Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.2, the latest version of Red Hat (RHT)'s flagship open source operating system, debuted in beta form this week, sporting enhanced security tools, better support for containers, updated storage management and more.
A few days ago, I aligned Republican presidential hopefuls with open source Linux-based operating systems. Now, it's the Democrats' turn: If Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders et al. ran Linux, which distribution would they use? Read on for some perspective.
Desktop apps stores are dead, and their mobile-oriented equivalents are the future. That's the message from Canonical, which has quietly made clear that it intends to jettison the Software Center in Ubuntu Linux to focus on mobile apps for Snappy Ubuntu Core.
"Can we FaceTime?" If I had a nickel for every time someone has asked me that, I'd almost be able to afford a new Android tablet. And yet, even then, I still would not be able to FaceTime, because I don't have an iPhone, iPad or i* anything else. This fact has had me wondering: Why does anyone useApple's FaceTime, given that it is a redundant, proprietary VoIP application?
If people running for president used Linux or another open source operating system, which distribution would it be? That's a key question that the rest of the press—distracted by issues of questionable relevance such as "policy platforms" and whether it's appropriate to add an exclamation point to one's Christian name—has been ignoring. But the ignorance ends here: Read on for this sometime-journalist's take on presidential elections and Linux distributions.
Open source culture—in theory and largely in practice—is about as meritocratic as can be. Yet it's also nearly as dominated by white males as can be. Why is that? It's a question worth asking, especially in the wake of the Washington Post's observations a few days ago regarding Silicon Valley's "diversity problem."
It's long been possible to install and run Linux from a USB stick—if you have a full computer to boot it from. But starting this week, Intel (INTC) and Ubuntu are partnering to deliver an open source operating system that requires only a monitor with an HDMI port in the form of the Intel Compute Stick.
If you use a free and open source operating system, it's almost certainly based on the Linux kernel and GNU software. But these were not the first freely redistributable platforms, nor were they the most professional or widely commercialized. The Berkeley Software Distribution, or BSD, beat GNU/Linux on all of these counts. So why has BSD been consigned to the margins of the open source ecosystem, while GNU/Linux distributions rose to fantastic prominence? Read on for some historical perspective.
If you ask a lot of people why Linus Torvalds and the Linux kernel that he wrote became one of the most prominent open source projects of all time, while Richard Stallman's GNU project has received much less attention beyond hacker circles, they'll tell you the difference has to do with Stallman's excessive commitment to an uncompromising ideology. Is that really accurate?
Here's food for interesting thought: What if the Free Software Movement had built a replacement for what became Microsoft (MSFT) Windows, rather than an operating system that eventually became the one open source fans know today as GNU/Linux? Would Bill Gates still have ended up a billionaire, and Microsoft have imposed a monopoly on the PC world? Read on for some reflection on what might have been had a few things gone differently.
If Linux is so great, why has it not replaced Windows, OS X and other closed-source operating systems completely? More generally, why do people still write and develop proprietary software, if open source is a more efficient, user-oriented and secure way to code? Those are important questions about the big-picture significance and future of free and open source software, and they're worth thinking more about.
The latest version of Fedora, the Linux distribution that helps shape the features that make it into Red Hat's (RHT) open source platforms, is out this week, sporting updates in the realms of containerization, server databases, file storage and the GNOME desktop.
Open source fans have long had a rocky relationship with Microsoft. Everyone knows that. But, in many ways, the tension between Apple and supporters of free or open source software is even starker—even if it receives much less attention in the press. Why? Read on for some perspective.