Re: [ox] Patriarchat und Netzaktivismus
- From: "geert lovink" <geert xs4all.nl>
- Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 15:38:40 +1100
Hi all,
what I begin to see in this very interesting thread on oekonux are some
structural problems, or lets say, limitations of the FS scene. It's one
thing to say that they are all male chauvinist pigs. I don't really buy
that. I don't even think that men are actively and conciously excluding
women. But that's exactly where the problem starts. A lot of it written
deeply into geek culture. For instance its hobby character. Indeed, the
dogma of the free. The refusal to get into the real world and transform the
good ideas and code into a dirty business. For instance. OK, some are doing
that, lately, but not enough are really involved on an economic level. This
could be the reason why so few women take FS serious.
Then there are similar objection made in the October issue of Wired (which
has always been in the hand of Apple people dreaming up a Microsoft empire
for themselves...). OK. But I liked the piece anyway cause it point at the
deeper problems of geek culture and its resistance to grow up.
In order for Linux and FS to succeed, the question then becomes one of a
radical change of culture, which, IMHO, can only be achieved by radically
open up the communication channels and an active and outward looking
non-dogmatic attitude (which doesnot automatically mean selling out to
capitalist businesses etc.).
Best, Geert
(sorry for the english, kein bock auf deutsch heute)
---
From the Oct issue of Wired Magazine, available online at:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.10/linux.html
Open War
It started as a crusade for free source code. Linux zealots turned it
into a full-frontal assault on Microsoft. Now the battle for the
desktop could snatch defeat from the jaws of moral victory.
By Russ Mitchell
Here's one way to coax desktop computer users away from Microsoft
Windows and over to Linux instead: Wait until they're not looking,
strip all Microsoft programs off their hard drives, and leave them to
ponder the error of their ways. Lost data? Too bad, baby. The open
source revolution has arrived, and you're part of the problem. Deal
with it.
That's exactly what happened to Anne Speedie, then an editor at Wide
Open News, a Web site owned by Red Hat, the best known of the 140 or
so distributors of the open source Linux operating system. Speedie
needed to use Microsoft Word because the Linux word processors at her
disposal were saddled with spellcheckers so abysmal they caused more
problems than they solved, skipping over misspelled words and offering
bizarre alternatives for words spelled correctly. One program,
Applixware, stumbled on Web site. Fair enough - the term can be
spelled several ways. But Applixware offered none of them. Instead,
the program suggested podesta. Yes, podesta. Look it up.
Clearly, Speedie couldn't depend on such software and expect to
maintain a high-quality Web site. While Red Hat management had asked
employees to use Linux programs when possible, it did flash the green
light on any software essential to getting the job done. But this
didn't sit well with computer support, or with many of Red Hat's
software engineers, who, like much of the Linux community, share a
monomaniacal antipathy toward all things Microsoft. Speedie, preparing
for a business trip, turned her laptop over to a technician to get
some dialup software installed. When he returned the machine, Windows
was gone - along with all Microsoft applications and Speedie's work
files. Outraged, she complained, and when her boss (that would be me)
confronted the technician - a stringy little guy in a black
trailer-trash T-shirt - he simply stared back and smiled.
After 20 years as a business and technology journalist, I joined Red
Hat for nearly a year at the height of the tech stock craze. I was
editor in chief of Wide Open News. Tough economics led to layoffs and
I got whacked; I left with three months' severance and enough stock
options to make a down payment on a house in San Francisco. Nothing to
be unhappy about. I also left with great respect for the Linux OS,
which turned out to be as stable, flexible, portable, powerful, tight,
and efficient as its supporters claim it to be. Technically speaking.
That's pretty much how I feel about Linus Torvalds' kernel development
group as well. (See "Keepers of the Kernel," next page.) When it comes
to business savvy, on the other hand, the Linux community is a muddled
and unfocused lot. A prime example: the bound-to-fail attempt to
compete against Microsoft in desktop computing. Like the Japanese
soldiers on Guadalcanal who refused to surrender years after the bomb
ended World War II, Linux zealots remain obsessed with beating
Microsoft in desktop computing. Desktop computing? Don't they know?
The war is over. Microsoft has won.
