Need a brief tutorial on Linux

[wpshooter]

It is my understanding that Linux is an "open source" operating system. I also, understand this to means that anyone who has the expertise could write and contribute code for this O/S.

Who has the oversight responsibilities for seeing that this code is properly written (and that it does not contain any destructive code) and then for incorporating the submitted code into the O/S ? Is this just one entity somewhere or is this done by multiple entities ?

And if, some code is approved, is it then placed in all different versions of Linux or is the submission of the code made to just the brand of Linux that the author wants or is there some common repository for all of this submitted code ?

I will have a few more brief questions that will depend upon the answers to my prior listed questions.

Thanks.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Linus Torvalds controls the Linux kernel. He and his band of merry men decide what goes in. This creates the central Linux kernel. People submit their stuff to these guys. The distributions pull the kernel, make any changes they deem necessary, and distribute.

 

[wpshooter]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Linus Torvalds controls the Linux kernel. He and his band of merry men decide what goes in. This creates the central Linux kernel. People submit their stuff to these guys. The distributions pull the kernel, make any changes they deem necessary, and distribute.

If he then, allows others to make changes to the central kernel, does that not mean that he does not REALLY have control of the product - not trying to argumentative, just trying to understand how this works.

Thanks.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Linus Torvalds controls the Linux kernel. He and his band of merry men decide what goes in. This creates the central Linux kernel. People submit their stuff to these guys. The distributions pull the kernel, make any changes they deem necessary, and distribute.

If he then, allows others to make changes to the central kernel, does that not mean that he does not REALLY have control of the product - not trying to argumentative, just trying to understand how this works.

Thanks.

He's the "benevolent dictator." He has control over everything. If he doesn't want something in the kernel, it won't be there. I'm guessing there is some good communication between him and the other top level guys to keep things working properly.

Anyone at any time can fork from the main kernel and start their own. It just hasn't happened yet.

 

[wpshooter]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Linus Torvalds controls the Linux kernel. He and his band of merry men decide what goes in. This creates the central Linux kernel. People submit their stuff to these guys. The distributions pull the kernel, make any changes they deem necessary, and distribute.

If he then, allows others to make changes to the central kernel, does that not mean that he does not REALLY have control of the product - not trying to argumentative, just trying to understand how this works.

Thanks.

He's the "benevolent dictator." He has control over everything. If he doesn't want something in the kernel, it won't be there. I'm guessing there is some good communication between him and the other top level guys to keep things working properly.

Anyone at any time can fork from the main kernel and start their own. It just hasn't happened yet.

Then does he have any ownership/property rights in the kernel/software ? Does he have a legal right to stop anyone from changing and/or using the code without his permission similiar to Microsoft ?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: wpshooter

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Linus Torvalds controls the Linux kernel. He and his band of merry men decide what goes in. This creates the central Linux kernel. People submit their stuff to these guys. The distributions pull the kernel, make any changes they deem necessary, and distribute.

If he then, allows others to make changes to the central kernel, does that not mean that he does not REALLY have control of the product - not trying to argumentative, just trying to understand how this works.

Thanks.

He's the "benevolent dictator." He has control over everything. If he doesn't want something in the kernel, it won't be there. I'm guessing there is some good communication between him and the other top level guys to keep things working properly.

Anyone at any time can fork from the main kernel and start their own. It just hasn't happened yet.

Then does he have any ownership/property rights in the kernel/software ? Does he have a legal right to stop anyone from changing and/or using the code without his permission similiar to Microsoft ?

He has copyright ownership over much of the kernel. He cannot stop anyone from using it, as long as they abide by the license.

 

[wpshooter]

Can you tell me in just as few words as possible what the license does and does not require ?

Also, all of the above being the case, can/will this O/S ever have enough market share to be a competitive threat to Microsoft.

And am I correct, in that, the main reasons why it is not already a threat is 1) the lack a large body of competitive application software or the ability to run all of microsoft compatible applications and 2) the lack of knowledge of the general computer user community about the workings & use of this O/S ?

