Linked by Christian Paratschek on Thu 23rd Sep 2004 05:59 UTC
Editorial After reading Adam Scheinberg's original article "The Paradox of Choice" and Kevin Russo's response, I want to add my personal comments to this discussion. I will quote Adam and Russo several times and pick up their arguments.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Nope!
by drynwhyl on Thu 23rd Sep 2004 12:45 UTC

When you "sell some KDE here, some Gnome there", the desktops don't get INTEGRATED and don't advance nearly as fast.

A Linspire, Lycoris or Xandros Desktop _IS_ integrated very well. So whats your point? Individual distributions do exactly what you "against choice" people want: Make choice for those who dont want to chose, integrate.

So it may be that products under the brand "Linux" are not well integrated, but mast things branded "Xandros" definitely are. So again? Whats your point? To regulate free evolving community driven distros so that they dont poison the Linux brand? This is it, isnt it? That the kernel name managed to get more popularity than the single distributors? That a Debian Linux affects the sales of a Xandos Linux because theyre both linux? What would you like? To stomp free non commercial distributions so far in the underground, where Joe User wouldnt see them? So they couldnt affect the sales of the comemrcial distributors?


Programming effort is divided, third parties wanting to port commercial apps are discouraged, etc. Things are also not integrated.

Thats the benefit/curse of Free Software. Everyone may chose the direction he develops for, and there is no central committee which defines the direction. Commercial developers just dont have the possibility to develop in a direction other than the management oder design department decide. There is no freedom in their development model, because they dont develop free software. This may result in a integrated and polished product, because all pull together as a team, but thats what they get paid for!

You just cant mandate free software developers what to do in their free time. When they dont like the direction of a project, they can just fork it, or start a new one, and get things done the way they like, and _not_ because they think all they do shoul be in competition with a hated comercial software developer and desktop king.

This is, what all these dumb anti choice articles are: little wannabe dictators wet dreams of how they could yoke free software developers against their will and overthrow the hated king. Poor, if you as me.