While the Linux Foundation’s executive director Jim Zemlin’s opening keynote address at LinuxCon 2016 was filled with visions of the past, present and future of Linux and open source, the focus was on the enterprise and making money.
Op-ed
“Linux. We made it. Twenty-five years.”
With these words Jim Zemlin, the executive director of the Linux Foundation, opened up LinuxCon North America, this year being held on the northwest shore of Lake Ontario in Toronto. As expected, the opening keynote address was a 25 minute pep rally that was long on the enterprise and short on the desktop or any other area where Linux is important but not lining anyone’s pockets with cash.
“As all of you may know, Thursday, August 25 is the 25th anniversary of Linux,” he said during the opening portion of the address. “It’s the day when Linus Torvalds, 25 years ago, sent out his note introducing this funny little operating system that wouldn’t amount to much of anything.”
“Linux at 25 is a big thing,” he added. “Most things in life just don’t last as long and are as enduring as Linux. And Linux has gone so far beyond what anyone who has participated in this community could have ever expected. Linux today really is…the most successful software project in history.”
After this opening, he pointed to the enormity of the Linux project by citing numbers, like its 53,000 source files and 21 million lines of code, and the fact that each day 10,800 lines of code are added to Linux, 5,300 lines of code removed and 1,800 lines of code modified.
“This pace is only accelerating,” he said. “Linux now changes seven [or] eight times an hour. There is no single software project by any single person or organization that rivals the breadth, pace, depth and adoption of Linux. What an incredible run.”
As with any good pep rally, Zemlin gave the fans plenty of reason to be happy to support the home team by pointing to Linux’s wins. Trouble is, all of those wins had to do with making “billions of dollars” — a phrase he used often — for the enterprise.
“Linux has become the world’s most widely adopted software,” he said and rattled off a list of uses that included high performance computing, weather forecasting, climate modeling, economic modeling, mobile devices and embedded systems. “It runs the global economy. Quite literally, it runs the vast majority of stock exchanges. It runs the vast majority of the Internet and powers things like Google, Facebook, Amazon and much, much more.”
Nowhere in his long list of Linux accomplishments was there mention of the Linux desktop. While not a money maker and certainly not a dominant desktop operating system, the modern Linux desktop, with it’s many desktop environments and 300 plus distros, is an accomplishment at least worth mentioning as an asset, if for no other reason than to recognize the difficult and sometimes thankless work of those who develop distros and their components. Instead, desktop Linux was mentioned exactly once, about five minutes into the 25 minute presentation, and then as an attempt at humor.
“What is it that Linux has really taught the world, beyond the fact that open source is a better, faster, cheaper way to produce software?” he asked. “Has Linux proven that having no technology roadmap actually works? Maybe Linux proved that because of Linux, Git was created by Linus Torvalds as well, and it proved that Git is just an incredibly great tool for building software. Does it prove that Linus Torvalds is a great leader [or] the kernel community is perfect in nearly everything they do? … Does it prove that developers are the new kind of king makers in technology? Does it prove that Linus was right, microkernels do suck after all? Maybe it proves that this year actually will be the year of the Linux desktop.”
Although it was disheartening to see the desktop basically ignored, Zemlin’s address was often inspiring if not inclusive. An example would be his answer to the questions posed above: “When I think about what it all boils down to, the one important thought that Linux has proven is that you can better yourself while bettering others at the same time. I think if you really boil it down to one thing, this is what matters. This is what in books and in television shows and when anyone studies the sharing economy — you can call it conscious capitalism or the purpose economy or whatever you want to call it — it’s simply sharing, and it works.”
The Linux desktop wasn’t the only aspect of Linux and open source that was missing from Zemlin’s speech. The second half focused on going forward, or “the next 25 years” as he put it, and while his vision is full of kumbaya ideas of using the power of sharing to improve technology and solve technical issues within technical industries, there was nothing in his vision that dealt with the ways that Linux might have a positive effect on the lives of ordinary people not employed in the technology realm.
There was no mention of the great help Linux is, and will continue to be, to financially strapped public libraries, or of the efforts to use Linux to put computers in the hands of financially disadvantaged school children or of the movement in some cities, both in the U.S. and across the globe, to model governments on the openness of open source. Instead, the underlying focus was on creating jobs and generating wealth.
