Re:Viewing 2001: Open source - the money versus the masses

NEWS Has Microsoft met its match? Is open source going to challenge most commercial software makers? Kate Hanaghan reckons it's been an eventful year. IT professionals don't need a news service to highlight just what a difficult year it's been. For open source however, 2001 was a mixed bag. There have been winners and losers but what's emerging is that it's the people and not the captains of industry that are making the initial gains. Linux distros are still finding their feet - still trying to develop models that are profitable and attractive at a corporate level. But because of where Linux came from - it's birth to an academic (http://www.silicon.com/linusweek) and its subsequent evolution and free distribution at the hands of enthusiasts - there is the expectation these companies should remain holier than thou. So in the summer, when Caldera moved into line with Microsoft's per seat pricing model it was lambasted by the Linux community (http://www.silicon.com/a45380). But this is a company endeavoring to turn a profit - its defence was that the free ride party is over. VA Linux was another distro that made a highly consequential strategic move this year. It pulled out of the server hardware business only to see first quarter revenues plunge tenfold on last year's (http://www.silicon.com/a49330 ). On top of this, a report from Goldman Sachs showed large companies don't plan to invest in Linux within the next few years (http://www.silicon.com/a48986 ). Their reluctance relates heavily to security fears. It's hard enough for a company to stay ahead of hackers both within and outside of the organisation let alone worry about introducing software they think might increase the likelihood of vulnerabilities. But not everyone is as wary of Linux. Take the US National Security Agency, for instance. It's working with Network Associates to produce what it is calling SE Linux - a 'Security Enhanced' version of the operating system (http://www.silicon.com/a48002 ). The NSA picked Linux so that the wider developer community could get its hands on an OS that provides a higher standard of protection of confidential information. More weight in the Linux security corner came relatively late in the year when Red Hat managed to produce a patch for a hole in its latest version of the operating system within just 24 hours (http://www.silicon.com/a48631 ). Open source advocates claimed this achievement happened because community access to the code ensures a speedy resolution. One Linux advocate pointed out that with closed source software it could take six months to release a patch. But away from the business world there has been a hive of positive and progressive activity. From its birth in educational institutions, open source has come full circle. It has gone back to it roots. Quietly in school IT labs open source is taking hold. Schools throughout the UK, and indeed throughout the world are ditching proprietary software in a bid to reduce costs and introduce children to a worthy alternative. I visited a school in Yorkshire where Linux is running in the back office - simply because the head of IT can prove to the head teacher that it saves the school money (http://www.silicon.com/a49804 ). Typically with this kind of scenario it is an evangelical figure that assists the school with establishing the open source set-up - a keen techie teacher or someone on the board of governors. This is also the case within the UK government. In April the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) folded into the Office of Government Commerce (http://www.silicon.com/a44444 ). So what? Well, the CCTA was one such open source evangelist. It oversaw the transfer of many government websites from Solaris to Linux in 1999. But now government websites have been taken off Linux at considerable cost to the government (http://www.silicon.com/a44802 ). Even the Queen's changed her mind (http://www.silicon.com/a49755 ). Although this is bad PR for Linux, it's not the end of the world. Because raging very angrily and increasingly noisily is a new concern: Microsoft's cosy relationship with the NHS (http://www.silicon.com/a48174 ). The matter is twofold. Is it healthy for one company to have such an intimate relationship with the government and is Microsoft's software the best option for maintaining patient data? The irony in all this is that into next year Microsoft will continue to face increasingly stiff competition from a piece of software that was born out of an inherently non-competitive community. Here's to another year of ups and downs.