Advanced

Is Linux an Alternative or Does It Stand Alone?

Posted by tadelste on · 17 comments
LXer.com; By Tom Adelstein, Editor-in-Chief
Mail this story
Print this story

LXer Day Desk: 12-26-2005

Linux represents a computer technology designed from the bottom up rather than a copy cat. As long as people compare it to Windows, they cannot grasp its power and uniqueness. Simply put, Linux isn't Windows.

During the frantic days of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, Microsoft corporation employees put together an argument for the court that made a tiny group of Linux companies look like a threat - even a competitor. The defense presented exhibits at trial to explain the Linux operating system. The most impressive exhibit was the box for a retail version of Red Hat Linux 5.1which claimed Linux was a multi-user, multi-tasking OS. That box appeared during the cross examination of a government witness who didn't even know Linux existed.



    

From that day until now, people have looked at Linux as an alternative to Windows. In many ways, that's a shame. Because when the early Linux developers began the project, Windows as we think of it did not exist. In the early 1990s, the industry had completely different market leaders.



When Linux began, the consumer desktop market was split between DOS and the Mac. Novell Netware had between 55 percent and 60 percent of the Network Operating System market. By 1996, Windows NT NOS held a 20 percent market share, while IBM's OS/2 Warp Server and Banyan Systems' Vines accounted for 15 percent and 3 percent, respectively.



In the early 1990s, Digital Equipment Corporation had a startling share of the enterprise market. We ran VAX VMS clusters with Oracle financials at a large DOE lab. Our desktops were Macintosh and we used AppleTalk. We had several thousand employees and a half dozen or so had IBM PCs.



Linux belonged in academia a decade ago. Linux Journal had just started up and looked more like a newsletter. In an interview with Linus, the magazine wondered if Linux had reached 30,000 users globally. By Spring 1999, Jon Hall speaking in Dallas said he estimated global use at two million.



So, Microsoft comparing Linux to Windows should not have counted much in court. But then, in the confines of a courtroom where lawyers set the context to the four walls, a fancy retail box like the one above has a different meaning. To the court, all those claims on the back of Red Hat's box seemed to mean something.



Then How Do We Position Linux?



From this writer's point of view, Linux represented a powerful operating system in its own right. Having worked on mainframes and programmed microprocessors like TI's 990 Model 1, the IBM PC with DOS was a device not a computer. Windows seemed like an enhancement to the device with 16 colors. The Mac seemed like a dedicated typesetting replacement and a small document manager with a black and white laser printer when your didn't need the power of Framemaker or Interleaf.



Linux always seemed to have powerful UNIX-like utilities. You could do so many things with Linux. It had a familiar feel, multi-tasked like the big boys and let us learn UNIX system administration without having to go into debt for twenty years.



Today, Linux with Apache, MySQL and/or PostgreSQL, perl, python and/or PHP provides a formidable platform for web services. It also does an excellent job running local and wide area network services. It's the premiere file and print server. You'll also find anything else a difficult sell when it comes to high performance computing in the grid and/or cluster environment where Linux is a monster roaming the planet.



In it's Own Right



If you were to step away from the desktop, Linux kicks everyone's butt from the tip of the North Pole to the bottom of the ocean where it runs sonar arrays on nuclear submarines. Where desktops still remind real engineers of devices, Linux is king. No doubt exists where a computer isn't a toy.



Now, when it comes navigating the Internet, writing software, managing web sites and remote administration, Linux has a plethora of tools and works on commodity hardware like a real computer does. I think of it as a workstation that can also allow me to connect to the kiddie's network where people are more interested in instant messaging, watching movies, listening to music and arguing about which game is the coolest.



Microsoft seems to really have staked out its market on the kiddie network. They even make a dedicated game box. But let's face it, the kiddie network is really a subset of the technology world where the real work gets done by real operating systems like Linux.



What'd you say nerd? Oh, you think you're a programmer cause you can drag and drop stuff on to a pallette. Come on over and have a few shots of Tequila then. First one to forty wins.









  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: LXer Features

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (17)

What people are accustomed to

I enjoy Japanese cartoons. If the first time I see an anime it's in Japanese with subtitles, I tend to always prefer that title in Japanese with subtitles. If, however, I see the title dubbed in English first, it's quite likely that I will prefer to view the title dubbed.

