Does Netscape Deal Mean 'Game over' for Open-Source Browsers?, May 31, 2003

Although the settlement decreases competition in the overall browser marketplace, it could mean more users for alternative browsers like Opera, which first hit the market at about the same time as Netscape, Vonttzchner said. "It's not good for competition to have one less player. This settlement makes it more important what we do," Vonttzchner said. "If Netscape is gone it puts more pressure on us to provide a solid alternative."

But so far there are few such devices available in the U.S. market, and even those that run Linux do not have a logo or a public-relations machine to trumpet the fact. The depth to which Linux has penetrated this market, therefore, is something of a mystery. However, the evidence that does exist suggests consumer-electronics companies are taking advantage of the open-source platform to change some fundamental dynamics of their business.

The key here is to be proactive in taking the case to government agencies and legislators on a consistent basis. The commercial software companies pour a fair amount of money into getting into and staying with government agencies, schools and so on. It will take a lot of effort to get equal time for open source, especially since so much open-source lobbying is done by volunteers, while commercial software companies can hire full-time lobbyists.

Unfortunately, education isn't enough. We need to enact legislation at the state and federal levels to give consideration to open-source software.

Webmaster's note: I post this as a curio piece, in the interest of fairness in reporting, etc. etc. It's dated April1, so let's assume it's a joke.

What I'm saying is that while Linux has great legs, it will run out of steam eventually. Its market penetration will increase, but not by much. Remember the technology adoption life cycle model in which disruptive technologies have to "cross the chasm" to be accepted by mainstream users? Linux is right at edge of the chasm, and I don't think it's going to make it across to the other side.

... "there's hardly any [instance] where Unix can do something Linux cannot." Though he admitted there are still fewer applications for Linux, he said he believes a change is coming in the next three to four years, and that most major applications will become available for Linux.

The point of contention is simply how long a vendor should stand by its product, and how long customers should expect to qualify for free updates after purchasing an OS. Note that vendors can (and probably do) strike separate support deals with larger companies. For example, if a company wants to pay a large enough sum for Red Hat to continue to support version 6.2 into oblivion, I'm sure the company would oblige. The question is really how long the company will provide free security patches and bug fixes for rapidly aging applications.

There are several issues that the critics are glossing over. Let me address them separately.

A few weeks ago, SCO, the company formerly known as Caldera International -- and as Caldera Systems before that -- announced it was "researching" use of its intellectual property. This admission came after a story by Maureen O'Gara, which speculated that SCO was going after patent fees, was posted to Slashdot and other Web sites.

The new kernel series has been in development for a while, and Linus Torvalds declared a feature freeze for the old, established series last fall. Most people expect to see the 2.6 version released sometime in 2003, though an exact date is still up in the air.

Linux, of course, is an open source descendent of Unix. So it's ironic that Linux appears to be pushing Unix offstage -- but it most certainly is.

The companies that are pushing UnitedLinux have some significant strengths, but community support isn't one of them. Right now, there's no clear way for members of the Linux community to get involved with UnitedLinux directly, and that's a bad thing. While the focus of UnitedLinux is clearly commercial, it's important that these folks remember that the core product they're working on is largely the result of a community effor

"I personally find that the open source side of the debate has the stronger argument, even though you might see more vulnerabilities being reported," he said. "Just because software is closed and [most] people don't know there are security holes doesn't mean that security holes don't exist [or that] nobody knows about them. The security holes are still there." As a result, he noted, systems might contain significant vulnerabilities that administrators are unaware of.

Tech giants are pouring money into Linux development because when users buy Linux, they also buy hardware, software and services that the companies can sell at a profit.

The only thing that made Lindows unique was its compatibility with Windows file types. The whole purpose of launching the company was to target Linux users who were comfortable with Windows and Windows users who wanted the strength and low cost of Linux.

So what in the world is going on here? Did Bill Gates line Robertson's pockets with cash? Or did he just fall and hit his head in the bathtub?

One of the biggest criticisms of open source is that it can't make money. Critics are quick to point out the woes of Linuxcare, VA Software and others. They also note that Microsoft makes more in two days than all the Linux companies combined.

But I think these critics are missing the point. Linux makes money for the companies that use the software, not the companies that sell it. Software companies have huge profit margins. The largest software maker, Microsoft, has a 30 percent profit margin.

In an effort to further spread the word on the virtues of the Linux open source Latest News about open source operating system, IBM Latest News about IBM Relevant Products/Services from IBM said Thursday that it had turned a number of major companies and organizations into Linux converts, naming Air New Zealand, 7-Eleven Latest News about 7-Eleven and Deutsche Telekom.

In a Yankee Group report, researchers noted that Apple has found a loyal, dedicated group of users that rely on its new, ultra-stable operating system for sophisticated graphics and to run production departments.

The study also noted an increase in the adoption of Linux as the "un-Windows" solution, particularly as companies become increasingly dissatisfied with Microsoft's complex and expensive licensing structure.

Rather than trying to promote an "all-or-nothing" strategy with regard to open source, we should promote interoperability with proprietary products as a short-term goal, followed by gently and gradually easing small-business and home users into the all-open source environment of the future.

Last month, development of two popular programs was ended by their respective authors. NaN (Not a Number), maker of the popular 3D program "Blender," filed for bankruptcy and ended the sale of all its programs. At about the same time, Sorcerer Gnu/Linux (SGL), a popular source-based distribution, was abandoned by its creator, Kyle Sallee.

The fate of the two programs and their users could not have been more different, however.

Although industry analysts continue to imply that Linux and other UNIX versions are not ready for mainstream use, this latest release of the increasingly popular user interface puts the previously semi-complicated operating system well within the average consumer's skill range.

Imagine a UN-backed initiative to make Linux easier to use for less sophisticated users -- precisely the audience that Linux wants to target -- as well as to subsidize Linux localization and development in emerging markets.