Practical Technology

for practical people.

May 30, 2002
by sjvn01
0 comments

United Linux: One for all, and all for one

Today, a major Linux revolution started. Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, and Turbolinux announced that they would work together in a new initiative, UnitedLinux that will create a single global, uniform business distribution of Linux. UnitedLinux is creating a standard, business-focused Linux distribution that is certified to work across the both AMD and Intel’s 32-bit x86 lines, the 64-bit x86 Athlon, Opteron, and Itantium families; and the complete IBM eServer series.

Some Linux fans are poo-pooing this annoucement as not being that big a deal. They’re dead wrong. While it won’t make much difference to consumer Linux—United Linux (UL), a pure business operating system play, completely changes the Linux business landscape.

Why? Because at long last OEMs, like IBM and HP, and more importantly independent software vendors (ISV)s will need to work with, at most, two Linux versions—the other being Red Hat— instead of the five major versions they must deal with today. That will save these companies a bundle of application porting money.

Indeed, as Ransom Love, Caldera’s CEO, say, the OEMs and ISVs have been pushing for it. AMD, Borland, Computer Associates, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, Intel, Siemens, and SAP, , not to mention resellers and integrators, have all wanted fewer Linux distributions. And that’s exactly what they got.
Some observors see UL as a pure anti-Red Hat move. The UL distributors insist that is not the case. Lee Pham, CEO of Turbolinux, and Love both made this point. Instead, they see the main driver as all the partners’ wanting to meet the needs, almost demands, of OEMs, ISVs and customers for fewer and better Linux choices.

Scott Handy, IBM’s director of Worldwide Linux Solutions agrees. While he says that IBM didn’t push the UL initative per se, “It was a community effort. But, we did like, all other ISVs and OEMs, make it clear that unification would make it much easier to sell Linux in the enterprise space.” Every other UL ISV and OEM partner echoed these comments.

Stacey Quandt, Giga’s Open Source analyst, however, thinks that IBM played a bigger role than Handy claims. “If you look at the companies that partnered with UL, you’ll see that most of them are IBM allies.” She thinks that IBM helped drive the creation of UL because Big Blue needed a unified Linux to support their DB2 database and WebSphere middleware across their platform line.

Additionally, she observes that Red Hat and Oracle have become quite chummy and that next week the two will be announcing Unbreakable Linux. She thinks that what we may be seeing is Linux polarizing around three vendors: IBM and United Linux, Oracle and Red Hat, and Sun with its own inhouse Linux.

Another problem that this addresses for the UL distributors is brand recognition. In the United States, when you say Linux to a customer today, they almost always think of Red Hat. With all of the major other Linux vendors advertising UL, this may change.

The UL companies also needed to reduce reduce costs. As it was, each of the Linux companies essentially had to reinvent the wheel of file systems, installation software and so on with each of their own releases. By consolidating their efforts behind one kernel, one installation routine and so on, they could avoid wasting their engineers’ time.

This is a move, Love explains, that’s been coming ever since Bruce Perens, one of open source’s fathers and now HP’s senior straegits for Linux and Open Source, first said almost five ago that there needed to be a unified code base.

In practice, things finally moved beyond the “wouldn’t this be a good idea” stage about eight months ago. Three weeks ago, Caldera, which lead the UnitedLinux initative in many ways, announced that they were closing their Erlangen, Germany offices.

What they didn’t say at the time was that these employees were going straight to SuSE. There, lead by Ralf Flaxa, a former Caldera senior engineer and Linux Standard Base designer, the combined SuSE and Caldera team are already making SuSE’s Enterprise Linux server into the core UL operating system.
The project, with SuSE as lead integrator, already has alpha product. Beta will follow in the 3rd quarter, and the shipping code will be available in the 4th quarter. More specifically, according to Love, November, probably Comdex, will see the release of the final product.

