Back
Linux usage has grown fast over the past several years as the operating system moved from perimeter Web servers to workloads much closer to the heart of the business, while gaining a broad following of contributors and commercial users. But the days of these easy advances may be past.
That's the message IDC analyst Al Gillen delivered to about 300 attendees at the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit in Austin, Texas, last week. Linux has made many gains at the expense of legacy Unix systems. However, server virtualization combined with head-to-head competition with revitalized competitors, both Unix and Microsoft Windows Server, will likely slow things down. Meanwhile, other problems plague Linux, including issues with driver development stemming from an unwillingness of some peripheral device manufacturers to reveal where they've deviated from specifications, said Chris Wright, a Linux kernel developer and conference attendee. Moreover, many Linux users fail to report bugs, whether out of laziness or ignorance of the process. Bug reporting is a priority of kernel developers, who depend on the larger community to help detect and correct problems. BILLIONS OF REASONS Nevertheless, Gillen stressed that Linux is still a force to be reckoned with. It's more and more frequently acting as a database server, especially for Oracle, he said, while assuming heavier business application workloads, including ERP, CRM, and financial applications. "By 2011, the logistics and manufacturing applications alone will be a $1.2 billion market on Linux; human capital management will be a $2 billion market," Gillen predicted. He cited figures showing that for every supported copy of Linux running in the enterprise, there's another copy running unsupported, and thus unpaid for. The Linux ecosystem is twice as large as it appears in most revenue data because so many companies have support skills in-house or are willing to rely on advice from forums. Part of the purpose of the summit, now in its second year, is to let business users interact with Linux kernel developers. One IT pro glad to have the opportunity was Ed Reaves, a Nortel technology platform manager from Research Triangle Park, N.C. End users and server admins are happy with Linux's current five-nines uptime, Reaves said, but Nortel and other telecom companies would like to move Linux reliability to six nines, or one outage of about 30 seconds a year. In response, Nortel's Linux developers produced a block of code that restarts Linux in 20 seconds in the event of a glitch; however, that patch doesn't appear to be moving into the kernel, to the dismay of Nortel executives. "How do you get a kernel patch released into the mainline?" Reaves asked, referring to the development process that steers additions to the kernel past reviewers and into a hierarchical code tree maintained by Linus Torvalds. That led to a discussion of the difficulties inherent in the code review process that must happen before a proposed patch makes its way into the kernel. "The limiting resource is not development of code but review of code," said Jonathan Corbet, a kernel developer. The Nortel patch, it turns out, is a sizable block of code requiring reviewers with knowledge of a particular part of the kernel. The first day of the summit ended with energetic debate among mobile device makers who use Linux over who was following standards and how mobile Linux devices should be developed. "There was an amazing amount of contention. I love to see the passion," said Linux user Stefano De Panfilis, laboratory director at Engineering Informatica in Rome. And passion, of course, has long been Linux's trump card. Original link: http://www.informationweek.com/n... See the pattern? It might not be entirely evident from the headlines, but if you read the articles, it will become immediately clear: these positive statements about Linux and negative statements about Windows are courtesy of analysts.
What's going on here? Is it a sign of the apocalypse? Did (as some wags amongst us might suggest) Redmond forget to send in a check? Or is it, as we all have known for what seems like forever, the inevitability of open source and Linux as a force to contend with in IT? I tend to believe in the latter. As many readers know, I have never been one to put much stock in the universal "bought and paid for" mentality that many in the open source community have about analysts and their sponsors. I will certainly concede that it is a problem in certain instances, but no industry is perfect and people do use poor judgment. That said, I don't think that all analysts everywhere are up for sale. Most of the analysts I know tend to be honest and try to do their best reporting what they perceive are the facts. It should be noted that the IDC report about Linux-related spending hitting nearly $50 billion in three years was sponsored by the Linux Foundation, and presented to their Collaboration Summit's audience this week. Based on the information in the articles, it is not known who sponsored the Research and Markets report and the two Gartner reports. You can bet, however, if they were sponsored, it wasn't by Redmond. When analysts deliver negative reports, they hardly ever see the light of day. So, can we take all of this good news at face value? Obviously, I would like to think so, and so would many of you. But, like many analyst reports, it should not be taken as gospel, even if we really like the message that's being delivered. Any analyst report is based on what's known at the present time. It's a sure bet that companies negatively impacted by these reports will try to adjust their strategies, and in six months we might have a whole new set of predictions. Still, like the aviation metaphor I used last week regarding desktop surveys, I think we should all pay attention to the broader trend that's being shown now: that Linux is on a clear path to the future and (in its present form) Windows' path is more treacherous. That's a take-away many of us should appreciate. Original link: http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_man... As the release of Ubuntu 8.04 LTS rapidly approaches, the all important question is beginning to form in everyone's mind. Upgrade, or freshly install.
