Rahul Gaitonde

Google’s got a blog too: http://www.google.com/googleblog/.

Seattle Times has published an interview they did recently with Linus Torvalds. While it’s nothing spectacular, there’s one bit that interested me:
Q. Where do you expect Linux to see its biggest growth over the next five years?
A. I’ve felt strongly that the advantage of Linux is that it doesn’t have a niche or any special market, but that different individuals and companies end up pushing it in the direction they want, and as such you end up with something that is pretty balanced across the board.

I continue to feel that the desktop is interesting, because it’s how I personally have always used Linux, and what I myself have been interested in. It’s also the technically (and marketwise) most challenging area, which makes me appreciate it all the more. And clearly there is a lot of budding interest in the area from the commercial players.

I’m enthused by the fact that even Linus is interested in the development of Linux as a serious desktop Operating System. It’s all very well if we nerds on Slashdot keep hailing each passing year as the “Year of the Linux Desktop”, but unless someone who’s in a leadership role in the Linux community (and who better than Linus) believes that serious steps need to be taken to make Linux a real desktop-worthy OS, nothing’s going to happen. So I’m glad Linus recognises the Desktop as the next area for Linux to make inroads into.

Linus also recognises the role that commercial players will play in Desktop Linux, while also conceding that it’s the most challenging “technically and marketwise”.

Google’s launched a desktop search tool, Google Desktop. A Windows-only tool for now, Google Desktop can search your Outlook emails, AOL IM conversations, plain text files, cached/saved web pages, MS Office files, and a few more (can it search PDFs? I dont know).

The Google Desktop first indexes the above files (you can choose which ones to leave out) when your computer is idle. An interesting feature is that while there is a system tray icon, the search tool itself is completely web-based. Clicking on “Search” or “Preferences” on the system tray icon will bring up a browser window with a search form, a la Google’s own home page.

This marks another step in Google’s foray onto our desktops. Not content with being merely a web-based search tool, Google has quietly released a few applications for our desktops. Think Google Toolbar, Picasa, GMail Agent.

I found this thought-provoking article on the Web. It debates what continuous adoption of (often disruptive) technology, without considering the ends which they may help us achieve, is doing to us as a society. The author terms it our “hollowing out as human beings”.

The article’s been written some time ago, because it mentions the Heaven’s Gate Cult Suicide of 1997 as a relatively recent event. It’s scary that this “technology overload”, as it were, had its beginnings at least seven years ago. Imagine how much technology we’re bombarded with today. Why are we, then, almost unaware of this phenomenon? Have we adapted to this, are we now able to keep up with the pace of technological evolution? Or is this like a ticking time bomb – one fine day might we all reach a limit and collectively scream “no more!”?

It’s a topic about which I’ve lately thought about, too. It’s easier for me, involved in the computer technology industry, to realise the implications of what the author’s talking about. Maybe I’m a victim of this “hollowing out” also. Let me explain. I work exclusively on the Linux platorm at home. I’ve been doing so for the past 3 years. Now the Open Source Community churns out software updates at an alarmingly fast rate. This includes the Linux kernel itself, Linux distributions, development tools, productivity software, internet software, and the like. I like to keep my system populated with the latest versions of whatever software I use. These include browsers, email clients, code editors, music players, IMs, and more. I find myself spending a lot of (paid) Internet time simply downloading the source for these updated releases, compiling and installing them, and deleting the older versions. Then I start up the application again, confirm the newer version number, and get a warm and fuzzy feeling inside about “living on the cutting edge”.

But lately I’ve come to question the very purpose of doing this. I spent the last two weeks downloading Fedora Core 2 (a four CD set, now – see this article on OSNews about software bloat). I only get free broadband access on Sundays, so the last few Sundays (and today) have been spent downloading FC2 full-time, which meant that I had to cut down on my browsing. Now I’m thinking – do I really need FC2? What does it offer me over FC1? New software? No. I’ve already updated the programs that I run, so much so that they’re newer than those that FC2 includes. And why am I obsessed with running the latest versions of my applications? Take Gaim, the ubiquitious Instant Messenger for Linux, as an example. Now that I think about it, the only time I actually needed to upgrade was when Microsoft introduced a new standard for communication via its MSN protocol. I don’t even know (or even care) what new features Gaim’s introduced since then. I certainly don’t notice anything new. That goes for almost all the applications that I use. I’m just using up my Internet time and bandwidth with them, I guess. I have friends who are happily running Redhat 8.0 or even 7.3 – over 2 years old.

Of course, what I’m giving you is just the user’s perspective. What the original article talked about was the actual development of technology, from the producer’s point of view rather than the consumers’. In terms of Open Source, though, this kind of “technology for the sake of technology” is acceptable. After all, most developers of such software work on it during their free time (ok, so they actually free up some time for these pursuits, but the logic is the same) – they have a day job that provides for their families. The problem here lies with the users of such software. I’m sure there are scores like me – who upgrade for the sake of upgrading.

One of the oldest adages we learnt was “Necessity is the mother of invention”. I wonder if that’s even valid anymore. It’s more like “Invention begets necessity” these days. A new technology finds itself a use, rather than the other way round. But why does society accept, often blindly, new tools that become available with such frenzied frequency?

