"Freedom of choice is one of the great benefits of Open Source Software in general and Linux in particular. This freedom gives consumers the ability to select, without fear of litigation, what software they will use and how they will use or modify it. As a principal, this freedom is extremely valuable. However, a couple of announcements this week seem to indicate that market value of freedom of choice has dipped considerably. The biggest hurdle Linux adoption faced this week wasn't Microsoft, it was an enemy from within: Linux fragmentation."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-09-01
>These people embrace the "openness" of linux compared to >Windows, but then turn around a propose everyone settle >on a single standard for DE, package management, >distribution, etc.
DE, package management, distro file layout, lib versions these things are fascinating for developers but most other people couldn't care less. They want them to be transparent. The variances here are only unnecessary distractors.
The best way to move such details out of the picture is to standarize it. Combination of those components (becouse their developement is happent outside of distros) It's really not the the place where innovation beneficial for the user happens.
>Linux is not Windows. It's not a replacement for >Windows. It will never be either. Insisting that Linux >can succeed by emulating Windows simply won't work, >because we already have Windows.
Too bad because world badly needs replacement of MS's licensing strings, overprices forceware and "screw ya" attitude. I for one once thought that linux could have made the difference here. Seemingly I was wrong.
> That being the case, since even the linux community is showing that they will still use Windows when the situation dictates, why invest in linux? If you're committed to desktop linux and want to see it become more of a commercially viable option, then sacrifices need to be made and you need to search high and low to seek out those vendors currently supporting linux and support them with your hard earned dollars. Whether talking about hardware or software.
I could turn the question around: Why the casual user should start investing his hard earned dollars when the community isn't trully commited to sacryfying some of it's freedom to deliver someting that works for him.
>The issues of disparate distros and standards will easily be dealt with by the ISV's *if* they are convinced the market exists to justify the investment. Until that time, they'll continue using fragmentation and competing standards as an excuse, and the anti-Microsoft camp will rally around that and insist we sacrifice flexibility for arbitrary choices.
These issues are far from easy. Read autopackage docs and mailing list for more insight. The is ballance. The cost of retesting and certification makes the barrier for entry unacceptably high for a commercial vendor compared to meager returns from fragmented market. The first step belongs to community.
>Linux must succeed on it's own merits if it is going to truly succeed. It won't succeed by trying to turn it into something it's not.
It have had more that 10 year to succeed and it did in some niches. Desktop just happents not to be among of them, which makes the quest for liberating it still open. That's really the core conclusion of the summed up experience.
Edited 2007-03-05 21:53
Member since:
2005-07-13
The fragmentation argument is a shield. I suspect there are a number of people within the linux community who are less interested in linux as a platform, and more interested in linux as a solution to an anything-but-Microsoft agenda.
These people embrace the "openness" of linux compared to Windows, but then turn around a propose everyone settle on a single standard for DE, package management, distribution, etc. in order to be more competitive. There's a bit of a dichotomy there, you can't extol the virtues of an open platform while insisting that openness should be diminished by arbitrarily setting platform standards everyone should comply to in order to gain acceptance.
Linux is not Windows. It's not a replacement for Windows. It will never be either. Insisting that Linux can succeed by emulating Windows simply won't work, because we already have Windows. It simply reduces linux to being nothing more than a freeware version of Windows, and assuming that people are using linux mostly because it's free as in beer doesn't send a positive message to commercial vendors about the willingness of users to invest in commercial software.
The real issue is the viability of desktop linux. As long as there are no concrete metrics to measure both a realistic number of desktop linux users and their willingness to purchase commercial software, it will remain difficult for mainstream companies to justify investing in development for linux as a platform. A community of users saying Ubutnu rocks! doesn't equate into any sort of market study or potential market assessment.
The bigger issue is market lethargy. Even within the linux community you find many people dual-booting or switching to Windows because there are applications they require. That being the case, since even the linux community is showing that they will still use Windows when the situation dictates, why invest in linux? The only vote users have is with their wallets. If you're committed to desktop linux and want to see it become more of a commercially viable option, then sacrifices need to be made and you need to search high and low to seek out those vendors currently supporting linux and support them with your hard earned dollars. Whether talking about hardware or software.
The issues of disparate distros and standards will easily be dealt with by the ISV's *if* they are convinced the market exists to justify the investment. Until that time, they'll continue using fragmentation and competing standards as an excuse, and the anti-Microsoft camp will rally around that and insist we sacrifice flexibility for arbitrary choices.
Linux must succeed on it's own merits if it is going to truly succeed. It won't succeed by trying to turn it into something it's not.