Topic: Linux Distributors Agree on Standards

[Dracho]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060421/D8H4K0J01.html

NEW YORK (AP) - In a move to make the freely distributed Linux operating system a stronger alternative to Microsoft Corp. (MSFT)'s Windows, a group of major Linux distributors announced Friday they have united on a standard set of components for desktop versions of Linux.

The standard created by the Free Standards Group should make it easier for developers to write applications that will work on Linux versions from different distributors.

Linux has a firm foothold as an operating system for servers - it's popular for hosting Web sites, for instance - but has only a few percent of the desktop market.

That's partly because, Linux, created in the early 90s by Finnish programmer Linus Torvalds, is really just the kernel, or core of an operating system. For a Linux computer to perform meaningful tasks, more software needs to be added that does things like presenting a graphical user interface.

Unfortunately, those added software libraries differ among Linux distributors, making it hard to know if an application like a word processor will function on a particular Linux computer.

"One of the big things that's difficult is consistency, and that's Window's biggest strength," said Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Free Standards Group.

If you buy a Windows program, you know it will run on a Windows computer, and Linux needs to work the same way, Zemlin said.

"If you really want to become a broadly adopted and used technology, you have to have that degree of standardization," he said.

The FSG, which counts among its members IBM Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW), Dell Inc. (DELL) and Red Hat Inc. (RHAT), has previously certified server versions, or distributions, as conforming to its Linux Standard Base. The latest version of the LSB, 3.1, will be the first one to include a standard for desktop distributions.

The first desktop distribution to be certified will be from Xandros Inc. and will ship on May 1. It will be followed by certified distributions from Novell Inc. (NOVL), Red Hat, the Debian Project, Ubuntu and others.

There are two popular, competing graphical user interfaces for Linux, KDE and GNOME. The LSB doesn't choose between them, but mandates compatibility at a lower level of the system. That makes it possible to develop applications that should run on a system regardless of which user interface is installed, the FSG said.

Michael Jang, author of "Linux Annoyances for Geeks," said the desktop standard is a step in the right direction.

"There's more choice on the Linux desktop than most IT managers can stand, and that's led to problems," he said.

Obstacles remain, however, to widespread Linux adoption. It's still not clear, Jang said, if developers will create Linux versions of all applications people need. For example, tax preparation software, which changes every year, is not available for Linux (though tax preparation Web sites provide an alternative for less complex filings).

Also, most computer manufacturers install Windows by default, and only a few offer to install Linux. Installation by the user is easy, but it's still a step that daunts many, Jang said.

__

[Javora]

That is a big first step toward becoming a main stream operating system and one of my largest complaints about Linux.

[Skawpya]

next thing that needs doing, getting sufficient documentation made for core components and programs for those of us that cant make heads or tails of source code

[Strat]

Also need to make it so a computer junkie isn't the only guy who can use the darn thing.

IMO thats why windows has taken off, its much simpler to use for the common person.

[Nemesis]

The Linux Standard Base has been around for some time and is in the process of becoming an ISO standard.  Once standardized I'm sure that big companies will be telling Redhat and Novell/SuSE and the others that they insist on compliance to the standard.  Redhat and Novell/SuSE are already complying.  They differentiate from each other with the applications they bundle with it but the core is essentially the same.

Also need to make it so a computer junkie isn't the only guy who can use the darn thing.

IMO thats why windows has taken off, its much simpler to use for the common person.

Have you tried one of the LiveCDs recently?  I gave one to a coworker (Kubuntu) recently.  He is always having to get his Windows reinstalled for him by a technician because of massive infections.  He is at the stage of experimenting with it but is quite happy so far and is impressed with the speed. 

Given his non technical nature just perhaps for some purposes Linux is ready.

[Strat]

I've never looked at Kubuntu.

I'll have to look at it sometime.

There are other little things though I think could help.  Such as command prompt commands.  I know they origonate from Unix, but why not code in the Windows equivalent for these?

Why not have the '\' instead of the '/'?

Why not simulate drive letter access, and the folder structure?  Even in Vista they tried to revolutionize the file system and it totaly screed with people minds.  MS wound up taking a step back for its latest OS.