Who’s on Board and Who’s Not

Of course, not everyone is in on the deal. Red Hat, the most important North American business Linux, isn’t in on it, and neither is Mandrake, the popular consumer Linux vendor or Sun. Love explained that the “pulling together the four companies was more than difficult enough.” It may also had something to do with the fact that each company already had its own stronghold. SuSE’s the most popular Linux distribution; Conectiva’s is South America’s; Turbolinux is strong in Asia and the Pacific rim, and Caldera, while not as big as Red Hat, is a North American power.

In any case, UL membership is open to any Linux distributiors. There is no membership fees, but companies will need to contribute their fair share of the development costs. In specific, the door has already been opened to Mandrake, Red Flag (China), Red Hat, and Sun. The UL big four are certain that other companies will join them.

But, it may be a while. Mark de Visser, Vice President of Marketing for Red Hat wrote that while “Too many distributions hamper the migration of applications to Linux, so if this effort by Caldera and others consolidates distributions it is a good development. But in Linux, application support is everything. Red Hat Linux Advanced Server has it today. Time will tell if the Caldera group’s distribution will achieve the same level of support.”

Despite Red Hat’s charization of this as a Caldera group, all four companies are equal partners with SuSE and Caldera, it appears, spearheading the effort. It’s also worth noting that while they’re united behind UL, they’re not united as a business entities. This is no merger. Each company will keep their own identity, set their own prices, and do their own marketing.

UL Specifics

What UL will bring to the table is a common kernel, APIs, file systems installation routines and so on for business Linux. In short, no matter the vendor name on the box, users, OEMs and developers will get UL. This will come in the familiar form of a single installation CD. Each company will also bundle along with it, on separate CDs, their own software packages. You can expect to see, for example, Volution products on Caldera’s CD and PowerCockpit in Turbolinux’s package.

Contrary to some rumours, the UL will be a completely GPL and associated licenses protected Linux. The source code will be freely availble, but the binaries will not. Of course, some take the UL source code and create their own binaries, but these won’t be allowed to use UL branding or get UL support.
In addition, UnitedLinux will also support the Linux Standards Base (LSB)—in some ways it can be seen as an implementation of the LSB–, and the Li18nux and GB18030 standards. UL will also have vast international support for English, German, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese languages.

The target audience for UL will be the middle and high end Unix and Windows 2000 installations. While UL will show up in basic file/print servers, it’s aim is much higher.

Besides simply bringing together the best Linux practices of the four companies, the product, according to Love, will also include functionality taken from Caldera’s OpenUnix and OpenServer lines.
On the flip side, OpenUnix 8 will include a UL Linux Kernel Personality (LKP), and, if there’s customer demand for it, a UL LKP for OpenServer. In any case, Caldera plans to continue supporting both its Unix platforms. If anything, with less time spent on Linux internally, they may actually get more attention.

What it All Means

For the UL members, and the companies that join them, this should be good news. They can cut costs while actually delivering a better business Linux. It also gives each of them a global reach and makes their partnerships with OEMs and ISVs much stronger.

The OEMs and ISVs, of course, have suddenly seen their Linux strategies become much easier to manage and cheaper. In turn, you can expect to see many more business applcations arriving for Linux.

All of which, will make it much easier for CTOs, resellers and integrators. You’ll be much less likely to face obscure Linux application implementation problems because of subtle differences between Linux distributions. And, you’ll have a much wider array of Linux business applications to tempt customers with.

Of course, if Red Hat does join UnitedLinux—after all it would save them development costs and improve their ISV relationships too—Linux could make its biggest jump yet in business deployments.

The dark cloud on the horizon is whether UL might lead to a three-way battle between the forces of Red Hat and Oracle and UnitedLinux and IBM and Sun resulting in a mild version of the kind of Unix operating system wars that damaged so many Unix resellers and customers.

While unlikely to go that far, a wise practical technologist will keep his or her eyes on the business relationship dances between IBM, Oracle and Sun. That, more than anything else, will determine.