I’ll take mobile phones as an exmaple. Mobile phones now are so rich in features, like 32-bit color screens, wireless connectivity, cameras (some with zoom, for God’s sake!), “polyphonic” ring tone capabilities, and on and on – that it makes me wonder how many of these features we really use. In India (OK, in Mumbai, at least), owning the latest and snazziest mobile phone isn’t even a status symbol anymore – everyone’s got the best. But scan the list of features above, and think for a while how many of them are really useful – useful for the basic purpose of a mobile phone, which is communication. Perhaps we’re spending too many resources innovating in the wrong areas. Instead of polyphonic ring tones, how about researching smarter notification techniques; instead of 32-bit color screens how about working on smarter, easier-to-use grayscale interfaces? It’s been pointed out over and over that the one factor that will limit innovation in phone displays is the size of the screen – so how about working to overcome that? The dimensions of photographs taken with a typical mobile phone camera are way too small and awkward to find any practical use. I know there are phones with cameras that allow for full, 800×600 pixels or better resolutions, but they’re outrageously expensive, and that’s because the cost of the camera is far greater than that of the phone.

And what does that last point indicate? Simply that too much innovation obscures the fundamental purpose for developing that technology in the first place.

There’s another side to this argument, though – and it would become another essay in itself – that we do not have any idea of future uses for today’s outlandish research. The vast majority of the public thinks that research into subatomic physics, into deep space astronomy, and into putting mega-pixel digtal cameras into ever-tinier mobile phones (!) is a collosal waste of time and money. Also, research into technologies such as cloning, and high-tech weaponry, is downright dangerous and should be Stopped At Once. These things are viewed as “Technology for the sake of technology”. But we can gaze only so far into the future. We have no way of finding out if today’s research into what appear to be useless/dangerous fields, actually turn out to be the base for some tremendously useful technology, one that solves a major problem, or makes life unimaginably richer. Are we stifling our future by limiting such research? Are we denying a possible better life to our future generations by insisting that today’s innovators solve today’s problems?

That’s one debate that’s far from being settled.

The popularity of Linux in India

What are the different Linux flavors available in India?

Well, I have seen RedHat Linux installed on nearly all Linux PC s that I’ve seen. Mandrake Linux seems to be the only other distribution that has any sizable user base. There is a disturbing perception here that “RedHat” means “Linux” and “Linux” means “RedHat” . Whenever users refer to the version of Linux they’re using, it’s always something like “He’s using 7.3 still, even though 8.0 is out”, referring to RedHat Linux 7.3 and 8.0 . I even saw a poster of a training institute that said that they offered courses on “…..Windows 2000, Linux 7.2, Solaris……”. What Linux 7.2?!

How will the different companies in Linux stand to benefit with the recent initiatives taken by the Government of India?

The government, tragically, seems to be taking a very narrow view of Linux and free software in general. It considers only the “free as in cost” aspect of free software, saying that India is a poor country and thus Linux has a very strong case in India….

But free software is much more than that. Indeed, the “free as in freedom from licencing issues”, and access to source code, is a much more important aspect of free software. The Government needs to understand that by adopting free software, it is achieving control over its software and data, that its software systems are owned by itself and not by some third company.

The Government still needs to do a LOT more as regards its “new initiatives” with Linux and free software. To cite a crucial example, in our school computer syllabus, students are taught that “A computer consists of 2 parts, hardware and software. Hardware means either a Intel 486, or the newer Intel Pentium processors, and software means MS-DOS or Windows.” Further, the syllabus goes on to teach them MS-Word. Thus we have a generation of students, who have been insightful enough to opt for computer subjects in their schools, but who end up learning just about Microsoft products. These students wrongly believe that Windows is the only OS that a computer can have installed, and that only Intel makes processors. They do not teach word processing, but rather MS-Word. This is a shocking scenario and needs to be rectified very soon. Imagine the chaos when the industry moves to Linux and Linux-based products, and our students are still learning this stuff!

Further, the Government has to stop falling at Bill Gates’ feet every time he visits India, and not treat him like a head of state. For more of my views on this please refer to an article I wrote to the Linux India Mailing List, which can be found on my website at http://www.geocities.com/tuxonline/writings/ossingovt.txt .

Still, these initiatives taken are a positive step, better than none at all. Let us hope that Linux companies can take advantage of these initiatives, particularly in Government computerisation.

With an increasing number of low cost PCs in the market, what will the future of Linux in India be?

In India, as well as worldwide, prices of computer hardware are falling rapidly and regularly. In contrast prices of Microsoft products are rising, examples being MS-Office and Windows XP. Thus, the price of software is increasing in terms of percentage of total computer costs. There will come a time when this percentage will just be too high to be acceptable to users.

We are also seeing OEMs in India offering PC s preinstalled with Linux. For instance, LG is offering its MyPC with RedHat Linux 7.3 preinstalled, Compaq is also introducing a similar package. However, these same vendors, in their advertisements regarding their other models, they put up a sign that says “Compaq/IBM/LG recommends Microsoft Windows XP” . This confuses prospective buyers (one of them was my aunt, so I know!), who are attracted by the costs of this Linux PC (almost Rs. 7000 less), and on the other hand they see this sign about XP. These vendors should define very clearly the intended audience for the Linux PC s and the XP ones.

Further, what about the after-sales services? Are there technicians who have enough knowledge about Linux that they can tackle most problems? There still exists this huge fear complex in the minds of most small-time computer vendors about Linux. About a year ago, my speakers developed some problems. When I contacted my vendor about it (he’s a medium-sized assembler) he promtly sent over a technician to investigate. The moment he found that I run Linux, he not only refused to help me, he even terminated my warranty, saying that I had violated his terms, that they did not support Linux, and, to top it all, that Linux had caused the problems with my PC!

The version of Red Hat Linux that LG is supplying with the MyPC is pretty old now, and can hardly be considered for desktop use as a replacement for even Windows 98. So it is hard to imagine any organisation that would switch to the MyPC. Software also needs to be provided along with these machines. For instance, Linux does not have the number of games available for Windows, but one can run most Windows games on Linux using special software. This software needs to be bundled with the PC.

