The Gnome Has Been Losing Weight
If you're a Linux head, in particular a Gnome one, you've bound to have noticed the huge amount of work on optimization that has been carried out of late. People such as Federico, Ben Maurer, Michael Meeks, the OLPC guys and many, many others have been tireless in their efforts of shaving memory and cycles from all sorts of libraries and applications in the Gnome stack. There is even talk of coloring functions according to their cost so that developers are more aware of the price they'll pay when they make function calls.
I believe no one, outside or inside the Gnome camp, will dispute that it has gotten a bit too fat. Even Gnome 2.16 (desktop and applications) seems to require 512 Mb of RAM to run comfortably. Yes, one can squeeze it to fit 256 Mb - or even 128 Mb - but such configurations are only usable with one or two applications running simultaneously, and certainly no more than one user on the machine. Some people may argue that this fattening is an inevitable consequence of the Free Software development methodology: since most developers are scratching their itch, and their itch is features, there is no natural evolutionary pressure towards efficiency.
There is, perhaps, some merit in this line of thinking. However, I think it takes a static view of software development, an activity which is inherently dynamic. In my view, there's nothing wrong with focusing on features. First create an app, load it with functionality and expose it to the world (as always "release early, release often"). Then, once the problem domain is understood, factor out common code into libraries that can be used by other applications requiring the same functionality. Finally, when the libraries are proved to be a bottleneck, optimise them. This generalisation models the life-cycle of many free applications. Take the GIMP, for example. First, it made sense to have GTK in the GIMP. One had to explore the problem domain and get something out there first. Then, the library became sufficiently useful that it made sense to separate the two. Now there is a large community of applications that depend on GTK, and the bottlenecks are being investigated by a rather large number of developers. Remember Hoare? "Premature optimization is the root of all evil". This is optimization done at the optimal time.
In addition, this demonstrates one of the strongest points of Free Software: its emphasis in reuse. This is such an interesting topic that deserves an entire post on its own, so we'll save that discussion proper for later. With regards to optimization, the best thing about reuse is that, when someone spots and fixes a particular memory or CPU hog, all applications that depend on the offending library will benefit from the fix. In many cases, these changes don't even require modifications at the application level - just an upgrade to the latest version of the shared library. While in theory the exact same logic applies to commercial software, the reality is that vendor lock-in and NIH stop reuse at the scale done in the Free Software community. In addition, few vendors have the incentive to continuously optimise their wares.
So, in my view, bloat in free software applications or libraries is not a bad thing per se; it just denotes that the application or library just hasn't reached maturity yet. Which brings me neatly to my next point.
Gnome, as it stands is pretty much feature complete for the vast majority of users. There are things missing, but these are mainly polish. Once the multimedia situation is comprehensively sorted out - and GStreamer seems to be on the way to achieve this objective, in particular by allowing both free and commercial codecs to coexist - we're pretty much there. Now, I know you'll disagree and tell me that feature X is stopping you from migrating to Gnome. I personally believe that Wine is the key to really unlock the Windows market; but this is not what we are talking about here. Gnome is now good enough for most normal users: people that browse the web, write documents, and need access to email; kids that want to learn to program; people that need to learn basic computer literacy skills; small businesses. As far as providing an alternative goes, well, we're there.
It will be an incredibly difficult battle to unseat Microsoft (even an impossible one), but, as any good General knows, one should fight the battles one can win - not the battles we're sure to lose. Going straight after Microsoft's 90% share of the desktop market is suicidal. One has to look for the easy pickings first. This is what Free Software has done very successfully in many segments; and it is the Right Thing for the desktop too.
The Battle at the Low End of the Market
Everyone knows that there is one important dent in Microsoft's armour: its constant upgrade cycle requires more and more hardware and more and more money for licences. The hardware costs were originally exploited by Linux in the fight for the server market but the low prices have made it less significant as a competitive advantage in that segment.
However, on the desktop front this hasn't been exploited at all. In the past, one could say that Gnome and its applications used a lot less resources than Windows. I remember Gnome pre-1.0 happily running on 64 Mb of RAM on my 486-DX. The problem then was lack of features. The features are there now but this was a bit of a phyrric victory for the low end as the footprint has increased dramatically. One can hardly say that Gnome uses significantly less resources than Windows XP. The converse may even be true, although this is disputable. No matter; the key point here is you can't run the latest version of Gnome with a web browser, an email client, a spreadsheet and a word processor open on a Pentium I with 64 megs of RAM. The thing is, you can do all of these things with Windows 95/98. Which is why, when you go to the developing world you see lots of people running these versions of Windows on the hardware they can afford.
Microsoft has no interest in this end of the market. Little money can be made by making windows lighter. Getting Vista to run on a Pentium I does not provide Microsoft with any additional revenue: if you can't afford the latest hardware, you can't afford Vista anyway. But think about it: if you could run a full blown Gnome the same way you can run Windows 95/98 on a Pentium I with 64 megs of RAM, suddenly you can get access to the latest applications and features. There is no competition between Windows 95/98 and Gnome 2.16 or later; its a battle we're sure to win. Even if Microsoft were to give away free licences of these operating systems, just on functionality alone Gnome would win. And, as we've seen, there is no incentive to get Vista or XP to run on low end.