At best, this obsession is a distraction, a waste of time. At worst,
it's sapping energy from the Linux movement and keeping the OS from
gaining traction in a market where it actually stands a chance - as a
server operating system in enterprise computing. Consider: Linux
grabbed a 27 percent share of server OS shipments in 2000, according
to IDC - sales that otherwise would have gone to Unix vendors and
Microsoft. Linux boosters insist that if free downloads and
pass-arounds were counted, that figure would be even higher; and
they're probably right. Linux is expected to do as well or better in
2001. This is an area that has real potential.
Conversely, Linux managed only 1.5 percent of shipments in the desktop
market in 2000. And that sliver is unlikely to grow in 2001. PC makers
are concluding that consumer Linux is too small a market to mess with:
Dell Computer recently dropped Linux from its desktops and notebooks.
Given these numbers, it's clear the desktop is receiving
disproportionate attention from the Linux community, in the form of
anti-Microsoft ranting, misplaced evangelism, a waste of mental
energy, and - most important - the draining of developer hours.
Legions of programmers are working to break Microsoft's iron grip on
the desktop. There's an open source desktop interface project called
GNOME, for GNU Network Object Model Environment. And one called KDE (K
Desktop Environment). Developers are writing drivers for PC devices
whose manufacturers don't see enough of a market to provide Linux
drivers on their own. Open sourcers are duplicating work to produce
office suites - Sun's StarOffice, AnywareOffice (formerly Applixware),
KDE's Koffice, and more.
All this work, and ... it doesn't matter. Desktop computer users care
about what they can do on their machines. They want reliability,
simplicity, access to popular software, and the ability to communicate
easily with other users. If Windows or Unix or Linux or Mac or BeOS
could all do all of this, Linux would have a real shot - because it's
free. Linux is highly reliable, but unfortunately that's about all it
offers the typical desktop user.
To be clear: I'm not defending Microsoft. The courts have said the
company achieved its dominance through illegal means. Microsoft has
developed a well-deserved bully-boy reputation throughout the business
world. As for its programs, Windows and Word sometimes drive me nuts.
Why, then, am I interested in seeing Linux concede defeat on the
desktop? Because I like Linux. I like the idea of Linux. I'd like open
source computing to succeed.
Linux is at a turning point. Ten years ago, Torvalds first posted his
OS on the Internet, inviting review, comments, and suggestions for
improvement. Based on the principles of Unix, but written from
scratch, its source code was open and available to inspect, use, and
modify. A decade later, Linux is lauded as a technical success. But as
a business, it's a flop.
No one expected to make money on free software. The idea was to make
money offering Linux support and services. So far, not so good. No
Linux company has figured out how to build a profitable business
around open source software. In fact, several have already gone out of
business and others are on the ropes. "Open source is a technology
innovation strategy looking for a business model," says Eric Schmidt,
now Google's CEO and chair.
What if the GNOME and KDE projects could take back all the programmer
hours that went into consumer desktop applications and instead focus
that brain power on developing kick-ass development platforms? What if
all the effort that's gone into writing desktop drivers that
peripheral outfits don't care to support were redirected toward
drivers for corporate environments? What if all the mental energy, the
rage on the Slashdot message boards, had been concentrated on building
solid business models? What if the Linux community put an end to all
the desktop nonsense right now and built on its strengths in global
enterprise computing - just how big could Linux get?
What if all the mental energy, the rage on Slashdot message boards had
been concentrated on building solid business models in enterprise
computing? Just how big could Linux get?
In his book Innovation and Entrepreneurship, management guru Peter
Drucker writes, "If an innovation does not aim at leadership from the
very beginning, it is unlikely to be innovative enough, and therefore
unlikely to be capable of establishing itself." Linux zealots might
take that passage as their battle cry. But a more telling quote from
the same book offers innovators this admonition: "Don't splinter,
don't diversify, don't try to do too many things at once."
And no one should need Peter Drucker to tell them that playing
catch-up against a dominant industry leader, in an existing product
category, is a loser's game. Duplication is not innovation. If Linux
had a chance on the desktop, established software vendors would be
making apps that run on Linux. Instead, the open source community
finds itself writing copycat versions of popular applications - the
office suites, for instance.
Linux has been on the industry's radar screen since the mid-'90s, yet
the vast majority of applications available for Windows and Mac don't
exist for Linux. Microsoft apps - Word, Excel, PowerPoint - don't work
on Linux because, of course, Bill Gates doesn't want them to. Nor does
Internet Explorer, which controls 87 percent of the browser market.
Linux-friendly Netscape Navigator, its market share in steady decline,
holds a precarious 12 percent. That could be because Netscape was
crushed by an illegal monopoly. Whatever. Those are the facts.
Konquerer, an open source browser, doesn't even track market share
figures.
Adobe Photoshop on Linux? Nope. QuickBooks? No. Eudora email? Uh-uh.