May 20, 2002
by sjvn01
0 comments

IBM and Linux: The Early Years

In February 1999, IBM announced it would support Linux and a partnership with Red Hat. By July of that year, Advanced Communication Design, a developer and OEM of in-store interactive digital audio and video merchandising systems, made history by being one of the first companies to deploy a major, mission critical IBM/Red Hat Linux system. Why? Marco Scibora, ACD’s president explained then it was because “Linux is very reliable, and its help resources are extremely fast,” and also, “now that Linux has major corporate help support from IBM and other companies, it makes a great environment for customized programs.”

Fast-forward to October 2000: IBM announced it had a grand operating system unification plan for its servers. Its name was Linux, and with the partnership of the four major business Linux distributors, Caldera, Red Hat, SuSE and Turbolinux, IBM made it happen. Today, there’s no modern IBM hardware from laptop to mainframe that you can’t run Linux on.

Now it all seems inevitable. IBM and Linux, Linux and IBM. Today, the two go together as closely as Microsoft and Windows. But what is IBM really getting from Linux? How well is the partnership between what was once seen as the stodgiest of all computer companies and the most rebellious of all operating systems actually going beyond the ad campaigns and the constant announcements of new deals?

Those famous billion dollars

The example people usually cite to such a question is IBM’s famous $1 billion spent in 2001 on Linux. The figure is certainly an impressive one and even more striking, is that Bill Zeitler, IBM’s senior vice president and group executive for eServer, claims: “We’ve recouped most of it in the first year in sales of software and systems.”

What Zeitler didn’t say, though, was the billion-dollar figure isn’t just Linux, as both Stacy Quandt, Giga Information Group’s Open Source analyst, and Dan Kusnetzky, IDC’s vice president of system software research, point out. It’s for the division that also works on AIX and Caldera’s OpenUnix. While the OpenUnix segment is tiny, AIX, the operating system of choice for the pSeries (aka, RS/6000, POWER systems) is a very popular mid-range and clustering Unix choice and competes head to head with Sun’s Solaris and HP’s HP/UX.

So what is the actual breakdown? IBM’s not telling. According to an IBM senior PR representative, “The $1 billion investment IBM made in Linux in 2001 was across hardware, software and services. The investment spanned a number of areas, including development, marketing, sales, ISV support and advertising worldwide. As for a breakdown of the investment between AIX and Linux, we don’t break the percentages down to that level.”

You’d think IBM must know the numbers, but one is led to think that while Linux doubtlessly gets hundreds of millions in support, perhaps even the majority of that billion, that impressive figure doesn’t tell the whole story.

No one doubts Linux’s importance to IBM. Even Simon Phipps, Sun’s chief technology evangelist, says, “IBM is selling a lot of Linux.” He also says, “They also have things going on out there that aren’t entirely kosher.”

For a specific example, Shahin Khan, Sun’s chief competitive officer writes: “The economics just don’t work. IBM claims it is financially justifiable to consolidate as few as 20 Linux servers on a z800 (a new zSeries mainframe). With an estimated starting price of $400,000 for a z800 with a single CPU engine enabled, that claim seems exaggerated compared to Linux servers that hover in the $1,000 to $2,000 range … When customers realize Linux on mainframe utilization will be low, and administration costs have still not been factored in, you can begin to see how the costs will add up. And let’s not forget the support costs that will need to be purchased, either from the distributor or IBM Global Services.”

Of course, Sun has its own ax to grind here. Still, Quandt observes that IBM hasn’t been forthcoming with where its almost billion dollar return from Linux has been coming in, either. She speculates, “Even a few mainframe sales could go a long way towards explaining that number.”

Has IBM been good for Linux development?

Here there can be little doubt. It has supported porting Linux to its own platforms and development of device drivers; has made its journaled file system technology available under GPL; and has supported Linux developers. It’s easy to see why many analysts and developers think that IBM is the best friend a Linux programmer can have. And, that’s before the money and resources IBM provides to its Linux distribution partners.