Being in Africa made me realise just how much we take things for granted. In Europe everyone has broadband, TFT monitors and fast machines at home. When you travel around in Africa you see top end cybercafes with Pentium IIIs and connections that make Dial Up look fast. Very few people have PCs at home. The thing is, they could actually afford them. A Pentium I in England is so cheap as to be practically free. And yet, you see high-school students paying extortionate fees to use cybercafes (of course, electricity at home is also an issue but we can't do much on that front).
When I was in Namibia I spoke to a well-off high-school student who was learning Turbo Pascal at school. I also learned Turbo Pascal at school, but that was in 1992 and it was already passe in England - Portugal has always been a bit behind the times. But these guys are learning it in 2006. This makes me cringe. And all because these are the licences they can afford on the hardware they can afford. They could and should using Monodevelop to learn C#, Eclipse to lean Java or Anjuta to learn C/C++. But none of these fit the hardware they've got. Africa is performing so badly in the information age one can't even say its competing at all.
One can easily imagine that the same thing happens all over India and China, but because these countries are so big everyone focuses on the privileged 10% of the population. Although hardware is getting cheaper and cheaper, low end second-hand hardware will always be cheaper if not free; and there's always someone who can only afford the cheapest.
And before you mention LTSP, remember how hard it is get it setup. You may think its easy, and sure, its has progressed quite a lot, but it still not as easy as installing Windows 95/98. And it requires at least one decent PC as the main server, plus a network.
Conclusion
OLPC and associated initiatives are an eye opener for what can be done to bridge the digital divide. However, the front in the fight for the low end should be extended not just to special slimmed versions of important programs or to smaller, less featureful environments such as XFCE; there is much to be gained in having the latest and greatest versions of Gnome targeting low end hardware.
Just imagine if Ubuntu, with its easy installation and setup, was available on low end hardware. And I don't mean Xubuntu, I mean the normal, standard Ubuntu.
Whilst the Gnome hackers are doing a sterling job in general, optimising as much as they can, there is scope for more action. In my view, companies such as IBM, Novell, Redhat, Canonical and perhaps Google should get together and fund a comprehensive dieting program for Gnome and Linux in general. Whilst this is not something that can benefit any one particular actor in the Free Software community - as we've seen, there isn't much money to be made right now at the low end - it would have huge implications for the future. Linux could become the defacto operative system for the low end market, replacing Windows 95/98 and thus opening the doors for future growth.
If you're a Linux head, in particular a Gnome one, you've bound to have noticed the huge amount of work on optimization that has been carried out of late. People such as Federico, Ben Maurer, Michael Meeks, the OLPC guys and many, many others have been tireless in their efforts of shaving memory and cycles from all sorts of libraries and applications in the Gnome stack. There is even talk of coloring functions according to their cost so that developers are more aware of the price they'll pay when they make function calls.
I believe no one, outside or inside the Gnome camp, will dispute that it has gotten a bit too fat. Even Gnome 2.16 (desktop and applications) seems to require 512 Mb of RAM to run comfortably. Yes, one can squeeze it to fit 256 Mb - or even 128 Mb - but such configurations are only usable with one or two applications running simultaneously, and certainly no more than one user on the machine. Some people may argue that this fattening is an inevitable consequence of the Free Software development methodology: since most developers are scratching their itch, and their itch is features, there is no natural evolutionary pressure towards efficiency.
There is, perhaps, some merit in this line of thinking. However, I think it takes a static view of software development, an activity which is inherently dynamic. In my view, there's nothing wrong with focusing on features. First create an app, load it with functionality and expose it to the world (as always "release early, release often"). Then, once the problem domain is understood, factor out common code into libraries that can be used by other applications requiring the same functionality. Finally, when the libraries are proved to be a bottleneck, optimise them. This generalisation models the life-cycle of many free applications. Take the GIMP, for example. First, it made sense to have GTK in the GIMP. One had to explore the problem domain and get something out there first. Then, the library became sufficiently useful that it made sense to separate the two. Now there is a large community of applications that depend on GTK, and the bottlenecks are being investigated by a rather large number of developers. Remember Hoare? "Premature optimization is the root of all evil". This is optimization done at the optimal time.
In addition, this demonstrates one of the strongest points of Free Software: its emphasis in reuse. This is such an interesting topic that deserves an entire post on its own, so we'll save that discussion proper for later. With regards to optimization, the best thing about reuse is that, when someone spots and fixes a particular memory or CPU hog, all applications that depend on the offending library will benefit from the fix. In many cases, these changes don't even require modifications at the application level - just an upgrade to the latest version of the shared library. While in theory the exact same logic applies to commercial software, the reality is that vendor lock-in and NIH stop reuse at the scale done in the Free Software community. In addition, few vendors have the incentive to continuously optimise their wares.
So, in my view, bloat in free software applications or libraries is not a bad thing per se; it just denotes that the application or library just hasn't reached maturity yet. Which brings me neatly to my next point.
