The Linux Foundation speaks for no-one.

I was appalled after reading the rather rash statements made by Jim Zemlin the Executive director of the Linux Foundation.

His rather bizarre statements against Sun (who is also a silver member of the Foundation) must have left many execs in Santa Clara scratching their heads and wanting some answers.
What's worse is the story originally ran in InfoWorld, then was picked up by the New York Times. Other notable online sites also ran with it, including Slashdot and LWN to mention just two.

Lets look at some of the statements the Exec Director of the Foundation made:

1. "The future is Linux and Microsoft Windows, it is not Unix or Solaris."


2. Solaris has almost no new deployments and is a legacy operating environment offered by a company with financial difficulties. Original equipment manufacturers also do not see a bright future for Solaris. This was paraphrased and not a direct quote.


3. Sun, he declared, should just move over to Linux.


4. "It's certainly true that Unix is on the decline." - Discussing IBM AIX and HP-UX


5. "The only people I hear talk about DTrace [Solaris's technology for assessing program and OS behaviours] and ZFS [the Zettabyte File System] as competitive features [are] Sun Microsystems sales representatives. It's not something I believe is impacting the market in any way."


6. "...With capabilities such as ZFS and DTrace, Sun is trying to compete based on minor features", Zemlin says. "That's literally like noticing the view from a third-story building as it burns to the ground."


7. Zemlin, on Sun's open-source Solaris as "too little, too late." He also goes on to claim that there is no real open source community around OpenSolaris, arguing that Sun still controls development


8. Open Solaris is no more than an attempt to expand the Solaris user base to drive customers to commercial Sun technology.

Seriously where does the guy get off?

Looking at his profile on the Linux Foundation it doesn't instil a level of confidence.
A former Exec at Free Standards Group (who with the OSDL merged to become the Linux Foundation). He was also VP of Marketing of Colavent Technologies (basically a crowd that sold commercial Apache support amongst other things). In 2000 he was a board member of Corio an ASP, that had an IPO then was sold off in chunks. IBM retains the http://www.corio.com/ URL.

So, from my reading he's got quite a bit of marketing/exec background for web-based application servers.... beyond that, I don't see any real technical prowless. He's a marketing suit that appears to shoot from the hip.

Let's review some of his "quick-draws":

• The future is Linux and Windows?
  
  WTF?! Did you take crack before taking the interview?
  
  Sure as the exec. director of The Linux Foundation we expect you to come out and say "Linux is the future" - but to throw Microsoft in the mix -- you have to be kidding me.
  
  Look at general stall that Microsoft has had with Vista. They have forced OEMs to install it, and even some of the larger ones now have kicked back and offer corporations and high-end consumer devices the option of Windows XP instead.



• No major deployments of Solaris... and disliked by the OEMS.
  
  That must be news to both IBM and Dell, who offer OpenSolaris on their x86 series servers.
  
  As for a company in 'financial trouble' this is an extract of the letter to shareholders attached to their latest Annual Report /10-K filing to the SEC (Read it online here).
  
  I've included a screenshot the opening paragraph of the letter:
  
  
  That doesn't sound like a company in 'financial trouble' to me.
  
  You can see this on their Consolidated Statements Of Operations



• The decline of Unix (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX).
  
  It's interesting to note that all of these make hardware as well as an operating system. These systems normally scale much larger than that of a traditional Linux server (excluding clusters). Take a look at Sun's M9000, IBM's p5 595 and HP's HP-9000 Superdome Server. These computers can replace dozens of Intel based servers and thus are not something companies run out and buy dozens of. (well normally!) Interestingly... both HP and IBM are also Platinum Members of the Linux Foundation. With a Platinum membership of $500,000USD each. How's that for biting the hand that feeds you (literally in Zemlin's case).
  
  The I/O throughput and disk-subsystems available for these machines normally far outstrip that of anything under Intel/Linux range.
  


• ZFS, Sun Zones/Containers and DTrace.
  
  Seriously you jest Mr Zemlin?
  
  Linux virtualization is still a mish-mash under heavy development. (take Xen, KVM, LVS and even Sun's VirtualBox)... I wouldn't class as enterprise ready. Hell, even VMWare that started in Linux roots, has moved over onto their own kernel. Zones and Containers under Solaris are much neater and better suited to an enterprise environment.
  