But, as Bruce Perens, HP’s senior strategist for Linux and Open Source, points out, it’s not all sweetness and light for IBM, Open Source, and Linux. He thinks that, “IBM has one huge skeleton in its closet. Its strategic intellectual property policy is anti-Open Source. IBM’s IP license structure is a fiefdom not responsible to another and the licensing department has a lot to say. Where does IBM Open Source and Linux communities and IBM’s IP policy groups meet? To me, they seem to only meet at IBM’s CEO.”

What Perens fears is that IBM may veer away from Open Source orthodoxy. While he works for an IBM competitor, he does have a point. In areas other than Linux, IBM has recently had a checkered history with Open Source and open standards. For example, IBM and Sun have recently been fighting over Sun not being allowed to join as a senior member of the open Web Standards ubergroup, the Web Services Interoperability Organization and over their now slowly settling fight over open source Java tool development kits. On one side, Sun was promoting NetBeans, while on the other, IBM was aggressively moving forward with its new Eclipse platform. They had the same goal, both Open Source, but there was a short, nasty political fight, which didn’t bring anyone closer to usable code.

Will IBM back off from its currently Open Source supportive Linux stance? So far, it doesn’t look that way. Its fights with Sun probably, many observers think, have more to do with its long running competition with Sun than being able to promote a closed source, closed standard policy.

Even Perens is quick to point out that IBM and HP’s adoption of the GPL has lead to the two becoming “good collaborators.” He adds: “The GPL is the only thing that ensures that partners can work together. Traditionally, HP and IBM haven’t worked well together, but in Open Source, we manage to do it.” Between Open Source making it possible for IBM to work with other industry powers and empowering its Linux operation, it’s hard to see IBM going back to its old proprietary ways.

Business wise, the case is open and shut. IBM has proven to be a winner for Linux. As Eric Raymond, co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, says, “Having the biggest technology company in the world back Linux sent a clear signal to a lot of conservative types at large corporations who would otherwise have taken longer to pay serious attention.”

Perens agrees, “I like IBM’s advertising because it gets me in to see senators and congress people. Before, they had no idea what Linux was or that it was important. Now, they do.”

Kusnetzky explains the power of IBM in detail. “When most enterprises look for a new system, the first thing they do is to decide on databases and tools. The next decision point is what applications will work with your DBMS and tools for those things we don’t want to build for ourselves. The hardware and operating system are in their third round. So, for example if Oracle is the database, then products that don’t work well with Oracle don’t even show up. Others start with packaged applications to minimize expenses, and then go to the database, and only then get vendors in the room, and decide on an operating system and architecture.”

He goes on, “That’s why Linux has had trouble entering into enterprise space. Quite often the Linux suppliers don’t have the relationship with independent software vendors. So when the party is thrown they don’t always get an invitation. Sometimes, Linux may be better choice, but it may never get a chance. Linux people often don’t have marketing folks, if the decision maker is an engineer or tech type, then Linux’s technology will win out for them. However, talking technology to the CIO isn’t going to work. You have to talk to Dilbert’s boss, not Dilbert. What IBM has done is do a better job of convincing both Dilbert and Dilbert’s boss that Linux is something they should consider.”

And, with IBM, Dilbert, and Dilbert’s boss, all interested in Linux, Linux finally is showing up in places beyond Web servers and departmental file/print servers. But where exactly are IBM, Linux and partners going?

A version of this story first appeared on NewsForge.

May 1, 2002
by sjvn01
0 comments

Rocky road ahead for IPv6

Almost two years ago, ZDNet ran an article entitled: “IPv6: It’s about time.” It seemed like IPv6 was ready for network prime time and would replace IPv4 as the dominant network protocol on TCP/IP networks–read: the Internet and most LANs. It was not to be.

At WinHEC in 2002, Microsoft almost begged its partners to embrace IPv6. And Microsoft has reason to be beating the bushes for IPv6 support. Microsoft needs IPv6 for its future peer-to-peer plans, and network companies and LAN administrators are simply not adopting it.

