How open is Open enough?

We have seen the signs that changes are happening. Not just specifically in the Linux world, but in Open Source, Open Standards and in the proprietary world as well.

Companies like Microsoft are sharing information, whether it's because they want to or because a court of law compels them. The recent announcement of sharing SMB protocols with the SAMBA group is evidence of that.

Also, Microsoft has entered the realm of Open Standards by trying to push their own version of an open document standard through the works. While I am not altogether impressed by their methods, it is telling that they see the need to play the open documents game. It's what businesses, governments and community agencies are clamoring for.

IBM and Sun, to name two of the biggest players in the market, have released some of their most important software under Open Source licenses recently. Giving us a view that they are not just laying back and watching anymore, but are becoming more assertive, even aggressive in pursuing Open Source solutions.

Novell, once the dominant giant in networking with it Netware products, is reinventing itself using Linux and other Open Source apps to regain some of their statutre in the network world and has produced recently some of the best work yet in a Linux offering.

The GPL Open Source license has now been defended at least twice publicly and successfully.

Things are looking good for Open Source and Open Standards. Where do things go from here?

People need to insist on having Open Standards. When you install a word processor, you want to make sure you are getting one that allows you to save it and transport it so that anyone, with any word processor can read it or edit it. That's a fundamental part of having access to Free Speech. Except it's not Government imposing closed communications on you, it's corporate giants. In the name of Big Business, we have allowed corporate types to dictate how, when and with what we should communicate with.

Small businesses are moving to Open Source solutions more and more in order to save on operating expenses, licensing costs and more. As these small business continue to adopt Open Source solutions, they will need to have more "open" access to do business and access other avenues, such as tax preparation and government document filings.

The B2B industry will need to "Open" up quite a bit if the big Corporates who have been resisting find their small business customers stealing away to do business with others who will support their new Open Source software solutions.

It takes time to make big changes such as these. It's not as mundane as "X OS sucks" and "Y distro is great." Other Operating Systems like MS Windows will never g oaway entirely and Apple, Linux, Windows and others will continue to share the market as they have, perhaps with market shares of some decreasing while others take up a bit more, but in the end, the monopoly of Software and computers is over and on it's way out. Even if not Linux, the attention has been brought, the spotlight been shined on the disastrous position that corporate greed and government blindness has wrought.

Which Linux is "more" Linux?

Is GNU/Linux RedHat Linux? Is it Ubuntu Linux? Mandriva?

If one visits one of many a Linux distro community forum, you will hear countless accolades for that distros version or presentation of Linux and you will see many derisions of other distros in the forums.

There have been boiled down two types of Linux distributions. Commercial and Community. It is pretty easy to figure out which ones are the Commercial offerings.

RedHat, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Novell/Suse., these are the most well known Commercial distros. They are distros backed by and made by companies which offer corporate services , generally in the support and services field who have developed a version of Linux that gives them a unique and not-quite-proprietary hold on a Linux OS offering. Something they can charge money to support and know they are uniquely qualified to do so.

There is nothing wrong with that. I support the idea completely. Computers after all, are made for being productive, to get work done. Companies who use computers to get their work done want to use a system that, if not perfect, at least has someone uniquely qualified to be there when the not perfect times come about. Enter those Commercial distributions.

People at home like their Linux as well. They want solid, dependable systems that are as virus and bug free as possible. Free makes that all the better, if not free, then reasonably priced at the cost of a disc or other medium.

And so, home use oriented communities have risen to make the "plain" Linux distro, the "Work" Linux into something fun and flexible, something dashing and entertaining at home. These Community distros include some popular names, Linux Mint, PCLinuxOS, Debian ( actually, Debian almost belongs in it's own unique category ) Sabayon, and the list is almost endless.

The people behind these community distros are usually folks who have taken it upon themselves to take their work as a hobby also, or have taught themselves certain skills in their zeal to "Master" Linux and customize it to their palates.

But what of the argument that "this" distro is better than "that" distro? "This" distros ROCKS! "That" distro sucks! And so on and so on.

Is one Linux really "better" than another Linux? Or are the unique differences made to "fit" a version to a certain niche market simply the shades of grey that many people must wade through till they find the "niche" distro that best fits their needs?

I have seen Community distros become Commercial and be successful. I have seen Commercial distros try to spread out and be everything to everyone. most of those bomb, because at the core of Linux is one simple little truth.

Linux is Free.

Not just free as in no cost. Not just Free as in not mundane legalities to confine your user experience.

Linux itself is free to do what it wants, to "be" what it wants to be. To fill whatever niche, to serve any purpose that people with the foresight, creativity and dedication choose it to be.

It isn't just a Commercial OS or a Community OS either. It isn't "meant" for business or entertainment.

I used to hear a commercial that called for people to "be all they can be".

That sums up GNU/Linux to a "T".

It is free to be all it can be. No one company or community or person can say definitively "This" is what Linux is.

So when you see someone uses GNU/Linux, don't just focus on "What" Linux" it is, be glad it IS Linux.