Driver support and hardware installtion REALLY needs to be revamped.  So far its too different and complicated to even install a driver.  Even IF the device has a driver is Linux.  The process is not automated as it could be for the users sake.

Why not change the file extensions?  Extensions in linux are so radically different, it requires learning a new system.

Too many choices:  People get confused when all they want is to do one thing (watch a movie on the PC), and there are 50 gazillion different applications that each do it a little different, with different features, files they support, etc...  Yeah, one person gets it down how it works for his Linux config, but can he go to just any other Linux PC and get to work?   The odds are its configured way differently, with different apps tat don't even remotely look the same.  Heck, Linux has 2 GUIs.

Linux is natively a Server OS, and those features and the feel are seen in the workstation builds of it.  There should be a distro specifically made to mimic Windows for the use of a simple person, without clutter.  I think linux would seriously take off then.

I like that it has many features, but the fact is that it in a way has too many.  It confuses poeple, and that is Linux greatest weakness for the common person.

I agree its powerful, free, able to do almost anything, but its also overwhelming for most poeple already adjusted to Windows.

It also needs a solid support for Windows Applicaions.

I think if Linux could do this, I think it would give MS a serious run for its money (yeah all gazillion of it lol).

[Javora]

Strat hit the nail on the head with a lot of the user unfriendliness of Linux.  The file system must be as easy to get a feel for as Windows or Apple for it to seccede.  The rest I've been harping on myself, Linux does not need all the different versions of Linux and all this does is scare potential users away.  Linux has a lot of user friendly issues to tackle before it can become mainstream.  It has taken a step in that direction with standards agreement, but we must remember that it is only one step.

[Nemesis]

Most of Strats complaints are simply "its not like Windows".  Once upon a time the complaint was "its not like DOS".  Then as each Windows version has come out people have complained of the changes.   

Others are based on differences like the /  vs \ .  To change that loses much of the compatibility with Unix and eliminates the current Linux market - not going to happen.

There are other little things though I think could help.  Such as command prompt commands.  I know they origonate from Unix, but why not code in the Windows equivalent for these?

If anyone with the appropriate skill wants to do so that will be easy.  You see once upon a time with DOS you could replace the command line shell with an alternate one.  Some people used to do that.  With Linux it can still be done.  As yet I don't know of anyone writing a DOS compatible shell but it could be done.  Currently the #1 shell is Bash but there are many others and people can use what they choose, I like that. 

Why not change the file extensions?  Extensions in linux are so radically different, it requires learning a new system.

Since Windows by default hides file extensions I don't see why most Windows users would worry about that.  Myself I unhide that stuff on Windows because I want to see the truth not just what is being shown to me.

Why not simulate drive letter access, and the folder structure?  Even in Vista they tried to revolutionize the file system and it totally screed with people minds.  MS wound up taking a step back for its latest OS.

My understanding is that the WinFS was removed for one reason only - it doesn't work yet.  Not because of user complaints.  Microsoft still (last I heard) plans to ship it as a "patch" around the time that Vista actually appears in stores, though I woudn't bet on it.  I suspect that it is a memory and performance hog. 

Even though I am a relative newcomer to Linux I have never seen the layout of the file structure being different as a problem.  Perhaps I am just more adaptable than the norm.

Microsoft could instead do what Linux has done and allow installable file systems.  That would allow people to port such things as journalling file systems to Windows which already exist on Linux.  Another filesystem that Linux uses which Windows should adopt is the Swap system.   The Swap file gets its own partition and format, nothing else gets to access it.  I have ever since learning of that used a separate swap partition on Windows (98 and 2000) and found the number of system crashes dropped substantially even though it only uses the same file system as the rest of Windows and other programs can access it.

Driver support and hardware installtion REALLY needs to be revamped.  So far its too different and complicated to even install a driver.  Even IF the device has a driver is Linux.  The process is not automated as it could be for the users sake.

That is as much the fault of hardware makers as anything.  Too few of them support Linux or allow the specifications out so that Linux can support them.  Most of the drivers are based on reverse engineering the hardware or Windows driver functions.  Slowly hardware makers are giving some support (mostly with closed source drivers unfortunately). 

Linus does need to stabilize the driver layer even though he does not seem inclined to do so to make it easier for hardware makers.  Perhaps the LSB will start to apply pressure that way. 

