Two years from now, where do you think Linux will be?

linuxted · #1 7th July 2005, 06:13 AM

I know predictions are fraught with error, but they can also be fun. I was thinking today how the landscape for Linux has changed in the last two years and how it might change in the next two. I think Linux will thrive but FC may not. The reason I say this is I suspect only the distributions with corporate backing or profit-based may be able to afford to have websites like this where people can discuss issues and download software. Whether or not FC has corporate backing (redhat???) depends if a company sees a financial value in keeping the distro going. My understanding is redhat sees value in FC as a "testbed" for new stuff before it gets used in their enterprise software.

What think you? Look into that crystal ball

Thanks

tejas · #2 7th July 2005, 08:20 AM

I don't think that this website is backed by RedHat

I think this site is the generosity of Mr Ewdison Then, who posts on this forum as ewdi

I really don't think that FC will be going down. It is a real community effort, with everyone trying to participate and help program, document or even isolate and report bugs

I think that in the next few years, when MS promotes longhorn, and turns it's back on Windows XP. People will realise that they'd rather stick with Linux. Where you pay 0$ for installing, and 0$ a month for upgrading.

Not to mention 0$ for new software.

VN-Frank · #3 7th July 2005, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tejas

I don't think that this website is backed by RedHat

I think this site is the generosity of Mr Ewdison Then, who posts on this forum as ewdi

I really don't think that FC will be going down. It is a real community effort, with everyone trying to participate and help program, document or even isolate and report bugs

I think that in the next few years, when MS promotes longhorn, and turns it's back on Windows XP. People will realise that they'd rather stick with Linux. Where you pay 0$ for installing, and 0$ a month for upgrading.

Not to mention 0$ for new software.

Ok tejas, I agree.

I'm still concerned in general, not RH specific. Money must be made in some way for a distro, otherwise the required hardware zoo for ongoing maintenance and staffing for the same maintanance cannot be secured "in professional manner". In my eyes, RH's business model IS on very thin ice. Now dont refer to the last quarters report, but look longer term. They cant sell the software, its still mostly GPL. Just the service contract is sold.

Now that service, can be provided also from Bangalore....and Bejing, and any other place where stable telecom links and skilled engineers exist. That game is changing very fast, and so will the profitability.

IF the main revenue stream for a distro can only come from the support, then where in the world will such support centers have the best environmntal conditions ? The US ? I dont think so. Every big business in US and Europe thinks about outsourcing whatever they can to anywhere in Asia. Right ? So, where leaves that RH in 5 years ?

At least NOT in the US. The markiting arm yes, but not the broad support base who generates the profit margin.

Then : IF that support anyway will happen from lower cost countries in Asia, then it can be just as well any other next distro, that will be build in Asia.... not necessarily RH anymore.

I see RH mostly as a successful marketing gig now, not as technology leader in Linux.

As soon the linux engineers anywhere in the world have enough competence and self-confidence, they will all do the same logical thing: build their own distro, market it, and sell their OWN service contract to the customers they can find by them.

Thin ice for RH ....

92b16vx · #4 7th July 2005, 02:06 PM

I think Linux's problem is it's freedom. Not that it should be sold, but that anyone with the know how can make their own distro, which reflects in the many, many that are availible. Now, this may seem like a good thing, but it decentralizes progress, and hence, impeds forward movement as a whole. Just think, if the many different minds and resources pulled together to work on a major project, MS wouldn't stand a chance. It's just like anything else, there's strength in numbers, but when those numbers are pulling in different directions they accomplish less.

bitrain · #5 7th July 2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 92b16vx

I think Linux's problem is it's freedom. Not that it should be sold, but that anyone with the know how can make their own distro, which reflects in the many, many that are availible. Now, this may seem like a good thing, but it decentralizes progress, and hence, impeds forward movement as a whole. Just think, if the many different minds and resources pulled together to work on a major project, MS wouldn't stand a chance. It's just like anything else, there's strength in numbers, but when those numbers are pulling in different directions they accomplish less.

I agree with that, progress is slower when people are working on more projects, but that's also linux's strength. Linux wouldn't be so great if there was only one browser, one <insert something here>. A coin always has 2 sides.