Don’t get me wrong. I found no fault in the things Mr. Zemlin had to say. Creating jobs is a good thing, and in this materialistic world in which we live, it’s also good that major tech corporations are learning a thing or two about sharing — a concept that might do us all some good down the road if it catches on. But while I found no fault in the things he said, I was both disturbed and saddened by the things he didn’t say. It would be nice if he would step back and look at a bigger picture that goes beyond writing better code and filling coffers.
“Together, we are creating something that will be unparalleled in history,” he concluded “We will have created this incredible shared asset that generations will benefit from for years to come.”
Christine Hall has been a journalist since 1971. In 2001, she began writing a weekly consumer computer column and started covering Linux and FOSS in 2002 after making the switch to GNU/Linux. Follow her on Twitter: @BrideOfLinux
The overwhelming number of the Linux foundation’s members are large corporate Enterprises, and sell to large corporate Enterprises, they are not interested in the Linux Desktop.
Strange.
One of the most interesting things I found on the Web are the Linux Desktops.
It is just the way I like to use Linux as well on my Desktop…
It’s all about the money for them now, no one gives a rat’s ass about users or their dekstops.
tracyanne you have the wrong idea.
Why are Large corporate enterprises not interested in the Linux Desktop.
Security is number 1.
Number 2 is a major one as someone who has worked at ATO I would think you would know.
http://www.sbr.gov.au/software-developers
This is not new for the ATO to provide software developers with standards to conform to be listed on the ATO lists as software for enterprises to use. This is not just an Australian problem. There is a lot of open source software once you pick up government standard requirements around the world in that area they are not conforming.
Enterprises are all about money and being government standard conforming so they don’t get into very expensive trouble.
The reality no point selling something that you cannot sell.
Sorry to say that if Linux Desktop was a car it would be a lemon because it head lights and other things would be at the wrong positions to pass government regulations about being a car and worse particular safety features are missing and currently only demo in the prototype of the next version.
For the Linux Desktop to move forwards we have to accept were its major-ally defective and attempt to get those addressed.
A major defect is not that X brand bit of software is missing but there is no bit of software that matches a particular government standards.
For some time now, Jim Zemlin has revealed that his only interests and intentions were to advance Linux and Open Source to the benefit of large corporate proprietary interests “only”, and more recently to assist in any way for Microsoft to use and benefit from “true” Free/Open Source (FOSS), not the company’s fake FOSS. The most telling of his attitude and intentions was when, about 2 yrs ago, he insisted that the FOSS Community “respect” and more subtly admire Microsoft, even more-so than projects and leaders in FOSS community. That was the revelation.
Therefore Desktop Linux has no place in that scenario..
@W. Anderson
August 23, 2016 at 8:29 pm
[[[Therefore Desktop Linux has no place in that scenario..]]]
You are correct. The Linux foundation has no interest in taking Desktop Linux mainstream in an shape or form. Assuming the issues that oiaohm insists exist, the Linux Foundation has no interest in fixing them, or if they aren’t actually Desktop issues (they certainly are if you run X on a server), in ensuring that Enterprise and Governments re evaluate Desktop Linux.
@W. Anderson
August 23, 2016 at 8:29 pm
The other thing, is that the Linux Foundation has no interest in non enterprise uses for Linux (or any other operating system for that matter) ie; general public computer users.
tracyanne
> the Linux Foundation has no interest in fixing them
This bit of yours is wrong. You find Linux Foundation providing support to development of Wayland, Mesa and Flatpak and many other desktop parts. Ok mostly using Linux embedded area to achieve it.
Linux Foundation has to take the path that will bring in the most developers.
The issue here is general public computer users is the smallest population of developers and the largest population of users. So when you have cases like X11 that has to be replaced spending money on going after general public computers users will not provide the developers required to fix the faults.
W. Anderson get it wrong Jim Zemlin is interested in where the developers are. The number of problem Linux Desktop has to fix long requiring lots of developer time we are starting to get to the end of key problems now.
Wayland and flatpak would get us to a location were we could target general consumer.
Enterprise and Governments to re-evaluate Desktop Linux is very much like trying to open a old court case you require new evidence on the table. The replacement of X11 with wayland would be one of the cases to open up new debate over it. Of course to reopen the debate we are not going to get there without developers.
There is a old saying walk before you run. Linux Desktop currently cannot walk safely on it merits. Fix up the core issues then we can attempt to run. Other wise its just throwing good money after bad. Hopefully over the next 12 months we will see distributions migrating to Wayland.