I like that it has many features, but the fact is that it in a way has too many.  It confuses poeple, and that is Linux greatest weakness for the common person.

If you don't like too many features then use Gnome rather than KDE.  Part of Gnomes concept seems to be to make all the choices for the end user and limit what they can change.  I stick with KDE.  (Kubuntu is the KDE version of Ubuntu which uses Gnome).

Too many DVD players on the market for you?  Too many car models?  No?  Then why would you worry about too many OS versions?  Most people will use one of the top 3 (Redhat, Novel/SuSE or Mandriva) and as long as they are software compatible (not totally yet I admit) I don't see the problem. 

Myself I dislike the fact that most Windows programs out there "require" WinXP and I haven't upgraded to it because I dislike Microsofts dictatorial attitudes over MY computer.   Because Microsoft is trying to force people onto XP (then onto Vista) and I won't go I am left behind and excluded even when the program can run on 2000 (or even on 98). 

I like choice.  I don't like the choices being taken away from me.  I don't like being told that I must upgrade to the newest Microsoft cash cow or not be able to run software for marketing reasons rather than technical reasons.  I don't like the DRM that Microsoft is progressively putting into Windows.  I don't like the licensing terms that Microsoft is progressively making more restrictive on me while allowing them to do ANYTHING to MY system with no liability for problems they cause.

Linux is natively a Server OS, and those features and the feel are seen in the workstation builds of it.  There should be a distro specifically made to mimic Windows for the use of a simple person, without clutter.  I think linux would seriously take off then.

Windows is natively an enduser OS so maybe Microsoft should get off the servers?  I disagree, the core of the OS can do either.  Linux started by people creating it for personal use  the server adoption came because A/ It was good enough and B/ It was cheaper by far than the commercial competion.

Make a Linux that exactly duplicates Windows and be sued to death?  Sorry I don't see anyone wanting to fight Microsoft in court like that.  Even little things like your \ vs /  and changing all the file extensions would mean no Linux software would work for your Lindows and neither would Windows software so you would just be adding another incompatible OS to the marke with no support so I don't see that happening.  Why would it take off if it was made?

(Note: A company used the Lindows name and was sued over it then paid by Microsoft to change the name as it looked like if the case went through the Windows trademark could be ruled invalid).

How will Linux get into the home?  The same way DOS did.  People will want to use at home what they use in the office and slowly it is happening that people are using Linux in the office.  Why do businesses convert to Linux?  Many reasons, one of which is BSA raids.  Others change because it is cheap.  Some just because the system is easier to secure (yes no system is totally secure) from outsiders and to a degree from insiders.

[Nemesis]

One of our former members used to routinely throwout any new Firefox vulnerabilities that showed up on the Secunia site but became angry the one time I threw out the IE buglist from Microsoft (screen after screen of bugs).  This however did get me to check Secunia occasionally.  A few days ago I made a list from the Secunia site of the number of advisories vs unpatched vulnerablities for a number of versions of Linux and Windows.  The various Linux versions do quite well with the only unpatched vulnerabilities being in the hobbiest versions Debian and Gentoo. The list is below.

Debian GNU/Linux 3.1   Currently, 4 out of 288 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database

Debian GNU/Linux unstable alias sid  Currently, 3 out of 679 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Fedora Core 5.  Currently, 0 out of 5 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Gentoo Linux 1.x Currently, 1 out of 842 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Mandriva Linux 2006.  Currently, 0 out of 9 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

RedHat Enterprise Linux WS 4.  Currently, 0 out of 162 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Slackware Linux 10.0.  Currently, 0 out of 53 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

SUSE Linux 9.3.  Currently, 0 out of 83 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Apple did well also:
Apple Macintosh OS X.  Currently, 0 out of 68 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Windows does not do quite as well:  Windows CE does very well and the older (less tracked) versions of Windows are pretty good too.  XP Pro though not so well.

Microsoft Windows CE 3.x.  Currently, 0 out of 0 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Microsoft Windows Millenium  Currently, 3 out of 33 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Microsoft Windows 95  Currently, 3 out of 7 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition  Currently, 3 out of 30 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Workstation  Currently, 7 out of 38 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition  Currently, 8 out of 82 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Microsoft Windows XP Professional  Currently, 27 out of 131 Secunia advisories, are marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.