It's always an interesting discussion to have with fellow Linux users, because there seems to be an almost religious divide between the two camps. Some feel that to really get the full experience of a new version, a clean install is the only way. The other side, however, argues that the Apt package management makes upgrading so simple and complete, that it's silly to reinstall. Let's take a quick look some advantages and disadvantages of both sides: Fresh Install Pros: * You get to see any changes added to the installation routine * It's a great time to change partition schemes if you want to do so * If you have any lingering cruft from system hacks, etc -- they get sterilized * You get that "fresh out of the shower" feeling when you log in Cons: * All settings and preferences are gone (assuming you wiped /home) * All those system hacks might still be needed, and you'll have to redo * It takes a long time * You get less bragging rights about how long you've gone without a reinstall Upgrade Pros: * Very simple. 2 commands and a reboot is all it takes * Any system modifications usually stick * Most preferences in applications upgrade fine * You get to brag that you haven't reinstalled your OS in 10 years Cons: * If things aren't quite working right, upgrading seldom "fixes" things * Some non-standard system modifications no longer work * Occasionally new features aren't installed properly with an update (compiz?) * You don't have an Ubuntu CD to give away to a Windows friend when you're done In reality, personal preference is what determines the ideal scenario for the individual user. I personally like to reinstall the entire OS, including my /home partition. That might seem like overkill, but I really like that "fresh out of the box" feeling. Plus, I really enjoy the installation process, so for me it's just plain fun! If you're an Ubuntu (or Kubuntu, or Xubuntu, etc) user, be sure to stay tuned later this month for the release of Hardy Heron! Original link: http://www.linuxjournal.com/cont... This week found me in Austin, Texas for the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit (which was, incidentally, excellent), and therefore able to spend Wednesday morning in a hearing room at the State Capitol. That morning, the Government Reform Committee of the Texas House of Representatives, chaired by representative William "Bill" Callegari, was scheduled to hear testimony on electronic document issues, and I had been asked to be one of the invited experts to help put them in the picture.
Texas, as you may recall, is one of six states in 2007 that considered whether to take legislative action in connection with open document standards. After hearings on the topic, the decision was to commission further study rather than to act on the bill that had been introduced. More specifically, the Government Reform Committee was directed to: Research, investigate, and make recommendations on how electronic documents can be created, maintained, exchanged, and preserved by the state in a manner that encourages appropriate government control, access, choice, interoperability, and vendor neutrality. The committee shall consider, but not be limited to, public access to information, expected storage life of electronic documents, costs of implementation, and savings. The current hearing had been scheduled in a committee of the House of Representatives, which appears to be taking a more active role at this point in time than the State Senate, although any eventual bill will have to be resolved between both branches of the legislature. Hearings like this (and the other activities that are part of the same overall process) are held every day in state houses around the country, addressing hundreds of issues of all types. But unless you have the time to seek them out (or to watch them on a public cable channel, if available), it's easy to forget that this is an important element of the grist that governments mill in order to eventually produce legislation. For those that might be interested in such matters and wonder what a hearing is like, I'll therefore provide a brief overview of what this particular hearing was about, who presented, and what they said. It will now be up to a new working group, yet to be given an official name, to manage the process of making OXML play nice with ODF. It's out of Microsoft's hands. We can't call it "Office Open XML" anymore, because it no longer belongs to Microsoft Office exclusively. As of yesterday, International Organization for Standardization committee SC 34 passed a resolution that effectively assumes stewardship of