Linux Desktop marketing is less than 1 percent of the problem with the Linux Desktop. The other 99 percent is development issues. Not being to require standards, Project not running proper on going QA, Depending on parts that were end of life decades ago.
https://www.coreinfrastructure.org/
The thing you have to remember the Linux foundation wasted a lot of money attempt to push the Linux Desktop without getting the basics right.
These days Linux foundations core goals are to get projects getting the basic of development right so users can depend that programs updates mostly work perfectly. So the Linux foundation has a lot more to worry about that the Linux Desktop at the moment.
The stuff Core Infrastructure is fixing up does directly relate to end up long term with a viable Linux desktop.
You know its funny how Linus back stabbed the Amiga community.Not even admitting he even started on a c64 let alone working on a A3000 in 1987-1988 .This is the year that Linux came out and Amiga was the system it came out first in. .ok it was true unix ,and why Linux had to come out under again under the rewrite as ATT sued.Then some of you guys say 1992 for x86. Why ..in linus on words;” pcs didn’t have the power till 91/92.” Its funny his own Parents said so in their language that he used an c64 to start programming, and then an Amiga 3000 to make Linux or I think it was called minx as was called back in the day. As they where talking The camera paned over ,and you could see his c64 and then his amiga 3000 . If the video isn’t edited or even still on you tube. You should still hear all of it.
@W. Anderson
August 23, 2016 at 8:29 pm
In fact the only reason the Linux foundation is interested in ‘core infrastructure” such as Flatpack, is to ensure that servers are better served by software, the Enterprises that support the Linux Foundation, create. As far as They are concerned, the desktop is dead. Linus Torvolds asides about the desktop not withstanding.
Given the only thing Linus is actually concerned about, so long as he has a desktop that makes his job easier, he doesn’t really care a rats arse about where the desktop goes in a consumer sense.
He’s certainly not prepared to put any effort behind Desktop Linux, other than to mouth off from time to time when the GNOME project screws with his work flow.
tracyanne Flatpak is not targeted at servers at all but in fact targeted at desktop software. Particularly secure third party provided desktop software. Docker is targeted at server software.
Flatpak container tech directly targeted at desktop applications so that rogue application you download from where ever cannot nuke all your files as what happens under Windows. It also require X11 to die.
So Linux foundation support around Flatpak brings interesting problems. If they were not interest in Desktop Linux there would be no reason to put any support behind Flatpak.
tracyanne your arguments are not aligning with Linux Foundations actions.
Linux Foundations actions suggest they are fully focusing on the basics for a viable Linux Desktop and not putting any marketing investment into it at this time.
I would say that the Linux Foundation classes the existing Linux Desktops dead in the water but they have not give up hope completely yet so will support projects to address the issues.
Basically we are to the point were ignoring the design faults is not going to work any more.
20 years ago we all “just knew” that unless Microsoft’s stranglehold on the desktop was broken, Microsoft would eventually leverage it and take over all of computing. Guess what, kids: we were all wrong. Here we are, decades later, desktop Linux is still a minority player, but Linux has utterly *dominated* every other area of computing. Linux is the server operating system of choice for enterprises, service providers, and infrastructure. “The cloud” pretty much runs exclusively on Linux. Linux is on 70+ percent of mobile devices. Nobody runs Microsoft’s server operating system except to run Microsoft’s own server applications.
So just relax. We won, we did it, we changed the world. Sure, I would have liked to have seen the traditional desktop Linux go mainstream too, but the fact that it hasn’t isn’t a big deal. The desktop is rapidly becoming irrelevant anyway.
Sometimes you’ve got to take a few steps back and re-assess the situation in front of you. Microsoft is no longer an existential threat to everything other than itself. That mantle is now held by Facebook (which ironically runs on Linux).
IGnatius T Foobar the tradition desktop Linux might never make it but the new generation coming wayland and flatpak using is a different mix so who knows.
Also if you look at over all web market shares the Linux Desktops detected are holding their own while compared to android windows is moving backwards. The fact that a technically broken disaster that is the current Linux Desktop can hold market share in it self shows there is interest still out there.
To win Linux does have to put up something properly secure that people can trust and not have documented holes punched straight in it as current X11 based Linux desktops suffer from.
To be correct I think the Linux Foundation with the core infrastructure project have taken the time to step back and re-assess the situation and now seem to be taking a fairly solid just not fast plan forwards.
From the Official Wayland site FAQ
What is wrong with X?