What are the robust desktop versions of Linux in the market today? Which is a strong contender to Microsoft Windows?

There are excellent desktop Linux versions available today. The first one that comes to mind is Xandros 1.0 (http://www.xandros.com) . This version of Linux, which unfortunately sells for as much as $99, is a very very advanced Linux distribution which can safely be declared a competitor to Microsoft Windows XP.

Another distribution is Lindows (http://www.lindows.com), which a lot of OEMs in America (Walmart, for one) are already offering as preinstalled. Among the traditional ones are Mandrake 9.0 (http://www.linux-mandrake.com) which has for long been consistently providing high quality desktop software. Sun Microsystems and RedHat are working separately on a distribution of Linux specifically aimed for the corporate workspace. These distributions are being watched closely, as both Sun and RedHat are touting it as the “next-generation” Linux.

Finally, India has its very own desktop Linux distribution, ELX Linux (http://www.elxlinux.com)! This distro has received favourable reviews from various sections of the computing industry, and is on par with Xandros and Lindows.

How do you plan to promote Linux awareness on the desktop?

There are some very obvious steps that all of us Linux advocates should take. The first one is to maintain relationships with various OEMs and resellers, to encourage them to start providing good desktop versions of Linux preinstalled on their PC s. This will immediately cause mass awareness about Linux. Next is to work collectively to remove all the FUD (Fear, uncertainty, doubt) that ordinary users still have as regards Linux. I was invited in October to deliver a seminar on this very topic : Linux on the desktop. Right after this, I was flooded with calls on how to obtain Linux, how to install it, and so on. So, given enough correct information , people are certainly willing to switch to Linux.

We also need to drop the mindset of “Linux is cheaper than Windows”, because as more and more is expected from Linux and free software, developers and software vendors will have to put in more resources. This will cause the price of most free software products to rise. So we must be prepared to pay.

The biggest advantage that Linux and free software enjoys over commercial software, is the control that it grants to the end user over the software. Issues such as access to the source code, freedom to modify and redistribute it, and other such principles are crucial in the long run. No software vendor will be allowed to dictate terms to the user. These freedoms also encourage multiple software developers for the same product, leading to the proliferation of choice for the end user. These are the issues we need to be talking about to people. This is the argument that’s going to make them shift to Linux.

Evolution of Linux

Licensing and cost issues

Free software is released under a number of icences, chief among them being the GPL, the BSD Licence, and the Netscape/Mozilla Public Licence (MPL). The Linux kernel itself is under the GPL. The major features of each licence are :

• GPL: the GPL does not allow you to make your modifications private. If you
  modify a GPL-ed product and redistribute it, you must do so only under the GPL.
• BSD: the BSD licence allows you to make your modifications private.
• MPL: This licence has special provisions for the developer. It allows
  Netscape, for example, to re-licence the modifications the you’ve made to its software.

The tricky nature of most of these licences is meant to preserve the free nature of the software. However, traditional software companies who are used to working with commercial software, find these impossible to work with. The solution to this is to rethink your entire software philosophy. Refer to Eric S. Raymond’s seminal work on this subject, The Magic Cauldron.

Is there support coming in from major IT companies supporting Linux (Hardware/ software)?

Most of the “major IT companies” in India are solutions providers, and are willing to use Linux only if the client requests it. I spoke to a marketing executive from Wipro in July last year, and asked him this very question. He replied that Linux is gaining acceptance as an alternative to traditional UNIX servers, but clients still find it too risky to try Linux on their workstations. When asked why, he said that they thought Linux was still not ready for desktop use, and that there were’nt enough applications to run on that platform. He did, however, concede that their own developers found Linux an excellent development platform.

As far as support from hardware companies is concerned, yes, there are a few hardware vendors who have Linux drivers for their products ready for download on their web sites. But these are few and far between. Another area of concern in the free software community, is that these drivers themselves are closed-source, and proprietary. The community complains that this is against the spirit of free software, and I would tend to agree with them.

Current acceptance in India

How would Linux companies plan to tackle the following current Issues?

* The shadow of Windows (Microsoft muscle power, users opting for pirated copies of Windows)

Microsoft muscle power is certainly a big obstacle in the adoption of Linux in the Indian industry, and so is the high piracy levels in India. That is why I said earlier that it is not the “free as in cost” aspect of Linux and free software that we should be harping upon; rather, it is the “free as in speech” part. Do users want control over their systems or are they willing to give these freedoms to some company? As Benjamin Franklin put it so beautifully, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Microsoft’s chief income comes from large organisations who deploy Windows-based systems. These are the entities that Microsoft is targeting in its anti-piracy drive. It knows that individual home users in India cannot afford to buy genuine copies of Microsoft products, and on top of that, upgrade them whenever it comes out with newer versions. It is probably in Microsoft’s interests, to not target the individual market, to let them continue to use pirated copies. Why? To achieve what is called product “lock-in”. If, right from the onset, if the only thing that users use are Microsoft products, naturally, they will be most comfortable with these poducts in their workplace, leading to adoption of Microsoft products in the workplace too. They probably realise that this rampant use of pirated software is actually creating a “Microsoft Generation”.

Linux companies will probably target the menace of Windows in a very simple manner : to produce software that it technically superior to Microsoft’s products. But what they really need is a fantastic marketing organisation, to convince users, both individual and corporate, that their products are indeed better. Microsoft’s forte has never been developing the best products, but to make users think that these are the best.

