Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > 359 Choices of Linux

Reply
Thread Tools

359 Choices of Linux

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2007
Good article here
<http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007072002826OPSW> on why
diversity is good, and why the cost of diversity in Open Source is so low.
Some of the reader comments are quite perceptive, too--the car analogy is a
handy one to hammer the naysayers with.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2007

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:f813t7$p3g$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Good article here
> <http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007072002826OPSW> on why
> diversity is good, and why the cost of diversity in Open Source is so low.
> Some of the reader comments are quite perceptive, too--the car analogy is
> a
> handy one to hammer the naysayers with.


Just as long as they make it completely clear that it only runs Linux
compatible software and not what is well known as PC software.

I'm also sure that there's a damn sight more websites about Linux than just
that one, and hardly all that surprising either, and yet you're carry on as
if you've just discovered an unknown dinosaur that you've just dug up.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mickey Mouse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2007
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:f813t7$p3g$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Good article here
> <http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007072002826OPSW>


Better article here
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...any_linux.html

What most of the more substantial software development houses that produce
professional software are likely to favour is a large installed userbase and
a narrow development and support profile - in other words it makes it a lot
easier to produce, maintain and support packages when there is a degree of
platform consistency.

One of the barriers to increased utilisation of Linux outside the hobbyist
field is the fact that many packages need to be compiled on a users system
before they can be run, and that packages compiled on one distribution may
not run on another.

This is where Microsoft and (to a lesser degree) Apple have an advantage in
that they offer commercial software developers a level of OS stability and
consistency that is lacking in the Linux market, with it's hotchpotch mix of
distributions, interfaces, drivers, module dependencies and versioning.

Microsoft is the clear leader in platform consistency with OS releases
maintaining binary compatibility over an extended period of time. Linux in
many regards could learn a few lessons from Apple with it's Universal
Binaries.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2007
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:13:06 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
> message news:f813t7$p3g$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Good article here
>> <http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007072002826OPSW>

>
> Better article here
> http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...hives/2007/07/

too_many_linux.html
>
> What most of the more substantial software development houses that
> produce professional software are likely to favour is a large installed
> userbase and a narrow development and support profile - in other words
> it makes it a lot easier to produce, maintain and support packages when
> there is a degree of platform consistency.


And yet the OSS is developed.

>
> One of the barriers to increased utilisation of Linux outside the
> hobbyist field is the fact that many packages need to be compiled on a
> users system before they can be run, and that packages compiled on one
> distribution may not run on another.


Psst, get up to date. All software needs to be compiled for the machine
to understand it, and thus run it.

The problem of having to compile ones programmes, well I guess it is
still done but I have not done it for a very long time. It is just click
and its done. Lets go, what else would you like.

>
> This is where Microsoft and (to a lesser degree) Apple have an advantage
> in that they offer commercial software developers a level of OS
> stability and consistency that is lacking in the Linux market, with it's
> hotchpotch mix of distributions, interfaces, drivers, module
> dependencies and versioning.


Linux should not be considered in this manner. Each distro is slightly
different but has the same stuff under the hood.

>
> Microsoft is the clear leader in platform consistency with OS releases
> maintaining binary compatibility over an extended period of time.


HA! Yeah write or is that word.doc files to name one.

> Linux
> in many regards could learn a few lessons from Apple with it's Universal
> Binaries.


Linux is *not* MS windows. It is not owned by anyone. It is people
working together to get something that works well to-day and better
tomorrow.

 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2007
Mickey Mouse wrote:
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
> message news:f813t7$p3g$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Good article here
>> <http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007072002826OPSW>

>
> Better article here
> http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...any_linux.html
>
>
> What most of the more substantial software development houses that
> produce professional software are likely to favour is a large installed
> userbase and a narrow development and support profile - in other words
> it makes it a lot easier to produce, maintain and support packages when
> there is a degree of platform consistency.


Hence enterprise releases such as redhat. But more like a software house
can make a bigger profit....the problem with lots of commercial houses
is their cost model does not stack up....lots of VPs and other
non-programmers sucking money out for little value added....hence why
the OSS model runs rings around them in terms of quality, agility and
customer focus....

> One of the barriers to increased utilisation of Linux outside the
> hobbyist field is the fact that many packages need to be compiled on a
> users system before they can be run, and that packages compiled on one
> distribution may not run on another.


? get real, I have not compiled a package in years.....about the only
time this is needed is to customise the end binary for some special
reason (like 2% extra performance) or some odd setup...and you can class
this as an extra....being able to run an application that otherwise you
could not.

In terms of say kernel drivers for say Dell it is packaged with
auto-build scripts...(at worst).