The problem with X is that… it’s X. When you’re an X server there’s a tremendous amount of functionality that you must support to claim to speak the X protocol, yet nobody will ever use this. For example, core fonts; this is the original font model that was how your got text on the screen for the many first years of X11. This includes code tables, glyph rasterization and caching, XLFDs (seriously, XLFDs!). Also, the entire core rendering API that lets you draw stippled lines, polygons, wide arcs and many more state-of-the-1980s style graphics primitives. For many things we’ve been able to keep the X.org server modern by adding extensions such as XRandR, XRender and COMPOSITE and to some extent phase out less useful extensions. But we can’t ever get rid of the core rendering API and much other complexity that is rarely used in a modern desktop. With Wayland we can move the X server and all its legacy technology to an optional code path.
Not a single mention of Security issues, as the reason for developing Wayland. In fact Wayland was never started due to X security issues but infact due to the amount of legacy code.
Both Wayland and Canonicals take on a lighter graphics server are to serve small, and embedded devices, any advantage for the Linux desk top is incidental.
The Linux Foundations support for Wayland is to ensure all those Enterprise supported embedded devices have good graphics support. They don’t care about the desktop
Actually, tracyanne, under X the sandboxed isolation security of Flatpaks can be compromised. It’s only after X is completely replaced by Wayland that flatpaks will be able to deliver as designed in a security sense.
http://www.mupuf.org/blog/2014/02/19/wayland-compositors-why-and-how-to-handle/
tracyanne Above is a write up showing how big the difference is between Wayland and X11 when it comes to security. Fairly much every way you could design something security wrong X11 protocol has it.
Most of the security fixes in Wayland design fix a stack of X11 miss behaviors as well. Big thing here most of the X11 stuff design in the 1980 there was absolutely no consideration to security at all. So the legacy code of X11 is a super big security nightmare.
https://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2015/11/looking-at-the-security-of-plasmawayland/
tracyanne you would not call work on KDE plasma as targeted at embedded devices that much.
Wayland protocol has been design clean from the ground up. Result is attackers will have to go after the wayland compositors where with X11 they can just request to see input and output of any other application by normal protocol operations. There is no privacy in the X11 desktop. Those dot’s over password boxs on X11 are almost 100 percent pointless.
Making a clean replacement to X11 with wayland yes is lighter, yes is less buggy and yes is secure. Wayland started as Kristian Høgsberg attempting to fix why graphics would not render to screen correctly under X11 all the time. Reasons turn out to be super diverse some being security because poor security means that different applications running on a X11 server can mess with each other settings the result is one miss behaving X11 application can completely ruin your day.
The story of work required to make Linux Desktop properly secure is not over with the X11 removed as default graphical but its a down right good start.
tracyanne also remember term “attack surface area” so X11 server carting around a stack of very rarely used parts not only wastes memory but increases attack surface area.
Kristian Høgsberg who started Wayland works with intel and started to fix the Linux Desktop disasters nothing todo with embedded usage. Also to be horible X11 has been used in embedded devices before wayland existed.
Wayland provides better graphical output in many ways than X11 ever could.
Its impossible to build a secure desktop if you are depending on X11. Wayland its possible may not be 100 percent easy but at least its possible.
Canonical is prototyping phone docking to have a full size keyboard and screen. Even small devices will be wanting to put up full size keyboard and screen and have Linux Desktop functionality. So the embedded developers are not 100 percent split away from the Linux Desktop world.
I guess I have no choice then, I’ll have to go back to Windows, because unfortunately I really do care about security on my computer, and that was the major reason I moved to Linux in the first place – I was told that it’s very very secure.
I guess I’ll also have to appologise to all those people I helped move to Linux. It’s really unacceptable that such a huge security hole exists. But there’s really nothing I can do about it except go back to Windows.
haha…go to Windows for security. Good one tracyanne.
That’s like diving into a wood-chipper to avoid a mosquito.
@oiaohm – not at all sure your critique of ‘desktop Linux’ holds much water, except in particular situations. Large corporates and government agencies around the world seem to find all the functionality and security they need running Linux desktops. I think you are overstating your case, and equally ignoring the same issues that pertain within the Windows/OS X systems. All OSes, and their ecosystems, present challenges re security and standards, none of them are insurmountable given the will and the need.
Today the problem with Linux on the Desktop is largely one of inertia, culture, and fear of change; all perfectly understandable given human nature.
There is a good argument to be made for saying that the last thing Linux needs is to become dominant on the Desktop. It’s strength is in it’s fragmentation/adaptability. It is a ‘Swiss Army Knife’ that sets people free to mould general purpose computing to their needs, regardless of money or ownership. Long may it remain that way.