For example, Danny Councell, president of business IM vendor NetLert Communications, says, “As it stands now, our company has no plans for IPV6, it’s just a non-issue at this time.”

CTO Dave Juitt, of Bluesocket, a wireless LAN management company, comments, “it won’t happen in my lifetime.” It’s no different in the front trenches of networking. Rene’ Beltran, vice president of sales for DTR Business Systems, a Unix and Windows distributor specialising in supporting value added resellers (VAR) and network integrators, observes that his customers just don’t care about IPv6.

Promising trillions of new IP addresses and built-in IPSec security, IPv6 looked like it would be a natural. What happened?

For one thing, Ralph Droms, a Cisco Systems Technical Leader and chair of the IETF dynamic host configuration working group and member of the IPv6 group, explains that while “the base specifications for IPV6 has been around for a long time (August 1998), some parts aren’t done yet. For example, I’m the author of dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) for IPV6, and I’m only finishing that now.”

Jake Khuon, former network architect for Global Crossing’s IPv6 network design and deployment and a consultant today, says, “The stumbling blocks currently are (1) lack of wide-scale network infrastructure deployment and (2) lack of ‘kill apps’ that is applications that require IPv6 to function. Currently, there are only comparable applications that function within the IPv6 world much like they do in IPv4 and don’t offer any clear advantages. [Does that mean people have tried some old apps with IPv6 and they work? ]Most of this stuff is more along the lines of either research or “gee look it works in v6 too” and not particularly exciting to your average user.”

Besides, Droms points out, “new technologies like Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) and Network Address Translation (NAT) have been added to extend IPv4’s potential addresses, and thus, it’s useful lifetime.” Despite slow network performance and management problems, CIDR and NAT do give network administrators and ISPs enough addresses to keep users happy.

Another problem, Khuon observes, is that “key vendors developing IPv6 implementation still were not offering as rich a feature set as they had with IPv4. An example of this is Cisco’s IOS, which, when released as “IPv6 enabled” in the production images (12.2T) did not at first contain a sophisticated IPv6 Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP).” Since then, Cisco has addressed some of these issues, but IPv6 on IOS remains a work in progress.

Some vendors, however, still don’t support IPv6 at all. For example, no commercial version of MacOS supports it, and IPv6 is supported on Linux but still somewhat experimental. Even on Windows XP, IPv6 is a “preview” technology more suited for developers than users.

Still, some people think that IPv6 may be on its way to prime time. Besides Microsoft’s call for support, research house The Yankee Group predicts that by the fourth quarter of 2002, Japan will become the first country to deploy IPv6 in production environments. The reason? The Asia-Pacific region is suffering from a lack of available IPv4 addresses and Japan will take a leadership role in the implementation of this technology into production environments.

That’s in part because Japan has embraced 3G wireless phones, which require IPv6 for networking. Droms thinks that will happen here, too. “Wireless is going to push IPv4’s address availability,” he says. “We’re just at a point where it’s not possible to expand the address range with NAT and retain functionality for wireless devices.”

Khuon agrees. “I believe the mobile market will be the greatest pusher of IPv6,” he says. “IPv6 was designed with IP mobility in mind. You can do IP mobility today with IPv4, but it’s extremely convoluted. IPv6 makes it easier.”

And, eventually–but not as soon as many predicted–the rest of the current IPv4 network infrastructure.

A version of this story was first published in ZDNet.

April 16, 2002
by sjvn01
0 comments

Unix + Linux = Caldera

So where is Caldera going with its older operating systems? Linux may be all fine and dandy, but the fate of OpenServer is what the people at the DTR Business Systems reseller show in Las Vegas earlier this month wanted to know, and Caldera’s CEO Ransom Love was there to give them answers.

