X
Tech

Linux matures (and goes way corporate) as OSDL and FSG merge

First, the Open Source Development Lab lays off a third of its staff in December. Now it's merging with the Free Software Standards Foundation Group in a deal that may have been brokered by IBM, HP and Intel.
Written by Larry Dignan, Contributor

First, the Open Source Development Lab lays off a third of its staff in December. Now it's merging with the Free Software Standards Foundation Group in a deal that may have been brokered by IBM, HP and Intel. (see correction note at end of post)

Yikes, all of this is so...corporate! While Linux lovers may show a good bit of consternation over this OSDL and FSG merger it does show who's driving open source--corporations.

News.com's Stephen Shankland reports the two groups are merging to increase their influence. The reality: The world really didn't need two Linux advocacy groups. Many technology buyers have already bought into Linux already. The revolution is over and is now entering an operating (relatively boring) phase.
If you looked, you could have seen this coming. Linux tradeshows have gone way corporate compared to a few years ago when a "we'll rule the world" vibe permeated.
In this story at Linux.com, Jim Zemlin, who had been executive director of the Free Standards Group and now is leader of the foundation, noted that most of work from the combined group is winding down. Zemlin also talked of a mixed source duopoly with Linux and Windows.
Quite pragmatic eh? Now it is still early in the Linux game and there will be some use for the merged OSDL-FSG entity, but don't expect to see a whole lot of enthusiasm. Linux has gone corporate and the early days of the revolution are over.

Note: Well if you're going to screw up do it big--and preferably in a headline too. As our ZDNet readers (or was that editors?) pointed out I was way off on the FSG/FSF acronyms. But hey maybe the FSF should merge too just for entertainment value. With all that said, I'll introduce my own acronym "IAI" -- I'm an idiot. I corrected the post accordingly. 

Editorial standards