An Open Letter to Jonathan Schwartz
I've watched the rise in popularity of Linux distributions Red Hat and SuSE from the very beginning, and at various times in the past I've been an enthusiastic user of each. Currently I'm using Ubuntu, and watching its rise in popularity with great interest.
My perspective on Linux distributions differs from many other open source long-timers. I appreciate the value Linux offers as a server solution, and I've done a fair amount of work as a writer and a consultant espousing Linux's virtues in this context. However, I'm neither a programmer nor system administrator myself. My direct experience with Linux is on the desktop, and indeed Linux has been primary desktop operating system since 1994. From this perspective, Ubuntu represents an alluring but difficult opportunity for technology companies.
Everyone frets about the Microsoft monopoly on the desktop, and talks about the potential of desktop Linux as an alternative. At the end of the day, however, technology companies that already have a major stake in the Linux game can pay only lip service to Linux on the desktop. Companies like IBM and Novell have crafted their business models around providing value-add compliments to Linux as a commodity server solution. In considering desktop Linux, then, these companies are constrained to work with those Linux distributions that meet their server needs. For example, an acceptable Linux distribution must meet the requirements government standards and certification.
Ubuntu is a reasonable server offering, as much so as Debian (on which it is based). But it isn't going to qualify as the enterprise and government solution that major players like IBM need. That means that these same companies won't work with Ubuntu as a desktop solution, because none of them see either enough value in the desktop market or a low enough point of entry to spend resources working with two very different Linux distributions.
The Ubuntu community may well think that they don't need an enterprise partner. They could be right. But there's no way that Linux desktop adoption is going to accelerate without that corporate partner. In many ways, its more essential to have that partner in the desktop market than in the server market. Competent IT shops are, at times, willing to "roll their own" solution on the server side. No IT department wants to deal with the nightmare of a "roll your own" desktop solution.
No, to really take desktop Linux to a new level of adoption what's needed is a large technology partner with:
Sun's open source moves with Solaris have made Solaris a much more competitive server offering than it used to be, balancing aspects of the commodity advantage Linux enjoys with performance features still not found in Linux. However, Solaris is not, and really should not be, a real desktop alternative.
Nonetheless, Sun has invested heavily in key parts of an alternative desktop solution. Ubuntu would be little more than eye candy without OpenOffice.org. OpenOffice's interoperability with Microsoft Office has improved dramatically in the last 18 months, and in the developing world many organizations are simply avoiding the Microsoft upgrade treadmill altogether thanks to OpenOffice.
Ubuntu has tremendous momentum right now, and deservedly so. More than any previous Linux distribution they have focused on the particulars of desktop requirements. Largely this is testament to the vision and leadership of Mark Shuttleworth and the Canonical team, who have been aggressively user-focused in guiding Ubuntu.
To really be an enterprise desktop solution, though, Ubuntu will need a professional product management process, one that comes from years of enterprise customer experience. Open source has always been at its strongest when the gap between users and developers is minimal or non-existent. The wider that gap, the more difficult it is for innate open source development processes to effectively set and manage product requirements. A respectful partnership between Sun and the Ubuntu community could provide just that professional touch in product development for the desktop. In this capacity Sun does not compete with Canonical, but rather compliment the work that Canonical is doing.
And unlike other major technology companies, Sun could implement a Linux-based, and indeed Ubuntu-based strategy for the desktop without disruption to its existing business model. How ironic that all of the other companies that have jumped on the Linux bandwagon in the past can't quite find a way to be part of the Ubuntu parade. Sun, on the other hand, laid this foundation years ago with its committment to OpenOffice, and is unencumbered by its committment to Solaris.
So take heed, and at least open a dialog with the Ubuntu community. This is a rare opportunity, but one that won't last forever.
Mark Stone:
I've watched the rise in popularity of Linux distributions Red Hat and SuSE from the very beginning, and at various times in the past I've been an enthusiastic user of each. Currently I'm using Ubuntu, and watching its rise in popularity with great interest.
