Subj : Re: Open Source Leaving Microsoft Sitting on the Fence? To : comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux From : steve_schefter Date : Mon Jul 26 2004 09:55 am check@approved.hdr (Jack Strangio) wrote in message news:... > steve_schefter@hotmail.com (Steve Schefter) writes: > > > 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. > > > > Next thing we'll be complaining that a '73 Ford gearbox won't fit on > a '97 Ford. Or even that a Mercedes door won't fit properly in a > Chev. > > We don't mind variety in vehicles, so why is variety in software > so frightening to some people? It's possibly due to the MSFT > attitude that 'one size fits all' which has been the paradigm for > nearly 20 years, and which most people now see as the norm. Sure, variety has its advantages as does change over time. But as someone who has to create a niche add-on product for cars/software, it is an issue. To see this, just be on the lists of those maintaining the add-ons to see what comes up with each new Linux distribution version. One non-driver example where variety in distributions creates an issue: When distributing for Red Hat, our configuration tool is written in Python. That doesn't exist on a SuSE system, so it had to be re-written using curses. Clearly standardization has it place. For example, it is really nice that RPM seems to have become a standard in install mechanisms (at least among the distributions that I've used). What should be standardized and what should be left as variety? You'll never get everyone to agree. I just point out that what isn't will be an issue. Steve .