Let’s be clear about something … I’m not giving up on desktop Linux, not by any means. All other things being equal, I still prefer it. And we’d be a lot further along if Miguel de Icaza, who has been on the Microsoft payroll for decades, had not successfully implemented Microsoft’s plan to deliberately fragment the Linux desktop. I hope he dies in a car fire.
But the point is that we no longer need the desktop to call Linux a smashing long-term success, which it absolutely is, everywhere except the desktop. The fact that it doesn’t (yet?) dominate there, is no longer a threat to its existence.
By the way … I don’t like Mac OS. It still feels like a child’s toy rather than a real operating system. Even the new Ubuntu subsystem that can now run inside Windows 10 is a better unix than Mac OS.
Keep in mind: The vulnerabilities in X11 which is causing so much gnashing of teeth are only of note if running untrusted applications.
The big push for sandboxing/isolation is to enable app-store like distribution of untrusted code to everyone’s computer. It’s no coincidence that the driving forces behind these changes are large corporations (Red Hat, Canonical). They’re pushing for Android/iOS,Windows style app distribution.
Sandboxing by it’s very nature limits what you can do with an application. Things like scripting, automation, and complex interactions between applications are among the first casualties. It also divides the world into two classes of applications (and developers). Those who develop for the sandbox model and those who develop for the actual underlying platform.
While the restrictions of sandboxing can sometimes be useful, an environment that doesn’t allow bypassing that model is too restrictive to allow much in the way of real innovation.
Mike,
Your distinction that you raise here is one of the exact reasons why all of oiaohm’s protestations and repeated missing of the point here and in the other really long comment section is almost entirely bullshit.
DSS and other government and defense organizations have no such blanket ban as he imagines because of X11’s lack of security, and your reason above is one of the reasons why.
I have no idea why he continues to press on this button.
Timon19,
Yeah, I figured out some time ago that oiaohm either really doesn’t understand the issues, or has a vested interest in promoting his view of them. My speculation would be on the latter. He sounds a lot like the systemd/gnome “It’s for your own good” crowd. The Microsoft worship falls in line with that as well.
To substantiate Mr. Anderson’s point above, The Linux Foundation not only ignores Linux on the Desktop, they do their best to forget that it exists. In 2008, I was awe-struck when I was invited to the second annual Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit, as it is by invitation only. I chose Mr. Tom King to accompany me to this who’s-who-in-Linux event.
During one of the schmoozing sessions in the meet and greet hall, Tom and I had a chance to talk with Mr. Zemlin about the lack of Desktop Linux in the discussions and panels. He stated so there was no ambiguity, that Desktop Linux was a byproduct of the Linux Enterprise and they had no interest in promoting or even acknowledging Linux on the Desktop. Why? Because it didn’t make them any money.
That was the last year I sent my annual donation check to The Linux Foundation. The FSF now gets that money and it’s money well-spent, or so says they.
Agreed Ken,
I think the EFF is important to support. The FSF also.
I could* care less about supporting the Linux Foundation.
* https://xkcd.com/1576/
@Mike
August 26, 2016 at 9:21 am
haha…go to Windows for security. ]]]]
Mike I clearly have no choice. as oiaohm has pointed out many times in this thread and others. Enterprise and Governments don’t use Linux Desktops, and prefer Windows Desktops because Linux desktops are insecure… Windows is obviously way more secure. I don’t have the resources to fix Linux on my computers, and while Enterprises and Governments do, they can’t be bothered, and as Mr Starks has pointed out the Linux Foundation has no interest in promoting or even acknowledging Linux on the Desktop.
I really have no choice at all.