Open XML, the document format standard originally produced by Microsoft, and which is now officially under new management. "The passage of ISO/IEC 29500 has instituted a new era of standards activity in SC 34 related to document formats," reads the text of one of 20 resolutions considered by SC 34 this week, and whose passage was formally announced yesterday. "ISO/IEC 29500 does not represent an isolated phenomenon, since SC 34 is also responsible for ISO/IEC 26300 and for interoperability between these and other projects." ISO/IEC 29500 is, of course, Open XML; while ISO/IEC 26300 refers to OpenDocument Format, now the first of two XML-based document formats to receive international standard accreditation. The resolution called for the creation of three working bodies within SC 34, each of the first two being devoted to one of the two document format suites. The third working group will be devoted to "interoperability/harmonization between document format standards." To that end, SC 34 members considered ways in which both OXML (now with one less "O") and ODF can be maneuvered to co-exist with other standards, such as the Open Font Format that received standards accreditation in 2005. OFF includes a system for incorporating and re-rendering both PostScript Type 1 and TrueType fonts in a common fashion, which borrows OpenType's hinting method for rendering fonts more legibly at smaller point sizes. Thus at least one of the predictions of OXML's entry into the annals of international standards is coming true: Microsoft's methodology will indeed start to sway the development and evolution of ODF. Last week's decision by ISO committee JTC 1 was characterized by BetaNews as something of a squeaker, although Microsoft -- citing the three-fourths margin of passage -- took issue with that phrasing. But in a personal blog post yesterday, Alex Brown, a key participant in the process and a convener of JTC 1 meetings, summed up his fellow members' feelings about the DIS 29500 adoption process going forward as nothing short of sheer exhaustion. "Although the margin of votes in its favour was (surprisingly to me) reasonably comfortable, the overall mood of acceptance seems less of a, 'yip yip yahoo!," Brown wrote, "and perhaps more of a, 'well, alright.' Everybody is now watching very carefully." Today, the ISO lists standard 29500 as having obtained stage 40.99 of its history, "Full report circulated: DIS approved for registration as FDIS." That means it can be registered, though it does not mean it has been registered; that's stage 50.00. That approval and publication process may still take several months. A long road still lies ahead for FDIS 29500, even if it's a downhill one. Original link: http://www.betanews.com/article/... "Twice a year I get to release the song & lyrics, and write a little commentary on something the project dealt with other [than] the release. Hope you guys enjoy," said OpenBSD creator Theo de Raadt, including a link to the latest OpenBSD song. The OpenBSD project maintains a six month release cycle, with the upcoming 4.3 release officially scheduled for May 1st, 2008. Each release includes a song relevant to issues faced by the project during the past six months. The song for the upcoming 4.3 release is titled, "Home to Hypocrisy", with scathing references to some recent postings on the OpenBSD -misc mailing list by Free Software Foundation creator Richard Stallman. In his commentary, Theo explained, "we release our software in ways that are maximally free. We remove all restrictions on use and distribution, but leave a requirement to be known as the authors." He continued, describing the recent confrontation on the OpenBSD -misc mailing list:
|
 VersaLogic has announced new RoHS-compliant versions of three of its single-board computers (SBC). The PC-104/Plus-based Cheetah and Lynx, along with the EBX-based Cobra, run Linux, targeting long-life embedded applications in medicine, avionics, or security, according to the company.The European Union's RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) directive took effect on Jul. 1, 2006, and has restricted sales of electronic equipment containing more than agreed-upon levels of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, poly-brominated biphenyls (PBB), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). Compliance involves use of lead-free solder, reformulated plastics, alternative flame retardants, and a wide variety of other changes. VersaLogic said it developed its RoHS-compliant boards after considerable research. In addition, the company says it worked closely with component suppliers to certify the plating of all components, so as to address "tin whisker" concerns in long-term applications. The Cheetah, Lynx, and Cobra, originally introduced in 2005 and 2006, can be recognized in their new variants by their switch from green to red circuit boards, among other details.   