My perspective on Linux distributions differs from many other open source long-timers. I appreciate the value Linux offers as a server solution, and I've done a fair amount of work as a writer and a consultant espousing Linux's virtues in this context. However, I'm neither a programmer nor system administrator myself. My direct experience with Linux is on the desktop, and indeed Linux has been primary desktop operating system since 1994. From this perspective, Ubuntu represents an alluring but difficult opportunity for technology companies.
Everyone frets about the Microsoft monopoly on the desktop, and talks about the potential of desktop Linux as an alternative. At the end of the day, however, technology companies that already have a major stake in the Linux game can pay only lip service to Linux on the desktop. Companies like IBM and Novell have crafted their business models around providing value-add compliments to Linux as a commodity server solution. In considering desktop Linux, then, these companies are constrained to work with those Linux distributions that meet their server needs. For example, an acceptable Linux distribution must meet the requirements government standards and certification.
Ubuntu is a reasonable server offering, as much so as Debian (on which it is based). But it isn't going to qualify as the enterprise and government solution that major players like IBM need. That means that these same companies won't work with Ubuntu as a desktop solution, because none of them see either enough value in the desktop market or a low enough point of entry to spend resources working with two very different Linux distributions.
The Ubuntu community may well think that they don't need an enterprise partner. They could be right. But there's no way that Linux desktop adoption is going to accelerate without that corporate partner. In many ways, its more essential to have that partner in the desktop market than in the server market. Competent IT shops are, at times, willing to "roll their own" solution on the server side. No IT department wants to deal with the nightmare of a "roll your own" desktop solution.
No, to really take desktop Linux to a new level of adoption what's needed is a large technology partner with:
- An established customer base;
- A valuable server solution that isn't Linux;
- A thorough understanding of and commitment to support of key applications on the Linux desktop.
Sun's open source moves with Solaris have made Solaris a much more competitive server offering than it used to be, balancing aspects of the commodity advantage Linux enjoys with performance features still not found in Linux. However, Solaris is not, and really should not be, a real desktop alternative.
Nonetheless, Sun has invested heavily in key parts of an alternative desktop solution. Ubuntu would be little more than eye candy without OpenOffice.org. OpenOffice's interoperability with Microsoft Office has improved dramatically in the last 18 months, and in the developing world many organizations are simply avoiding the Microsoft upgrade treadmill altogether thanks to OpenOffice.
Ubuntu has tremendous momentum right now, and deservedly so. More than any previous Linux distribution they have focused on the particulars of desktop requirements. Largely this is testament to the vision and leadership of Mark Shuttleworth and the Canonical team, who have been aggressively user-focused in guiding Ubuntu.
To really be an enterprise desktop solution, though, Ubuntu will need a professional product management process, one that comes from years of enterprise customer experience. Open source has always been at its strongest when the gap between users and developers is minimal or non-existent. The wider that gap, the more difficult it is for innate open source development processes to effectively set and manage product requirements. A respectful partnership between Sun and the Ubuntu community could provide just that professional touch in product development for the desktop. In this capacity Sun does not compete with Canonical, but rather compliment the work that Canonical is doing.
And unlike other major technology companies, Sun could implement a Linux-based, and indeed Ubuntu-based strategy for the desktop without disruption to its existing business model. How ironic that all of the other companies that have jumped on the Linux bandwagon in the past can't quite find a way to be part of the Ubuntu parade. Sun, on the other hand, laid this foundation years ago with its committment to OpenOffice, and is unencumbered by its committment to Solaris.
So take heed, and at least open a dialog with the Ubuntu community. This is a rare opportunity, but one that won't last forever.
Mark Stone:
- Formerly Media Publisher for Open Source, VA Linux Systems
- Formerly Director of Developer Relations, Open Source Technology Group
- Editor and author, Open Sources (O'Reilly, 1999)
- Editor and author, Open Sources 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005)
- Author, Desktop Linux with Ubuntu (forthcoming from Manning Press)
posted by Mark Stone at 9:50 AM
Previous Posts:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home