Sega games? Nyet. And on and on. But Oracle, Sybase, SAP, Novell, IBM,
and more see a market in enterprise Linux: They are busy porting their
applications for server-based Linux.
The Linux desktop offers very little that could be considered
plug-and-play. Linux drivers, the software that connects a computer
with peripherals like printers and CD burners, are in short supply.
Want to use a digital camera? Don't bother with Kodak if you're
running Linux. Iomega is a bit friendlier, offering drivers for 14 of
51 products listed on its drivers Web page - but that compares to 42
Mac drivers and 45 for Windows. UMAX scanners? Not from UMAX, though
some third-party drivers are out there, if you have the time and the
will to find them. Creative's Soundblaster? A few are available, but
you'll have to hunt down the company's software developer Web page.
Nontechnical users continue to have a hard time installing Linux.
Every time a review appears in the press describing how damn hard it
is to install Linux, and what few useful apps there are, it hurts
Linux's reputation among top executives who might be considering the
OS for enterprise.
Microsoft and Apple ads are everywhere, but no one is funding major
marketing campaigns for desktop Linux. No one with any clout is
carrying the torch for desktop Linux. Who is Linux's Bill Gates or
Steve Jobs? Not Linus Torvalds. He supports desktop Linux, but does
little proselytizing.
The movement's ideological focus is perhaps best expressed by Eric
Raymond. A longtime Unix coder who embraced Linux early on, he wrote
the seminal essay about open source development, "The Cathedral and
the Bazaar," that spawned an influential book published in 1999.
Raymond is the open source movement's self-styled Minister of
Information. He speaks for a large population of Linux adherents who
insist that the community bears not just a competitive imperative, but
a moral obligation to bring Microsoft down. Says Raymond: "It's
important that the money and power and market mass not be in the hands
of outfits like Microsoft, who would destroy us."
That mission, he believes, requires open sourcers to stage a frontal
assault on the desktop. "We've spent a lot of time making Linux
techie-friendly - powerful, configurable," he says, "but not enough
time making it easy for Aunt Tillie to use." Why should Linux try to
lure Aunt Tillie? "Because," Raymond says, "dat's where da money is."
Matthew Butterick, a former member of Red Hat management who ran Web
operations from the company's 35-member San Francisco office,
disagrees. He believes the Linux movement is misplacing its talents
with the desktop obsession. Linux might be cheaper than alternative
operating systems, he says, but that doesn't take into account the
switching costs or steep learning curve for most desktop users. "The
anti-Microsoft rhetoric is an easy target that distracts a lot of the
rank and file from noticing who the real enemy is - Unix vendors like
Sun," says Butterick. "A lot of effort thus gets put into
Microsoft-wannabe applications like the GUI, the office suite, the
email client, et cetera. Some of the key features that would enable
Linux to compete against corporate Unix are not getting done."
If the desktop is too appealing to ignore, Butterick thinks Linux
application developers should focus on administration and software
development tools for technical users. "Wouldn't a competent
integrated development platform be more useful than an office suite?"
he asks. "Wouldn't a graphical debugger be better than a whizzy file
manager? Wouldn't a pro 3-D package be more targeted than an Outlook
clone?"
Eric Schmidt agrees: Linux needs to attract widespread use of office
and financial software to drive adoption, he says, but "Microsoft is
extending Office in many ways, so it's hard to see this approach
taking off in the near term." Yet, he adds, Linux-based desktops can
be "software development platforms without peer." Google is a Linux
booster. It has more than 10,000 crawling, indexing, searching Linux
servers. Its developers use Linux on their desktops. But the desktop
OS for everybody else? Windows.
Steve Solazzo, who heads Linux marketing for IBM, says that while the
company makes Linux available on desktop machines, "the majority of
current marketplace activity is on server-based deployments, so that
really is where we're spending most of our time." Corporate customers
feel the same way. Sara Garrison, SVP of technology and development at
Visa International, says, "The real promise is in enterprise
applications, in scalability. That ought to be the real focus."
There are would-be white knights out there. Chief among them, IBM,
which has committed $1 billion to Linux marketing and development. Big
Blue could do for Linux what it did for Java.
As if the lack of applications weren't enough of an obstacle,
self-inflicted public relations problems - in the form of bad behavior
by vocal Linux proponents - are casting a dark shadow over Linux. Eric
Raymond, agree with him or not, is a thoughtful representative of the
Linux movement. So is Linus Torvalds, and the top contributors to his
kernel project, and many Linux business leaders as well.
Unfortunately, the mass Linux culture is infected with a nastiness
that creeps past contentiousness and toward the demeaning and
dehumanizing whenever anyone criticizes Linux.
