In response to comments made…

12 Jun 2004

…on dalegroup.net regarding the state of operating system development (no permalink available due to the nature of the software that is being used for news over there).

I’ve been playing around with domains and forests (mmm trees) today. Connecting domain servers to different computers all talking to one central DNS box. Oh my how I love windows. Everything just works. Really I love windows. I don’t care what anyone else says. I find it stable, fast and easy to use. Isn’t that what computers are meant to be like? I also spent a far bit of time on a 12″ iBook with OSX 10.3.x very nice too. I like these operating systems because they have one company behind them pushing them in one direction, not some linux distro which has been split so many times it isn’t funny, or a technology release gone wrong (fedora anyone?). You need direction when building an operating system and that is what Microsoft and Apple both do. Great job guys.

Linux, whilst not guided in the same unilateral manner as both OS X and Windows, is still capable of consistent development values and policies allowing for a highly efficient, scalable and usable platform.  Linux on the desktop has not yet reached the maturity of even Windows (let alone the sophistication of OS X), a claim which I am yet to see contested.  Development policies resulting from Open Source are, by their very nature, open.  This does not REQUIRE fragmentation such as that which was described, although this is often a result.

The lack of control by a monolithic entity over a product permits innovation in the marketplace, resulting in technological advancement for the greater benefit of the entire community, not the bottom-line of a TNC software monopoly.  Not that TNC monopolies are bad – well, they are, but that isn’t the issue being discussed here.  TNC monopolies stifle innovation, and subject users to the decisions made by aforementioned monopoly – users have no choice, at this point, but to wait for the situation to change, or to switch platforms.

I can’t help but notice a striking parallel between Roman Catholicism and closed-source monopolist-software vendors.  My reasoning is a little abstract, so bare with me, here.  Both enjoy monolithic, absolute control over those within their respective structures – this, arguably, is a good thing – people with the knowledge are making decisions for the greater good of the organisation as a whole.

But what if those with knowledge aren’t making the correct decisions?  Or are pursuing a path which allows users no input or control over that which they are subject to (i.e. their belief system, being dictated by the Pope, or their software environment, being dictated by Microsoft)… are users supposed accept this path as being right, going with what those with knowledge tell them, or is there room for individual choice, even if this means questioning the entity, as Martin Luther did?

Open-Source, like the Protestant movement, does not require users follow an established structure.  To an extent, it allows users to choose for themselves – any apparent church structure within whatever denomination shouldn’t have the power to dictate the beliefs of individuals who profess that faith (as conservative Roman Catholics would believe); matters of faith are individual, as are all beliefs (n.b. this does not make individual beliefs CORRECT).

Because of this inherent propensity for deviation and fragmentation to occur, it has – not all people will see eye-to-eye on all things, and a framework in which people are free to make up their own mind does result in fragmentation.  Not always for the better.

Likewise, the Open-Source community allows for fragmentation to occur.  This is ideal for individuals, although not always for the community as a whole – this is where product vendors come in.

A key example, most relevant given comments made regarding Fedora Core 2, is that of RedHat.  They are an OS application vendor, with strong Open-Source ties, specifically in their financial and developmental support of the Fedora project.  Fedora exists both to serve the Open-Source community as a whole, as well as provide an environment in which development and testing may occur for the refinement of RedHats’ commercial-grade/Enterprise offerings.

In this, RedHat operates as an integrator.  Whilst the quality of freely (as in beer/speech/whatever else) available software released by the Fedora project may be of dubious quality at various stages of development, RedHat, operating as a commercial software solutions development organisation, ensures that the quality of their enterprise-grade offerings do not suffer.

Windows just works?  Often… although I would venture that in terms of ALL server related tasks, a solution from one proven OSS vendor would prove just as adequate.  Worried about interoperability?  That is a separate concern – remember, Windows doesn’t have a monopoly on the server market, and it is far from interoperable with *nix platforms.

Windows just works on the desktop?  Sure, in between the spyware and malware and virus outbreaks and other various system compromises.  I spent an hour today trying to get crap off a computer used by my brothers.  Spybot, AdAware – latest definitions, multiple scans, nothing resolved.  I spent the remaining 20 minutes manually hacking things down, thinking “this wouldn’t happen if this computer were running Linux”.

And it wouldn’t have.  I was (and am) sorely tempted to install a locked-down heavily customised version of Fedora (heh, Core 1, because 2 sucks, apparently ;)) on there, with Mozilla, aMSN and OpenOffice, and leave home indefinitely.  They would be perfectly fine until it ran out of disc space.

If they wish to play games?  Then why are they still using a Pentium 166 (OC’d to 200) with 48MB of RAM?  That doesn’t appear to be a consideration from where I am sitting.

What a shame, they won’t be able to install any software they want.  No dialers for you, I’m sorry.