old-www/LDP/LG/issue56/giraldo.html

291 lines
18 KiB
HTML

<!--startcut ==============================================-->
<!-- *** BEGIN HTML header *** -->
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<title>The Future Depends on What We Do Now LG #56</title>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000FF" VLINK="#0000AF"
ALINK="#FF0000">
<!-- *** END HTML header *** -->
<CENTER>
<A HREF="http://www.linuxgazette.com/">
<H1><IMG ALT="LINUX GAZETTE" SRC="../gx/lglogo.jpg"
WIDTH="600" HEIGHT="124" border="0"></H1></A>
<!-- *** BEGIN navbar *** -->
<IMG ALT="" SRC="../gx/navbar/left.jpg" WIDTH="14" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom"><A HREF="flechtner.html"><IMG ALT="[ Prev ]" SRC="../gx/navbar/prev.jpg" WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom"></A><A HREF="index.html"><IMG ALT="[ Table of Contents ]" SRC="../gx/navbar/toc.jpg" WIDTH="220" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom" ></A><A HREF="../index.html"><IMG ALT="[ Front Page ]" SRC="../gx/navbar/frontpage.jpg" WIDTH="137" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom"></A><A HREF="http://www.linuxgazette.com/cgi-bin/talkback/all.py?site=LG&article=http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue56/giraldo.html"><IMG ALT="[ Talkback ]" SRC="../gx/navbar/talkback.jpg" WIDTH="121" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom" ></A><A HREF="../faq/index.html"><IMG ALT="[ FAQ ]" SRC="./../gx/navbar/faq.jpg"WIDTH="62" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom"></A><A HREF="kasten.html"><IMG ALT="[ Next ]" SRC="../gx/navbar/next.jpg" WIDTH="15" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom" ></A><IMG ALT="" SRC="../gx/navbar/right.jpg" WIDTH="15" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom">
<!-- *** END navbar *** -->
<P>
</CENTER>
<!--endcut ============================================================-->
<H4 ALIGN="center">
"Linux Gazette...<I>making Linux just a little more fun!</I>"
</H4>
<P> <HR> <P>
<!--===================================================================-->
<center>
<H1><font color="maroon">The Future Depends on What We Do Now</font></H1>
<H4>By <a href="mailto:ni-giral@uniandes.edu.co">Nicolay Alfredo GIRALDO Leiva</a>
<P>Translated from the <A HREF="misc/giraldo/articulo.txt">Spanish</A>
by Rory Krause</H4>
</center>
<P> <HR> <P>
<!-- END header -->
<P> Some time ago, Bill Gates and Paul Allen thought that it was just not
fair to have to pay for processing time on expensive mainframes. And
they thought the solution was the personal computer. They bet all of
their future on it. It was only an idea. They were even startled to
see the debut of Altair computers in an electronics magazine. ``The
future is passing us by,'' they thought. And they believed fervently
in their idea, enough to make it a reality. Then they built
Microsoft into the giant that it is today. Maybe, if Bill Gates an Paul
Allen had not existed, the only personal computers that we might own
would be Japanese, and would only work for playing games. Although,
with out a doubt, we would have Quake III Arena, with a Japanese name,
of course. And it would be a role playing game.
<P> Likewise, Richard Stallman thought that it was not fair that people pay
large sums of money for the software that they used, especially if it
was not quite up to the quality they would prefer. And so he created
the GNU project. He also be his future on his idea. And he believes
fervently in it. He believes that the GPL license of his software it
the best license in the world, and it is possible that he is right.
Several years ago I read some articles written by industry analysts,
that predicted that although the cost of hardware would decrease
steadily, the cost of software would only continue to increase. Maybe,
if Richard Stallman had not existed we would no be paying licensing fees
of $1000 or more for a software package worth less that a tenth of that
fee.
