359 Choices of Linux

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 23, 2007.

  1. 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:f813t7$p3g$...
    > 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
     
    E. Scrooge, Jul 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Mickey Mouse Guest

    Re: Why Linux struggles to become a serious mainstream contender (359 Choices of Linux)

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


    Better article here
    http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/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.

    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.
     
    Mickey Mouse, Jul 23, 2007
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    Re: Why Linux struggles to become a serious mainstream contender(359 Choices of Linux)

    On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:13:06 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:

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

    >
    > Better article here
    > http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/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.
     
    Gordon, Jul 23, 2007
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    thingy Guest

    Re: Why Linux struggles to become a serious mainstream contender(359 Choices of Linux)

    Mickey Mouse wrote:
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > message news:f813t7$p3g$...
    >> Good article here
    >> <http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007072002826OPSW>

    >
    > Better article here
    > http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/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.


    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
     
    thingy, Jul 23, 2007
    #5
  6. In message <1185172510.568661@ftpsrv1>, *sling wrote:

    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:f813t7$p3g$...
    >
    >> 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 24, 2007
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Fred Dagg Guest

    Re: Why Linux struggles to become a serious mainstream contender (359 Choices of Linux)

    On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:17:43 +1200, thingy <>
    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.
     
    Fred Dagg, Jul 24, 2007
    #7
  8. In message <f813t7$p3g$>, 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 25, 2007
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    John Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:18:26 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_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...
     
    John, Jul 25, 2007
    #9
  10. In message <>, John wrote:

    > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:18:26 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_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?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 25, 2007
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Rob S Guest

    John wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:18:26 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_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...
    >

    What on earth is dammange? Something dogs get?

    So you read an article years ago about unix. For a start unix and linux
    are completely different kettles of fish. The vendor specific versions
    of unix were as proprietary and closed source as Microsoft Windows is
    today. Linux is open source software and programs written for one
    version of linux more often than not will work with other versions.
    Compare that to programs written for MS Windows which will not work with
    Mac osx, another proprietary and closed source operating system.

    --

    Rob
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    http://www.aspir8or.com
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    M.C.S.E :- Minesweeper Consultant & Solitaire Expert
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     
    Rob S, Jul 25, 2007
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Yeah Right Guest

    On , , Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:51:09 +1200, Re: 359 Choices of Linux,
    Rob S <Here@home> wrote:

    >John wrote:
    >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:18:26 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >> <_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...
    >>

    >What on earth is dammange? Something dogs get?


    The classic spelling bitch answer, do you never make mistakes?
    >
    >So you read an article years ago about unix. For a start unix and linux
    >are completely different kettles of fish. The vendor specific versions
    >of unix were as proprietary and closed source as Microsoft Windows is
    >today. Linux is open source software and programs written for one
    >version of linux more often than not will work with other versions.
    >Compare that to programs written for MS Windows which will not work with
    >Mac osx, another proprietary and closed source operating system.


    Carrots and apples.
    Programmes written for one version of Windows will 99% of the
    time work with other versions of Windows if you work upwards on
    the versions.
    Apple will do the same.
     
    Yeah Right, Jul 26, 2007
    #12
  13. In message <>, Yeah Right wrote:

    > Programmes written for one version of Windows will 99% of the
    > time work with other versions of Windows if you work upwards on
    > the versions.


    .... except for Vista.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 26, 2007
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:f89ihd$u9i$...
    > In message <>, Yeah Right wrote:
    >
    >> Programmes written for one version of Windows will 99% of the
    >> time work with other versions of Windows if you work upwards on
    >> the versions.

    >
    > ... except for Vista.


    Vista runs 98% of them.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Jul 26, 2007
    #14
  15. In message <1185476854.379993@ftpsrv1>, *sling wrote:

    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:f89ihd$u9i$...
    >> In message <>, Yeah Right
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Programmes written for one version of Windows will 99% of the
    >>> time work with other versions of Windows if you work upwards on
    >>> the versions.

    >>
    >> ... except for Vista.

    >
    > Vista runs 98% of them.


    At last count
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/11/vista_compatibility_drivers/>, it
    was only about 1900 apps. Which is probably less than 10% of the Dimdows
    app base.

    If you have a better figure, let's see the evidence.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 27, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kiasuteo

    spyware doctor v3.2.1.359

    kiasuteo, Oct 10, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    867
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Dec 1, 2005
  2. stuart.cameron

    Choices, choices

    stuart.cameron, Jun 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    510
    Surfworx Photography
    Jun 28, 2004
  3. Scott

    Choices, choices, choices.

    Scott, Oct 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    488
    Scott
    Oct 4, 2004
  4. Leeland Clay

    Choices, Choices!!!!

    Leeland Clay, Feb 11, 2006, in forum: MCAD
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    369
    David Hearn
    Feb 13, 2006
  5. xliu46

    Examkiller Cisco 642-359 exam

    xliu46, Dec 15, 2009, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    648
    xliu46
    Dec 15, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page