  As for ZFS -- Linux has no mainstream file-system that competes. The size of volumes and the ease of use leaves ext3 behind. Even the upcoming ext4 has no real claims over ZFS. For large scale filesystems, ZFS has it over native Linux filesystems.
  
  DTrace - ask any administrator of 100's of Linux servers if they think DTrace is a minor thing? Sure Systemtap is nice, but the comparison of Systemtap to DTrace still shows some deficiencies. Being able to trace safely on production systems is a requirement for something that can be used in the real world. Add to it the ability to trace user-space programs and DTrace does indeed have some features many SysAdmins discuss and would love to see under Linux.
  
  


• Sun's open source Solaris 'too little-too late'. No community, still controlled by Sun.
  
  Wow... I wonder if he would make the same statement if Microsoft released their OS as open-source? Open-Solaris is a community site, though Sun still controls it. There is nothing wrong with that. It's their baby, and they can do with it what they like.
  
  Sun is still a large OSS backer.... remember products like MySQL, Innotek/VirtualBox, and hey, they even OpenSourced Java.
  
  Sun have shareholders to consider, and they need to make a return on their investments / R&D. I don't really have anything bad to say about the CDDL. It makes sense for them... and hey something is better than nothing. What I find hilarious is that many Linux advocates will bag the CDDL, but love Mozilla. Wake up people... the CDDL is based on the MPL! The CDDL is also recognised as a license under the OSI.
  
  


• Open Solaris attempts to drive customers to commercial Sun technology
  
  Actually most of the people I've come across it are already using the commercial Solaris or wish to learn Solaris. OpenSolaris is a nice way they can install it at home and come familiar with the environment outside of work at their own pace. It makes sense that they can utilise the same operating system in their work-place and in the comforts of their own home.
  
  

For me, I'm a fan of Linux. I love the breadth of software available to me, the rich and colourful community around it. I have grown up watching Linux (I first compiled up an 0.54 kernel on a lowly 286). My servers and desktops/laptops all run Linux.

Having said that, I learnt *NIX on SunOS and later Solaris. It has it's place, even in today's world.
I agree, the low-end UNIX servers are often replaced by Linux servers, yet there is nothing really in the Linux space that competes with the high-end UNIX environments.

A lot of what we see in Linux has it's roots in commercial UNIX. (Hell, who has networked file systems in their environment that doesn't use Sun's NFS?)

So take some advice from a Linux admin at the coal face. Linux co-exists well in a heterogeneous environment, sharing the space with commercial UNIXes and even those annoying Windows servers.

If you need to beat up a 'Server OS' next time Zemlin, try attacking Microsoft (Hint: they are not a member of the Linux Foundation).

Linux servers have probably dented more Windows server sales then that of commercial UNIX. Samba has played a large role in that.

Exchange is probably the last bastion of Microsoft dominance. With the amount of Exchange 'replacements' now on the go that run under Linux (ie: PostPath, Zafara, OpenGroupWare, Scalix and Open-Xchange to name just a small fraction of those available. ) It's likely more inroads into the proprietary walls of Microsoft are now showing cracks in many corporations. Many IT managers are struggling to justify the outrageous price they get slugged for Microsoft Exchange, and these cheaper and feature-rich alternatives are often fractions of the cost if not free.

So next time you attempt to speak for the 'Linux Community' Jim Zemlin, try actually speaking to some Linux administrators that live in the Fortune 500 world. We aren't all hippies yelling 'free OS love'. In fact we happily co-exist with commercial *NIX and sometimes even Windows servers (much to our disgust).

Leave your "Us vs Them" mentality at your door, it's not a view held by a large proportion of the Linux community. Indeed many Linux administrators actually also administer other commercial *NIX machines in their day-to-day jobs. There are more similarities between the commercial *NIX flavours and Linux than not.

We do realise it's part of the Foundation's role to 'promote Linux', but keep the mud-slinging and crap out of it. Let Linux stand on it's own technical merits and not at the detriment of dragging another 'cousin' down in the process. We see enough of this style of 'marketing' from Microsoft that we don't need to stoop to the same levels.

---

_{Disclaimer:
• I work commercially as a Linux System Administrator at a Fortune-500 company.
• I have however administered a large range of *NIX based operating systems over the years... including Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Tru64, and IRIX just to mention a few of the more 'known' variants.
• My home desktop and all my servers run Linux. Many that know me think I'm a one-eyed Linux zealot!
• I have no affiliations with Sun Microsystems at all.
• The views and opinions expressed by some members of The Linux Foundation are not mine.}