The Linux Foundation, a nonprofit organization created in 2007 to promote Linux, recently assumed control of the linux.com domain. This is a good move, as it helps consolidate the image of Linux, making it easier for new users to find and understand the operating system–in other words, it brings greater centralization to Linux, which is badly needed if free software is to become ubiquitous on the desktops of the world.
In general, centralization has no place within the ideological foundations of the free-software movement. If code is open-source, there can be no monopoly over it, since those who disagree with a decision are free to fork the project in the direction they see fit.
This radical decentralization of open-source development is one of Linux’s greatest strengths. It promotes creativity and innovation on a scale impossible in the proprietary world. It also allows free software to meet the demands of niche markets and picky users who might be ignored by closed-source developers.
Decentralization, however, comes with an obvious price. Experienced Linux geeks might enjoy the hundreds of distributions and dozens of desktop environments, window managers, web browsers and so on from which they can choose when deciding how to run their computers. But for users new to the free-software world, the wide array of choices leads to more confusion than satisfaction.
Who/where/what is Linux?
Nothing illustrates the negative aspects of decentralization better than the difficulty of finding a clear definition of Linux and a link for downloading it. When I google ‘linux’–which is presumably the first step taken by most people hoping to give the operating system a try–the top search result links to linux.org, a site sorely in need of updates to both its aesthetics and content.
linux.org’s home page still mentions the SCO v. IBM case, which hasn’t been news in several years. Users are told that disk partitioning is a requirement for installing Linux, which hasn’t been true since the development of wubi. The ‘distributions’ section of the site assumes that visitors know the difference between Red Hat and Debian-based systems. Together, the outmoded theme and content of linux.org serve only to confuse and scare potential new users.
A search for ‘download linux’ leads to a list of distributions on linux.com that is similarly lacking in friendliness towards Linux neophytes. Instead of explaining in plain terms which distributions are most popular and designed for ease-of-use, the page is filled with technical jargon and offers no clear guidelines on which version of Linux might be best suited to a new user’s needs. Fixing problems like this should be among the first priorities of the Linux Foundation, now that it owns linux.com.
Centralizing Linux
The confusion with which potential Linux users have to struggle just to figure out what exactly Linux is highlights the need for a centralized, straightforward, easy-to-find site that represents Linux to those outside the free-software community. The Linux Foundation’s acquisition of linux.com will, I hope, become this resource, forcing other sites high in Google’s rankings either to update their content or sink to the bottom of search results.
There is no doubt disagreement about how best to present Linux, which distributions to recommend and so on. Debate like this is healthy, and reflects the strong ideological diversity that makes free software thrive.
But if the the open-source movement wants to reach a broader audience, it needs to create a more centralized image, and present that image to the world in a centralized location. This means competing projects will have to work together to promote Linux, and probably make some sacrifices. Unless the diversity and decentralization of the free-software community is reined in, however, it will remain obscure and out of the reach of most mainstream users.
I agree with you 110%. Three or four years ago I was looking for an alternative to Windows XP. I remembered the word “Linux” because I had heard about it somewhere so I googled it and it and clicked the first result then that stupid website appeared. You know what happened… I ran away and my Linux perception became very negative.
Now I’m a full time Ubuntu user thanks to a friend that introduced me to PCLinuxOS in January 2008.
I could have been using Linux for three or four years now. But that “Linux” search made me run away from it.
I agree with the basic idea, but don’t see it to be a problem. Linux is the kernel and not an operating system. You can’t educate people until they are part of the community. Trying is pointless because most people don’t care enough until they adopt the ethic and ideals.
Marketing Linux should be done by individual distributions by working with OEMs as Canonical and Novell do and by the community. If the community can’t get it together to market itself, then it does not deserve adoption.
Some distributions may benefit from some centralisation of their own structure to make them able to more effectively deal with these issues. Redhat, Novell and Canonical have a corporate approach and this has helped to build their respective distros. The ones that lack corporate structure take too long to make decisions. They need to learn from more successful distros which setup for success because they are either corporate or one person operations.
Linux has always been a bit chaotic and that is a strength because it keeps enemies at bay. Centralisation gives them something to attack through litigation, acquisition or FUD.
Any centralisation is better at the distribution level, IMO.
“…centralization… is badly needed if free software is to become ubiquitous on the desktops of the world… if the open-source movement wants to reach a broader audience, it needs to create a more centralized image… This means competing projects will have to work together to promote Linux…”
Let’s say that the open source definition were equivalent to a general definition of a free world nation and the GNU General Public License were equivalent to a constitution for a united group of states. Linux might be one nation among many in the free world to adopt such a constitution. Free BSD might not have the same constitution, but would still be considered a member of the free world.
Open source is far broader than just Linux, even in the OS space, so why would Free BSD developers, for instance, have to work to promote Linux? If they, as Open Source advocates, are to promote Linux, then who is to promote Free BSD?
Each Linux distribution might be equivalent to a state or province of the larger nation of Linux. Which of those provinces should all other provinces advocate? The Ubuntu province, undoubtedly. If so, then what is the point of allowing all these other provinces? Or nations, for that matter?
I’m not convinced that Open Source is a movement. I think it is more of a marketing term. I would sooner call Free Software a movement than Open Source. But I would not equate either Free Software or Open Source with Linux.
Even trying to limit the definition of Linux to a desktop operating system, and assuming that most people searching for it are looking for desktop Linux is extremely short-sighted. I seriously doubt that one definition and one download link can meet the needs of most people.
You sound very much like the citizen of a rather large, well-known state of a very large, well-known free nation who believes that his state is the best and that all other states and nations in the free world should at least follow his, if not actually cede sovereignty to his ten gallon lone star.
I don’t think Linux needs centralization as such. What we do need is for people to document things properly and for open standards to be adopted and even developed where needed.
Personally “Linux” for me is just the kernel. The OS is the distribution and they don’t all need to be the same.
Scott: I admit that I made some simplifications in the post. But no matter what I write, there would always be objections that I ignored distribution XXX or failed to give FreeBSD its due or inappropriately equated free software with open-source software.
The free-software movement is certainly about much more than Linux, and Linux is about much more than Ubuntu. If free-software advocates want to gain greater traction outside their own community (which many express as their goal), however, I think that they need to work on simplifying and centralizing the image of free software and Linux a bit. This doesn’t mean writing off every distribution besides Ubuntu, but it does require coming to a better consensus about which free-software projects meet the needs of which people, with a focus on normal end users (if that’s the direction Linux wants to go in).
Once more people get their feet in the door, they’ll be exposed to the more nuanced offerings of the free-software community. But if the image that Linux and free software project remains as obscure and multifaceted as it is today, few people are going to be able to get their feet in the door in the first place.
Agreed that some centralization is wanted. Esp. for program documentation.