Gnome, as it stands is pretty much feature complete for the vast majority of users. There are things missing, but these are mainly polish. Once the multimedia situation is comprehensively sorted out - and GStreamer seems to be on the way to achieve this objective, in particular by allowing both free and commercial codecs to coexist - we're pretty much there. Now, I know you'll disagree and tell me that feature X is stopping you from migrating to Gnome. I personally believe that Wine is the key to really unlock the Windows market; but this is not what we are talking about here. Gnome is now good enough for most normal users: people that browse the web, write documents, and need access to email; kids that want to learn to program; people that need to learn basic computer literacy skills; small businesses. As far as providing an alternative goes, well, we're there.
It will be an incredibly difficult battle to unseat Microsoft (even an impossible one), but, as any good General knows, one should fight the battles one can win - not the battles we're sure to lose. Going straight after Microsoft's 90% share of the desktop market is suicidal. One has to look for the easy pickings first. This is what Free Software has done very successfully in many segments; and it is the Right Thing for the desktop too.
The Battle at the Low End of the Market
Everyone knows that there is one important dent in Microsoft's armour: its constant upgrade cycle requires more and more hardware and more and more money for licences. The hardware costs were originally exploited by Linux in the fight for the server market but the low prices have made it less significant as a competitive advantage in that segment.
However, on the desktop front this hasn't been exploited at all. In the past, one could say that Gnome and its applications used a lot less resources than Windows. I remember Gnome pre-1.0 happily running on 64 Mb of RAM on my 486-DX. The problem then was lack of features. The features are there now but this was a bit of a phyrric victory for the low end as the footprint has increased dramatically. One can hardly say that Gnome uses significantly less resources than Windows XP. The converse may even be true, although this is disputable. No matter; the key point here is you can't run the latest version of Gnome with a web browser, an email client, a spreadsheet and a word processor open on a Pentium I with 64 megs of RAM. The thing is, you can do all of these things with Windows 95/98. Which is why, when you go to the developing world you see lots of people running these versions of Windows on the hardware they can afford.
Microsoft has no interest in this end of the market. Little money can be made by making windows lighter. Getting Vista to run on a Pentium I does not provide Microsoft with any additional revenue: if you can't afford the latest hardware, you can't afford Vista anyway. But think about it: if you could run a full blown Gnome the same way you can run Windows 95/98 on a Pentium I with 64 megs of RAM, suddenly you can get access to the latest applications and features. There is no competition between Windows 95/98 and Gnome 2.16 or later; its a battle we're sure to win. Even if Microsoft were to give away free licences of these operating systems, just on functionality alone Gnome would win. And, as we've seen, there is no incentive to get Vista or XP to run on low end.
Being in Africa made me realise just how much we take things for granted. In Europe everyone has broadband, TFT monitors and fast machines at home. When you travel around in Africa you see top end cybercafes with Pentium IIIs and connections that make Dial Up look fast. Very few people have PCs at home. The thing is, they could actually afford them. A Pentium I in England is so cheap as to be practically free. And yet, you see high-school students paying extortionate fees to use cybercafes (of course, electricity at home is also an issue but we can't do much on that front).
When I was in Namibia I spoke to a well-off high-school student who was learning Turbo Pascal at school. I also learned Turbo Pascal at school, but that was in 1992 and it was already passe in England - Portugal has always been a bit behind the times. But these guys are learning it in 2006. This makes me cringe. And all because these are the licences they can afford on the hardware they can afford. They could and should using Monodevelop to learn C#, Eclipse to lean Java or Anjuta to learn C/C++. But none of these fit the hardware they've got. Africa is performing so badly in the information age one can't even say its competing at all.
One can easily imagine that the same thing happens all over India and China, but because these countries are so big everyone focuses on the privileged 10% of the population. Although hardware is getting cheaper and cheaper, low end second-hand hardware will always be cheaper if not free; and there's always someone who can only afford the cheapest.
And before you mention LTSP, remember how hard it is get it setup. You may think its easy, and sure, its has progressed quite a lot, but it still not as easy as installing Windows 95/98. And it requires at least one decent PC as the main server, plus a network.
Conclusion
OLPC and associated initiatives are an eye opener for what can be done to bridge the digital divide. However, the front in the fight for the low end should be extended not just to special slimmed versions of important programs or to smaller, less featureful environments such as XFCE; there is much to be gained in having the latest and greatest versions of Gnome targeting low end hardware.
Just imagine if Ubuntu, with its easy installation and setup, was available on low end hardware. And I don't mean Xubuntu, I mean the normal, standard Ubuntu.
Whilst the Gnome hackers are doing a sterling job in general, optimising as much as they can, there is scope for more action. In my view, companies such as IBM, Novell, Redhat, Canonical and perhaps Google should get together and fund a comprehensive dieting program for Gnome and Linux in general. Whilst this is not something that can benefit any one particular actor in the Free Software community - as we've seen, there isn't much money to be made right now at the low end - it would have huge implications for the future. Linux could become the defacto operative system for the low end market, replacing Windows 95/98 and thus opening the doors for future growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment