Using Linux Does Not Equal Localization: Don’t Let ‘Open Source Kernel’ Mislead Your Judgment of ‘Self-Control’
It is often heard around me: “Our company uses the Linux system, so that must mean we are localized, right?”
This statement is half right and half wrong—Linux is indeed an important technological cornerstone of domestic operating systems, but equating “using Linux” with “localization” is like equating “buying flour” with “making your own brand of bread,” ignoring the core processes that truly determine the “attributes”.
First, let’s clarify a basic concept: Linux is a “kernel,” not a “complete system”.
Linux itself is an open-source operating system kernel, much like a car’s “chassis”—it is a free and open technological framework that anyone can use for secondary development. What we commonly refer to as a “Linux system,” such as Ubuntu or CentOS, is actually a product packaged by vendors that includes the “Linux kernel” + “desktop environment” + “application software” + “service support,” known in the industry as a “distribution (Distro)”.
Domestic operating systems (such as Kylin and Tongxin) are indeed mostly developed based on the Linux kernel, but this is just the “starting point,” not the “end point.” Just like everyone uses the same chassis to build cars, whether the car is a “self-owned brand” ultimately depends on whether you have the ability to independently design the body, tune the performance, and build an after-sales system—not just saying, “using this chassis means it’s a self-owned car.”
True “localization” hinges on these three points, rather than “whose kernel is used”.
To determine whether a system can be considered “localized,” the key is not whether it is based on Linux, but rather the “degree of self-control,” which can be broken down into three dimensions:
1. Control over core code: When developing based on the Linux kernel, is there a proportion of core modules (such as security protection and hardware adaptation modules) that are independently written? When encountering vulnerabilities or changes in requirements, can modifications and iterations be completed independently without relying on external support? If the core functionality entirely depends on the foreign open-source community, it is essentially still “assembled goods.”
2. Ability to independently build an ecosystem: An operating system is not isolated; it must be able to adapt to domestic chips (such as Loongson and Feiteng), domestic databases (such as Dameng and Renmin University Gold Warehouse), and domestic middleware. If the system can only run on foreign hardware and software and cannot integrate into the domestic IT ecosystem, then even if it uses Linux, it cannot support the demand for “self-control”—after all, the ultimate goal of “localization” is to break free from external dependence.
3. Autonomy in security and services: When the system encounters security vulnerabilities (such as ransomware attacks), can it respond independently and quickly fix the issues? Is there a local team providing 24/7 technical support? If security patches have to wait for the foreign open-source community to release them and services depend on foreign vendors, then using it in critical areas (such as government and energy) poses significant security risks.
For enterprises: Don’t be misled by the “Linux label”; selection should focus on “actual value”.
Many enterprises fall into the misconception that “as long as it uses Linux, it supports localization,” while overlooking the real needs—we do not want a “Linux-based system,” but rather a system that can solve the adaptation to the domestic IT environment, ensure data security, and comply with policy requirements.
The next time you look at domestic operating systems, consider asking a few more questions:
– “What percentage of the code is independently developed beyond the Linux kernel?”
– “Can it smoothly adapt to our existing domestic servers and databases?”
– “How quickly can the local technical team respond when issues arise?”
The answers to these questions are far more indicative of whether it is truly “localized” than simply asking “does it use Linux?”.
Finally, I want to say: Linux is a “ladder,” not the “end point”.
We do not need to deny the value of Linux—its open-source nature provides domestic operating systems with a low-cost entry “ladder,” allowing us not to start from scratch in building a kernel. However, the core of “localization” has never been about “how high you can climb using someone else’s ladder,” but rather “once you climb up, can you build your own platform?”.
Do not equate “using Linux” with “localization”—true self-control lies in every detail of code, ecosystem, and service.
What “label misconceptions” have you encountered when selecting domestic systems? Let’s discuss in the comments!