Remember that a Linux distribution includes dozens to hundreds of applications and even games and they would be in the bug list for the distribution as well, unlike Windows where application bugs are separate.

[Strat]

lol, I rest my case.

Even your explinations of Linux are complicated. 

I have no dispute that in some ways, arguably many ways, Linux is better.

That does still not out-weight the fact the people would rather steal Windows than get Linux for free. There has to be a reason unlrelated to the points that make Linux better.

There is a weakness somewhere, I merely suggest that reason being its complicated nature, and its being so different from Windows.

I like many of the points you made below, before the security post that is. I'm not aruging the securty, in fact I'm not arguing one is 'better' then the other at all.  I trying to reason out why Linux is so obviuolsy unpopular when being a free alternative.

For every one of those good points I can already think of ways and reasons that Emualting what makes Windows successfull (its everywhere and its simple) would help Linux be more of a competitor.  If you are truely intrested I'll post them.

I'm not a debator, I'm a problem solver.  I can already think of ways to resolve the challenges you mentioned, if you are intrested in really finding a way to make Linux better.  Not like it would really matter though...  I'm not going to write the new code anyways! LOL!

[Nemesis]

lol, I rest my case.

Even your explinations of Linux are complicated. 

You need to look again at Windows with the eyes of a novice.  Windows is every bit as complex as Linux, you just have the advantage of already knowing it.  Everything I have learned about Linux has a parrallel in Windows, every problem is one I have already seen in Windows. 

That does still not out-weight the fact the people would rather steal Windows than get Linux for free. There has to be a reason unlrelated to the points that make Linux better.

They steal what they know.  Who would steal a car with a standard transmission if they only know how to drive an automatic?  (Yes I know there have been thieves stupid enough to do so with cars but they don't keep them).

For every one of those good points I can already think of ways and reasons that Emualting what makes Windows successfull (its everywhere and its simple) would help Linux be more of a competitor.  If you are truely intrested I'll post them.

Wherever Linux is similar to Windows Linux gets accused of merely copying Windows.  Wherever they are different they get complaints about not being compatible.  Rather than copying the good and the bad from Windows attempt to be better in their own unique way.  Which is mostly what they are doing.

[Strat]

I indirectly agree with everything you are saying.

Linux need to be made into what people KNOW.  They know WINDOWS.  They don't know UNIX.

And if you think Windows is complicated to a novice (I agree, I see it at work everyday), what in the WORLD do you think Linux will do to a novice, Especially when there's a %90 chance there is no one nearby to help you?

If the Target for the product is Windows users, it need to be like Windows. 

If it wants to target servers, it need to be a server (and that probably where Linux is most used, and it does VERY well).

If you want to sell a product to men, would you sell a pink dress, or jeans?  Your product should fit the target groups' wants and needs.

If you don't want to be like Windows, just make it simpler SOMEHOW.  But you still gain a huge advantage when your OS is immediately usable by almost the entire world beucase its so much like what they already use.

[Nemesis]

If the Target for the product is Windows users, it need to be like Windows. 

If you don't want to be like Windows, just make it simpler SOMEHOW.  But you still gain a huge advantage when your OS is immediately usable by almost the entire world beucase its so much like what they already use.

Who is the target?  Depends on the Linux group. 

The independent developers most target - themselves, that is where Linus started it, targetting his own needs.

The Linux companies are targeting - other companies and governments because that is where the money is and where the foot is already in the server room.   Notice they are not targeting end users.  They are not targetting you or me because they don't need to.

There are activists who target the home users and they do have some good points to make but they are not the current primary thrust and they are not what will get Linux on grandmas computer.

Get Linux on the office desktop and it will migrate home.  Most office users (even so called power users) really only know the applications that they use.  They know the applications that the company chooses to use and slowly some companies and governments are switching to alternative software.  What they know and use at work they will take home, just as they did with DOS and Windows.

There are many reasons to switch for a company or government.   

Consider clauses in more and more proprietary software licenses (including Microsofts) that allow the vendor to probe your computer.  Now add laws that require companies to protect your private data from outside access without your permission.  Can a hospital for example afford to keep your data on a system where Microsoft claims the right to probe it at their leisure and to whatever extent they feel necessary when the law requires the hospital to keep your data private?  Can the police department afford to put criminal records on such systems?  Linux and open source software can be very attractive there as it is easier to be compliant with the law.