*Hardware / software support

I don’t think that this is an individual issue to be addressed. Once the user base for Linux achieves a certain critical mass, hardware vendors will be under tremendous pressure to make sure that their products are Linux comaptible : take the recent announcement from chip-maker AMD that it will make sure that its chips are well-supported by Linux. Software support for Linux will drive the hardware support. This is already happening. To give you a really significant example, two years ago, a number of groups, including the NSA (National Security Administration), HP, Immunix, approached Linux Torvalds, now the lead maintainer of the Linux kernel development team. Each wanted its solution to be the approved security mechanism for Linux.

* Reseller’s complaint of lack of training.

I feel that once resellers are convinced about the advantages of Linux, lack of training will be no problem, as they will start spending as much on gaining Linux expertise as they do today on gaining Windows expertise. More and more training institutes are offering courses based o Linux, primarily system administration and network adminsitration courses. This is a good think, bacause sysadmins and n/wadmins get to know a lot about the inner working of the OS. Once enough people get trained at theese institutes, such complaints will disappear.

Basically it is important to remember that the world has been using Microsoft technologies for the last 20 years at least. It will obviously take time for a new technology , however good, to gain general market acceptance. It is compounded by the fact that computers today play a critical role in all walks of life. For many people, moving to a new technology presents a certain risk which they may not wish to take suddenly. For Linux, it is sure to be an evolution rather than a revolution.

* The current state of confidence in the market in not high (Not many end users willing to try out Linux on the desktop. The channel does not seem to be confident of selling Linux OS)

But that’s where you’re wrong! There are more people willing to try out Linux as an alternative to Windows than ever before! You see, Linux has been garnering a lot more press attention than at any given time in the past, and nearly all of it has been positive. So when the average user reads about so many companies adopting Linux, and reads about the CEO/CTO of that company extolling the benefits that his company has gained from Linux, he thinks, “If these guys find Linux so cool, why not get it on my computer?” Because users are fed up with the unreliability of Windows (especially Windows 98, which most use), but they continue to use it because of lack of any other alternative. It’s like “passive acceptance” of whatever faults Windows has. Now they have an alternative.

* What will the Pros of Linux on desktop be

Most free software products tend to be very flexible, and that’s true in the Linux world too. The desktop environments for Linux are much much more customisable than Windows. An average desktop user used to the Windows GUI will be absolutely delighted at the amount of customisation that is possible. Then there is the advantage of choice. For every software that Windows can offer, Linux has 3 or more high-quality alternatives. More of my views on this at http://www.geocities.com/tuxonline/writings/whylinux.txt

For developers, Linux is a programmer’s paradise. Most programming language compilers and interpreters are installed along with a typical Linux installation. The GCC (GNU Compiler Collection) is one of the most sophisticated compiler suites in the world. There are fantastic text editors such as Vi and Emacs that make code writing easier. IDEs such as Kdevelop, Kylix, Anjuta are also available.

* What are the disadvantages of Linux as compared to Microsoft?

The one disadvantage that I can think of is the lack of games for Linux. It’s like major games developers are just ignoring Linux while developing games. The market for games is enormous, and whichever platform runs the most games, will have a great advantage in the individual desktop home user segment.

Areas which used to be major problems, but are now as good as gone, are difficult installation procedure, poor hardware support, lack of applications, lack of finish in the graphical desktop environments available, etc. These are no longer practical issues.

* How will the after-service issues taken care of?

These questions ought to be answered by the commercial vendors themselves. It’s kind of a chicken-and-egg question. After sales services will improve only when there is a large enough user base, but such a user base will develop only when assured of good after-sales services.

* What margins does the channel stand to gain?

Channels will find their margins reduced substantially. (as if they weren’t low enough already!). But they’ll have to adapt or die. As more and more people start to move to free software, control will pass from vendor to consumer.

Consumers will dictate terms in the new market. Channels will make profits, no doubt, but they’ll be razor-thin, as they adjust to the new market.

* The reasons for Linux companies undergoing cash crunch?

Linux has had to battle the huge market share of Microsoft in the Operating Systems and platforms space, so Linux companies are starting out with huge odds against them. Then, just as corporate interest in Linux was beginning to grow, the dot-com bubble hit, and so did the global recession. So it hasn’t been the best of times for the market in general, and certainly not for any industry that’s just finding its feet in the market. So take it as a positive sign that in the face of such huge disadvantages, Linux has taken such giant strides.

* Why is there a delay in standardized/ uniform Linux platform?

I don’t think it’s advisable for Linux to become standardised in the first place. The beauty of Linux is that there is so much choice, so much variety available. Current users of Linux would hate to see that choice disappear. It’s enough if all vendors of Linux agreed upon common minimum guidelines to follow, so that Linux doesn’t end up going the UNIX way, i.e, into fragmented, incompatible versions. I don’t think that this will ever happen, largely because of the free nature of software. And such standards are coming up : we’ve had the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard for years now. SuSE, SCO, Connectiva and TurboLinux have formed between them a consortium called United Linux, for cooperation in development, and to ensure that packages made for one distribution are guaranteed to work on the others.

I’d say that Linux development needs to follow a middle path – not become too standardised like Microsoft Windows, and on the other hand, not fragment like UNIX.

* Will Linux take off in a big way in India?

Oh, Yes!

Linux-Based Desktops Fail to Excite the Market

It isn’t very surprising that LG’s MyPC failed to make any significant inroads into the Indian market. It’s not just cost alone which is going to make users shift from Windows.

