Larry Augustin's Weblog

OSDL Success

Matt Asay today on his blog made the statement (links added) that “Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and other industry organizations have miserably failed”.  I take exception to that. OSDL, today the Linux Foundation (LF), has had an important and positive impact on Linux. I think people forget the original premise of the organization when it was founded, what it has done to advance Linux, and how it has evolved to serve the changing needs of the Linux vendors and the Linux community over its lifetime.

OSDL was originally founded to make advanced hardware (hence the “Lab” in OSDL) available to the broader Linux kernel development community. The original idea being that access to a variety of hardware, in particular large-scale hardware with (at the time) advanced features such as 4-way and greater SMP systems, was necessary to advance Linux and not generally available to most kernel developers. This enabled, for example, the first TPC workload testing tools for Linux available to the community. The array of systems available also allowed OSDL to develop and make available to the Linux kernel development community regression testing to help converge stable kernel releases.  I could go on, but many of the successes of OSDL during its “Lab” phase focused on the infrastructure of Linux, and are not as likely to be visible at the open source application level (like Alfresco), but were still important in the broader success of Linux, particularly in the Enterprise data center. This doesn’t even consider services such as providing a safe and neutral environment place for people like Linus Torvalds.

Over time it became apparent that the “Lab” function of OSDL was becoming less necessary to the success of Linux.  I believe, in part, due to the fact that more and more Linux development was moving to paid employees at larger companies who could provide access to the types of systems OSDL was hosting. OSDL, preserving the original vision of advancing Linux, began to look at other barriers to the adoption of Linux.  IP is one example where OSDL was able to respond to industry needs, creating the Linux Legal Defense Fund in response to the SCO lawsuits. In addition, OSDL addressed patent issues with the Open Source as Prior Art (OSAPA) and Patents Commons Project initiatives.

OSDL Workgroups were also formed to bring together people interested in enhancing Linux to make it suitable for new and broader markets.  These included everything from development efforts to support telcos and desktops.

Late in 2006 it became apparent that OSDL needed to undergo yet another transition to continue its broader mission of advancing Linux.  In early 2007 OSDL merged with the Free Standards Group (FSG) to form the Linux Foundation, finally bringing the important role of standards together with the other efforts to foster the growth of Linux.  Today the Linux Foundation incorporates three broad classes of activities:

1. Protecting Linux - LF continues the efforts around IP, patents and legal protection launched by OSDL, including as I already mentioned the Open Source as Prior Art project, the Patent Commons Project, and sponsorship of the Linux Legal Defense Fund.  In addition, the Linux Foundation also manages the Linux trademark.

2. Standardizing Linux - LF produces the Linux Standard Base (LSB) and the Linux Developer Network.  All major Linux distributions comply with the LSB.

3. Promoting Linux - LF serves as a neutral spokesperson to advance the interests of Linux and respond with authority to competitors’ attacks. It also fosters innovation by hosting collaboration events among the Linux technical community, application developers, industry and end users.

So while one might argue that OSDL/FSG/LF might have done more or been more effective, saying it “failed miserably” is I think totally unwarranted. I’m a firm believer in Jim Zemlin and his vision for the organization today, and trust that with the support of board members like Mark Shuttleworth, James Bottomley, Tim Golden and many others he will continue to help Linux grow.

"20 Years of Linux" Panel Now Online

At LinuxWorld Expo in San Francisco this summer I was lucky enough to host a panel discussion among Dirk Hohndel, Eric Raymond, Jon "maddog" Hall, and Chris DiBona.  We talked about the first 15 years of Linux, and what the next 5 years would bring.  The session was recorded and is now online.

Eric Raymond stole the show by calling for more cooperation between Open Source developers and proprietary software vendors.  Specifically, Eric believes that the desktop operating system for the next 30 years will be determined in the next 5 years, and if Linux has not achieved critical mass on the desktop by 2011, we will have 30 more years of Windows.  (Sort of like a 30-year plague...)  But what stirred up controversy was Eric's call for more open support of proprietary media software (specifically CODECs) on Linux.  Eric argued that support for the iPod and similar proprietary media devices was the critical factor in attracting a new generation of Linux desktop users.

I don't agree with Eric.

During the panel we all agreed that one of the key tipping points in Linux history was the decision by Oracle to port to Linux.  That decision gave Linux the legitimacy it needed to be a viable choice among server operating systems.  I believe that we need a similar tipping point for the desktop.  We need a major desktop software vendor to announce Linux support.  I believe that such an announcement could be the tipping point that encourages other vendors to port and users to switch.