92b16vx · #6 7th July 2005, 03:46 PM

True, but there wouldn't be a need to say focus primarily on say one browser, but instead of having different tweakings for each distro, the however many ten windows managers could all perform flawlessly on any system, instead of Suses version, Mankdrakes version, Linspires version etc...you could have a Linux version of say Fluxbox, KDE, Gnome, etc...then they could be user customized to their liking. I think that is a better explaination of what I am saying. Kind of like when I was first trying out distros, one would work on one thing, another would work on another, this one supports my mouse, this one supports my monitor, this one supports my soundcard, but none support it all. FC was the first that gave me the least amount of trouble as far as hardware, and the community support is AWESOME.

I'm not thinking so much as limiting projects to centralize into say one desktop manager, or one DVD burner, but more for Linux as a whole, and not as much distro specific programs, and hardware solutions. Lets be real for a minute, Windows may seem like a horrible thing, but think about the fact that almost anything will run on it, almost all hardware is plug and play, and that that isn't is an easy driver install/DL away. Reason being is that things are developed by lots of people to work specifically on that system, from internet browsers to program emulators, to compression software, 3D imaging, etc...If linux could pull more people into the fold in a pinp[oint goal oriented way, it could easliy push into Windows territory as far as ease of use and prolificness.

maclinux · #7 7th July 2005, 03:59 PM

I think Linux would be more popular if computer OEMs started selling more systems preloaded with Linux. One thing I seem to notice is that a lot of people buy a computer and never upgrade its original OS or bundled anti-virus. They think once they buy the computer its fine and only buy additional software for the next 4 to 5 years. Thats probably why most Windows users don't use XP yet.

***Firewing1*** · #8 7th July 2005, 04:03 PM

I think the exact same. We need to start selling computers with FC4, pre installed and configured. Then it'll get it's breakthrough. Linux is a great platform, but it's just too much time for others. I've learnt more than ever since I started using RH9.0, and I'm still using FC4. I've tried Mandrake, it's jsut not the same. FC is the best distro, and should stay that way. I think it just needs to be a bit more user-friendly. If we all put an effort into it, we can have Linux run aside Mac and Microsoft. Look at Mac ; They're based on command-line unix but made it big!
Firewing1

92b16vx · #9 7th July 2005, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maclinux

Thats probably why most Windows users don't use XP yet.

Where am teh crack?

Windows Xp comes on 99.999% of off the self systems.

Another thing that is going to keep Linux out of mainstream use is the command line. While it is a powerful tool, it requires a bit of knowledge to master in it's present form. If they was a way to simplify things, in example, to up pack and install a tar.gz, if it were

Code:

[root@localhost]# unpack install nerolinux.tar.gz

and your done it would be great, but first you have to unpack then move into directory, tell it to make an install, than install, then configure, blah there's a reason install shield for windows is so easy.

***Firewing1*** · #10 7th July 2005, 04:22 PM

It's exactly that. Linux needs to be more newb-friendly. The Terminal should always stay for those who are experienced with it, but for those who aren't, they should be able to configure everything they want graphically. That way, people can just pick it up and learn at their own pace. For problems, they come here.
Firewing1

92b16vx · #11 7th July 2005, 04:28 PM

Linspire has tried, in the thread I posted a couple weeks ago, a friend of mine has been using it for over a year. Me and him were talking on IM and I discovered he didn't even know what the terminal was, or where to find it

***Firewing1*** · #12 7th July 2005, 04:30 PM

lol nice...
ususally w/ Linux you encounter a config problem that requires terminal access to fix it...
Firewing1

bitrain · #13 7th July 2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

and your done it would be great, but first you have to unpack then move into directory, tell it to make an install, than install, then configure, blah there's a reason install shield for windows is so easy.

I was programming something, but it kinda got replaced by another project, maybe tomorrow I will restart again. I already have a gui made, but I got stuck with yum and checking dependencies so users can say if they want to download extra files if they are needed. The thought was to let it handle rpms and sources that are local on the pc and install them and use yum for dependencies. Maybe more tomorrow...

92b16vx · #14 7th July 2005, 06:12 PM

See, that would rock

Sometimes when I DL rpms, package installer picks it up, and does the install, which is cool and easy, but sometimes it doesn't

.

Steve T · #15 7th July 2005, 10:50 PM

I think that Linux for the desktop will develop a huge amount in the next few years! I have been using linux for 4-5 years now and it has made huge advancements so far and as more people are getting into it i think that things will start to speed up and wel will see some really exciting advancements!!

However....

Linux for the server enviroment (Non GUI) i think will advance but not ad much because there is not much to do! As it stands it runs and it runs damm well!

Steve