LG has been bundling Red Hat 7.3 along with it. A default install of RHL 7.3 would make any Linux newbie cringe. It isn’t even as good as Windows 98 as far as looks and ease of use is concerned. (Not that I’m blaming RH for the whole thing.) They ought to have tried Mandrake 9.0, ELX Linux, SuSE 8.whatever, Xandros, even RHL 8.0 (but Bluecurve’s got too corporate a look for the home desktop user). But RHL7.3?!

It just seems to me that this entire exercise of Linux-based PCs was a failure because of complete and total lack of planning. Short sighted opportunism on the part of LG and Champion Computers led them to introduce such PCs into the market. No one is going to shift to Linux just because it’s cheap – least of all the individual home desktop user. He’s got to have compelling reasons to do so.

More than anything else, I find the reactions of the managers of these firms particularly disgusting:

Manikandan, deputy general manager, LG Electronics India said, "We have not been getting very encouraging response for our Linux-based 'My PC' in the metros, whereas the response has been a little better in the upcountry market.

"One reason could be because the upcountry market is more open to new things," he explained. "The second reason is obviously, the low awareness of Linux, and users' comfort level with other operating systems".

According to Kapil wadhwa, who is the director of Champion Computers,

"We have been using Windows since the last 10-12 years. So how can you expect somebody to simply start using Linux overnight when it has no visibility at all?"

"In India, acceptability for Linux is still to come about and it will take some time before the end user is comfortable with it," he said.

True, but weren’t efforts lacking on your part? You need to bundle a better OS than RHL 7.3 (at least, a better-looking OS ) if you want to realistically compete with the pirated Win2K -WinXP market. 99% of your target market uses their machines essentially as a games and entertainment machine. Ever thought of the fact that users wouldn’t be able to run these games? Ever thought of bundling Transgaming or some other such software along with it and using this fact as a marketing ploy?

"Wadhwa said that it is only after educational institutes begin teaching Linux, that users will begin feeling comfortable with it."

To say that people will start using Linux only if educational institutes start teaching it is ludicrous! Surely people don’t use Windows just because it’s been taught in school?! Did people start to use Windows simply because institutes started teaching Windows, or was it the other way round? MS has spent billions of dollars into user-interface research just so that any ordinary person can use their systems. What about the 40yrs+ generation? They use computers at home and at work without them being taught any of this in school. Computers are easy enough to use without them being taught.Don’t blame the people for your faults. You will alienate your market faster than you can say “GNU!”.

What about the visibility factor? This is what Kapil Wadhwa of Champion had to say:

"However, our technical staff tries to handle basic Linux queries from customers. But more has to be done to create some kind of visibility," he said.

And who, dear sir, is going to create this visibility, if not you? If you want your PCs to sell, and if you know that Linux’s visibility is low, is it not up to you to create it? I would never have known about this LG MyPC thing if I had not been flipping through an obscure channel by the name of TMG Enter where this was a 1-minute report.

Basically, these comments sum it up for me:

"I believe some government sectors are beginning to train their employees in Linux. Also, a few educational institutions have begun to impart Linux knowledge. It will take some time before it gains some visibility and helps us push our Linux-based PCs in the market," said Manoj Kumar of Champion Computers.

These are people who care nothing at all about the real advantages of Linux. They neither know, nor do they care, about the GNU, Free Software and Open Source movements. For them, Linux is nothing other than a cash-saver. Free as in speech, control over software, means nothing to them. That is why they will eventually fail. If they use their marketing skills and money power to highlight the correct aspects of Linux, then they will be able to convert even those who have been using pirated Windows for years.

What about support? How about manuals, guides, included simplified documentation, always-available helplines? What about marketing? Linux-based PCs came and went, leaving quite a bitter taste in the mouth as regards India Inc., views on Linux’s advantages.

The Book Is Not Enough

“Never let school interfere with your education”, quoted Mark Twain once. His words ring true even today, even perhaps more so now than then. There is no doubting the fact that the quality of education being dished out in today’s schools, even colleges and professional courses, leaves much to be desired. For far too long now, we have focussed on the theoretical aspect of education, ignoring its practical face.

Education is meant to prepare a child to live in the world around him. How much of theory can help him to do that? Sadly, very little. We all must work towards reviving that forgotten art of practical training. Rather than trying to drill textbook content into a student, let us expose him to the world around, so that he himself seeks textbooks in order to glean more knowledge about what he’s just seen.

This shift in teaching philosophy is especially crucial among the younger students. For Science, do away with classroom teaching altogether. More can be learnt about the atmosphere, and air and wind (things that we were taught in the 1st and 2nd standards), by spending a day on the field, than a week indoors. For Mathematics, forget the practice of ‘formulae’ and ‘rules’ and move to examples from daily life. A book from the Childcraft series contains this stunningly insightful example to demonstrate the concept to Units, Tens, Hundreds…

“Once upon a time, before man knew of numbers, a shepherd used to take his large herd out to graze everyday, and return at sunset. To make sure none of them went missing in the meadow, he let them in through a gate that allowed only one sheep to pass at a time. Every time a sheep passed, he would lay a pebble on the ground, in a line. Whenever there were ten pebbles in the line, he would lay one pebble in another line, and start the first line once again. The shepherd knew that he had enough sheep to fill three pebbles in the first line, and two in the second.” (Meaning that he had twenty-three sheep). Wasn’t this an ingenious idea, and what better way to explain to a child this concept?

As a child moves into higher standards, his subjects change, but the modus operandi of teaching remains the same. He learns about the solar system. Does he look at the diagrams in his textbook? No. His class is taken to a planetarium where he looks at 3-dimensional, moving model, and grasps the concept. For learning about the earth, they are taken on field trips.