Of the major desktop software vendors, there are really only two that are likely to port and would carry significant weight: Adobe and Intuit.  When Novell ran their survey of most requested Windows applications, 11 of the top 25 most requested applications were from Adobe or Intuit.  So rather than pursue proprietary CODECs on Linux, I believe we should be working to encourage Adobe and Intuit to port.  Either Adobe or Intuit would lend credibility to Linux on the desktop and trigger an avalanche of users converting to Linux.

Rob Enderle Slams OSDL/Levanta Linux Study

Now here's a big surprise.  Rob Enderle has slammed the study recently released by OSDL and Levanta showing that Linux is easier and cheaper to maintain than Windows.  I think we all understand that any of these studies is going to somewhat reflect the biases of the sponsors.  But I find it ironic that Enderle criticizes OSDL's credibility while he's supportive of flawed Microsoft-funded studies.  I wonder who pays his bills?

Microsoft Research Linux verses Windows Benchmarks

In a research report on the Singularity Project, Microsoft researchers included some interesting data on Linux and FreeBSD kernel performance verses Windows XP; specifically, Linux kernel 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4 from Fedora Core 4, Windows XP SP2, and FreeBSD 5.3.

The test results are interesting from an OS technical point of view. For example, it’s apparent that Windows XP still suffers from a lot of compatibility baggage. It takes over 7 times more cycles to start a process under Windows XP than under Linux. That’s due in part to compatibility checks like a lookup in the Application Compatibility Database, a user mode service to see if the new program needs to have any compatibility shims added.

However, I’m pleased to see the results because it’s this kind of open, honest quantitative benchmarking data that will make both Linux and Windows better systems. How is that? We can’t improve what we can’t (and don’t) measure. Related to that is intellectual honesty in interpreting the results. Yes, Linux it takes Linux 1/7 of the CPU cycles that it takes Windows XP to start a process. But Windows XP is faster than Linux in many of the benchmarks, especially those related to threading. While the difference isn’t so dramatic, blanket statements like “Microsoft Reports OSS Unix Beats Windows XP” from this Slashdot article are misleading.

A pet peeve of mine for many years has been Open Source evangelists who disregard intellectual honesty in favor of ideology. That usually manifests itself as declarations of the superiority of Open Source software verses proprietary software even when the evidence suggests otherwise.

So let’s not take this report as evidence that we’ve won and can go sit on our laurels. Instead, let us congratulate Linux developers for a job well done, and support and encourage them to keep at it until we can truly say that “OSS Unix Beats Windows XP”.

Sun Goes After Linux

Ever watch a football game where one team is clearly more talented,
but manages to allow the other team to win by continually
self-destructing? Maybe they're putting a great scoring drive
together, and then someone fumbles and the other team recovers? Or
the quarterback throws an interception inside the opponents 10 yard
line?

Somedays the Operating System world doesn't seem all that different.
Just when Unix-like systems have revived, and Linux is gaining market
share, you see something like this:

Sun's plans...and how they could go wrong

George Colony, CEO, Forrester Research

Last week in California, I visited two Sun bigwigs: Jonathan Schwartz,
president and chief operating officer, and Scott McNealy, chairman and
chief executive...

[Schwartz] laid out the surprisingly simple and cohesive strategy that
Sun will follow in pursuit of a recovery...

Step No. 1: Make the argument that Linux equals Red Hat...

Step No. 2: Belittle Red Hat...

etc.

Just whose side is Sun on, anyway? While the Unix vendors fiddle,
Microsoft thrives.

Don't missunderstand me; Solaris is a great platform. But that's not
the point. While Sun is busy slamming Linux, Microsoft is free to
continue grinding out an Operating System that does what the vast
majority of users want, and subsequently runs on 95% on the world's
desktops. It may have its faults, but it has its positives as well.
So much so that there are plenty of Open Source projects to clone
different pieces of Microsoft software.

We've seen this scenario before. Unix vendors bicker: Microsoft picks
up the pieces. Have we forgotten? Are we doomed to relive the Unix
wars again? With Linux gaining market share, and proving itself a
worthy opponent for Microsoft, are we now close to fumbling away any
momentum we might be gaining?

BTW, does anyone find it odd that a vendor would belittle a product that they sell?