Versalogic's Cheetah, in original (left) and RoHS-compliant (right) versions (Click to enlarge) The Cheetah, shown above, is a two-module PC/104-Plus boardset built around a 1.6GHz Pentium M processor. Its separate 3.8 x 3.6 inch processor and I/O boards provide two serial ports, two USB 2.0 ports, Ethernet, IDE, a parallel port, audio, and PS/2 keyboard/mouse support. The board also features support for both analog monitors and LVDS flat-panels. For more details, see our earlier coverage, here.  Versalogic's RoHS-compliant Lynx The Lynx (above) is a PC/104-Plus board featuring a 100MHz or 133MHz AMD Elan SC520 processor and 64MB of soldered-on memory. Featuring an Ethernet interface, hard and floppy drive controllers, a CompactFlash socket, and various serial and parallel ports, the Lynx requires less than 5W total power, according to Versalogic.   Versalogic's Cobra, in original (left) and RoHS-compliant (right) versions (Click to enlarge) The Cobra, above, uses the 8 x 5.75 inch EBX form-factor. It offers 1.0GHZ or 1.6GHZ Pentium M processors, or a 1.0GHZ ULV Celeron CPU, along with an 855GME Northbridge. Two SODIMM slots support up to 2GB of RAM, while I/O includes dual gigabit Ethernet ports, four USB ports, and two serial ports. For more details, see our earlier coverage, here. Further information The RoHS-ompliant Cheetah is available in either standard- (0 to 60 deg. C) or extended-temperature (-40 to 85 deg. C) versions. Versalogic said it will begin shipping in May, but did not provide pricing information. The RoHS-compliant Lynx is offered in both 100MHz standard-temperature and 133Mz extended-temperature versions. It is available now, priced around $400 in OEM quantities. The RoHS-compliant Cobra is available in a 1.0GHz extended-temperature version and a 1.8GHz standard-temperature version. It is available now for approximately $1,500 in OEM quantities. All three SBCs support embedded operating systems that include Linux, Windows CE, Windows XP Embedded, Windows XP, VxWorks, QNX, and DOS. Original link: http://www.linuxdevices.com/news...  Network equipment provider (NEP) Performance Technologies (PT) announced the first of a line of Linux-based MicroTCA-based network appliances. The 1U MTC5070's chassis integrates commodity PC power supplies and shelf management functions, leaving six AMC slots free for user configuration.(Click for larger view of the PT MTC5070)
  Detail views of the MTC5070 The system provides a MicroTCA platform management subsystem that combines carrier and shelf management duties (see diagram below). The carrier manager is said to monitor and control the AMC boards, as well as Ethernet, PCI-Express, telco clock, and power and cooling subsystems. The shelf manager interfaces to external management systems using the Remote Management Control Protocol (RMCP) via an out-of-band 10/100 Ethernet port located on the rear of the chassis. In addition, a Command Line Interface (CLI) is accessible from a serial console port for local servicing.  Carrier- and shelf-management architecture The MTC5070 is said to provide the following key features:
PT is a NEP (network equipment provider) that sells blades, AdvancedMC (AMC) modules, chassis management systems, and other networking equipment. The company is unique among NEPs in that it maintains its own Carrier Grade Linux distribution, called NexusWare, which is provided on the MTC5070. Like competitors such as Kontron and Emerson Network Power, PT is now investing in the MicroTCA format, a smaller, lower-cost version of AdvancedTCA. Both TCA specs are maintained by PICMG (PCI Industrial Computer Manufacturer's Group), and aim to help NEPs leverage off-the-shelf hardware and create interoperable systems. Availability The MTC5070 is available now for under $2,000 for volume purchases, says Performance Technologies. The company will demonstrate the product at the Embedded Systems Conference Silicon Valley next week at the McEnery Convention Center in San Jose (booth 1510). More information on the product may be found here. Original link: http://www.linuxdevices.com/news... “The question is not why use open source, but how to best use open source,” wrote Matt Asay earlier this week. It was a throwaway point but one that I think deserves more attention.