<P> And then we have Linus Torvalds. The fundamental idea that he had was
to realize at some point that the software that he had created in order
to connect to the server at his university had certain similarities to
an operation system, or rather the kernel of an operating system.
Furthermore, the idea to try to improve the operating system on an
ongoing basis with the help of its users. This was the fundamental
step. Linus it the leader. If Linus had not existed... no, I don't
even want to imagine it.
<P> Richard Stallman simply wrote his manifesto, made his software, and put
his license on it, but his has not done anything of such significance
since then. Any chance he gets, he gives his opinion of all types of
licenses (e.g. the Motif libraries). The license on software is not
its most important part. If it was, people would have stopped using
Windows a long time ago. It needs something more. It need people who
will do for each application and each library what Linus did for the
kernel.
<P> Furthermore, consider the fact that both ideas, the idea of Bill Gates
and Paul Allen of not having to pay for processor time by using a
personal computer, and the idea of Richard Stallman, of not having to
pay for the software that you use on the computer converge to one idea.
They converge to Linux: Free distribution for personal computers.
<P> Now that Linux is entering very very slowly, but quite surely in the personal
computer arena, we should place our attention on its graphical interface.
I say that it is entering the arena quite surely, because once a user is
satisfied with his Linux installation, he has all his hardware
supported, he has tested all his application, is is possible that he
will never return to Windows. But it is slow also, because only a small
percentage of the people that try Linux are satisfied with the
experience. The rest return to Windows. I contend that the single most
important aspect is the graphical user interface. Because out there in
the real world, there are more than 200 million users, that only know
how to use a computer in this fashion, without text consoles, without two
letter commands.
<P> In this way, we are duplicating effort and advancing at half the speed or
slower than what we should be doing. The teams of programmers working on
the KDE and GNOME environments are working on the same problems, on
creating an interface that is consistent, a standard for programming,
incredibly personalizable, so the users of the graphical environment feel
at home, and the programmers know that they can choose any group of
libraries and their programs are going to work on whatever Linux system
without problems or the necessity for the user to install additional
components. Definitely we are duplicating efforts.
<P> One of the first things I learned in college was that in programming, we
should not try to reinvent the wheel each time we write a program. It
is for this reason that function libraries exist and are standardized.
<P> The KDE environment is complicated, it has many features, and supplies a
consistent interface that is at the same time personalizable for any
user. It is extremely easy to use and this allows for increase
productivity with any user and eliminates the learning curve accompanied
with a migration from a Windows system to a Linux system. In spite of
this, I have seen messages from our local group of Linux users who
detest KDE, more for ideological reasons (the Qt library license) than
for anything practical. They would never recommend it in a business
environment in spite of the benefits that its use might have.
<P> "I have a K carved into my forehead," was the expression used by one of
them.
<P> GNOME also has problems with its users. It is an excellent tool, and its
GTK programming kit is GPL'ed on all the platforms to which it has been
ported. It has several innovative technologies and notable features.
But it also has some problems not just in itself, but also in its
acceptance by some people. Some programmers that prefer BSD licenses
detest anything that has to do with GPL. It doesn't have a consistence
interface across all installations. No sir, this is not a bug, this is
a feature. This is the phrase that is used in these cases. Because you
can try out various window managers and choose your favorite. But many
user don't even have a clue about what a window manager is.
<P> To put this in a different perspective, let us suppose that the Hurd
kernel from the GNU project had been ready in 1996 before the commercial
explosion that Linux had last year, and there were some distributions
with the Linux kernel and others with the Hurd kernel and some with
both. There would be fanatical users of one or the other kernel. There
might be some saying "I have penguin carved into my forehead," even
though he was, like all of us, dedicated to the project of liberating us
from the 64,000 bugs for $400 or more, to which we are still tied to by industry forces. And maybe I would find "I have a penguin carved into my forehead" in the list of messages from our local user's group.