Ok. So I’ll put forth my two cents and be done with the matter as a whole. For the longest while, as a matter of fact since I first started using Linux back in ’03 / ’04, I’ve heard the phrase “Year Of The Linux Desktop” (YOTLD for short!) And for the life of me, I can’t understand why it would matter that much! I started using Linux when Windows died on me at a crucial time in my life. Ever since making the switch to Linux I’ve found my entire “computing life” has been changed! No longer do I worry about licenses expiring, no more do I scour the web for the “cheapest yet most effective anti-virus software, or worry about some vulnerability that doesn’t get patched until the next “Service Pack” or as they’re called now “Cumulative Updates”. Whether or not the people living on the next block use Linux is not something I’ll lose sleep over. If they refuse to see that Linux is the better choice from “M&M” (Microsoft and Mac) then its to THEIR misfortune, not MINE. This is not to say I wouldn’t inform them, or show them what I could about Linux and how it works, and WHY its better. But to walk around seeking this YOTLD just to be able to say “we made it” isn’t logical. Because in the long run? and I recall someone else in this discussion said it already, “We Have Already Made It”! Linux lives on more computers, tablets, watches, POS kiosks, gas station pumps, observatory machines, CNC devices, metal-working auto-welders, and even NASA devices than ANY OTHER operating system ANYWHERE on EARTH!…(just calculating the amount of people who use “Android Powered” phones should give you a rough idea of exactly just how far Linux has come!) So WHAT if “The Joneses” don’t use Linux on their home PC? who cares? do YOU use it at home? Does it do what YOU want it to do WHEN you want it done and in the WAY that you want it done? Then that’s ALL that matters! Desktop Linux shouldn’t be something corporations and enterprises concern themselves with…but its something that THOSE WHO USE DESKTOP COMPUTERS AT HOME OR IN THEIR OFFICES should DEFINITELY concern themselves with. If you own a business, or have a hobby you love or need to keep track of your finances at home, or use a PC for creating something that you sell, and if you’re really concerned with the Linux Desktop then you should USE Linux at home and in regards to your business. No corporation or enterprise will be able to build a distro that matches EVERY PERSONS DEFINITION of what a desktop Linux distro should look like. That’s the thinking that clings to Microsoft and their Windfows OS like a sticky piece of gum. Instead use the desktop OS that suits you and use it for everything you need done. As for those who complain there’s no applications that can “match” proprietary offerings I only offer this: what makes the proprietary version the “default”?….the measuring stick for all others? could it be that the only reason why is because it’s what you “learned first”?….like a language, people who learn Italian from birth?…will not say English is easy, but someone who was born in the US or England will find English so easy that they will be confused as to why someone from Italy can’t pick up on it easily. I learned GIMP a while back….have never used PhotoShop, and to me?….GIMP is easy to use, and does what I need it to do, when I’m placed in front of Photosshop its a bit of a struggle for me. Needless to say, there ARE alternative programs to some of the most widely used and recognized software out there.
tracyanne,
The guy’s full of shit.
Mike
>>Sandboxing by it’s very nature limits what you can do with an application. Things like scripting, automation, and complex interactions between applications are among the first casualties.
In fact with X11 current defects complex interactions between applications is not safe either. So properly working complex iterations between graphical applications we don’t have on X11 at the moment. Like in X11 there is no clear link between window and system process this makes is really simple attempting to run automation on X11 to send messages to the wrong application. Yes there is a reason why dbus and other systems are used for application to application messaging. Sorry your list of first casualties we already have some of them due to X11 defective design.
tracyanne the issue is Linux Desktop was oversold as secure. When reality it has not been.
Please note ignoring the security side of Linux has been happening for way too long. Core Infrastructure Initiative in 2014 is when even in server space on Linux on lot of key security things started taking them serous-ally. Before the Core Infrastructure Initiative everything has been near enough be good enough.
When the proper changes happen like wayland coming one day we will be able to sell Linux desktop as secure solution.
@Adair
>Today the problem with Linux on the Desktop is largely one of inertia, culture, and fear of change; all perfectly understandable given human nature.
Key words “fear of changes” and the key word is fear. If person fears security issues and you have a solution that you can document correctly as secure you will have a competition of fear vs fear.
Really Timon19 and Mike get this point. Most of your method is make excuses of hey this group manages use it. You don’t gain more market share by making excuses. Just because something is not a blanket ban does not mean usage is not being restricted.
The result about attempting to ignore security and other things is people like tracyanne will refuse to use Linux Desktop and it will have many layers of effect.
Do we need marketing no. We need serous focus so that long term defeats like X11 are not in place to be throwing in path of those attempting to do the Linux Desktop.
Lot of governments are use Linux Desktop most because they don’t have the budget to afford to pay Microsoft and add in the issues of trying to keep updates installing it simpler to go Linux. So selling Linux on cost at the moment is only going to get you so far.
I take your points, but only up to a point. I think you are treating Linux as though it is tge same as Windows, just like the Linux Foundation is trying to do, i.e. make Linux into a commercial prifit making scheme, focussed on Enterprise use.
That isn’t what GNU/Linux is, it’s just what a self selecting group want to use it for.