Then there are governments that want a non proprietary data format such as ODF (Massachusetts and Minnesota for two).  Sticking with MS-Office is not an option there as Microsoft refuses to support ODF.  Once they convert office software then moving to Linux becomes much easier.  Why change formats?  Control.  Legally required bidding rules.  In many jurisdictions it is of questionable legality to specify a proprietary file format as you pretty much eliminate all who don't own if from bidding.  Just as it has been ruled in places that bids can't be for "Intel computers" but must be for x86 computers as specifying Intel is eliminating competition that is not required to be eliminated to accomplish the job being bid on.

Now add the BSA.  (Business Software Association).  It is behaving more and more like the RIAA but it does not get nearly as many headline because it doesn't attack granny and issue press releases.  It attacks businesses and does audits which few companies can survive unscathed.  Then you get to settle out of court on their terms or have your "piracy" revealed to the public when the court case begins.  Most settle out of court to avoid the scandals.  Some get annoyed and migrate to Linux.  I expect the number of Linux migrations to increase as the BSA tightens its grip.

Once you leave Windows only software behind it becomes much easier to leave Windows itself behind.  Which of course is why Microsoft refuses to port Office to Linux.  Which is why (until they were given cash from Microsoft) Corel was porting all their stuff to Linux and developing a Linux central strategy.  Which is why IBM is working to make all their software work on Linux and Linux work on all their hardware.  Even Sun with its own Solaris OS supports Linux (though they oscillate a fair bit in the support) and makes their software work on Linux.

[Strat]

Who is the target? 

It's not that complicated. 

They should (at least I feel they should) target the other 98% of the world who doesn't currently use Linux.

I thought I made that obvious with all my 'Be like Windows' Posts.  I think if they did that years ago, they would not have to wait for Microsoft to die on its own before becomming a real competitor.  If they can pop-in Linux, and they can use it like they do Windows IMMEDIATLY (that is No further training required), and its free, well who in his right mind would not use it?

Besides, if your goal is the corperate market, I'd still say SOMETHING is wrong if poeple will pay tens of thousands on Windows Server instead of free Linux server.

I see you in favor of Linux.  When I look at Linux I see lost potential.   In order to fix that you have to take a step back and see where it is WEAK.  Most of your posts topic on its strengths, and that obviously doesn't help.  Of all the 'strengths' Linux has, there is no getting over the fact Windows is dominant. There is just some reason Linux hasn't taken off.

You have to ask yourself WHY, and do something about it.  Thats what this thread is about.  The guys making these distros saw something that made Linux weaker and implemented a fix.

As long as you sit in myriads of details about why Linux is so superior, your going to miss the simple principle issue.

Linux, the free alternative, has not competed well against Windows for years.

The question we need to ask is: WHY? -- Lets figure it out and do something about it, like the these distributors.

I merely suggest part of the value of Linux is lost becuase of is radically different nature from what the rest of the world knows.  -- And it doesn't have to be, that is the whole strength of Linux!  It can be practically anything.

[Dracho]

Linux doesn't compete with Windows because Linux is still mostly controlled by the computer Nerds, and Microsoft is now mostly controlled by the marketing types.


You've got to make it user friendly.  If you have to spend any effort explaining why it is a better product, it isn't.  Linux proponents must come to realize that the product has to jump out at you and say, "Viola!  I am better".

Having some IT nerd drone on about why you're better off spending a bunch of time learning someting doesn't cut it.  Most people don't LIKE to HAVE to learn, especially at work. The really bright and talented people who brought us Linux are the exception, but they don't understand that they ARE AN EXCEPTION.

[Nemesis]

Linux proponents must come to realize that the product has to jump out at you and say, "Viola!  I am better".

Historically that is not how software and hardware has succeeded.  Historically there have been 2 ways. The Microsoft way and the market way.

The Microsoft way. 

Use your control of the OS to block your competitors from much of the distribution channel and have your software and only your software preinstalled on most computers so that people say "I already paid for it so why buy something else?"

