Discussion on:
View:
Show:
But I fail to see why number 3 has any benefit to Linux or Open Source in general. Ok, so Facebook uses Linux. How does that benefit Linux? Facebook does not contribute to development or back to the organization. All that happens is that Facebook doesn't have to pay for OS licences for their servers. How does that benefit the Linux community?
AKA "Gnome Shell", is probably what Jack was referring to. They may have been somewhat premature in its wide release, as it had a lot of issues early-on. However, that's in the past, and GNOME 3 is very much a benefit to Linux. Makes it darn hard to switch to Unity, in fact...
Upvoted for asking a good question and being concerned about the broader view.
Facebook benefits Linux in the same way Google or any other megacompany that relies on Linux does. By building a huge resource intensive, ubiquitous platform on top of Linux, Facebook shows other companies can do the same and have success. This is definitely a feather in the cap for Linux and can only increase its popularity.
Facebook benefits Linux in the same way Google or any other megacompany that relies on Linux does. By building a huge resource intensive, ubiquitous platform on top of Linux, Facebook shows other companies can do the same and have success. This is definitely a feather in the cap for Linux and can only increase its popularity.
Usability is demonstrated. And demonstrated is better than claimed. Stability is demonstrated. Extensibility has been demonstrated. So when a conversion to the LAMP is considered and the question is asked, "will it work?". The answer, it works for Facebook is a powerful testimony.
Right now my server totally unresponsive, no FTP, no gui, monitor won't turn on, no keyboard, nothing. But it's still serving web pages like a champ.
Go figure.
Go figure.
First, monitor cable was loose (doh).
So, plugged that in, and see that the FTP server is frozen, ok, so I end task it.
Next, I try to go check the logs, I double click My Computer.... and get "Out of Memory" WTF? lol. Now I am even more impressed with Apache, with the OS throwing a fit, it was still working.
So, plugged that in, and see that the FTP server is frozen, ok, so I end task it.
Next, I try to go check the logs, I double click My Computer.... and get "Out of Memory" WTF? lol. Now I am even more impressed with Apache, with the OS throwing a fit, it was still working.
I personally don't use Facebook, but it doesn't take a genius to see that FB's success will inspire others to build on top of Linux.
As you say, wouldn't take a genius to come up with the idea.
Then there's another point how many people know FB is built on Linux? Bet you wouldn't have to take your mittens off to count how many it it's 8 million users do.
Not to mention the fact that neither LInux nor Open Source are entities, so gratitude is a null concept.
I'm a user, purveyor and proponent of both and I feel no gratitude whatsoever to FB or Ubuntu, that's why.
Can't think of a single reason why I should either. They espouse not one value of either, except free as in beer.
Then there's another point how many people know FB is built on Linux? Bet you wouldn't have to take your mittens off to count how many it it's 8 million users do.
Not to mention the fact that neither LInux nor Open Source are entities, so gratitude is a null concept.
I'm a user, purveyor and proponent of both and I feel no gratitude whatsoever to FB or Ubuntu, that's why.
Can't think of a single reason why I should either. They espouse not one value of either, except free as in beer.
"...it proves that one of the biggest companies on the planet can (and does) use Linux on the desktop. If Google can, so too can you."
Google is a relatively new company that had the luxury of implementing Linux from scratch, without having a few decades of legacy apps and stakeholder relations to consider.
Google is a relatively new company that had the luxury of implementing Linux from scratch, without having a few decades of legacy apps and stakeholder relations to consider.
When is someone going to buy (crowd funding - maybe) the air time to herald the fact that the vast majority of the world population could not and would not have the current super fad web site and the largest web search without Linux and open source. Name names and cite numbers! I have throughout the years found it absolutely absurd that the people refuse to use something that just works and is absolutely free. (Do Not forget to Donate!)
"I have throughout the years found it absolutely absurd that the people refuse to use something that just works and is absolutely free."
No market share. Or tiny market share. What does market share have to do with the running of an OS? Nothing. But I see it quoted all the time like it's a key factor why the quoter finds Linux unacceptable.
My favourite, however, is how one detractor still has to "compile the kernel".
It's not even FUD. It's just ignorance perpetuated by those who need to validate their choice in OS.
Like Linux cares.
No market share. Or tiny market share. What does market share have to do with the running of an OS? Nothing. But I see it quoted all the time like it's a key factor why the quoter finds Linux unacceptable.
My favourite, however, is how one detractor still has to "compile the kernel".
