Pay the penguin

There are some spatterings of offers from software developers. They offer applications made to run on Linux.

This could be a good thing. So far, there hasn't been a lot of focus on purchasing software for Linux. Of course, that is partly due to the large selection of GE apps available.

What is a GE app? it's Good Enough. There are boatloads of Good Enough apps written by amateurs, pros dabbling in Linux, companies getting their feet wet, testing the market, etc... They have provided Linux and FOSS world with a glut of GE apps.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I love GE apps. There are some areas more "loaded" than others with apps, due to peoples particular interests and abilities, etc... but overall, there are many GE apps to be productive in Linux.

Ther eare areas though, where "good Enough" is a very fine line. Good Enough for me, may not cut it for the next guy. Sometimes there needs to be a definitive ,"Outstanding" app that has been meticulously crafted and laid out so as to work exceptionally well.

Where no one will realy want to pay for a Good enough app, most folks, especially those with the need, will shell out for a reasonably priced Outstanding app.

What is reasonably priced? What does that mean? Is that too vague a term as well? Perhaps also limited by it's relativeness also?

One needs to take a few things into the picture of pricing, especially if you want a FOSS users attention.

Scope of the software is one of the bigger areas to note. How far can you take the software. Is it intended for use in the enterprise with lots of users, or to the home market by individuals?

How well does it integrate with the OS it is installed on? other apps?

Is it a "niche" product or something used commonly? How big is the market the software is being targeted to?

All these questions must be answered to help determine cost. One must also consider that the FOSS market in general is not one inclined toward the "get rich quick" type of pricing, one must be prepared to price with longevity and volume in mind more than high profits on individual sales.

Given all that, I think it is entirely reasonable to expect to pay for an Outstanding software product that goes beyond the "Good Enough" mark and really distinguishes itself. In polls on numerous Linux forums, you will find the majority of users will indeed be willing to pay for something like this.

Another area reported on recently is the use of proprietary software being sold for use on Linux and FOSS OS's.

That tends to get peoples hackles up a bit. But, if the company truly has an outstanding product and meets a need extraordinarily well, I see no profound reason to shun it. As long as the provider understands they will get no sympathy for complaints about having to comply in certain ways with GPL or other FOSS licensing. You know what you were getting into, or should have.

As FOSS and Linux develops and grows, we will see more of this come and go. Perhaps we as providers AND users need to keep open eyes and open minds for what comes next.

Will the "real" Linux, please step forward.

When it comes to standardizations which is something the Linux development community is attempting to work on, how much of the standardization is really dependent on definition?

For example, what is a desktop? What is a home desktop as opposed to an enterprise desktop? A small business desktop relative to a home desktop to an enterprise desktop.

What about community program desktops?

There are as many answers as there are questions, at the least. Part of the ease and freedom of customization of Linux has helped contribute to the fragmented and biblical ( this begat that which begat this one which begat that one, etc...) spread of Linux distros.

Also, what does a home desktop need? Most people agree there truthfully is no such thing as a "typical" user. Much of what a home distro will need will depend largely on the geographic/political location ( what country, what part of the country ) they reside in, also, what are the types of lowest common denominator tasks and interests of the "typical" person or family who uses a home desktop.

I mention this only partly due to a few discussions I have had recently. Again, much of how things are defined is part of the issue.

Is a distro really a distro or is it a spinoff of a distro? What really makes one a "true" distro"? The definitions of these things also varies greatly from dev to dev.

for example, what of Linux Mint? ( I'm not picking on Mint here, I love Mint, but they are a good example of the discussion) Mint Xfce, Mint KDE, and the others, are they spinoffs of Mint? So it would seem by the way they are handled in Mint websites and docs.

Is Mint itself just a spinoff of Ubuntu? what set's it apart? what makes it a "true" distro?

I only use Mint for examples here, as I am in the Mint forums, to keep it relevant.

Overall though, to have actual standardizations for Linux overall, there must be agreed upon and collectively recognized definitions for things like a distro, a spinoff, etc...

Also, this is only really relevant to the commercial success and advancement of Linux.

Linux pretty much owns the "hobbyist" market as it were. and the diversity of Linux distros and packaging methods, etc helps to feed the interest and growth in that market.

In the commercial market though, there is more to it. No one enjoys writing apps for 6 or seven distros. It isn't financially feasible. There are few techs who will tell you they enjoy learning the difference of 5 or 6 file structures in order to know where to place web site files or the like. Is it able to be done? of course it is. Is it necessary? no. Is it productive? no. It

When you get training on Windows or Apple for example, you are trained on one filesystem. and you are able to navigate on any windows machine you work on. On Linux, depending on the distro, those files could be in one of several different places.

