"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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-09-01
You assume that software wins solely on the base of its technical merits.
MS example shows that it is simply not the case.
Marketing matters, even in community driven world where its role is filled by hype, word of mouth and grass roots journalism.
Better alternatives can pop up any time (and I believe have already) but without the whole hype machine they can simply live and die unnoticed as everybody (that cares) sits there waiting eagerly for the year of linux desktop to come.
There are various motives for people to commit their time for producing software. In many cases they are based on vision of providing free, open and component desktop OS. It is where (perception of) suitability of linux for such purpose really matters, regardless whether it is inherent in it or not.
Besides (developers) community does not have the power to make something popular and recognizable outside of itself. Big corps may have a chance (but may fail too).
With both community and corps turned back to something (theoretically) superior it has 1% chance of gaining recognition by itself.
The important thing to note is that if the BSDs *do* start gaining more traction, and more name brand recognition, and become a choice that people have to consider right along side Linux... you have just substantially increased the "problem" of fragmentation in OSS.
I think that their value to fragmentation (one platform per one kernel) ratio justifies their existence. Beside they are just a demonstration that inbred fragmentation is not inherent in OSS system development, not necessarily examples of overall superiority.
The road to fragmentation is paved with the projects of people who have wanted to end fragmentation once and for all, and have started their own be all and end all project to do it. Each thinking that his idea was so good, his project so compelling, that everyone would agree and start doing things his way.
It takes maturity to understand that. I believe such maturity will emerge in OSS world some time.
Member since:2005-07-24
First of all, appologies to all for posting my last message twice. I'm not sure how I did that.
"""You assume that software wins solely on the base of its technical merits."""
Absolutely not. In fact, I thought that what I said implied that there were many factors. Much of the OSS community dismisses the value of basic marketing smarts... like not naming their project "Podfuk" or something. (Yes, that is a real project name.)
Linux is awful with marketing in a lot of ways. But I suspect that it has been less bad at marketing than the BSDs, judging by relative popularity. (OK, this is a terrible metric, but I will point out that Googling for BSD gets about 35 million hits and Googling for Linux gets about 281 million hits.)
There's a lot of low hanging fruit available to projects that understand at least the basics of marketing and assign value to it.
And I'm not implying that those projects which take advantage of marketing have an unfair advantage. The same lines of thinking that encourage good marketing practices also encourage placing value upon solid usability testing, etc. which are very valid strengths for a project. (I am speaking generally here, of course.)
"""
It takes maturity to understand that. I believe such maturity will emerge in OSS world some time.
"""
Ah, but the average age of project leaders in the community is low, and there are more contributors being added all the time. The community is a different thing than an individual. I have a different outlook at age 44 than I did at 18. But I'm not sure it works that way for the community.
Besides... do note that I tried always to put words like "problem" and "fragmentation" in quotes. I'm not at all sure that OSS's current dynamics are, on the balance, a negative. (Obviously, its a mix.) I'm not sure that us old folks can keep up with all these youngsters with the new ideas and confidence that only comes with youth. ;-)
But back to my original point... OSS is what it is for now, and that is what we have to work with. Even if you are correct, and maturity will come to it in time, there is no magic incantation or plan which can imbue it with maturity any sooner than when it is ready (much to the dismay of many parents, I'm sure). ;-)
Member since:
2005-07-24
Well, I specifically used the term "Linux" and not "OSS" for exactly that reason. However, now that you have brought it up, I will address it.
A certain degree of diversity, which some would call fragmentation, *is*, in fact, inherent in the OSS model.
*BSD (and note the wildcard at the beginning) is not all of OSS. The BSD's are a few players among quite a number of other players that make up the OSS community. Even if you consider them as a whole to be one player, they are still *adding* adding to the "fragmentation", not reducing it.
Furthermore, from the standpoint of popularity and getting themselves noticed (and I know I'm likely treading upon thin ice, here) they have not been nearly as successful as Linux in this ecosystem. Limiting their diversity internally has not been an adaptive strategy for the BSDs *if* the goal was to compete for popularity.
Do you see that your post illustrates, very nicely, why OSS is as it is?
You are saying that you know a better way than what is being done by Linux today; That the *BSDs would do it right if only they rose in popularity and name brand recognition.
Now, you may be right, and you may be wrong. I don't care. And it doesn't matter, because the world is as it is, not as we think it should be.
The important thing to note is that if the BSDs *do* start gaining more traction, and more name brand recognition, and become a choice that people have to consider right along side Linux... you have just substantially increased the "problem" of fragmentation in OSS.
The road to fragmentation is paved with the projects of people who have wanted to end fragmentation once and for all, and have started their own be all and end all project to do it. Each thinking that his idea was so good, his project so compelling, that everyone would agree and start doing things his way.
And *that* is why OSS is as it is and will continue be so.
And arguing against that, in my opinion, is about as effective as arguing against the second law of thermodynamics. The two have a lot in common.