It's not even FUD. It's just ignorance perpetuated by those who need to validate their choice in OS.
Like Linux cares.
Just works and free are great for an OS, but if it won't run the apps the user wants, they won't use it. You could give away high-quality rabbit chow, but if I don't have a rabbit, I'm not going to be interested.
Market share determines what paid developers write for. If there aren't enough people running Linux, no one is going to spend time and money writing a version of the Latest and Greatest Killer App for it.
They're opposite sides of the same coin. If it won't run what I want, I won't install it. If no one installs it, developers won't port to it.
Market share determines what paid developers write for. If there aren't enough people running Linux, no one is going to spend time and money writing a version of the Latest and Greatest Killer App for it.
They're opposite sides of the same coin. If it won't run what I want, I won't install it. If no one installs it, developers won't port to it.
..added to Linux *will* enable you to run your legacy/Win-only apps (and provide time to find/develop alternatives).
That leaves the question: "Then why make the effort?"
Answer: Because you'll want to do everything related to the Internet from within Linux, not Windows (to avoid malware).
That can be most easily accomplished for most by installing Vbox, putting Linux in a VM, then 'crippling' FF, IE, etc. so that normal users can't launch browsers in Windows. Then everyone learns to surf from Linux (Ubuntu)... Keeps my systems safe at home for my family.
But (not being business employees), we really have no need to run apps in Windows; everything we need is in Linux, but for one key app I need (LabVIEW).
That leaves the question: "Then why make the effort?"
Answer: Because you'll want to do everything related to the Internet from within Linux, not Windows (to avoid malware).
That can be most easily accomplished for most by installing Vbox, putting Linux in a VM, then 'crippling' FF, IE, etc. so that normal users can't launch browsers in Windows. Then everyone learns to surf from Linux (Ubuntu)... Keeps my systems safe at home for my family.
But (not being business employees), we really have no need to run apps in Windows; everything we need is in Linux, but for one key app I need (LabVIEW).
The problem with Windows users is that can't even conceive of more than one OS to do what they want. They want one OS to do it all, and that's Windows. Which runs windows programs reasonably well... but does an abysmal job of security. By design.
I run MSOffice in XP in VirtualBox. WinXP is relegated to doing one thing: run those apps. No AV, no anti-malware, no browser, no networking, no *nothing*. It runs Photoshop. MSOffice (because I like the VBA IDE better in Win2000 than in LibreOffice). That's it.
Easy.
And for the really cool stuff, Linux is where it's at. FireFox, music, video, youtube, irc, email, EVERYTHING else - ANYTHING that could possibly have an infection runs in an environment that is... well, nothing can run in it that I don't expressly give permission to?
I compile my own copy of Blender that I get from svn using cmake. Before that, I had subscribed - still am, actually - to a PPA with frequent recent builds of Blender that would update whenever the OS was updated, which is frequently. Not available in Windows.
I won't touch on GIMP: can't hold an extinguished candle to Photoshop yet, and at the rate they're going, I doubt it'll happen. Which is what VirtualBox (free) is for.
Oh, btw, I noticed some legacy apps won't run in Win8. There is a solution, of course.
I run MSOffice in XP in VirtualBox. WinXP is relegated to doing one thing: run those apps. No AV, no anti-malware, no browser, no networking, no *nothing*. It runs Photoshop. MSOffice (because I like the VBA IDE better in Win2000 than in LibreOffice). That's it.
Easy.
And for the really cool stuff, Linux is where it's at. FireFox, music, video, youtube, irc, email, EVERYTHING else - ANYTHING that could possibly have an infection runs in an environment that is... well, nothing can run in it that I don't expressly give permission to?
I compile my own copy of Blender that I get from svn using cmake. Before that, I had subscribed - still am, actually - to a PPA with frequent recent builds of Blender that would update whenever the OS was updated, which is frequently. Not available in Windows.
I won't touch on GIMP: can't hold an extinguished candle to Photoshop yet, and at the rate they're going, I doubt it'll happen. Which is what VirtualBox (free) is for.
Oh, btw, I noticed some legacy apps won't run in Win8. There is a solution, of course.
I can see using multiple operating systems, but I still can't see why to bother. XP, Vista, and 7 can be made secure quite easily. The security claims are as out of date as those that Linux is hard to install and use. When MS supporters talk about Linux using terms and phrases that are out of date, the Penguinistas scream 'FUD!'. The same applies to security claims about Windows that have been obsolete since W2000.
Everything I want to run will run on Windows, including two apps that won't run in Linux. Why bother with all this sandboxing and virtualizing and dual-booting? I have nothing against Linux, but there's nothing there for me at this time.
Everything I want to run will run on Windows, including two apps that won't run in Linux. Why bother with all this sandboxing and virtualizing and dual-booting? I have nothing against Linux, but there's nothing there for me at this time.
Don't hate on Mark Shuttelworth he has done so much with Ubuntu! I don't care for unity myself but Ubuntu rocks anyway. The only one out of place is Facebook glad that LAMP was available for Facebook to use but the users really don't care what the platform is. Take a page from the success of Facebook and be of good cheer the tools are here for you. Open is the place to be! I vote for the whole list!
Oh yea welcome Valve! Yahhh Hooo!
Oh yea welcome Valve! Yahhh Hooo!
Should Linux and Open Source be thankful for Facebook, or Facebook and all its users be thankful for Linux and Open Source? Isn't the logic inverted on this one?
That's true man. Facebook doesn't even mention Linux. Most companies don't. That's not how anybody treats something that do really well what u need to do..
I'm sure they don't mention what make and model of servers, UPS, or generators they use; or the brand of CAT-5 cable connecting it all together; or give credit to their electric utility. It's all infrastructure; their customers don't care, just the people who maintain it.
Friend of mine bought a server box running Windows XP, he didn't realize it had an Apache application running on it full time, taking up all the memory. He had no use for it so I killed it. It came back. I uninstalled it. It reinstalled. I had to find the install files and kill THEM and everything referencing it to get it to die. Had that box running sweet, and then he just HAD to d/l a trial version of Vista, ran on dual boot. Thing is he didn't know how to boot back into XP when the trial locked him out. I fixed THAT, too. I'm no techy, but I tell you what, he finally got rid of that box and now owns a Mac. He would have seriously screwed up yet another Windows box, and I shudder to think what he would have done with a LINUX box! Each has their purpose, and certain users should use what works best for them.
I appreciate Jack saying, be thankful for the opposition, though. He kind of snuck that in there, didn't he? If people weren't unhappy with the bloated, fault-ridden unsecure releases of Windows, or with the high pricing of Macs we wouldn't have user-friendly Linux boxes.
I appreciate Jack saying, be thankful for the opposition, though. He kind of snuck that in there, didn't he? If people weren't unhappy with the bloated, fault-ridden unsecure releases of Windows, or with the high pricing of Macs we wouldn't have user-friendly Linux boxes.
Granted, that is not Apache but whomever installed it on that machine before your friend purchased it. Did you consider following up with the seller on that issue?
I've always been a Debian guy. Bums me out a little that Debian is left out of this list, but Jack seemed to be aiming for the shallow end. It makes sense since he is pushing a popularity agenda, I bet Jack uses Debian himself on some machines (and I don't mean Ubuntu).
The GNU project and Richard Stallman certainly deserve some mention and credit here. The omission is somewhat understandable from the standpoint of avoiding arguments about the various personality cults that might arise ("Why mention RMS and omit Linus Torvalds!?")... the potential drama that could result is just not worth wasting the bandwidth. We already saw a touch of that with Mark Shuttleworth on the list. Just think of all the useful code that could be written instead 
. I suppose we can all agree on just being grateful for all the FLOSS developers and software engineers, period.
. I suppose we can all agree on just being grateful for all the FLOSS developers and software engineers, period. 
I agree, it's really impossible to pin down just a few individuals or projects and say "they made it work". There have been lots and lots of people who all contributed in different ways - in some cases their contribution may not be "wouldn't be here without it" critical, but they all helped - just like you can't say "THAT" brick is key to the whole wall. Even the key stone in an archway is useless without all the other bricks that support it.
Since you mention RMS, some people don't like his hard line attitude - but without people like him, who have fought for years to maintain openness, I do doubt we'd be where we are. Linus gets lots of praise - but if you take a step back his initial contribution was almost accidental and if he hadn't written his kernel at an opportune time, then something would have come about sooner or later. Then someone mentioned GNU - again, there's a lot there that would probably have come about eventually had the GNU project not been there, they they were there, and we reap the benefits.
So I think this "10 things" idea is a bit pointless. There are so many thousands (millions ?) of people who have contributed in some way. Whether that's a major contribution to the core tools (Linux kernel, GNU tools, etc), contributing to one of the many projects that makes it possible for people to "do stuff" with their computer, or just using it and telling others how good it is (and helping others to get started). Sure you can pick out a few individuals who have done much more than most - but like a wall, it takes nearly all the bricks to keep it standing.
Since you mention RMS, some people don't like his hard line attitude - but without people like him, who have fought for years to maintain openness, I do doubt we'd be where we are. Linus gets lots of praise - but if you take a step back his initial contribution was almost accidental and if he hadn't written his kernel at an opportune time, then something would have come about sooner or later. Then someone mentioned GNU - again, there's a lot there that would probably have come about eventually had the GNU project not been there, they they were there, and we reap the benefits.
So I think this "10 things" idea is a bit pointless. There are so many thousands (millions ?) of people who have contributed in some way. Whether that's a major contribution to the core tools (Linux kernel, GNU tools, etc), contributing to one of the many projects that makes it possible for people to "do stuff" with their computer, or just using it and telling others how good it is (and helping others to get started). Sure you can pick out a few individuals who have done much more than most - but like a wall, it takes nearly all the bricks to keep it standing.
Android is a lighting rod for drama that would probably overshadow what Jack is saying in this article.
"Who cares about open source? Nobody uses it!"
"Do you use Firefox?"
"Sure!"
"The prosecution rests, your Honor."
"Do you use Firefox?"
"Sure!"
"The prosecution rests, your Honor."
..."In the end, there are so many things to be thankful for. Ultimately Linux and open source is a big, dysfunctional family that works tirelessly to help bring to the masses software it can not only use, but afford."
You'd be paying for Red Hat support services and updates. I believe you can download Red Hat without paying a fee. But, CentOS is a great choice too; updates for free and probably a choice of third party support contractors.
Yes, I liked the fact that Apache came with every starting distro of linux, but with just the base Apache, you only have a webserver of static HTML pages. That's fine for a "Love-Of" site, but what has positioned Linux over Microsoft with regards to running web servers is the combination of Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP/Python. Even Mr. Ballmer had to openly admit that 60% of all web servers on the internet were running Linux in September of 2008.
*THAT* wouldn't have been possible with Apache alone.
*Power to the Penguin!*
*THAT* wouldn't have been possible with Apache alone.
*Power to the Penguin!*
All the great people who dedicate their time and effort to keep open source alive and well.
Thank you all, have a great holiday season.
Thank you all, have a great holiday season.
I Think Facebook didn't is proud enough of linux
Ten things Linux and open source have to be thankful for means that Linux and open source are thankful for something.
Is it really "Ten things we should thank Linux and open source for providing?"
Is it really "Ten things we should thank Linux and open source for providing?"
Debian in the form of Ubuntu is superb desktop, but it is exasperating as a server OS. It's based on the principle of constant updates which doesn't work in a business environment, where configuration management is king. Constant updating is particularly perilous with Open Source; I have seen point updates break things. Further, in a professional environment you want to stage updates. So for instance you might introduce Apache 2.2 in Test, but leave it on 2.0 for Staging and Production. Later you can introduce it in Staging and Production. This is just too difficult on Debian to bother even trying.
Enter Red Hat. RH understood the needs of business, and created a much more controllable Linux. It also introduced a new, extremely valuable, facility: the ability to stay on old versions of software without the associated risks. For instance, Apache 2.0 has a few known vulnerabilities and the only remedy from the Apache Software Foundation was to upgrade to the latest version of Apache. This left businesses in a quandary: Upgrade and risk almost certainly breaking the corporate web site, or just hope no one notices it's running a vulnerable web server. Red Hat had the solution: it back-ported the security fixes into Apache 2.0 and all was well. This is a service it provides for all its packages.
RHEL isn't a flawless business OSfor instance, patch auditing is a messbut it's what made Linux acceptable to the business community.
Enter Red Hat. RH understood the needs of business, and created a much more controllable Linux. It also introduced a new, extremely valuable, facility: the ability to stay on old versions of software without the associated risks. For instance, Apache 2.0 has a few known vulnerabilities and the only remedy from the Apache Software Foundation was to upgrade to the latest version of Apache. This left businesses in a quandary: Upgrade and risk almost certainly breaking the corporate web site, or just hope no one notices it's running a vulnerable web server. Red Hat had the solution: it back-ported the security fixes into Apache 2.0 and all was well. This is a service it provides for all its packages.
RHEL isn't a flawless business OSfor instance, patch auditing is a messbut it's what made Linux acceptable to the business community.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