Robert Kiyosaki, business owner and teacher, lamented the fact that “… we do not learn from history. We only memorise historical dates and names, but not the lessons.” We need to rectify that immediately. Today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders. If indeed they do not learn from history, it will be a tragedy.

Along with this practical shift, we have to prune useless theory too. In the tenth standard, we had to memorise most of India’s railway network, along with every single place in this vast country where mica, bauxite, copper, and a few minerals I haven’t heard of since, were mined. We forgot all of that right the day after the exam. What the purpose was of teaching us all that, is still a mystery to me.

Hope springs eternal, though. The world acknowledges that India has some of the world’s finest teachers. There is no doubt that, sooner or later, the next generation will be learning by experiencing the world, not by reading about it. Clearly, the book is not enough!

Your editorial “When the worm turns”, on 28th January, brings to the fore a worrying aspect of computing that seems to have escaped the notice of most of us.

The SQL slammer worm, as you mentioned, exploited a gaping vulnerability in the Microsoft database program SQL Server, used by many many businesses around the world on their mission-critical systems. You have described the enormous damage it caused around the world, particularly in “wired” countries.

Now, at the end of your editorial you have written “Now, if only Microsoft would hurry up and plug that glitch in their software.” This is a crucial point to make and is the crux of my whole argument – should the world rely on just one company to keep its systems, worth billions and billions of dollars, up and running? By this I do not mean that Microsoft is to blame per se. It is perfectly natural on its part to provide software that businesses need. The fatal mistake that businesses are making is, going in for software that is closed source, like all of Microsoft’s.

Closed source software is the kind that does not allow the end user to see or modify the source code (the files written in various programming languages that make up the end product). This means that Microsoft and Microsoft only can control SQL Server (and indeed all its other products). Any vulnerability in the program can be fixed through patches issued only by Microsoft, which may choose when to do so and whom to distribute these patches to. True, major Anti-Virus companies have issued fixes to guard against this worm and others, but as usual this is a reaction, these are steps taken only after the damage has occurred. The question we need to ask ourselves is “Why should there have been such a vulnerability in the first place?” This vulnerability remained because no one was able to review SQL Server’s source code in order to notice the problem. If the source code had been released to the public along with the product (or even as the product was being developed), many of the known and (God forbid!) as yet unknown bugs might have been revealed long back.

There is a software movement called Open Source Software. This movement believes in free access to the source code of products, and cooperative development of software. Through this model of software development, excellent products have emerged, such as the Linux operating system, and the Apache Web Server (a web server is the software that drives a website). Open Source Software gives complete control of the software to the end user, with the freedom to use modify and redistribute the software as he wishes (with some restrictions to maintain the free nature of software). This software is the kind that we ought to be using, simply because of the control that it grants us. No longer does an organisation have to depend upon a handful of companies to maintain its software, and thus, its data.

This last point is important. Most commercial software, especially database products, store the customers’ data in its own format, which is readable only by that company’s software. The details of the format will never be made public. This renders the company totally dependent on the software vendor to guarantee access to the data. As we all know, data is the cornerstone of any organisation. Should businesses, whether small or collosal, leave control of their data in the hands of a single company?

As far as the question of security goes, Open Source Software undergoes intense testing and review by developers around the world. Most bugs in the software are reported immediately, and fixes are released in a matter of hours, rather than days or weeks, as with commercial software.

Will the businesses which lost money due to this worm , or the countless users who were unable to access their email, hold Microsoft accountable for this devastation that this worm has caused? No. It will be the insurance companies who will have to dole out any compensation. Time and money lost is lost forever. And after all this, we have no guarantee (and it is unreasonable to expect one) from Microsoft that its products will no longer contain such vulnerabilities.

Microsoft will continue making buggy products, which will continue to be a bigger menace to the world business, as computing technology makes further inroads into our lives. It is up to us to decide whether to risk our fortunes upon a single, unamenable entity, or upon Open Source products, which are freely modifiable, and thus more secure.

Mr. Sanjiv Mathur, Head of Marketing, Microsoft India, had his viewpoint on Open Source Software in Governments published in the November 27 issue of the Economic Times. Here is a point-by-point rebuttal of his claims made in the article.

To begin with let me first clarify the term ‘Free software.’ The word ‘free’ here specifically means what you can do with the software, not the price.

And you can do a lot more with free software than you can with commercial software.

While you can obtain the basic software free, it is distributed and sold for a charge by companies who develop applications on it.

Oh, really? Does the Samba team charge for the excellent software they provide that involves reverse-engineering Microsoft’s networking standards and providing interaction between UNIX and Microsoft-based products? Does the OpenOffice.org team charge for its revolutionary office suite, which according to a poll on linux.com satisfies the needs of nearly all MS-Office users? Do the KDE and GNOME teams charge for the superb desktop environments they’ve built? On a larger scale, in case he’s referring to distributors, does RedHat charge for the entire 3 CDs worth of RedHat 8.0 that they’ve put on their ftp site for download? Do any of the other distributors? Wrong, sir, wrong. Most companies that develop applications on Open Source platforms do NOT charge.

And by the way, where you draw the line between “basic software” and the “applications developed on it”? Because Linux is essentially a huge set of applications ranging right from the kernel to the desktop environments, working together to produce an OS. There is no “basic software” anywhere in the UNIX world. All are applications. Mr. Mathur is still stuck in the Windows world where you have a “basic” Windows product and then have to buy additional applications that run on it.

As a result, the pricing structure becomes very similar to commercial software as companies promoting free software charge for initial >installation, support, training, etc.