Yet and again, I use Linux as a server regularly in commercial environments. it's a tremendous OS and because I think so highly of it, I have taken the time, and continue to do so, to learn the myriad of differences between distros.

Company A has RHEL machines. It does a fine job for them. when it hires Linux techs for the IT dept, does it ask for Linux certified techs? or must it be RHEL techs? what if they buy a Suse based server? a slew of them? now it's a mixed bag and the Linux techs needto learn the differences between two Linux Os distros.

Or, they can learn and know only one Windows system. Gee, where do I want to spend my company's time and money?

While truly, you will be spending lot's and lot's ( and lot's more) money with MS, they have the media advantage of playing the ROI card, especially pointing out that not only actual cash is invested, but time of techs on training and time spent in configuration and finding your way as you go along, etc. they are masters at that game.

For now, the question isn't "which is better, Linux or Windows or Apple, etc...?" But which is the better Linux? RHEL, Suse, Debian, Ubuntu, etc...

One might suggest that the "Linux Collective" select a champion and send it to compete in the Commercial arena on it's overall behalf.

Thereafter, if any want to also compete in the Commercial arena, they MUST all share the same standards of file structure, etc, thus allowing the various distros to compete on originality of appearance, types and number of apps shipped with it, customized tools that are developed in house. etc...

In the end, for Linux to "make it" on the commercial desktop market, standardization is needed.

Fighting in the sky, Cloud computing vs Local

The idea of "Cloud" computing isn't a new one. I remember being a network tech student in college almost 20 years ago, working with Novell.

Back then, Novell was the big man on campus. Windows was just entering 3.1/11 and was considered a handy little client.

The terminology back then was centered on LAN ( Local Area Network, which refers to a network in one location or building for example) and WAN (Wide Area Network, which refers to a network which spans several buildings or locations across a distance.) and intranets were the big thing. The internet was still a place for research and sales. Oh, and porn.

With that in mind though, Novell was working on "cloud" computing in the WAN. Know where "Active Directory" comes from? Novell was working on the way before MS got ahold of it. That is where "cloud" computing really began it's journey.

The idea isn't unique to Novell either, they were just one of the first to really "push" the concept in a commercial distribution.

Back then though, the focus was on network services. Shared directories, remote login and user directories.

Today, the push for cloud computing has moved beyond basic, behind the scenes services. Those have largely been mastered. The focus in the cloud now is for end user services and apps.

Word processors and all sorts of document creation. Multimedia access and creation. Communication and access. Everyone wants to offer it on the web. no need for anything more than a basic OS and a web browser at home if they have their way.

All of these things are great, even "cool". It can make access to docs and files incredibly easy and can increase productivity dramatically. Very exciting really.

However. There are"costs'. Where you gain in access and productivity, you lose privacy and local control. You must obey others policies and how to access files and what formats you use. The governments are rapidly reaching out more and more to have access to everything you do. They want to see your email, your text docs, your pictures. "Just in case" you might be breaking a law. To be sure, Big Brother IS watching.

So how does the Open Source "movement" fit into this? One would think it's a perfect match. open access and freedom to do what you want, when you want to do it. An ideal match, right?

There are "other" freedoms associated with the Open Source movement that don't mesh quite as well. For example, The ability to control your resources yourself. Sorry, in the commercial "cloud" you do what they want, using their formats and their IP. Say "Sayonara" to access to the base.

Open Source is also about being able to "it" ( whatever "it" is) yourself. Maintaining control over your systems and produced works in house and not being beholden to another. This applies to what file formats you use, what and how you report information to the government. to protect your information from snoops and unwanted crackers on yor terms, using the tools and protocols you choose.

The "cloud" would potentially make all of that accessible to anyone on the web. Sure, they will say their servers are protected and your data is "safe". But for a paranoid like me, who still sees reports of banks and credit card companies "losing" customer data in this day and age of 'secure" internet, I don't feel so comforted yet in that idea.

Could that happen to my own servers? absolutely. but, the target is reduced, my small "vault" is less appealing to those seeking treasure and thrills in breaking Ft Knox. Therefore, the "odds" that my data will be compromised on a Local network/server, are much lower than a commercial provider with loads of "gold' to be hunted down.

Also, if the government wants access to my data, they have to come ask me. With a warrant, thank you very much. In the cloud, the government has deals and provisions to ask them for any data on the commercial providers servers. They may easily get access to your data without even talking to you.

Maybe I'm just paranoid. Maybe I should just "trust" the government and the huge corporations with my businesses and personal data and information. After all, isn't the saying that if I do nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide?

Or maybe, just maybe, huge corporations have hidden agendas and corrupt employees sometimes, maybe the governments of the world have no corruption or underground agendas. Those things NEVER happen.

Right?