Thanks.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: wpshooter
Can you tell me in just as few words as possible what the license does and does not require ?

No I'm not a lawyer, read it for yourself. Here's a link Here is another link that may interest you.

Also, all of the above being the case, can/will this O/S ever have enough market share to be a competitive threat to Microsoft.

Ask Redhat, IBM, HP, or Novel. They seem to think so.

And am I correct, in that, the main reasons why it is not already a threat is 1) the lack a large body of competitive application software or the ability to run all of microsoft compatible applications and 2) the lack of knowledge of the general computer user community about the workings & use of this O/S ?

Thanks.

No, yes. Generally *nix applications are on par with most Windows applications. Gaming sucks, but it's a small part of the PC market anyhow.

 

[wpshooter]

Thanks for all the info.

On a side note, the company that I work for, switched from a Novell server O/S to a Microsoft O/S at few years back. I certainly don't have to knowledge that some of the higher up IT person's in my company have, but from my stand point, Novell was worth 5 of Microsoft.

Again, thanks.

 

[sourceninja]

Its important to state that linux is not a product. It is a kernel. Linus and his men write the kernel ( a few paided dev's from ibm, novell, etc help too). Then this is released under the GPL. Distro and companys take this kernel and build a OS from it. Now nothing stops them from adding things to the kernel for their own use (in fact this is done a lot). This is a strenght of linux. Different distro's can target different platforms, types of use, etc. Most distro's have their own way of managing their OS and choosing what goes in it and what doesnt. Some distro's even let you swap and change core parts of the OS during the install.

So
1) linux is just a kernel, without anything else it does nothing.
2) Distro's add programs to the kernel to create a OS.
3) Each OS can be completly different then other linux OS's.

For the most part they are all the same, but some do things different (linux from scratch, gobolinux, gentoo, etc) Yes, there are a lot of common programs, but you never know what can happen. A distro could come out tomarrow that uses a file system like windows with a proprietary desktop layer, and their own c compiler and if they had the cash/manpower they could pull it off and it would still be linux.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: wpshooter
Novell was worth 5 of Microsoft.

... huh?

(Not disagreeing... asking for clarification.)

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: wpshooter
Novell was worth 5 of Microsoft.

... huh?

(Not disagreeing... asking for clarification.)

Take 1 novell server being worked on by 1 novell administrators and you have the same effectiveness as 5 Microsoft servers being worked on by 5 Microsofts administrators.. Novell ran faster, was more secure and much more stable.

More or less.

Windows was great because it was cheaper, but it's very... labor intensive compared to contemporary operating systems back in the day when Novell was still the standard server system for workgroups.

There were several problems with Novell's approach though..
Novell's marketing sucked.

Novell made a much to abrupt change for people to handle when it moved from a flat file server system to a full-fledged network directory system (NDS); It was too much for people to deal with when upgrading. When Microsoft copied NDS to make AD people were ready and the transition from flat file system was smoother (initially).

IPS/SPX.. Again Netbuie was simplier and easier for people to deal with even though IPS/SPX was superior in most aspects

There were a lot more administrators that knew and were comfortable with Microsoft systems while good Novell admins were hard to find and were expensive as a result.

Consultants and Software sales people made a hell of a lot more money from selling/pushing Microsoft servers/services to businesses rather then telling them to stick with Novell.

Their product was a network directory and file system for Windows, a Microsoft product... so MS built support for it's services and directory systems directly into the OS while Novell had to deal with relatively clumsy add-on support to the OS.

And a few other things...

So while Novell's Netware was better, Microsoft was much better at marketting and gauging the market and Novell lost most of it's once-majority market share.

Or at least thats how it seemed to me.

But many people were VERY happy to get away from Novell. If you google around you can find some very intense Novell hate.

Novell is now dumping Netware and moving it's services and support stuff to Linux, which is probably why wpshooter is interesting in Linux.

This way Novell has equal access to desktop systems as it's competetor thru desktop Linux...

Personally if I was incharge of a lot of standard Windows desktop-oriented system (with AD , Exchange and MSSQL such) and I wanted to move them over to Linux or other open system software Novell would be the first place I'd look for.