To suggest outright that the pricing structure of Open Source Software is similar to commercial software is flawed. Unless a company specifically approaches a Free/Open Source Software vendor for support as regards initial installation, further support and training, there is no obligation upon that company to pay the vendor. Such charges as mentioned by him are not mandatory, and indeed, several companies moving to Free/Open Source Software do not opt for support from the vendor.

Though the price debate is still under the microscope, the total cost of ownership underscores the fact that when you invest in software or hardware, there are a number of hidden costs that come into being. In the commercial and free software debate this element becomes of critical value as studies reveal that TCO of free software is quite high.

Prove it. This doesn’t make sense. As mentioned by R. Gopalakrishnan, secretary to the chief minister of MP, the TCO of Free/Open Source Software is anywhere between one-half to one-tenth of the equivalent commercial solution, even when accounting for your “hidden costs”.

Microsoft believes in the overall benefit of the software ecosystem — one that recognises the roles of government, education, private industry and end users to develop a healthy interaction that advances the public knowledge base, protects IP rights, furthers innovation and spurs further growth.

Our primary concern is not with open source as a whole, but with the GNU General Public License. Its role in discouraging the development of commercial software threatens to undermine intellectual property, stifle innovation, and limit entrepreneurism while reducing choice in the market.

Reducing choice?! The fact that the Open Source community has over 3 high -quality equivalents for every major commercial offering, speaks volumes for the proliferation of choice in the Open Source market. Instead the very nature of GPL is what encourages and fosters Open Source products of high quality – because everyone gets to make use of the best code contributed by the most talented developers.

The best catalyst for software innovation and industry growth is the market place, supported by a strong regime for intellectual property protection. If an organisation is looking at moving over to free software, it is attracted by the short term benefits where the initial investment may be less than what they would need to do for commercial software.

But price is what Microsoft is harping about; the Open Source community has always stressed upon the “free as in speech” advantage that Free/Open Source Software offers. And while Microsoft brands the Open source philosophy as “communist” and “anti-American”, listen to their Head of Marketing speak – “supported by a strong regime for intellectual property protection”. This kind of “regime” is exactly what fosters monopolies. If Microsoft is really interested in advancing technology, then the best way to do so is to make public your best technologies, so that others can extend them. The best implementation shall win. Those that don’t make the grade will lose due to lack of market acceptance.

However taking into account the longer term implications; they definitely need to think of the overall value proposition that a platform offers vis-a-vis the other.

Same flaw – Same argument. See above.

They need to evaluate the basic acquisitions costs of free software vis-a-vis the long term costs which include integration costs between various components, backwards compatibility costs, collaboration with the partner community, trained manpower.

He mentions integration costs between various components. The best part is that a lot of the integration is done by the distributors themselves. Then again, the integration part isn’t as hard as Microsoft makes it out to be – excellent sites like Linuxfromscratch.org describe how to get a complete Linux system, using nothing but the source codes of various software. Imagine doing that with Windows 2000 components!

From a larger perspective, the UNIX philosophy isn’t even about the kind of integration that Microsoft (and the Windows world) are used to. UNIX is all about tools, tools which each achieve one fixed function, and then to combine these tools in almost infinite ways in order to achieve your end. This is what gives UNIX its fabled flexibility and transparency.

As far as integration between components goes, if each one of those components follows clear, open, simple standards of communication (as opposed to cryptic, closed, binary-based standards) , there shouldn’t be any problem.

These costs are absorbed by the commercial software companies and the value is passed onto the customer. Moreover, once free software is installed, it also becomes a source of elevated security vulnerabilities for IT buyers, because the source code is freely available: no one person is responsible for it.

This argument is now beginning to bore me – Open Source software being more vulnerable to security just because its source code is available. How does Microsoft explain the fact that in spite Windows NT/IIS Web servers making up a small fraction of web servers on the Internet, as opposed to UNIX/Apache-based ones, the former are the ones which are most frequently hacked? Indeed, UNIX wouldn’t be such a hit on mission-critical servers (such as web servers) if it were so vulnerable just because its source was available. Go check out NetCraft.com for a rating of the longest-running web servers; all of the top ten run BSD, a free variant of UNIX. I quote “Applied Cryptography”, Bruce Schneider, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, page 3, speaking about the public key-private key encryption algorithm:

"All of the security in these algorithms is based on the key (or keys); none is based in the details of the algorithm. This means that the algorithm can be published and analyzed. Products using the algorithm can be mass-produced. It doesn't matter if an eavesdropper knows your algorithm; if she doesn't know your particular key, she can't read your messages."

Or, even more relevant, to “Practical UNIX and Internet Security”, Simson Garfinkel and Gene Spafford, O’Reilly and Associates, pages 40-45:

"... This is especially true if you should find yourself basing your security on the fact that something technical is unknown to your attackers. This concept can even hurt your security."

Scary, isn’t it?

Microsoft’s investments in e-governance in particular go back several years, and we were amongst the first IT companies to strike alliances with the central and state governments. Today, we have MoUs with 18 state governments in India, and are doing pioneering work in developing e-governance applications and solutions. Some results of our successful partnerships include the Gyaandoot Project with the government of Madhya Pradesh, the Bhoomi Project in Karnataka and work with the Treasuries department of the government of Haryana. We at Microsoft believe that a healthy software ecosystem is one built on choice with government agencies and all entities having the ability to select which software model fits their needs.

We believe that an open market approach where software products compete on their technical merits is the best model for the long-term growth of the software industries in all countries.

Good attitude. But having said that, don’t use your financial and political clout to undermine other offerings, whether closed-source or Free/Open Source. History is rife with examples of how Microsoft has used non-technical means to further its interests.

Software companies make heavy investments in R&D and if they do not have a chance to be compensated for their R&D spends, the cycle of sustainable innovation is disrupted and the health of the local software industry is jeopardised.