Code problems into your OS so that competing programs have issues.  DR-DOS crash under Windows betas hard programed in by MS.  The alleged DOS mantra "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run".

False advertising - Linux is 10 times as expensive to run as Windows.  Only true in the study MS used - Windows on a dual CPU Xeon (obsolete model) vs Linux on a Mainframe.  The ad carefully did not mention hardware.  Other similar "studies" with predetermined outcomes - like the Tobacco industry studies "proving" tobacco harmless.

The market way.  Have something that people truly want.

How did the microcomputer get into the office in the first place?  Because there was a program companies wanted - Visicalc (and later word processors and databases) on the Apple II. 

How did the PC take over?  Two reasons the letters IBM (combined with the phrase "No one was ever fired for buying IBM) and the fact that Apple had abandoned the open (hardware) features of the Apple II for the closed Mac while IBM had the PC open to all attitude that Apple was leaving behind.

How did Windows take over?  Because people wanted to continue using their DOS programs while gaining context switching and WYSIWYG document processing (like the Mac and GEM already had).

The Linux way.
Low cost.  Not just that you can get it free but for corporations it takes fewer people to admin a given number of machines and lower down time.

Security.  For corporations that means protecting your systems from both the INSIDE and the OUTSIDE.  A knowledgeable hacker with access to your bootup can still get in but most people can't handle that even with Windows and fewer would be able to do so with Linux while covering your tracks.

Control.  Again for corporations it is control of your system and that includes preventing unauthorized messing around by your employees as well as from outsiders.

No DRM.  This one is just beginning but Windows is building in more and more DRM (so called Digital Rights Management - not your rights but those claimed by the copyright holder).  Linux can have it added but so long as the law allows removing it or getting a non DRM distribuiton will always be possible.

[Nemesis]

Here is a link to an anti-Linux "article" that is so wrong on its facts that I find it hard to believe it is real but I couldn't find anything that clearly marked it as a joke.

I'm talking about a project called 'Linux', something you may not have encountered, but might do some day.

It's a computer program that was initially developed in Finland as a means of circumventing valuable copyrights and patents owned by an American company called SCO Group.

1/ The SCO Group did not exist when Linux was created.
2/ SCO is fighting over ownership of the relevant copyrights with Novel.  There is no clear transfer of ownership from Novel to The Santa Cruz Operation or from Santa Cruz to the SCO Group.  Clear transfers as required by U.S. law.
3/ SCO has no patents.

And guess what software Osama Bin Laden uses on his laptop?

If you guessed it was Linux you would be 100% right. Osama uses Linux because he knows designed to counterfit DVDs, curcumventing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and defraud companies like Disney.

So American agents are good enough to know what OS Osama uses but not actually catch him?  Also Linux predates both the DVD and the DMCA so how could it have been designed to break them?

f you see a company using Linux, it may be that they have not paid for this software. Report them to the Business Software Alliance who have the legal authority to inspect any company's computers for illegal programs like Linux.

Not illegal and the BSA does not have jurisdiction if you don't use software of its members that includes auditing in the license.  The BSA in fact has driven some companies and individuals to Linux by their audits.  Keep up the good work BSA .

Have a good laugh at the article but don't trust any of its facts without checking them.   The postings below the article do provide some actual facts (such as info on Alan Turing for example).  I considered posting this in Hot and Spicey but decided to add it here instead.

[Nemesis]

A link to a pro Linux article

"There is no room for error or down time in our systems," said Joshua Gustin, TFM-Modernization program manager, FAA. "When we first considered refreshing our entire system, we were looking at $25 million in costs and 18 months to full deployment. By switching to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, we were able to spend less than $10 million and accomplish a major system modernization in one-third that time. Red Hat Enterprise Linux fixed our problems of reliability and scalability, and gives us the support we need to reduce our risk."

"The FAA's successful and impressive migration truly exemplifies the value, performance and security of Red Hat Enterprise Linux," said Paul Smith, vice president of government sales operations, Red Hat. "There are scores of agencies across the entire federal government, as well as state and local governments in all 50 states that are moving Unix-like capabilities to Linux on commodity hardware."

"The fact that Red Hat delivers a platform for better total cost of ownership, throughput, and credentials for strong security makes it the obvious choice when agencies look at either a technical refresh or infrastructure modernization," said Smith.