Because Linux has no comparative services normally aviable for Active Directory and Exchange.. If I was starting from scratch then that wouldn't be that big of a problem since Linux has it's own LDAP systems and other things like that, but it's a big problem for migration away from Windows.

Novell has extensive experiance with desktop-oriented were most Linux businesses (Redhat, for example) is server-oriented and they have direct equivelents to AD and Exchange/Outlook in the form of NDS and Groupware/Evolution/Outlook. They are also working on migration support and offer various tools and scripts, and some from third party companies, for migration over to Linux desktop from Windows desktop. Also Suse is certified by Oracle so you can have a enterprise ready database system if postgresql/firebird(borland interbase)/mysql can't fit the bill.

So that way you can make gradual relatively painless transitions... Go from Windows NT or Windows 2000 + AD + Exchange to Suse/Netware + NDS + Groupware and still retain complete compatability with Windows Desktops and their users.. then after that is done then you can move the desktop system over...

Or maybe keep the Exchange server setup and use "Novel Linux Desktop" with Evolution's exchange support.. or Have a mix of Windows/Suse desktops based on department or whatever is best. Or maybe just keep the Windows Desktop systems and migrate the network/information infrastructure completely over to Linux without disruption to end-users.

Stuff like that.

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: wpshooter
Also, all of the above being the case, can/will this O/S ever have enough market share to be a competitive threat to Microsoft.

Here's an article from a while back that I enjoyed. It's an overview of how Linux grew and the current kernel development is done, plus some background on Linus Torvalds.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918001_mz001.htm

Put it all together, and Linux has become the strongest rival that Microsoft has ever faced. In servers, researcher IDC predicts Linux' market share based on unit sales will rise from 24% today to 33% in 2007, compared with 59% for Windows -- essentially keeping Microsoft at its current market share for the next three years and squeezing its profit margins. That's because, for the first time, Linux is taking a bite out of Windows, not just the other alternatives, and is forcing Microsoft to offer discounts to avoid losing sales. In a survey of business users by Forrester Research Inc. (FORR ), 52% said they are now replacing Windows servers with Linux. On the desktop side, IDC sees Linux' share more than doubling, from 3% today to 6% in 2007, while Windows loses a bit of ground. IDC expects the total market for Linux devices and software to jump from $11 billion last year to $35.7 billion by 2008.

Now, in response to your question. Forgive me a bit of zen when I say that the greatest threat Linux poses to Microsoft comes from being so non-threatening. For example, I am toying with the idea of adapting Ruby on Rails for our agency's intranet. I grabbed a spare machine, loaded Fedora Core 4, Ruby, Rails, MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Apache on it. Now I have a free, powerful technology testbed. It was cake to set up with a few minutes of googling and I didn't have to ask for any funding nor commit to any licensing.

On the server front, Linux is beating the tar out of Windows as we speak. I saw a good quote the other day that went something like, "Any company thinking of rolling out Windows servers needs to explain what they know about computing that Google, Yahoo, and Amazon.com don't."

On the desktop front, Linux has hardly made a dent (yet). Microsoft has users boxed in very, very well. But like a boulder at the top of a hill, this can only last so long. I run a Linux desktop and it's great. Microsoft drove me away with their invasive product activation.

For companies, the GPL is like the neutral zone from Star Trek. They can collaborate without worrying about a competitor mis-using their code. Consider for a moment that most programmers are NOT writing code that will be sold at Walmart. The are writing custom, in-house applications. There's no competition here. Anything that makes that job easier and faster is a win-win scenario. This is where a lot of open source comes from.

The irony of Microsoft is that their only counter to open is to become more closed. That's why they are pushing DRM so heavy in Vista. If both OS's were equal and one is free, the closed one had better find a angle. They will be able to hold you hostage by requiring users to surrender control of their computers in exchange for playing DRM-encumbered movies, music, and games. IMHO, that's Microsofts long term vision; to be the content control entity for both desktops and the living room.