> This is where Microsoft and (to a lesser degree)


yeah right....MS chooses to release games for its latest OS only (halo
2) as an example...

Apple have an advantage

Apple is usually far more generous, with classic mode you can run lots
of stuff for 9.x....try running MS apps that old...lesser degree...yeah
right...

Obvious un-supportable bias we dont need....

> in that they offer commercial software developers a level of OS
> stability and consistency that is lacking in the Linux market, with it's
> hotchpotch mix of distributions, interfaces, drivers, module
> dependencies and versioning.


You really dont have a clue do you.....

> Microsoft is the clear leader in platform consistency with OS releases
> maintaining binary compatibility over an extended period of time. Linux
> in many regards could learn a few lessons from Apple with it's Universal
> Binaries.


Christ I hope not.....

DLL hell comes to mind....

Apple is an exception, it controls its hardware and hence its
software...but underlying this is a bastardisation of the OS that does
not really scale beyond the desktop/SME size....

regards

Thing




 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2007
In message <1185172510.568661@ftpsrv1>, *sling wrote:

> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
> news:f813t7$p3g$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> Good article here
>> <http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007072002826OPSW> on why
>> diversity is good, and why the cost of diversity in Open Source is so
>> low. Some of the reader comments are quite perceptive, too--the car
>> analogy is a
>> handy one to hammer the naysayers with.

>
> Just as long as they make it completely clear that it only runs Linux
> compatible software and not [Windows] software.


Still, it could be worse. They could be running Vista.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred Dagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2007
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:17:43 +1200, thingy <(E-Mail Removed)>
exclaimed:

>hence why
>the OSS model runs rings around them in terms of quality, agility and
>customer focus....


LOL!!! Sorry, but that HAS to be a joke.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2007
In message <f813t7$p3g$(E-Mail Removed)>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Good article here
> <http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007072002826OPSW> on why
> diversity is good, and why the cost of diversity in Open Source is so low.
> Some of the reader comments are quite perceptive, too--the car analogy is
> a handy one to hammer the naysayers with.


Somebody at InformationWeek agrees:
<http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/are_there_reall.html>.
This time the analogy is with digital cameras: there are hundreds of the
things on the market, and they do vary somewhat in features and
functionality, yet it's not hard to use one after using another.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2007
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:18:26 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:


>Somebody at InformationWeek agrees:
><http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/are_there_reall.html>.
>This time the analogy is with digital cameras: there are hundreds of the
>things on the market, and they do vary somewhat in features and
>functionality, yet it's not hard to use one after using another.


Try as hard as you like guys...
muliple version do dammange, I read an article years ago about unix
saying all the vendor specific version did it dammange as an OS.

but look at this group, someone askes a linux question, gets told 'try
xxx version, it works OK with that feature...
try deblin, try red hat...
nah, youve shot yourselves in the foot with all these versions Im
sorry to say...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2007
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, John wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:18:26 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
>>Somebody at InformationWeek agrees:
>><http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/are_there_reall.html>.
>>This time the analogy is with digital cameras: there are hundreds of the
>>things on the market, and they do vary somewhat in features and
>>functionality, yet it's not hard to use one after using another.

>
> muliple version do dammange, I read an article years ago about unix
> saying all the vendor specific version did it dammange as an OS.


Unix was a closed-source system, Linux is not. The difference may not strike
you as significant, but it's a big deal. Closed-source vendors compete by
raising the barriers to each other replicating their features. This makes
their software big, expensive and complicated (both to develop and,
inevitably, for the users as well). As the software gets bigger and more
expensive to develop, it becomes harder for the smaller players to compete.
So they go out of business. And you end up with only the biggest players
left standing--as witness the Windows market.

Open-source vendors compete by trying different ideas: if one turns out to
be good, anybody else can copy it. So they have to keep up the competition
by coming up with even more new ideas. That's why the number of Linux
distros (and open-source packages generally) has been showing a consistent
upward trend for the past fifteen years. This is no temporary bubble; this
is an ongoing, inevitable fact of life. And the market's thriving.

> but look at this group, someone askes a linux question, gets told 'try
> xxx version, it works OK with that feature...
> try deblin, try red hat...


Really? When was the last time someone recommended that?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Choices, Choices!!!! Leeland Clay MCAD 2 02-13-2006 01:53 PM
spyware doctor v3.2.1.359 kiasuteo Computer Support 8 12-01-2005 04:18 AM
fillarc does not work when start from 0 end at 359? Kevin Java 0 01-12-2005 03:05 AM
Choices, choices, choices. Scott Digital Photography 0 10-04-2004 06:15 PM
Choices, choices stuart.cameron Digital Photography 1 06-28-2004 09:29 AM



Advertisments