I started on a command line TRS-80 Model 1. I am very comfortable with a command line, and I enjoy the systems built with Linux because of their function and form. I might compare KDE with Windows, or I might even use "Linux" the same way that someone else says "Windows" to mean everything on their box including the games they installed themselves.

Most of the individuals who use computers in the world started only after the launch of Windows. Windows being pre-installed means that with rare exceptions Windows was their first environment. A graphical environment. Think of it as dubbed anime. But I know the difference, the same way that more experienced computer users will recognize the GUI as a *shell*, not as the operating system itself.

Can "Linux" be both an alternative and stand alone? Of course. People looking for alternatives to Windows will see the GUI shells running on Linux and, perhaps, find an environment they are comfortable with.

Linux is an alternative to vendor lock-in and endless upgrade cycles.

Other people, looking for solutions to specific problems, will see the flexibility of the Linux platform. Face facts: the same code base is used to build world top-10 supercomputers as well as run on my laptop. That is flexibility that no other OS has.

Linux stands alone.

An OS is an OS is an OS

"Linux represented a powerful operating system in its own right"

I'm not sure I get your point here Tom... As is Unix, as is NT, as is BSD, and is OS/2, as is OSx.... etc. Any of us with even a hint of technical knowledge understand that the OS is and entirely separate issue than the GUI interface or shell. If the general population doesn't that's nothing new and maybe not even important. Let them ascribe it all to 'magic'.

As far as Linux in the server arena, I see this as a pretty much a done deal in both the technical and Business perception. Nothing even comes close, and even the long time MS administrators that I know are keeping up with their Linux skills in anticipation of a switch to Linux at some point in the future. This 'Market' will ultimately be decided by people who have the technical credentials to make the most viable choice.

Desktop Linux is an entirely different issue, as many of the users have far less technical expertise, and in some cases really do believe the whole process is magic. Many Desktop users could care less about Linux's technical credentials, they just want a stable working environment that a GUI in Linux can supply.

Whether perceived as an alternative or not, it is impossible to eliminate the public perception of a Linux GUI as an competitor to Windows... Nor would it be desirable to do that. MS had a few more years to develop their OS/GUI, but in the last couple of years, several Linux GUIs have become more than competitive in any function that matters. What I see now is that both Gnome and KDE are a lot more secure and functional than anything MS offers. Ultimately, I don't think you'll have to step away from the desktop to see Linux 'kick everyone's butt'.

I don't see much difference in what you wrote or I wrote with one exception. NT and OS/2 are not powerful operating systems in their own right. Neither scale and neither function well away from the GUI. They sure run older Intel chip sets and processors swell but that's whether they stop.

Linux wasn't build to compete with Windows and that made it very functional without a gui and still does. You just don't have the command set or tools with Windows to do much unless Microsoft built a little GUI program and an API to provide the functionality. Porting command line programs to Windows is a serious pain in the butt. Cygnus did it, but look at what they had to do to get there and in the Windows environment, that stuff doesn't work well. It also stops doing much at loads which don't cause a breeze in the cabinet of a Linux box.

Also, I wasn't concerned with the perception of desktop users who I referred to as the kiddie network. They can think that Linux competes with Windows all the want. Without the kiddies, OS/2 didn't have much of a home. Neither would a Mac and neither would Windows.

That allows, in my reckonin' for Linux to stand on her own two feet, so to speak, Jim.
I guess what I do not understand is how any of this affects the positioning of how we present Linux? As a server, Linux is obviously well understood and utilized. As a Desktop, I can't see how Gnome and KDE could be presented in any other way than as alternatives to 'other' desktops. Perhaps better public education, but, I thought that was what we were trying to do? As for Linux being a far more capable and flexible OS, well... Duh :D .

Otherwise, I really like the piece Tom :) It certainly got me thinking.
As a Slackware and BSD user, I was wondering why you make it sound like BSD didn't exist in the server market, and like Linux was flying in circles around every other server operating system. Besides that, it was fun to be reminded of the MS Linux defence - a great classic. I heard that a very large portion of the wireless routers in the MS development labs were Linux powered, too...
mjjohansen,

BSD is, arguably, a better server platform than Linux, but, I really don't see it has the market share and doubt that it will ever achieve that popularity. Not fair, but, not the first time a superior a superior concept has failed for lack of popular support
jimf: show me MS IIS or MS SQL Server or MS Exchange running on anything but MS Windows and I'll concede your point about the interchangeability of OSes WRT servers.

Ditto the Windows GUI shell on anything but MS Windows for desktops.