<P> This comparison is not exact, but it gets the point across. It is not exact
because both kernels can execute the same programs ant the programmer does not
have to do anything special for this to happen. In graphical environments KDE applications use one set of libraries and standards while the Gnome applications use different ones. Additionally you can use the Qt libraries without complying with the KDE standards or GTK without complying with Gnome standards. The users must have both sets of libraries in order to run both types of programs.
<P> The rest of the applications use other available libraries. There are a
tremendous number of libraries for programming in a graphical environment.
Maybe this is a good thing, maybe not. A programmer who knows C or C++ and
wants to write an application for use on Linux soon discovers a confusing mess
of standards and libraries. The is no consensus on which set is the best. It
is possible that our hypothetical new user might spend more time deciding
which programming libraries and which environment to use, than the time he uses
learning to use these libraries for writing his program. It is also possible
that someone might use Gnome only because it is installed by default on the
RedHat distribution. Only GPL fanatics will use Gnome. But this is only a
possibility.
<P> It would be nice to find a way to unite the KDE and Gnome projects. Perhaps
there could be a leader to coordinate the projects, just like Linus does with
the kernel. This would give motivation to the people who want to program and
make Linux better. We would have increasingly more and more programmers,
almost exponential growth, just as we have seen happen with kernel development
since its beginnings.
<P> In spite of this, Linux has to solve other problems of equal urgency. I
I believe that Linux is an important operating system in the computing
industry and the hardware manufacturers should recognize it as such. Instead
of letting the open source community write all their drivers, the hardware
manufacturers should write their own drivers. If they want, they can make
them open source so that the users can correct errors or add functionality
for the hardware. Even if they write drivers and release only binaries it
would be a tremendous help.
<P> Let's take the case of software modems, better known as "winmodems". Lucent
wrote a driver and released the binary for the RedHat 6.1 distribution, which
supported modems with the Lucent chips. Lucent has only written this driver,
(it has some bugs) because they were only asked once. Lucent has announced the
it will not make drivers at the request of users, but rather at the request of
business that sell Linux distributions. It is a good policy. It saves time
and money in technical support and it is possible that many hardware
manufacturers might have a similar policy. Maybe they are only waiting for a
Linux distribution to ask for the drivers. Everyone who has at some time
written divers knows that it is much easier to write drivers for Linux than
for Windows.
<P> Linux distribution companies lack the sense of leadership that they need
right now. Some companies announced a little while ago that, "we have
hired programmers to work on X project for X amount of time". Two
programmers are to few. Especially the distributions with leading sales
numbers like RedHat and Caldera should contract all the programmers that
they can for Linux programs. Even though they have already hired some
programmers, the more the better. The same goes for all the other
distributions.
<P> Linux is still not strong enough. The companies that make their money
selling Linux have the responsibility to make it stronger. But they leave
many things up to the "open source community" to do. Linux is a good software
package to improve and make more compatible and friendly. Other open source
projects are not. A project is no necessarily of good quality just because it
is open source. They should not try to support all the open source projects
that there are just because they are open source or because they are
"alternative" operating systems. For this reason, among others, we should
not see it as strange when the value over there stock shares go down.
<P> Some people have speculated that the triumph of Linux could be based on the
success of one application (the killer application), a software program that
very good and that only works on Linux, which will make everyone want to
have it. And some thought that such an application could be an office suite
or something similar. The people at Microsoft think in a similar fashion.
For this reason, they will try to make the next version of office (code named
office 10) include integrated voice recognition. And we all know that such
version might sell well, but the voice recognition will not work really well
until the next version, or until two or three versions later.
<P> The creators of RedHat created the RedHat Package Management System (RPM) and
on that idea they based their distribution. They did a good job. Everyone
who has needed to update slackware or another version or even Windows, knows that the best method is to erase everything and reinstall from nothing. And this is now a problem with Linux, thanks to the folks at RedHat.
<P> Maybe the answer is not the one application. Maybe it is many applications.
