In association with heise online

The Foundation responds

What do we call devices which use a Linux kernel but don't present, as their primary route for delivering applications, typical desktop or server Linux APIs? To adopt a programming term, the label 'Linux' could be suffering from, too much operator overloading. Linux-powered seems to be an appropriate way to describe how the new classes of devices use Linux, but only if there's an understanding that desktop and server Linux systems are different. Desktop Linux could describe an X11 based Linux distribution, and Server Linux could refer to a web or command line administered Linux distribution for servers. There are, as always, exceptions; Moblin uses X11 and offers the typical desktop APIs for desktop systems, with Clutter enhancements, so would fall into the Desktop Linux category. But with a clearer terminology, users would also know to ask how open Linux powered platforms are, without assuming that they are as open as, or that they will run applications for, Desktop and Server Linux.

We decided to consult the Linux Foundations CEO, Jim Zemlin, and asked him what the Foundation's position on the issue was:

Dj: Is the Foundation worried about the possibility of consumer confusion?

Zemlin: The Linux platform is unified at different levels by different means.

First, at the kernel level where most hardware support happens the Linux ecosystem is extremely unified. Organisations that wish to support their hardware with Linux - whatever the variety - simply contribute code to the mainline Linux kernel project hosted at kernel.org.

Second, at the library level, there are efforts such as the Linux Standard Base to define a core set of libraries that application developers can expect in all Linux variants in order to make their job of building apps for Linux easier.

Finally, application ecosystems are defined at a higher level where the market often decides which version of Linux will dominate and in many cases there are multiple versions of Linux that succeed in the market. For example, Android is a popular Linux-based mobile OS where application compatibility takes place in their Java-based run-time and applications are simply made available to consumers through the Android marketplace. The Palm Pre has a similar approach with a different run time and SDK. The Amazon Kindle has an application SDK.

All of these are Linux-based and nobody is confused about the kind of application they are building or which market they are reaching. The reality here is that aside from Apple, RIM, and Microsoft, almost nobody is building client computing devices with anything but Linux. There will be multiple application ecosystems on top of the various Linux systems that will remain unified at the lower levels of the computing stack. This provides an excellent balance of shared R&D and market competition.

Dj: Are there any plans for developing branding which would make the differences between the two use cases more apparent to consumers?

Zemlin: In the case of enterprise computing this already exists with the Linux Standard Base and the various commercial versions of Linux such as Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, and Ubuntu. In the case of mobile devices there are no plans at this time other than using the Linux trademark to help developers understand what they can expect in terms of the underlying software, and the hardware support they can expect.

Dj: Outside of branding, is there a better way of letting consumers know that, say, although an Android phone runs Linux, it won't (easily/at all) run a Linux application written for Ubuntu.

Zemlin: I don't there is any confusion here. For most consumers the only way to access Android applications is through the Android marketplace on the device itself. I think it is helpful for consumers to understand that Android is based on Linux and they are supporting software freedom by using open source code, but I have not heard of any confusion in terms of an Android user attempting to run a desktop Linux application on their phone.

Zemlin believes that there won't be consumer confusion and that the Linux Standards Base serves as a enterprise brand, but we want to hear what you think. Should we have "Linux powered" devices and desktop and server Linux brands? Or just refer to Linux and the Linux Standards Base? Or maybe now is the time to start referring to the Linux kernel and the GNU/Linux operating system?

See also: