Linux Is Not A Viable OS

Pageviews by OS 7 Jan 2012 - 5 Feb 2012

I just came across two comments in an idea on Dell's IdeaStorm claiming Linux is not a viable OS or some nonsense. Frankly I was gob-smacked to learn there are still some people promoting this FUD. So much so in fact I was moved to write quite a lengthy rant and then repost it here. Frankly if this stuff is still doing the rounds and people are actually believing it then we're not doing enough to get the message out that Linux currently dominates the OS market in it's many forms. It has a presence in virtually every device market pigeon hole. And it's the top contender in most. If you are a Linux user and Dell customer using Linux on Dell hardware then get your arse on IdeaStorm and tell Dell you want Linux!

That was the short version. Below is the long version I posted on IdeaStorm.

Linux is not a serious contender in the OS market? This is the sort of FUD and ignorance that keeps consumers away from Linux. Linux is very much a contender in the OS market. Which is why Microsoft lists desktop Linux as a threat to it's desktop Windows in it's tax returns. When netbooks first appeared Linux was such a massive threat to Microsoft it had to literally give Windows XP away for free and extend it's shelf life because Vista wouldn't run on a netbook.

If you have a WiFi router, DVR, DVD player, smart TV, satellite set top box, cable set top box or any number of other devices in your home then the chances are it's running either a Linux or BSD based OS.

Android/Linux smart phone deployments dwarf all others in the smart phone market. Even Apple's iPhone is dwarfed by Android when all Android distributors are counted as one. And Windows Phone 7? Hardly a blip on the radar.

It's true all manner of malware exists for Linux. However Linux has a different approach to dealing with malware. Yes the people sticking their heads in the sand are not helpful. Linux does have anti-malware software built right into the kernel. It's call Apparmor. It works a bit more like a white list of software rather than the black list Windows anti-virus vendors try to use. This is used in combination with community vigilance. One of the great advantages of Free and Open Source Software is the community gets to see the source code. It can be inspected so the community can determine what it does. So additional anti-virus software on Linux is generally speaking not needed.

With the black list approach you'll always be step behind. And that's just not good enough.

So far as the average office worker or home user is concerned GNU/Linux has all the bases covered when it comes to application software. There are more web browsers, e-mail clients and office productivity sweets than you can swing a cat at. And many of these applications are also available for Windows as well. So migration needn't be a harsh experience.

It's true more specialist bespoke software is not available off the shelf. However that's true of all OS platforms. The clue is in the "bespoke software" part. The Microsoft way is to tell people to use their OS and applications stack no matter what. And indeed Microsoft channel partners follow this mantra. Religiously sometimes. However it is very bad practice to shoehorn every business into the same mould. This is in fact the primary reason why malware is such a massive problem for Windows.

When building bespoke systems it is better to assess the clients actual needs and serve those needs first. When that approach is adopted. FOSS tends to win. Hence the reason why many of the worlds stock exchanges have switched to GNU/Linux. Hence the reason why US drones now run on Linux instead of Windows which could not be properly secured against malware. Hence the reason why many EU government agencies are switching to GNU/Linux and why GNU/Linux is so popular in South America. Hence the reason why something on the order of the top 40 of the worlds most powerful super computers are running GNU/Linux and why most of the top 500 are running GNU/Linux.

And then there is the tablet market. Which very closely resembles the smart phone market. ARM based devices running Android/Linux.

At this stage in the game anybody claiming Linux is not a viable contender is just delusional. The last market Linux has left to conquer is the desktop. Which is ironically becoming less relevant every year if the pundits are right. The only market where Windows has a strangle hold is the desktop/laptop market. Linux is slowly gaining ground. Microsoft is slowly losing.

Pageviews by Browser 7 Jan 2010 - 5 Feb 2012

Interested In Linux? Here are a few resources.

• The Linux Foundation
• The GNU Operating System
• The Gnome Foundation
• Debian
• Ubuntu
• Fedora
• Nixie Pixel

Incidentally if you're using Google or Facebook. You're a Linux user already. Something to think about people.

CarrierIQ - FOSS Wouldn't Have Stopped It!

There seems to be quite a bit of fuss going on around this whole CarrierIQ business. Specifically there seems to be some sort of misconception that a fully open source operating system would have some how prevented CarrierIQ from being used. What complete and utter nonsense. Lets consider how this software was discovered.

This thing was detected by security researchers. How many smart phone users out there are security researchers? How many smartphone users out there in the real world actually care what diagnostic software is installed on their "phone"? And now that we know about CarrierIQ, how many Android or Apple smartphone owners are going to do anything to remove it? Almost none is the answer to all questions. Just a teeny tiny minority of people using these devices understands the inner workings enough to even think to look for this sort of activity.

In deed one of the security researchers who discovered CarrierIQ, only found it because he was tracking down the source of some data packets moving across his companies networks that shouldn't have been there. The implication being if he hadn't noticed the rouge data packets. He wouldn't have found CarrierIQ.

Now lets consider how a fully open source OS would have helped. Could Google have reasonably stopped HTC, Samsung or Motorola from installing CarrierIQ? It's doubtful. If Google aren't involved in the installation of this rootkit then I see no way they could have stopped it. Even if it had been installed as a standard default app. Most people still wouldn't have noticed it. And even if they did. They likely wouldn't have done anything about it. The description would have read something like, "Reports performance metrics back to manufacturer for support purposes". Most folks would like then have considered it a necessary technical component and left it well alone. I mean I let my Ubuntu desktop report back to Canonical.

So in the end CarrierIQ would still be there. Most people would do nothing about it. As they are doing now.

If Google had created their own performance monitoring software could they have stopped this? Well no. Android is open source or at least mostly open source. And as with most general purpose operating systems today, Android is modular. That means any component can be changed out for an alternative part by those who have the know-how and will to do so. So Samsung and HTC could still be spying on you.

There is also another issue to look at. Data security on a network. How does open source software protect your data against monitoring once it leaves your phone? The phone companies know who their customers are and who's calling who, who's texting what etc. And it's not just the phone companies. Go talk about any subject or product on Facebook and then watch as the adverts you're served up on web pages match exactly what you were discussing ten minutes ago.

So what exactly is the fuss about? Are people still under the illusion they have some sort of privacy left in this world? Privacy died when the art of "data-mining" was discovered.

....

Just one more thing before the lights go out. I noticed a few folks crowing about how Windows Phone 7 devices don't have this rootkit. Well no they don't it seems however who needs a rootkit to ruin your day when Microsoft are involved. Sidkick, Office 365/BPOS, Windows, Xbox malware. Enough said.

Users Don't Know What They Want

I was reading this article which quoted a comment by Richard Hughes. "User don't know what they want". Well excuse me for being to retarded to write an advanced GUI desktop on my own. But I can choose what to eat for breakfast in the morning. I manage to dress myself. Go out to work. Make it through the day and get home safely. All on my own.

When I bought my current PC. A Dell Dimension XPS 700. I did that on my own as well. I even paid for it. With a credit card. When I decided to make the move to GNU/Linux full time. I decided on my own to do it in stages. The first thing was selecting a GNU/Linux distribution. I experimented with Fedora and openSuSE. Then discovered Ubuntu. Now since I was using the hybrid hardware/software RAID array built into the 700 series system board the installation of a Linux based OS back then wasn't straightforward. Dmraid wasn't installed or configured by default on any of the distros I tried. And that's actually part of what drove my decision to go with Ubuntu.


Being stupid, I couldn't get dmraid working in either Fedora or openSuSE. Both distros use RPMs. Back then RPM hell was a term many people came to know. Basically there were dependency issues. Ubuntu with it's debs was better organised. No dependency issues. Although configuration was still a problem. But with a little research into the Ubuntu documentation I found what I needed to get it all up and running. Which meant I could now dual boot. Until that point I had been boot Linux from a USB drive.

So I'm not smart enough to write my own version of Gnome. I am smart enough though to know how to problem solve. How to make decisions. I know what works for me and what doesn't. Windows XP with all it's issues and problems wasn't working for me any more. So I made the sensible decision to find an alternative. What do you think I'll do now that Gnome doesn't do the things I want it to do? Maybe I'll find an alternative. It would seem to be the sensible thing to do.

When ever a software developer, a programmer makes a comment like "users don't know what they want". It's a clear sign something is going very wrong in that software project. Which reminds me of another comment I read once in a article. Linus Torvalds once said something like "he who writes the code gets to decide". Meaning ultimately programmers participating in free open source software projects are the ones who decide which features to include and which features to drop. Which is fine. Until that is the software you are writing targets a user group beyond other programmers. And that's what desktop environments do.

Kernel developers like Linus Torvalds have a certain luxury of rarely having to interact with desktop users. The concerns of the desktop user are rarely the concerns of the kernel developers. In a sense what kernel developers do is invisible to desktop users. So we desktop users don't complain very often when they drop or replace features. Desktop developers however don't have that luxury. As Canonical/Ubuntu and KDE found out. Gnome should be learning lessons from these two groups.

When KDE 4.x series was released there was uproar. The majority of users hated it. Some of there anger was squarely targeted at being hit with the unfamiliar. The very same issue we have to overcome to get people to use a GNU/Linux based OS in the first place. Anybody would think we'd know better. Right? A lot of the anger however was squarely down to the fact KDE had changed things too much. Now so far as I know, KDE developers aren't known for being polite about people who criticise their work. But after all the bitching was done they knuckled down and started fixing the things people were complaining about. As a result KDE is now a more pleasant desktop environment to use with some pretty cool features. Everybody's a winner!

Canonical has experienced similar anger spat in their direction for daring to force Unity on it's user base. Unity started life as the interface to Ubuntu Netbook Remix. And it's not hard to see why Canonical would think Unity would work well on a netbook. Small displays means you have to be economical with the display. Low powered CPUs meant not much was being done by way of multitasking. But on a desktop? These just aren't considerations that are any where near the top of the list of all the things to be considered. However Canonical would not be deterred. It rolled out Unity.

Most people say Unity was rolled out too soon. It wasn't finished. And indeed they say the same of Gnome Shell. Rather than bitching or insulting it's user base though, Canonical it seems would rather just make Unity better. 11.04 delivered a stale turd of a GUI. With 11.10 Unity was now running atop the new and improved Gnome 3.x. They fixed some of the annoyances. Made the dash useful. 12.04 will focus more on stability and polish. Basically KDE and Canonical listened to their user base. And because they listened they could fix the problems that were pissing people off.

Listening and understanding users is the most important thing a developer working in the user space can do. If your not writing software people want to use then your playing to an empty house. I'd hate to see the Gnome Foundation playing to an empty house. Gnome has been good to me over the years. It's been relatively hassle free. Simple and easy to use and configure. It's developers need to respect the users and listen to what they are telling them.

It would be a shame to see Gnome implode and be crushed by the weight of it's own foot print. There are plenty of alternatives. LXDE, XFCE, KDE and Unity to name but a few.