat). But I figure, when that happens you can get a good desktop commenrcial linux with a good desktop commencial version of an office suit for around US$50-150. This companies will a fair return for their investment. I am pretty sure there will still be a hardcore pure open source version developed by the commmunity.

 

Open Office is probably about 2 versions away from catching up with MS Office and I think that the Linux distributions being released today are already better than XP. All we need is a bit more compatibility (and a bluecurve like desktop for the migrating Windows users).

 

When this happens, MS will sell at more reasonable prices (and will probably adopt a selective open source policy).

 

Something like what happened to Intel pricing when AMD came of age.

[Guest duir66]

There is one main chink in the Penguin's armor. I can release a version of linux, you can, he can, she can, and so can "Chairman" Bill. There is nothing stopping M$ from releasing their own distro of Linux. "The trusted software company" can snow all of the IT managers and consumers into believing their FUD that a smaller operation can be insecure, blah, blah, blah.

 

Since Grandpa and Grandma only know what the "blue E" icon can do and really isn't all that interested in the rest of their computers, they'll buy it hook, line and sinker.

 

And don't think they won't try it if they feel threatened enough either. Everyone knows about Office for Mac, I still have a copy of MS Basic for Amiga that was on the Amiga 1.3 Extras disk in 1988.

 

Even if M$ doesn't release their own version of Linux, they are and always have been primarily a software company. "Chairman" Bill will probably at least try to get their grubby little hands into the pie if they think they can.

[ral]

Well, if MS wanted to release an MS Linux... I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Guest duir66]

I'll agree to disagree with you on that one. The primary thing wrong with Windows is that it is made by Mi¢ro$oft.

 

Remember, they say free, and Open Source is bad. Wasn't a free IE and OE released to destroy Netscape and Eudora?

 

I wish I could remember right now, what M$ took out of Open Source and put into the NT kernal, but it did happen.

 

"In the interviews, Jackson had variously compared Microsoft to drug dealers, gangland murderers and the infamous Newton Street Crew, which terrorized a District neighborhood." ---- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...1-2002Oct6.html

[Guest duir66]

http://www.amiga.com/press/zine/4-17-00/AW8.htm

 

Although this particular article is a bit dated, it states the current direction that the new Amiga is going towards.

 

Best described as a blend of Linux, Java and other software (TAO Group's Elate, QNX, and more). The point being that it will run on most processors, therefore it can run on your home computer, your laptop, your cell phone, your PDA, your TV, your satellite dish, your car, your microwave oven, your refridgerator, your alien implant [sic] etc.

 

Whether or not it is vaporware remains to be seen. It is an abitious and monumental project but it holds great potential. They already supply software for the Sharp Zaurus and seem to have just signed a deal with Nokia.

 

Is this a positive direction, or what?

[ral]

Basically, at least Netscape was caught flat footed. MS IE5 was better than Netscapes 4x IMHO. But if MS released a free versions of Linux to destroy Linux, that would not really make sense. Any improvements they make can be incorporated by Mandrake, Redhat or others in their products.

 

Now if they released a free version of Windows, that would be characterisitc of their past strategies. But they won't find Mandrake, Redhat and the other Linux distros in the same position Netscape was in.

 

I have used Win95, Win98, Win2K and WinXP Home. Win2K is the best Windows released. Its pretty close to Mandrake Linux 8/9 properly configured. But it is not a better product.

[Guest duir66]

Your absolutely correct, NS was caught way off guard. Yet, unlike then the M$ game plan is evident. As far as other distros incorporating any improvements that M$ would make to linux, it wouldn't really matter. M$ has the marketing machine that would cut as many throats as necessary to sell their version of it to IT Depts everywhere. Since they already have the name recognition, IT Depts would believe it and buy it and we're right back to where we are now. Before too long M$ would be attempting to make people believe they invented Linux, just like they did with the optical mouse. The Linux distros of today rely on selling a certain amount of installs and a certain amount of stock. This is where M$ would hurt the distros we all know and love - they would cut way into sales until there was absolutely no profit in attempting to sell big iron linux.

 

Free Windows??? hmm, now that could get interesting. Saw on /. a week ago that M$ is already doing that by agreement with the Chinese Govt. in an attempt to beat out Red Flag Linux by establishing a huge user base. You would have to wonder how many consumer groups would go after them for reparations in the West if all of a sudden I could legally download Windows XP Pro SP1 for free from M$.

 

I often jest that if the M$ programmers were even half as good as their marketing Dept., Windows would be twice as good as M$ marketing makes it out to be. Another great stab that gets to the point is that if you want fund M$ R&D then buy stock in Apple Computer.

 

As far as the NT kernal thing goes, that was originally developed with IBM under the 3.1.1 for Workgroups banner specificallly to be semi-compatible with OS/2. When M$ came out with a non-OS/2 compatible Win95, IBM knew they had been duped and OS/2 is now on the scrapheap of OS history.

 

M$ had agreed to develop 3.1.1 in a way so that it allow programmers to write for both platforms at once. When IBM was broad-sided with a non-compatible Win95 (and it was a very big secret at the time of it's release), they stopped development on OS/2. Once the coast was clear M$ built NT the way they wanted to - and now M$ has completely ceased development on the same 9x kernal that allowed them to wrestle control of the NT kernal away from IBM in the first place. (Or something along those lines.)

 

There is a long trail of bodies in M$'s wake and I for one would not want to see them do anything similar to Linux.

 

2000 is pretty sweet though, so is XP Pro for that matter (2k with enough bloated eye candy and spyware to make grandma really need that 2GHz CPU just to type a letter.)

[ral]

Point taken. Well, I am sticking with a non-MS Linux simply because I don't like having to jump when someone in Redmond (or anyone else for that matters says so).

 

As for a free Windows, well that I would dual boot to play games. My 98SE is getting old. If only I could take home the 2K I had in the office.

[Guest duir66]

Oh, is that ever the beauty of Linux too.

 

I had a job interview today for Assistant Network Admin today for the Govt. of the Parish (County in all other U.S. states) I live in. My future boss, (I got the job) posed the question about the benefit for using Linux in a Desktop environ. The price was the best answer I could give.

 

I agree with you in principle about a MS Linux though, it would lend to better competition. I just do not trust Microsoft Corp. with the time of day.

 

--- offtopic sidenote

I'm building a new computer (once I get all of the parts in) that will be a dedicated linux box. I hope to find the answer to that question. As a hobby I sometimes edit audio and video. I'm not shelling out $$ for a Mac `til the new 64-bit CPU Mac comes out, but Linux just doesn't have the good software for that that Mac & PC has. Hopefully that will change soon. Things like that are important for the progress of Linux onto the desktop.

 

I really support the release of old software that is no longer supported by it's distributor. Apple does this with OS 7.5.1 (I think) and before. Since Win95 is no longer supported why doesn't M$ do the same?

[Guest duir66]

OK. I have a hypothetical question...... RANT>>>>>>>>

 

Let's suppose that Linux is the OS of the future. So which distro is best?

 

Kinda stupid asking this on a Mandrake board. Maybe the question would best be posed as what would compose the best distro in the future???? What do you want to see??

 

I want audio & video editing apps. A game machine might do well for others.

 

Where are we going from here?? Amiga 5.x w/Tao Group kicks butt. Though it is still an idea - (V)aporware for all I've seen! (pardon the pun).

 

Lets examine the real future of Linux. **** Windows! Where are we going to be in 2004, `05, `08????????

 

We need the vision of where we are going to know where we will end up!

 

Say it now so that you might inspire someone else! Go ahead, because you never know.

 

Have a nice day! ;-)