It occurred to me that “how” rather than “why” is the most significant question that open source vendors and projects should be answering right now as they try to encourage greater adoption of open source software. There can’t be a CIO or IT director left on the planet that hasn’t either asked or been told why they should deploy open source software. They are either inclined towards believing the claims of theoretical benefits or they’re not. How many have asked or been told how they can take advantage of open source software? Certainly those that are convinced or intrigued by the potential benefits will have gone on to explore how to go about reaping the rewards, but what about the waverers? Too often open source supporters just keep repeating the why mantra, as if the skeptics will eventually buckle under the pressure and offer themselves up for conversion. Would a focus on how to make the best use of open source software not make a more compelling case? Besides, discussion about why you should deploy open source software naturally prompts discussion about why not you should not. How avoids unnecessary focus on the alternatives. As I was thinking about this issue I came across an article in Baseline that discusses some of the obstacles facing IT management as they consider how to deploy open source. It provides a pretty good checklist of the questions open source vendors should be answering: # How to deal with licensing issues? This is perhaps the how question that open source has gone the furthest towards answering, thanks in part to the SCO Group’s bungled legal claims. Black Duck and Palamida rose to the challenge, while individual vendors and vendors took on board and responded to issues related to licensing confusion. HP is now getting in on the act with fossbazaar. # How to contribute to open source projects? Jim Whitehurst of Red Hat called the FOSS vendors out on this one in his keynote at OSBC, noting that: “We should be doing a better job advising companies how they can join open source projects.” This raised the question not just of how, practically, users can contribute back, but also how they will benefit from doing so. “We’re a newspaper company, not a technology company,” Derek Gottfrid, senior software architect at NYTimes.com, told Baseline. “We weren’t nervous about our open-source database layer being used by the Washington Post for a competitive advantage.” This sort of attitude can only come from a greater understanding of the benefits of open source than a focus on price and licensing flexibility. # How to deal with open source vendors? The relationship between and open source software vendor and a traditionally licensed software vendor and their customers is intrinsically different. It comes with a lot less direct sales and a lot less hand-holding. Ensuring that potential customers understand how the relationship works is essential to setting their expectations at the right level. It also ties in to the next question: # How do you get good support? Access to top quality support remains the biggest barrier to open source adoption despite significant investment by the open source vendors. The answer, other than getting acquired by Sun, has got to be getting existing customers to stand up and demonstrate their satisfaction. This has proved problematic in the past but should prove easier as more customers understand where their true competitive advantage lies (see above). # How to deploy and use the product? Providing access to source code is not an excuse for poor or non-existent documentation. Again, this is one of the how questions that open source vendors have worked hard to answer in recent years. # How to find and hire good staff? Another problem that is diminishing thanks to the growing popularity of open source. As Jon Williams, (former) CTO at Kaplan Test states: “Open source is an absolutely incredible tool for motivating and retaining IT talent.” It is nevertheless something that vendors can and are continuing to help with. That’s an abridged list, but it’s a good starting point. How else can open source vendors help potential customers gaining a greater understanding of open source? Original link: http://blogs.the451group.com/ope... It's about time that United States elite academic institutions finally got around to not only using open-source software, but also teaching it. In the April 2008 edition of Harvard Business Review, Harvard gives its MBA students a taste of the decision facing every company that leverages technology as part of its business (namely, everyone):
Should I embrace or fight open source? In the case study, "Open Source: Salvation or Suicide," HBR tags along with Evan and Martina ("Marty") Dirweg as Evan tries to persuade Marty that her successful business will become even more so with open source, rather than as a proprietary software/hardware vendor. Marty's dilemma is palpable, as open-source competitors (who grew up on her company's technology but have now opened it up to the world) start to eat her lunch: ...[Marty] challenged [Evan] to come out with it: What could be wrong with the company's so-far highly successful strategy of jealously guarding its intellectual property? Why should she open the software in Amp Up, as he had so casually suggested on the phone? Why should she invite the open-source community into the company vault, so to speak, and allow it to play with the crown jewels? on open-source software.... "Marty, these guys aren't going away. The point is, it's no longer just individuals hacking into your hardware and software or making game controllers of their own or writing code for themselves and their friends. It's companies now, too. Companies with real money behind them. These people are passionate about the user community that you created four years ago by bringing Amp Up into the world. And they're just as passionate about the idea that the user and developer communities should be based on open source, with developers being able to freely swap and write software to fashion applications as they see fit." (2) As with all Harvard case studies, there is no resolution to the dilemma - just the open question (pun intended): To open source or not to open source? Not open sourcing, as the case study implies, is a losing game. There is simply too much interest in open communities created to develop software in the image of those communities, and not in any single vendor's image. But the case study also implies that how to make a business in open source is not necessarily easy. The case study suggests support as a winning strategy, but those of us who have been down that road will tell you that while part of an overall open-source revenue story, it can't be the only chapter. The reality is that there are some very compelling ways to make money in open source, including Red Hat's, IBM's, Zimbra's, etc. But we'll let the Harvard MBAs spend two years noodling on what many of us get to live. Original link: http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1... |
|||||||||||
Linux Is No Longer The Cool New Kid On The...
LinuxDaily.net founded by a Linux enthusiast
Copyright © 2008 Linux Daily, All Rights Reserved
ICP Register Number：Jing ICP xxxxxxxx
