OSDev.org

After reading http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1030/104_print.html, I dreamed a little. What if in some rare and bizzare occurance the Linux world was to split? That could be a window of opportunity for another OS revolution, again impulsed by Richard Stallman (however this time he would be the one who broke the open-source competitor).

What would big Linux distributors do if Linux stayed GPLv2 and major apps (think GCC) shifter to GPLv3? My brain says it's probable they would join forces and create a new application suite, advancing Linux to a better, more unified and more managed state.

However, what if some small OS brings the perfect alternative? Coders start to use a newer OS, more centralized, flexible, easy-to-use, powerful, and maintainable, and that incorporates better interopability with future trends (like Web 2.0, and support for higher-level languages). Would it be the dawn of a new era? Could it be the big competitor at the desktop level that linux failed to be ("failed" is debatable, but the fact is Windows rules mainstream marketshare).

Don't get me wrong. I am a strong Linux fan. And I doubt the Linux world will split. As I doubt even more it will stop growing in the near future. And what is even more improbable is that an OS would appear as the perfect substitute in less than a year (although some OSs do grab my attention =) ).

Anyway, just a random comment post, not to be taken seriously. Cheers,

JVFF

Hehe, did you see the pics of Stallman when he demanded to see the French Prime Minister? http://tofz.org/?dir=Paris%2Fevents%2FR ... 20Matignon Stallman is an eccentric nut case that anyone seriously trying to use Linux in a business fashion will distance themselves from.

I'd say the BSDs would pick up the slack but I think they rely on the same tool chain too much. That leaves one OS, OpenSolaris. Even though Sun ships Solaris 10 with GCC they still have their own tool chain that is now free. I'd find it really funny if that happened, so many people have said that Sun doesn't understand open source.

Of course this also reminds me of the fact that the most popular OS in the world is some embedded OS from some guy in Japan, the name escapes me for the moment.

Hehe, did you see the pics of Stallman when he demanded to see the French Prime Minister? http://tofz.org/?dir=Paris%2Fevents%2FR ... 20Matignon Stallman is an eccentric nut case that anyone seriously trying to use Linux in a business fashion will distance themselves from.

Lol. True. Although Stallman did begin the open source revolution, it seems to me he didn't adapt with it for the current context. It's as he's still beating the dead horse.

I'd say the BSDs would pick up the slack but I think they rely on the same tool chain too much. That leaves one OS, OpenSolaris. Even though Sun ships Solaris 10 with GCC they still have their own tool chain that is now free. I'd find it really funny if that happened, so many people have said that Sun doesn't understand open source.

BSD has a potential OS substitute, however they are still dependant on the toolchain, and they don't get much momentum. OpenSolaris on the other hand, has Sun as potential sponsor. If it happens it does show a new future (probably one Stallman hates) where the big companies still dominate, but allow higher freedom. Should benefit almost everyone =)

Of course this also reminds me of the fact that the most popular OS in the world is some embedded OS from some guy in Japan, the name escapes me for the moment.

Never heard of that. Seems interesting

JVFF

I don't think there will be a linux split as you say, I don't think it matters what GCC and the GNU toolchain is licensed under, linux is a seperate entity.

Even on the chance that there is some split, with the amount of money and resources companies such as IBM, Novel and friends have invested in Linux, I am pretty sure you will see either a fork of the last GNU tools licensed under GPL v2.0, or some other solution.

RMS might be eccentric, but he is consistant. Same as Theo DeRaadt, some people find them annoying, but they have principles and stand up for their ideas of freedom. It seems people these days are making consessions, like the Linus with BitKeeper, Linux users with their Nvidia and ATi drivers, firmware blobs etc. As these things become more common and accepted, they will slowly erode the freedoms that OpenSource was about to begin with.

RMS isn't irrelivant anymore and he is not beating a dead horse. Perhaps a dying one, but some people still believe in free software as an ideal, rather than a means to an end.

Linux might be a separate entity, but it's still mainly the base of the OS. It still needs a toolchain to run. The GNU toolchain was already ready when Linus released it's kernel, therefore it had more headroom for adoption.

And yes, it is highly unlikely Linux would split and that GNU would suddenly restrict all it's projects to GPLv3. My point was to think a little out of the box

RMS and DeRaadt are very important to the software world. I can't disagree with that. Also their consistency is good, however it's radicalism that can be more dangerous. For example it's been about 20 years since the free software revolution began. Times have changed. And (IMHO) the big companies that once were corporate monsters now are backing up some open-source projects.

(It gets interesting... =D )

JVFF

Linux might be a separate entity, but it's still mainly the base of the OS. It still needs a toolchain to run. The GNU toolchain was already ready when Linus released it's kernel, therefore it had more headroom for adoption.

Yes I understand that, I was trying to say that what the GNU toolchain is licensed under doesn't matter. Even if the FSF did say that all GNU projects must use GPL v3.0, it wouldn't matter because Linux is not a GNU project.

Times have changed. And (IMHO) the big companies that once were corporate monsters now are backing up some open-source projects.

That really depends on your viewpoint. Some would argue that the big "corporate monsters" are simply supporting linux because it gets them free work done by developers. What corporations do is what is in the interest of their share holders, they are only friendly to the open source movement because at the moment it benifiets them.

If Linux users start to accept NVidia closed source drivers, or Wireless firmware blobs and see the corporate monsters as "supporting" the open source community are at best short sighted.

What happens when Nvidia goes broke? Or even simply they change their mind about Linux? That graphics card you bought from a "Linux friendly" company just became practically useless.

Radicalism can indeed be dangerous, but I wouldn't call Theo and RMS "radical" except to corporations that a existed at the expense of their customers by locking them into their closed solutions. Freedom is indeed a radical notion to such people, and also as you said, a dangerous one.

It is indeed interesting

Andrew

The GNU toolchain only matters when distributing, so I guess that what would happen is a complication for distributions, probably killing the transition facility for users (ie. most people want a Linux distribution that is similiar to what they used, in most cases Windows). What also might be affected is interoperability between OS's, but it's not as much likely.

I totally agree that the companies only support open source because it benefits them. But as long as companies are retributing the code to the community it also benefits it. That's why GPL was important (and is probably one of the reasons BSD hasn't become the leader), because it forces code alterations to be posted back.

The GPL was already a somewhat restricting license, however it can be seen as an agreement between community and developer, where both benefit from it (ie. one gets free code, the other gains free modifications, it's like a "know-how" exchange). GPLv3 crosses that point of balance. Many of the things it imposes (this term is also debatable) tend to benefit only the community, making it pratically useless for companies to adopt. Unless of course they start losing marketshare to open source, but that requires free software to evolve to a more competitive state, and even then companies have big budgets to sponser their products.

In a way, the view of GPLv3 is a good one, tending to benefit open source software. However my freedom ends, where yours start, hence one can't impose someone else to become a good samaritan. It must be the choice of that person. When someone develops something, he has to decide what restrictions he will put on his development, judging what will benefit him, and what will benefit the users.

It is very difficult to cross a line and define clearly what are the rights of the user and what are the rights of the developer. GNU tries to solve that problem. But there will always be a looser. And what is important is to minimize the number of loosers.

Hard subject. Thinking about the subject and trying to be non-biased is like being asked by a cannibal how you want to be cooked.

JVFF

PS: Sorry for lack of clarity, long post, misspelling, grammar, etc...