Other people want to use it for other things, and they are free ti do so – which really is the point.
If GNU/Linux doesn’t fit my use case I am free to make it fit, or to use something that does. I don’t have the first option with Windows, etc.
All OSes are crap in their own way. It’s my responsibility to understand that, and to choose wisely what best fits my needs.
@Timon19
August 26, 2016 at 10:21 pm
tracyanne,
The guy’s full of shit.]]]]
I know that Timon, I was being sarcastic.
My bullshit meter went of the scale when in the other thread he trumped me with his but yeah but I’ve spoken to Industrial leaders etc, yada, yada.
that combine with the fact that his initial post was in bad English, then suddenly his English improved to perfect overnight, so to speak. he has an agenda, I’m not sure what it is, but it’s not for the betterment of Linux or FOSS. I just can’t put my metaphorical Finger on it.
He’s such a slimy See You En Tee, he uses Factual information, and over states many issues, in a dishonest way. The problem is these days I don’t really have the time or the patience to to deal with this sort of thing anymore, now that I’m retired from IT, and I have lots of other things that pull my attention, like the farm and my music. Most of all I’m really annoyed with myself for being sucked into his game.
He seemed almost ecstatic that he might have convinced me to stop using Linux.
It’s telling that he never argued with Ken, over Mr Zemlin (Mr because I don’t respect him enough to use his First Name) and the Linux Foundation’s lack of interest in Desktop Linux.
I really have no more to say on the subject. I’ll leave that to smarter, better informed, people who are still involved in the Industry.
tracyanne like it or not I did go to Australian Linux Conference and sat around a table over lunch with those people taking about the exact same topic.
>>that combine with the fact that his initial post was in bad English, then suddenly his English improved to perfect overnight
My english has always been this way. Nothing new. My English can go to bad English just as fast.
>>He’s such a slimy See You En Tee, he uses Factual information, and over states many issues, in a dishonest way.
What I did was give you exactly what you would be facing off against attempting to market into the enterprise market at the moment.
Current Linux Desktop there is stuff you can attempt to sell. Its not security. Its not ability to see source code.
FOSS you sell it by selling
1) Fact is has broader peer review options with no location restrictions or fees required to perform it.
2) The fact you can higher people or use own people to fix the issues yourself not being 100 percent beheld to vendor. Both of Microsoft source access 1 does not allow you to change source code at all and other does not allow you to put a changed version into production usage.
Security requires projects to have
1)Proper QA processes. Core Infrastructure Badge program is starting to see something that can be used for marketing in this place.
2)Proper design.
Otherwise attempting to market without those will have head taken off.
Timon19 is more slim than me refering to the DDD usage of X11 in duel screen training setups is a super big joke. The apps are all 1 application per X11 server no windows manager not what we would call a Desktop Linux. How do you secure X11 applications under wayland 1 X11 application per xwayland instance.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/73833.html
Of course this is a good read from 2011 Jim Zemlin back in 2010 was pushing Linux desktop fairly hard by 2011 it came clear in current design it was not going very far at all.
What you don’t know is the Brisbane 2011 Linux Conference is where the debate happened. The debate there lead to Kristian Høgsberg being sent to attempt to fix X11 again leading to starting Wayland in 2012. Guess what I happened to be attending. If you are like me know what happened at the conference on topic you would understand why things since 2011 have been going the way they are and they are only going to turn around when marketing people can win on a key set of points. Hopefully that will be next year when those points are ticked off.
>> It’s telling that he never argued with Ken, over Mr Zemlin and the Linux Foundation’s lack of interest in Desktop Linux.
In fact I have way in the past. This site just has not been on my regular visits sites of quite a few years that is all. So please don’t say it something I have never done when I have in the past. I have in fact done it to Ken face and we agreed to disagree.
Now the one thing you guys are not considering we are under 24 months if everything go right to having wayland based desktops out. So of course the Linux foundations and other areas are going to stop talking about the Linux Desktop now. So when they have proper design Linux Desktop they can do a clean marketing push. You don’t want people mixing old and new marketing over such a major alteration.
> “I did go to Australian Linux Conference and sat around a table over lunch”
Wow, I guess everybody better give up. This guy’s been to a conference and had lunch. No way to compete with that.
Mike don’t be smart. The issue over Linux Desktop marketing reducing aligns to that event. There are a list of points that were raised then that are still true now.
If you want to have the Linux desktop move forwards those have to be addressed.
