Print
Discuss
Send to friend
RSS feedsA previous project leader for the Debian distribution, and senior strategist in charge of open source for Hewlett Packard, Bruce Perens currently works as an independent consultant.
He is executive director of the Desktop Linux Consortium and a board member of Open Source Risk Management, a company that sells insurance policies which indemnify companies against Linux patent claims.
Perens is also involved with the launch of UserLinux, a distribution that offers an alternative to enterprise users fed up with the licensing policies of Red Hat and SuSE.
Instead of bundling support with the software, UserLinux allows users to get support from a vendor they pick themselves.
The organisation is signing up and certifying independent support vendors around the world, of which there are currently 10. A CD version of the first beta was launched on 1 September.
Many users prefer to pay for a Linux CD if it comes with a phone number they can call for support. Why should they switch to UserLinux?
A lot of enterprises are not happy [with Red Hat or SuSE]. I've been solicited by a number of companies which feel that, although they are significant markets, they are not important markets for Red Hat or SuSE.
As soon as your requirements get specialised, the degree of satisfaction goes down. Early adopters tend not to want much handholding.
UserLinux in 2004 will sell to early adopters. UserLinux will not sell to the people who will not buy anything unless IBM is holding their hand for another couple of years. We're happy with that.
Software and hardware vendors like HP, Computer Associates and IBM think that there will not be any demand for your product so they won't support or certify it. Does that worry you?
If you look at the success [of Linux], it did not happen because IBM got into development early. It happened because IBM got into this very late.
The open source development got us here. It is important to build up a community to the point that we can come to Oracle and say: 'Hey, we've got users. There is a reason for you to support this.'
I'm not calling [Oracle chief] Larry Ellison right now because it would be silly. There is no practical reason for Oracle to do this until the customers are there.
You basically claim that the commercialisation of Linux got out of hand. What went wrong inside the open source community?
Why are some of the Linux and open source developers upset with the way their systems are being marketed? Because they have no say about it. And even if they have the opportunity, they don't know how to use it.
In the UserLinux case we address that not by whining, but by creating a viable alternative.
IBM is large supporter of Linux and open source, but doesn't do much with Linux on the desktop. How do you think you can improve the position of Linux on the desktop?
The big question right now is whether we can get people to use OpenOffice rather than Microsoft Office. It doesn't matter if it's on Windows or Linux. If we can do that, desktop Linux wins in the office.
This is in the typical kind of office where 80 per cent of the people use an office suite, web browser, email and not very much else.
Unfortunately Sun Microsystems [which operates as the steward of OpenOffice and opened up the source code in 2000] has not done the best to promote that.
Sometimes because of this, I wish the open source community would walk away with OpenOffice and leave Sun. I haven't really pushed that issue.
Sun could help push OpenOffice much better in a way that would ensure that Microsoft doesn't become a challenge later on.
Because if people will still be mostly using Microsoft Office five years from now, and Office starts closing everyone in with digital rights management file formats, then the window is closed.
How can you further promote OpenOffice?
The little guy is our ally: the Linux enthusiast in every company. If you look in the information systems departments, there is a Linux believer there.
If that person would make sure that every person in the company has OpenOffice, that the icon is on the desktop and that people use it, I think we would win this.
If OpenOffice is such a viable alternative, why don't we see more hardware vendors installing it on computers?
From a vendor standpoint, I don't understand why every beige-box PC clone manufacturer is not already shipping OpenOffice Windows PCs. They are perfectly capable of doing so.
I should go down to the one on the corner and ask. And I'll probably get a reasonably dumb answer like: 'You can download it.' Maybe the marketing smarts aren't there.
del.icio.us
Digg this
reddit!