The problem has caused even Rob Malda, the founder of Slashdot, to
sound the alarm. Malda, known by his nom de net, CmdrTaco, can get
down and dirty himself. So when CmdrTaco's own troops provoke his
disgust, you know there's a serious problem.
"Why Linux Won't Ever Be Mainstream" is the name of the controversial
article he posted on Slashdot in July. It attracted more than 1,300
comments in a matter of hours. His two major points: Computer
companies have shown little interest in helping Linux succeed in the
consumer market; and, that's due in no small part to the bad attitude
of the in-your-face Linux subculture.
Malda's rant recounts his attempt to find a USB device driver on the
Web that would link his new HP scanner with Linux. In the process, he
made a "shocking discovery": People were posting nasty messages aimed
at HP. The messages, he said, were "just plain mean. HP employees are
called bastards and assholes." One especially delightful post: "HP
seems to be smeeling &##91;sic ] Gates' asshole rather than coming
out of it. Beware, HP, Linux is going strong and unless you recognize
that and properly support your hardware under Linux, your are going to
Piss in your pants one day." This is not an isolated case. "I see it
on Slashdot all the time," Malda wrote.
Most open source veterans take rabid flaming in stride. But that's not
necessarily the case among the legions of open source volunteers
showing up fresh from companies like IBM, HP, SGI, Motorola, and
Compaq - not to mention their bosses, many of whom reserve judgment on
the very idea of open source software. Which is why Alan Cox -
effectively the COO for the Linux kernel development project and the
man Torvalds refers to as his alter ego - wants the business community
to know that the kernel team is a small and separate group with little
if any real connection to the ideologues and the flamers. "There is
actually very little overlap between the people doing software
development and ... the Slashdot people, the people saying, 'You suck,
you should give us a free driver,'" says Cox. "We take these vendors
as responsible business people."
There couldn't be a more crucial time for Linux developers to
cultivate their ties to business. The Linux industry is in trouble.
Desktop software maker Eazel went bust. Desktop software maker Corel,
a major Linux booster, has significantly cut back spending on Linux
products in favor of the Microsoft and Mac platforms, and is now
practically giving away software for Linux desktop. Red Hat stopped
offering revenue and profit forecasts, and VA Linux, which exited the
hardware business after determining that selling at negative gross
margins was no way to run a company, is still bleeding cash. "The
track record of the pure-play Linux vendors has been so poor," says
George Weiss of the Gartner consulting group. "The investors have
essentially walked away and said, 'We don't believe in you.'"
To survive, these companies need to make inroads into corporate IT,
where Linux is gaining ground. IDC says 20 percent of companies
responding to a 2000 study were using Linux to support a database; 10
percent were using Linux for a major app, such as CRM - double the
figures from 1999.
Why is it being taken seriously in enterprise computing? Linux shares
essential DNA with Unix. Their modular designs make the functions for
both systems relatively easy to modify - changes need be made only to
discrete parts of the OS. But in the past 30 years, Unix has split
into different flavors, most of them closed and proprietary. Sun, IBM,
and HP all have their own version of Unix, each at least partially
incompatible with the others. Linux, meanwhile, is close enough to
Unix that any Unix programmer should be able to make the conversion
without much trouble. The resemblance makes it relatively painless for
software makers to port their applications from Unix to Linux, if they
see enough demand to make it worth their while. And because Linux
source code is naked for the world to see, users have far more
flexibility in adapting it to their own needs.
Cost also works in Linux's favor. Once the quality demands are met,
companies worry about how much their computer systems cost. Linux can
be downloaded free. It can be purchased from distributors for cheap.
Sun, IBM, and HP have made their versions of Unix proprietary, with
applications that run on only one system. Linux is effectively a
commodity and can be made to work on any hardware system. This loosens
the stranglehold that proprietary vendors have on their customers.
With a choice of hardware, enterprise customers gain more control, and
save money.
In other words, in the enterprise, Linux has a real shot.
That's not to say any of this will be easy. Serious technical issues
must be resolved, the biggest of which is scaling. Big iron vendors
like Sun sell systems that scale to 64 processors per machine. Simply
put, more processors means more work at higher speeds. But writing OS
software to accommodate scaling is tough, and Linux has struggled to
scale from four processors to eight. The quicker Linux can move up the
ladder, the better its chances.
There are social challenges, too. For starters, convincing top
management of Linux's worth. Too many CEOs and CIOs still consider
Linux a hacker toy. It's common knowledge in IT circles that open
source software like Linux and Apache is being run on the sly at many
well-known companies. The IT managers keep it hidden, knowing that
their bosses aren't ready to offer their blessing. Swaying the top
tier is crucial for Linux to succeed.