You can run KDE and most of the apps on MS Windows (a bit shakily, but it's there); but vice versa, except in an outright emulator? She's a not gunna fly. You can run FOSS webservers, databases, yadda yadda on Microsoft's OSes, but never vice versa.

This asymmetry, this incapacity on the Microsoft applications' behalf, is a deliberately cultivated marketing tool, and it can bite you on the ass without warning.
Whoa AnonymousCoward! Never said any of that, not gonna go there. Only said an OS is OS, nothing about any of them being =... :D
Quoting:As a Slackware and BSD user, I was wondering why you make it sound like BSD didn't exist in the server market


I wasn't aware of that intention. I didn't mention Solaris, Open VMS, zOS and numerous others. So, apologies if that's what you took from it.

BSD and Linux evolved separately. This subject was Linux - not as an alternative to other server operating systems but just as a product that stands on its own.

The term alternative might be problematic with some. I meant to use it where alternative necessitates a choice between mutually exclusive possibilities; "`either' and `or' in `either this or that' -- Linux wasn't built to compete with Windows. It isn't a clone of Windows. It's an alternative if you say it's one of many choices or options people can use.

But as an operating system built from the ground up, it's more than an alternative or it can do more than the thing it's compared to everyday.

I agree with your intention. IMO, one of the most important things in the Linux community is to perceive the system as an independent project, or one is bound to be limiting the perspective.
mjjohansen: Thank you. I think you articulated the message succinctly.

It's only semantics

Stand alone or alternative, what's the difference? It really comes down to one's perspective IMHO. For millions of users, it is a "stand alone" OS meaning that those people choose to run Linux exclusively on their desktop system. For someone who has only known, or simply chooses, Windows, Linux is an alternative to the existing situation. How it is viewed is relative to each user group.

My point is, the word "alternative" isn't a bad thing. The entire point of Free and open source software is to provide alternatives to proprietary OS's in the sense that they provide choices. Somehow it seems your article associates alternative as being something less than desireable. I would counter that I am quite happy Linux/BSD are alternatives. The converse, a world with no alternatives, would be a sad and scary one indeed.

So, I think offering the free OS's as alternatives only make sense at this point. The overwhelming majority of the world views it that way; trying to semantically change those views really gains nothing IMHO. This isn't about competition, it's about providing excellent alternatives to existing systems. And that is something the legions of Linux and BSD developers do extremely well everyday. Linux/BSD *are* OS's in their own right, but they also provide the much needed alternatives to closed systems. Why worry about making it out to be something else? Stand alone and alternative aren't mutually exclusive, and really depends on the view of whoever is doing the naming I suppose. So many people seem so tied up in worrying about how to "position" Linux that sometimes I think the fact that it needs no positioning is overlooked; positioning is for commercial offerings. Let's just concentrate on making the best environment and tools/apps available and the positioning will take care of itself.
Quoting:Why worry about making it out to be something else?


I wouldn't characterize it as a worry rather information. Other contexts do exist where people don't look at Linux as a second class-citizen. Linux has potential the majority of users do not understand or use.
To a certain degree, I agree with Josh that this is semantics. I'd also argue that there are a growing number of people who recognize Linux as a 'superior' alternative. Ain't nothing wrong with that :D
The problem with most people is that they falsely interpret the word alternative to mean clone. When it comes to MS Windows, GNU/Linux is certainly not a clone.

Alternative is as troubled as the word free. The assignment of meaning to them takes a nasty turn for FOSS.

Alternative and Free in co0mbination with GNU/Linux means a free of charge Windows clone to most people. When they face the realities of GNU/Linux, they are hit hard with the truth. GNU/Linux isn't free of charge and it certainly is not a Windows clone.

Dim dumb_user as windows

I think dumb user prefer windows. I switched to linux just to keep myself sane( reboot, reinstall, reboot ). Sooner or later people gonna make choices and look for alternative, and Linux's time will come.
I just had a discussion about that with a book publisher. Unsatisfied needs motivate behavior. And power users will feel a need to grow and learn more. In a sense, it's like needing to take the mystery out of certain subjects like domain names services, or how to re-reoute mail or set up and use a database. Some will want to set up secure zones in their homes or perhaps manage a development project etc.

Whatever the next step for expression in technology may be for someone, they need an OS like Linux to take the next step. Being a better spreadsheet developer may be fine for someone in accounting or management too. But even that gets old.

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post