The DTR resellers — for the most part old line Intel Unix resellers and integrators working in vertical markets such as bookstores, clothing manufacturers and the oil trade — were pleased to hear that Caldera will not put the older Unix OpenServer out to pasture after years of neglect from former owner SCO. In the past, SCO tried to move OpenServer users and resellers to UnixWare — now OpenUnix — but they simply wouldn’t budge.

Why not? Because, as Rene Beltran, vice president of sales for DTR, says: “OpenServer already does everything the customers want.” DTR, a value-added reseller that works with resellers, integrators and customers, still sells 20 times the copies of the older OpenServer operating system as OpenUnix copies, he says.

It’s not just DTR. According to Dan Kusnetzky, IDC’s vice president for system software research, OpenServer has a much larger market share than the often touted, but it would seem seldom deployed, OpenUnix.

Indeed, the resellers see their OpenServer market getting bigger. As Microsoft’s support for NT diminishes the resellers see this as an opportunity to move Linux — not Unix — in. Because of the name recognition, though, when do they manage to find someone who wants Linux, they’re finding it much easier to move Red Hat than Caldera. They’re also seeing a fair amount of demand for W2K. Customers invite them in and ask for W2K by name.

Many of the resellers are reluctant to do sell Windows, though, because their expertise is in Unix. They’re also finding sticker shock with some customers as the customer begins to understand what W2K’s higher client access license (CAL) costs mean to their bottom line.

Most of these resellers also have had bad experiences with Microsoft’s quality and security, and they know full well that when something goes wrong, they, not Microsoft, will be the ones called on the carpet. Thanks to OpenServer’s incredibly high level of stability and plentiful small business applications, many of them would rather sell OpenServer over any other OS any day of the week.

OpenUnix, the former UnixWare, remains unpopular. This dates back to the SCO’s days of the late ’90s when, from the resellers’ perspective, SCO tried to force them and their customers to move from OpenServer to UnixWare. This then new operating system cost more, would require many programs to be ported at their cost, and didn’t offer any worthwhile advantages. To them OpenServer is still the operating system of choice, if Caldera supports it.

Love has answered many of their concerns by assuring the group that OpenServer will continue to be supported and that OpenUnix would get an OpenServer Kernel Personality, which would enable them first to move their existing applications to OpenUnix and, in 2003, to OpenLinux.

Caldera will continue updating OpenServer with driver updates and a refresh of the operating system, in the third quarter of 2002, that will bring OpenServer up to version 5.0.7.

At about the same time, to make OpenUnix more attractive, Caldera will be adding an OpenServer Kernel Personality to OpenUnix. This will enable users to run OpenServer programs on OpenUnix come the day that they need OpenUnix’s much more powerful database infrastructure and or need up to eight-way processing power. Caldera hopes that OpenServer users who want server-consolidation will then use this as an upgrade path.

Even after this, however, Caldera doesn’t plan on giving OpenServer a gold watch on the way out the door. In 2003, if there continues to be a demand for it, Caldera will bring a Linux Kernel Personality to OpenServer. With the LKP, users will be able to run Linux programs on OpenServer.

Caldera will also continue to upgrade its Linux operating system, with OpenLinux 3.1.2 due out in the third quarter.

Looking ahead, Love says on all three operating systems, there will be more frequent feature patches rather than frequent periodical major releases. Love added, “Users and resellers don’t want major releases, because installing them is too expensive, and they cause work disturbances.”

Caldera will also strive to make “it easier to switch between the operating systems, thus enabling administrators to mix and match. This will also make it easier to migrate between environments and consolidate servers.”

How can Caldera afford to support three operating systems? Love explained that because OpenServer and OpenUnix are already stable, they don’t require a tremendous amount of development work. Instead, most of the development dollars are focused on Linux.

Eventually, Caldera thinks Linux will win out. OpenLinux alone is making the jump to the IA-64 architecture.

But, as Love says, while it’s possible that “Linux may replace Unix, we see Unix and Linux as compatible. We don’t see, as Red Hat does, one replacing the other.”