There are some would-be white knights working on these problems, the
most promising being IBM. The company aims to make good on the service
and support opportunities Linux presents, and, by sheer size and
industry clout alone, it's in the best position to do so. IBM's huge
user base justifies its attempts to sell high-margin hardware,
software, and services on top of Linux. And given that the company has
already devoted $1 billion to Linux development and marketing this
year - including the ubiquitous Peace, Love, & Linux ad campaign
directed at the enterprise - it's easy to see how Big Blue could
emerge as the unlikely hero of Linux's commercial success. Consider
Sun's Java: It didn't take off in enterprise computing until IBM
embraced it and legitimized it as a cross-platform tool.
Gartner's Weiss understands Linux's appeal to IBM. "I'd rather have a
Unix operating system that has worldwide resources with Torvalds doing
the work for me," he says. "Then I don't have this big R&D budget."
IBM's proprietary Unix OS, called AIX, is well behind that of industry
leader Sun Microsystems. But if IBM can use Linux to beat back Sun, it
has a shot at regaining its leadership position. The company's
participation is decidedly nonideological. "We are going to remain a
mixed proprietary/open source software company," says Dan Frye, head
of IBM's 200-member Linux development team. "We will continue to make
billions off proprietary software.... We are not going to be a pure
open source company - ever." And IBM executives have made clear that
their interest in Linux is server-oriented. Although IBM owns Lotus,
there are no plans to develop Linux versions of Notes, SmartSuite, or
any of its other client applications.
It's not clear whether IBM's gamble will pay off. The open source
method has proved itself in the Linux kernel project, which for all
practical purposes is made up of 100 or so core volunteers who have
learned to harmonize their work with the demands of Cox and, of
course, Torvalds - long known as the project's "benevolent dictator."
But it's far from certain whether the entry of big corporations, each
of which faces plenty of its own intracompany battles, can effectively
move Linux into the mainstream.
Already, turmoil is being created within the companies as decisions
are made about what to open-source and what to keep closed. The Power
PC Linux development "tree," for example, recently lost a leader -
Cort Dugan, who, with the help of business partner Victor Yodaiken,
had been running the project for six years. "We found ourselves
intervening in intracompany disputes," says Yodaiken, who with Dugan
runs FSM Labs, which develops a real-time OS called RT Linux, in
Socorro, New Mexico. "Motorola's got the 860 which is not compatible
with the 8260 which is not compatible with the 603 and the 604. And
dealing with IBM on this is like dealing with five or six different
companies. You have to keep track of 50 different ports." The pair
turned over duties to a former Linuxcare developer from Australia who
now works for IBM. "I hope IBM will take the leadership role," says
Yodaiken. "It's kind of in a chaotic state right now."
Frye's IBM team may be gung-ho about open source, and the top brass
all the way up to Lou Gerstner may be all for Peace and Love, but that
doesn't mean everybody in between will necessarily go along. IBM
programmer Dan Streetman recently wrote to colleagues on the Linux
kernel thread about some anti-open source sentiment he encountered at
Big Blue. Streetman was trying to solve a simple problem last summer -
getting an IBM PS/2 keyboard to work with Linux. He fought with
members of his department to open-source the actual driver, but the
driver's author refused, and so Streetman was told to submit what he
considered an "ugly" patch, a hook into Linux that kept the keyboard
code proprietary. And this kind of thing is happening at all the
companies now contributing to Linux - IBM, Motorola, Intel, HP, et al.
None have figured out, in any methodical way, how to decide which code
they can open up and which should remain proprietary - even when it
comes to drivers for simple devices.
Not that any of this is unusual or unexpected. Most internal software
projects are rife with politics and infighting - and open source
schemes are, by their very nature, even more so because they're laid
bare for the world to see. Torvalds, who has dealt with many
headstrong individuals and insurmountable problems over the past 10
years, believes all this will work itself out. "I've gotten used to
people having their own agendas," he says.
Clearly, a lot of work is needed to make Linux enterprise-ready. The
competition in enterprise computing is fierce. Sun will be tough to
squelch. Microsoft is gaining ground. But the field is still open.
Nobody's got a hammerlock. Microsoft is just another player in this
market - and there's no reason Linux can't break through.
But desktop computing? It's time to face reality: Linux is a loser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Mitchell (vortumnus yahoo.com) , a former managing editor at
Wired,most recently was editor in chief of Business 2.0.
________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de