These are known as games. The first effort to make Windows an acceptable
platform for games was called WinG. It worked on top of Windows 3.1 with
extensions in 32 bits called "Win32s". It was terribly bad. The only game
that I remember that used Win32s was something like Wolfenstein. And it was
also quite bad. There was no comparison between the game for DOS, like DooM,
Descent, or Warcraft and the simple Windows games. Even with Windows 95, the
support for games was terrible. It was not until 1996 that the DirectX
libraries appeared. The first respectable game that worked well on Windows
that I could see was DooM II. Then there was MS Fury. And then the industry
slowly changed. The rest is history. It can be seen that it was never an
easy trip for Microsoft, most of all for their model for writing drivers.
<P> The advantage for the companies that made games for DOS, was the total control
that they had over the hardware. The advantage that they have now to make
games for Windows9x is that they do not have to worry about compatability
with an innumerable amount of hardware that is out there on the market, because
the DirectX libraries allow them to use a series of standard routines to
control the hardware that the systems has. Linux does not allow the total
control of the hardware, and for now it does not have a series of standard
libraries either that allow interaction with the hardware in an efficient
way. Although there are some video libraries, they still lack sound and
control mechanisms and more.
<P> It is thanks to games that I still keep a working copy of Windows 95 on my
computer. Linux, like everything else has evolved faster than Windows and
now supports graphics acceleration with OpenGL on some cards and Xfree 4.0
promises much more of this type of thing. Many server of Quake III Arena
run Linux. But the competition will not stop. We need more and better ideas.
Especially now that Win2000 has copied everything that it can from Linux
systems. And the next version will also copy everything that it can.
<P> We need ideas that change the future of technology and benefit everyone; Ideas
like those of Bill Gates and Richard Stallman. And we need leader like Linus
Torvalds that can coordinate the efforts of people around the globe to make
those ideas reality. I hope that those potential visionaries and leaders are
reading this article and they will be moved to risk all of their future for
those ideas. Surely then, both the innovators as well as the rest of us,
will have a better future.
<!-- *** BEGIN copyright *** -->
<P> <hr> <!-- P -->
<H5 ALIGN=center>
Copyright &copy; 2000, Nicolay Alfredo GIRALDO Leiva<BR>
Published in Issue 56 of <i>Linux Gazette</i>, August 2000</H5>
<!-- *** END copyright *** -->
<!--startcut ==========================================================-->
<HR><P>
<CENTER>
<!-- *** BEGIN navbar *** -->
<IMG ALT="" SRC="../gx/navbar/left.jpg" WIDTH="14" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom"><A HREF="flechtner.html"><IMG ALT="[ Prev ]" SRC="../gx/navbar/prev.jpg" WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom"></A><A HREF="index.html"><IMG ALT="[ Table of Contents ]" SRC="../gx/navbar/toc.jpg" WIDTH="220" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom" ></A><A HREF="../index.html"><IMG ALT="[ Front Page ]" SRC="../gx/navbar/frontpage.jpg" WIDTH="137" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom"></A><A HREF="http://www.linuxgazette.com/cgi-bin/talkback/all.py?site=LG&article=http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue56/giraldo.html"><IMG ALT="[ Talkback ]" SRC="../gx/navbar/talkback.jpg" WIDTH="121" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom" ></A><A HREF="../faq/index.html"><IMG ALT="[ FAQ ]" SRC="./../gx/navbar/faq.jpg"WIDTH="62" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom"></A><A HREF="kasten.html"><IMG ALT="[ Next ]" SRC="../gx/navbar/next.jpg" WIDTH="15" HEIGHT="45" BORDER="0" ALIGN="bottom" ></A><IMG ALT="" SRC="../gx/navbar/right.jpg" WIDTH="15" HEIGHT="45" ALIGN="bottom">
<!-- *** END navbar *** -->
</CENTER>
</BODY></HTML>
<!--endcut ============================================================-->