Love also made it clear that Caldera will not be following Red Hat to the enterprise space. Instead, Caldera will concentrate on selling to small- to medium-sized businesses and branch offices through its reseller channel. As Love says, “The solution provider is our customer, not the end user.”

A version of this story was first published at Linux.com.

February 25, 2002
by sjvn01
0 comments

That’s all folks: Corel leaves Open Source behind

Without any fanfare, Corel, once a leading Linux light, first abandoned Linux and is now abandoning Open Source. Its Open Source site, OpenSource Corel, closes on March 1. Along with it goes Corel’s well received WINE fork, its work on Debian and other file packaging techniques, and other projects. The code lives on, but the site is done.

In truth, though, as a walk through the dusty Web site shows, even before the closing sign appeared on their virtual front door Corel’s work on its Open Source projects had already declined to near nothing.

Corel is under contract to Microsoft to bring .NET shared-source-code versions of Microsoft’s C# language and Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) to FreeBSD — not NetBSD as reported elsewhere. That project was part of Microsoft’s Shared Source Initiative, but there’s no sign of the project on the OpenSource.Corel site. A Corel spokesperson said the shared .NET program is still ongoing, with Microsoft managing it.

Looking back

Not so long ago, November 1999 to be exact, Corel was a leading Linux light. Its Debian-based desktop Linux distribution was designed to convert Windows users to Linux and it was extremely well received. In the meantime, Corel brought the first major Windows desktop application — WordPerfect — to Linux using WINE. Not long after that, other leading Corel Windows programs, like CorelDraw, arrived on Linux via WINE. By February 2000, according to PCData (now NPD Intelect Market Tracking) Corel’s Linux OS retail market share had increased in the United States from 2.3% in November 1999 to 19.3% in February 2000. That was then. This is now.

Since those halcyon days of a Linux desktop that Windows users could love, Corel has moved away from Linux and Open Source. Ravished by ill-timed moves into the application server provider (ASP) market, a lack of profits from Linux and its application lines, and the powerful, but eccentric, leadership of one-time CEO Michael Cowpland, Corel took a new turn — and it was a turn away from Linux.

In August 2000, Cowpland stepped down, and by that November, Corel was rumored to be looking for a buyer for its Linux distribution. While Derek Burney, current president and CEO, denied this in December 2000, it was already an open secret that with the Linux operations showing little, if any, profit, and Microsoft having rescued Corel from its miserable financial position with a $135 million stock buyout, Corel was moving away from Linux.

Corel was also abandoning its brief flirtation with ASP software. Since Burney took the reins, Corel has focused on Windows and Mac application development. The company has also been acquiring other independent software vendors such as SGML leader SoftQuad and the maker of the popular low-end desktop photograph program Picture Publisher, Micrografx.

Selling the Linux OS

But getting out of Linux proved little easier for Burney than Brer Fox trying to get free of a tar baby. Finally, though, in August 2001, Corel sold its Corel Linux OS division to Linux Global Partners (LGP), a NY based software investment firm, for an undisclosed sum.

LGP quickly formed Xandros to house it. Xandros is continuing Corel’s original mission of delivering a Windows-user friendly version of the Linux desktop with its Xandros Desktop 1.0. This product is in late beta and is a Debian-based system by way of the Corel Linux OS 3.0. It will include the 2.4.16 Linux Kernel, KDE 2.2.2, and user-friendly control panels, connection and printer wizards, a new file manager, and an easy-to-use Windows networking interoperability interface.

Is there any future for Linux at Corel?

As for Corel’s Linux desktop applications, while they are still supported, there have been no new releases since WordPerfect 2000, and it doesn’t take a software engineer to see that there won’t be any new Linux office programs coming from Corel.

A Corel spokesperson said that the company was still considering new Linux product releases in the summer of 2001 if there was sufficient customer demand. Because there wasn’t enough demand, Corel decided by early fall to cease developing Linux versions of its programs. Soon afterwards, Corel stopped selling its Linux programs. Buyers report that the shrink-wrapped packages still appear from time to time, but they’re almost as hard to find as a Linux programmer using C#.