What you are missing seeing is the things the Linux Foundation is doing now is laying the ground work.
Lack of marketing dollars are partly caused by technical issues.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/73833.html
Mike I guess you did not read this.
Here Jim Zemlin in June 21, 2011 does go a section of what was discussed about at the Brisbane chat over lunch over desktop between quite major players.
Its not that Jim Zemlin has not support the desktop its mostly that you have been ignoring things. Like that one he clearly states need for universal applications like Snappy or flatpak.
You cannot expect Jim Zemlin to market the Linux Desktop if the features he is listing as needed are not getting developed.
So Jim Zemlin 2011-2012 lists out everything that needs doing. And its 2014 and it not done yet.
So people like me who were are the at the Brisbane 2011 conference and sat around the table and hear it directly. Jim Zemlin goes though the process of publishing all the bits indirectly. And since Jim Zemlin stops marketing the Linux Desktop directly you idiots decide to ignore what he said.
Jim Zemlin is basically working with a checklist of objectives he wrote at the 2011 Brisbane conference. Different interviews he has told you everything on that list.
Some of this is be in the right place a the right time. Other of this is pay very careful attention to what people said over time and you will come to the same list of faults that the Linux Desktop must address to move forwards.
@oiaohm
blah, blah, blah, what you call forwards I call sideways at best and backwards if people aren’t careful.
The limited runtimes in things like flatpak are useful if you want to build an app store and control content. It’s not useful for much else.
Jim Zemlin only cares about what makes Jim Zemlin money. All the bullshit you are spewing is directly related to that.
>>The limited runtimes in things like flatpak are useful if you want to build an app store and control content. It’s not useful for much else.
Please go and look closer at flatpak.
https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/wiki/Filesystem
Flatpak is based on a thing called Ostree. So as soon as you said Limited runtimes you shows you had it wrong. Ostree is able to be a complete distribution. So from a runtime library point of view no limitation in flatpak. Addresses issues like the past examples like amazon linux music downloader not being cross distribution due to depending on a particular version of a library that was not ABI compatible between versions. So reality is backing for most current day Linux distributions is more ABI limiting than something like flatpak.
Next flatpak sandbox can be sent from restrictive to not restricting at all. Yes in restricted mode they are adding a runtime that allows applications to ask for open file and so on in areas the application cannot directly access. Current libreoffice in flatpak has sandbox set to fairly much nothing. So I don’t get where you get the limited runtimes idea from that is not what flatpak is. Even snappy has a trust and untrusted mode.
>>Jim Zemlin only cares about what makes Jim Zemlin money.
This is why you are bullshit completely Mike.
The reality here is marketing cost money, time and resources. So a person marketing something better make money from it or they will not be able to.
So Mike here is the challange come up for a method that Jim Zemlin can in fact make a profit marketing Linux desktop without getting his head bashed in over basic things.
Like how if we have multi versions of Linux in use are we going to have on the exact same application version for office/home compatibility? This is why Linux Standard Base started in the first place and was unable to totally address that problem.
If you had been watching this years Linuxcon 2016 you would have noticed now that Redhat has got a fedora out with wayland and flatpak they are starting to talk about going after the workstation and desktop markets more serous-ally again. Why because after the changes Redhat marketers will have a product without technical flaws and those technical flaws in the past see Redhat marketers waste time on non successful attempts.
So like it or not Mike if you get money to market with about the cost/results. So unless you can make arguments in cost/results terms you are not going to get money to run big marketing. cost/results also has to take into account what counter marketing will do.
The fact you say Jim Zemlin cannot make money from it I will take that as a total admission that I am right Mike and you are a idiot who has no clue how the world works.
@oiaohm,
Yep, you’re an idiot.
> “So as soon as you said Limited runtimes you shows you had it wrong.”
I said the runtime is limited and it is. Flatpak is just another piece of Gnome shit. Red Hat can keep Gnome, systemd, flatpak, and Fedora. I have no desire to use any of that crap.
> “Linux Standard Base”
LSB has been and always be just a bad joke.
> “The fact you say Jim Zemlin cannot make money from it I will take that as a total admission that I am right…”
Which shows your reading comprehension level…point out where I said anything of the kind. I didn’t, Moron.
Just a final note and then I’m done dealing with this idiocy: Flatpak, Snappy, Docker, CoreOS, et al. They’re all just corporate branding attempts to own Linux app distribution, nothing more. Marketing bullshit. https://xkcd.com/927/