Subj : Re: Open Source Leaving Microsoft Sitting on the Fence? To : comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux From : floyd Date : Fri Jul 23 2004 01:08 pm steve_schefter@hotmail.com (Steve Schefter) wrote: >Harry Phillips wrote in message news:... >> Peter Lu wrote: >> > >> > To be fair, both M$'s business and Open source have advantages and >> > disadvantages. >> >> >> >> The only advantage Linux has is the amount of choices you get. That isn't the only advantage, but it is certainly a very significant advantage. >> Once you get over his stage you will be thankful there are so many tools >> that you can combine in so many ways that you will wonder why you ever >> stayed locked inside the MS box for so many years. > >That's not quite the point that Peter seemed to be making. He wasn't >complaining that you could choose A versus B versus C to to fulfill >requirement Z. Instead, he was complaining that A version 2 was >incompatible with A version 1. And that A.redhat is quite different >from A.suse. > >I quite agree with Peter's points. Fragmentation was a big detriment >to PC Unix. Having to have a different release of your product for >each brand of Unix made it less attractive to port a product to Unix >at all. That is a bogus argument. Or at least the finger pointing at Linux is bogus, because that is not where the problem lies. Clearly there *can* be products which will run on virtually *every* Linux distribution! For that matter, there are products which run not only on Linux, but also on virtually every Unix, and even on a few non-Unix platforms too. Think in terms of say, gimp. Or X. >In terms of fragmentation, Linux doesn't seem to have faired much >better so far. But now you have to add to that the fact that there >is, IMHO, not enough attempt to maintain consistency within any one >fragment. Well thank goodness too! The *last* thing that Linux needs is to emulate the basic problem inherent in Microsoft products! The problem is not Linux, it is the paradigm used for the packaging and distribution of software. If we attempt to emulate the method Bill Gates has used, we may expect to have the potential to rake in a billion bucks (and more likely will instead starve to death because competing with Gates on his turf is not productive) but... we end up at best with another Winblows. If we look for another paradigm, perhaps we will find a way to make billions and have Linux instead! (Personally I actually have no need for a billion bucks, but Linux is wonderful...) -- FloydL. Davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com .