So it is not with a bang, but with a whimper, that the only major Windows application company to ever venture into Linux software now leaves us. While Corel’s Linux projects were never a commercial success, Corel’s arrival in Linux seemed to herald a new day for the Linux desktop at the time. Today, its quiet, final departure reminds us that the Linux desktop has still to prove itself with both consumers and businesses.

A version of this story was first published on NewsForge.

October 15, 2001
by sjvn01
0 comments

It’s Not Your Linux Anymore: Get Over It

Once upon a time, there was a community bound together by the dream of free software and building a real Unix-style operating system. But, despite the best efforts of Richard Stallman and others, that’s all it was — a dream — with only a few bits and pieces (the GNU programs) in place.

Then, along came Linus Torvalds, who took some of GNU and a bit of the academic operating system Minix and started turning the dream into reality — Linux.

Fast forward a few years and Linux has developed into a serious operating system. Hundreds of developers work on it, hundreds of thousands use it on a daily basis, and Eric Raymond and company had popularized the terms open source and Linux alongside free software.

The community grows larger by the day, and Slashdot gives it a forum. Soon, Red Hat, VA Linux, and other Linux companies soar into the Nasdaq stratosphere. The old-time users begin to grumble about how the nebulous Linux community is selling out.

Move ahead two more years to today. The developer community hasn’t grown much, but Linux users now number in the millions. The Linux firms have fallen on hard times. VA Linux suddenly abandons the hardware business.

However, Linux as a business proposition is doing better than ever. Except these days it’s companies like IBM that are leading the way. The old community has gone into an all-out whine about how Linux just isn’t what it used to be.

Guys, get over it. Linux isn’t just for hardcore techies anymore. It’s not just for those who are pure of heart in their support of the contesting gospels of Free Software and Open Source. It’s not even for those who have mostly-worthless stock options in VA Linux. Today, Linux has become as mainstream as Windows.

I know, I know; many of you in the community still want to posture about being against the demons of Microsoft. I hate to tell you this, but Linux isn’t a rebellion anymore. And, Linux was never really about good versus evil. Linux is a kick-ass-and-take-names operating system with a fascinating past and a promising future in corporate America — a future to be delivered by Fortune 500 companies like Compaq, Dell, and IBM.

I hear way too many people whining about this next step in Linux’s evolution. They’re the ones snarling that the new users are clueless jerks. They are the ones that sneer at anyone using Red Hat instead of Mandrake. In short, they’re jerks.

It’s these people who give Linux a bad name. They are absolutely certain they are doing the right thing by inflaming anyone who doesn’t praise Linux to the high heavens. And, they think that there is nothing better than to accuse anyone who says anything good about Microsoft (no matter how marginal) of spreading FUD.

Of course, what they’re really doing is alienating anyone and everyone who hasn’t picked up Linux yet. By snarling like junkyard dogs, they keep the myth of Linux as the operating system fit only for foul-mouthed, longhaired, dirty t-shirted losers alive.

The fact is, Linux was, and is, the operating system for the technically elite. Today though, it’s also the operating system for anyone in the mainstream who wants to make the most of their computing power.

In other words, the real news about Linux these days isn’t going to be reported on Linuxgram; it will likely be reported in the Wall Street Journal. LinuxWorld is a fine tradeshow, but Comdex and Networld+Interop are where Linux’s future lies.

You can cry about it if you want to. You can even e-mail me nastygrams. I’ve already got mail filters set to fire twit messages to /dev/ null set up for you. But, the simple truth is that Linux is mainstream now.

Like it or lump it, Linux’s popularity means that it also has to play by commercial rules. Frankly, it’s time to grow up. It was fun and cool to wear black and be big-bad-operating-system-rebels, but Linux is now putting on a tie — and it’s about time for us to do so as well.

A version of this story was first published in Linux Magazine.