The form of R&D that the Open Source community puts in, is far more than any commercial offering, both in terms of quantity and quality, since those who develop Open Source Software are committed to the code they produce, the fact that they are at all coding the software bears ample testimony to the fact that they put in an amazing amount of time and research into their product. The beauty of the whole ecosystem is that developers do not *expect* to be compensated for the work they put in. Compensation is the fact that they gain a higher standing among their peers. To a true developer, this is the highest form of reward.

As a result, it would discourage any organisation to take on the effort of expensive R&D to improve upon the same as they would not see any benefit in doing so.

This would lead to a disruption in the software ecosystem. Both open source and commercial software are integral parts of the broader software ecosystem, and the two models have co-existed within the software ecosystem for decades.

We are not averse to sharing our source codes with our customers if it will be beneficial for them

Well, then by all means do so. It will be immensely beneficial for all, not least you.

, however we are concerned about the potential implications of GPL. The problems created by GPL result from the onerous licensing terms that it contains. The GPL requires that all third parties must have the right to make unlimited copies of GPL-licensed software and distribute them free of charge. Obviously, it is extremely difficult for a software company to generate revenue by distributing a program if everyone has the right to distribute unlimited copies of the same program free of charge.

He misses the other side of the coin – If anyone can copy your software and market it as their own, remember that they have to make it available under the exact same licencing terms that it was available to them. Thus if they can make unlimited copies of your software, so can you, of their product. Whatever modifications the “third party” makes to your software to make it better, you can view those same modifications and use it in the next version of your software.

Thus in a process that builds upon itself, the software in question keeps getting better and better. The vendor who in the end markets his product better, will win. But customers always have the option to switch to the other alternative(s) available. In the end, the customer benefits. Those are the new rules of the game. No one has, or can, decree that vendors have to keep making vast profits the way they have always been doing. If, in the interest of producing radically better technology, vendors find that they cannot do businesss the way they have traditionally been doing, then that’s too bad. New business models will evolve to fit the new trend in technology. All Microsoft is doing is stifling this evolution towards better software by branding it as “onerous”.

We believe that software has commercial value and attempts to render software free will ultimately undermine the software industry, causing less R&D to go into software development and ultimately less innovation for consumers.

Sanjiv Mathur, Head of marketing, Microsoft, India

And finally a contradiction. When he started this article he said that in the end, Open Source software in the marketplace is not much different from any commercial offering. So how will attempts to render software free “ultimately undermine the software industry”? The software industry as we know it today will undergo a sea change in the future. Software today is looked at as a product, rather than a service. That will eventually change.

Clearly Microsoft has a fundamentally different viewpoint on software than the Free Software/Open Source Software community. They shall go their way and we ours. May the best man win!

On the LIG and other lists there have been discussions over the past few days, about the ramifications of Mr. Bill Gates’ visit to India and the donations that he made simultaneously to fight AIDS in India ( as Chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and to Microsoft India (as Chairman of Microsoft).

What I found particularly disturbing is the way that our chief ministers were falling over themselves in order to get further investment from Microsoft into their states. This is not because our CMs are tech-savvy (although this is what Vilasrao Deshmukh, S.M.Krishna and Chandrababu Naidu would like us to believe), it is solely because to them, Microsoft is

• a cash cow, a source of huge funds, and
• a high profile (U.S.) company, with whom, if associated, they would be able to enhance the image of their respective states.

These states are also beginning, or have begun in some small way, an e-governance drive. In this light, Mr. Gates, the businessman that he is, probably sees an opportunity to make further inroads into the Indian market.

The BusinessWorld cover story says,

"Now take another look at the Indian market. Two-thirds of the packaged software sold in the country is picked up by the government. The rest is largely accounted for by the private corporate sector."

If Microsoft can target the Government, it could make a lot more money, considering India is slated to be among the largest software markets within the next 5 years. It is already on its way to doing so. Mr. Gates always lends a sympathetic ear whenever any CM meets him. And then after his visit, Microsoft India is always quick to follow up on any new initiatives that he might have brought up. So our technologically advanced states already have a Microsoft bias, in both governance and education.

In this light, it’s very important that we have a credible and unified approach ready to convince our state governments that they ought to use Open Source/Free software in their e-governance drives. The benefits of doing so have been oft-repeated on this list, so i’d better not go thru them again. This needs to be done because for all the task forces that our government(s) might set up, and all the vocal support they may give to Open Source/Free software, this seems to vanish into thin air whenever someone like Bill Gates lands up here. Then all the begging-bowls come out again, mainly for the reasons mentioned above. (Yes, i am worried and insecure, NOT because of Microsoft, but because our Governments (at the centre and states, regardless of party) have a long history of making awful policy decisions, and letting the most stupid issues cloud their judgement).

I suppose the reluctance at the top to go ahead with adopting Open Source/Free software in governments is the same FUD that used to dominate the corporate world in the mid-to-late nineties – user-unfriendliness, lack of applications or support, and, (i think, most important) the fact that with Open Source/Free software, the Government doesn’t have one company of even a fraction of the stature of Microsoft while dealing. Given how conservative our government (and bureaucracy) is, this is the one factor that prevents it from having faith in Open Source/Free software, no matter how much its benefits are drilled into them. The government thinks it needs ONE company to deal with, not a community “out there”.

So either we need to find some way of making it believe that the community “out there” does provide better software, or find some Open Source/Free software company that acts as the facilitator (and hence the link bet. the community and the government). Maybe Linux distributors with an Indian prescence – Red Hat comes to mind first – could fit the bill.