Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2012 22:52 UTC
Linux Miguel de Icaza: "To sum up: (a) First dimension: things change too quickly, breaking both open source and proprietary software alike; (b) incompatibility across Linux distributions. This killed the ecosystem for third party developers trying to target Linux on the desktop. You would try once, do your best effort to support the 'top' distro or if you were feeling generous 'the top three' distros. Only to find out that your software no longer worked six months later. Supporting Linux on the desktop became a burden for independent developers." Mac OS X came along to scoop up the Linux defectors.
Thread beginning with comment 533268
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Vordreller
by Vordreller on Thu 30th Aug 2012 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Vordreller"
Member since:

You say "diversity". That's a very positive word. People feel good about that word.

I call it specialization. All of the sudden it's not positive anymore, it becomes very business oriented.

It boils down to the same thing: there are different distros for different purposes.

But the choice of words makes all the difference.

Saying "diversity is good" only works as a product slogan. It's what you say initially to convince the consumer to try out your product.

Sure, it's good... for the industry. But for the non-professional end user?

Once you're actually using the product and working with it on a day-to-day basis, that's when it starts nagging at the back of your head: There are all these other options. Did I make the right choice?

Diversity means you have options to choose from. But time and again, research has shown that too many options is just as bad as no options. Perhaps worse:


Google "too many options". You'll get a ton more reviews, research papers and blogs about it.

Reply Parent Score: 3