The nightmare scenario of any company thinking of investing or already committed to Linux goes something like this: as more and more vendors get behind the OS, commercial pressures will lead to fragmentation, and users end up stuck with an isolated Linux distribution.
It’s a vision that Microsoft is understandably keen to promote. In a January interview with BusinessWeek, Kevin Johnson, Microsoft's group vice-president for worldwide sales, marketing and services, gave a familiar assessment of Linux: "It has the potential to fragment like Unix did," he said.
But while the Linux community would dispute that fragmentation could ever happen, it isn't taking any chances. The Linux Standard Base (LSB), initiated in 1998, is designed not only to prevent fragmentation but to allow application makers to release a single software version certified to run on any LSB-compliant Linux distribution. For enterprises, the success of the LSB should mean the ability to switch to a different distribution and take all their LSB-compliant applications with them -- no modifications necessary.
The LSB passed a landmark in September 2004, with the release of the LSB 2.0, the first version to win the enthusiastic support of all the major Linux distributions. In November, a group of vendors called the Linux Core Consortium (LCC) announced they would jointly engineer a binary implementation of the LSB 2.0, which is to be used as the core of all the distributions of the LCC, and any other distributors who wish to take part.
But the real test will come this year, acknowledges the Free Standards Group (FSG), the organisation behind the LSB. Now that the operating system vendors are on board, ISVs must start to widely support the standard, if it's to have any real-world relevance. And months after the release of the LSB 2.0, not many big ISVs are in evidence. Jim Zemlin, executive director of the FSG, insists this year will be a turning point on that front -- he expects the body to double or quadruple membership this year, as large numbers of application vendors announce compliance plans.
Pressure from enterprises could also be essential. Some large companies, such as Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), have already announced they will only deploy LSB-compliant software, and those kinds of announcements could be the spur that ISVs need. "Organizations are usually well served when they adopt standards-based platforms. As the Linux suppliers offer LSB-compliant products, it will make interoperability much easier," says Dan Kusnetzky, vice president of systems software research at IDC.
Talkback
The same problem could happen with Microsoft as they differentiate their products. After all, so far their current version english of MS-Word can't interoperate flawlessly with localized versions of the same software. If you consider slightly different versions, or other platforms than x86 the situation is even worse.
If they can't have their office suite to interoperate with itself how can we expect that various versions of their server software will work together. Not to mention that they simultaneously supports several separate product lines like win2k, win2003 server, XP, and soon Longhorn all slightly different. On top of that we haver various other software such as Exchange, IIS, SQL Server. If you need to upgrade one component, my experience is that you will need to upgrade all the rest, giving lots and lots of headaches.
My guess is that most LInux distros are far more interoperable with themselves and other Linux and unix systems with or without LSB than Microsft manages to be within their own product lines. The GPL factor keepls Linux inline regardless of standards. If one Linux finds some new amazing way of doing things, it will be all over the marketplace as he is required by GPL to share with his competitors.
The only thing that he can keep secret is upgrade and support procedures he runs in his office and it is such difference that makes him competitive, but such differences seldom affects the interoperability of software at the customer location.
At least the licence isn't likely to fork.Once GPLed you are in control of your software. If you go the Microsoft way you can never be sure what licence you end up with. All of a sudden, you download some more or less necessary service pack, and the licence of your entire installation changes.
Now, so far the licence changes applied with service packs have been quite harmless, but the fact that they do change it is worrying.
Would you buy a car, where you all of a sudden find that after your first service, the passenger seats have been removed and you have to buy specil passenger licences to have them added back. I think not.
I remember Linus Torvalds answer to "The forking question" was "so what".
That is, if linux forks there must be some very good and acceptable reason for that to happen.
And there are none, and no demand for that.
In stead there is a strong demand for a standard making life easier for everybody working with linux.
And linux is right now the envolving world standard for supercomputers, embedded devices, consumer electronics,
web-servers, carrier grade, - you name it.
So a standard base for linux is something everybody actively want.
Excuse me?
Quote: "Now, so far the licence changes applied with service packs have been quite harmless, but the fact that they do change it is worrying."
Very wrong, Sir. There already have been security patches from Microsoft that came with an EULA requiring very demanding, one way deal, terms or else no rights to install the patch.
Here's one example:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/06/30/ms_security_patch_eula_gives/
Perhaps people have forgotten how a free market is suppose to work.
In a real free market there are no ways to limit consumer choice other then by providing good quality solutions at competitive prices. Should someone not be able to provide that then somebody else will. Thus enabling the 'better species' (Darwin anyone?) to become dominant until the environment (the needs of the masses) changes and the former 'better species' better adapt to the new environment fast enough or some other 'better species' will become dominant (the innovation need for speed).
Since it stands to reason that good interoperability will be part of the demands required from a 'better species' it's fair to say that in a real free market good interoperability will be no problem at all.
And given the free market nature of Open Source today the mechanics of ensuring good interoperability are already in place today.
Not complying to such Darwinian laws would find any Open Source solution sidetracked and quickly replaced by something else that does. Basicly it's a safety mechanism. Even mistakes are quickly minimized (by means of lesser demand) and thus turned into a thing of the past faster then the PR department of a typical company could change it's PR theme.