Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device mark

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by ultimauw, Oct 7, 2007.

  1. ultimauw

    ultimauw Guest

    Maybe there is still hope yet, but it requires the developers to get
    together, set aside their egos, and all work on a single master
    distro. If they did that, Linux would beat the pants off of Vista and
    OSX guaranteed, and perhaps chart the course for the whole computer
    (and computer-device) industry away from the lockdown-drm-crippled
    dreck that it's been floating in for a while now.
     
    ultimauw, Oct 7, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. ultimauw

    Oxford Guest

    yes, and I've told them SEVERAL times they need to concentrate on just
    one or two distros and let the others die off. they just can't compete
    until they take this advice.

    chances are now zero that they can't rally around and heed this advice.
    they are mostly young kids with no skills outside of playing games or
    hacking.

    linux had a chance during the late 90's but blew it. now OSX is the main
    UNIX distro by a 7 to 1 margin... all because Apple knew about design
    and understood high quality computing.

    linux is a total mess now, and it's very sad. I thought at least they
    would have 1% of the market, but it still hovers around .76 percent. Not
    good when Apple has jumped to 6.4% in recent months.

    -
     
    Oxford, Oct 7, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. ultimauw

    chrisv Guest

    Not for you. You're doomed to be stupid forever.

    *plonk*
     
    chrisv, Oct 7, 2007
    #3
  4. ultimauw

    Stephan Rose Guest

    I find it funny how everyone takes the statistic of one irrelevant web-
    server of any actual value.

    That said, what do you think is happening? The efforts *are* consolidated.

    All distributions use the same kernel.
    The same desktop managers.
    The same browers.
    The same software.
    The same e-mail software.
    The same newsreaders.
    The same everything.

    The only main significant difference between any distributions is what
    they come with out of the box. That's largely irrelevant.

    So how is this not consolidated?

    So redhat has different package management than ubuntu does. Big friggin
    deal....they still use the same software and kernel.

    --
    Stephan
    2003 Yamaha R6

    å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
    å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
     
    Stephan Rose, Oct 7, 2007
    #4
  5. I don't agree entirely. Multiple distros means some degree of competition,
    with no risk of another monopoly. There must be room for diversity.

    The challenge is to keep this diversity without penalising people who just
    want to use their computers (and who don't want/need to know how complicated
    it is).

    A constant feature of the history of personal computers is that the most
    popular hardware and software architectures would never have become dominant
    if technical excellence had been a even a minor criterion. This is perfectly
    illustrated by posts to this NG, where Ubuntu is equated with Linux, simply
    because it's proposed as the least worst alternative to Vista by a
    particular hardware supplier (whose days are numbered if they don't start
    treating their clients like real live people).

    One approach to maintaining multiple Linux distros may be to arrange things
    so volunteers could help provide distro-specific compilations on request.
    Some kind of organisation would be needed so that software developers are
    paid for their work.

    Regards
     
    Christopher R. Lee, Oct 7, 2007
    #5
  6. ultimauw

    ultimauw Guest

    AWWWW Did I upset the little shillbot?
     
    ultimauw, Oct 7, 2007
    #6
  7. ultimauw

    Rick Guest

    Your are missing the idea that the reason there are so many distros is
    that many people want different things. You are missing the point that
    many of the things added to or improved in one distro can be directly
    added to another.
     
    Rick, Oct 7, 2007
    #7
  8. ultimauw

    chrisv Guest

    "Everyone", or just trolling idiots like Oxtard?
     
    chrisv, Oct 7, 2007
    #8
  9. "ultimauw" is not OxRetard

    It is either flatfish or the "linux-sux" cretin
     
    Peter Köhlmann, Oct 7, 2007
    #9
  10. ultimauw

    Rick Guest

    And you have been told several times you are a cluesless twit. Who are
    you to say someone can't but together a distro to satisfy a want or need
    that isn't being met?

    And you told ... THEM? Who? Did you think to go tell Shuttleworth to kill
    off Ubuntu? No? Did you write Novell or Red Hat to tell them to kill
    their distros? Did you email texstar to tell him to dump PCLinuxOS? Have
    you noticed PCLOS is becoming one of the more popular distros, without
    heavy advertising? Using your "system", I probably wouldn't be able to
    use the distro and environment I have chosen.
    I highly doubt the developers at Sun, IBM, Novell, Red Hat (to name a
    very few) are mostly young kids with no skills outside of playing games
    or hacking.
    No, you are sad.
    So Apple's at 6.4% now. What was their share in 1978. Let us know when it
    gets back there.
     
    Rick, Oct 7, 2007
    #10
  11. ultimauw

    Rex Ballard Guest

    Not necessarily. Remember, Linux competes with a company who blocks
    all access to the retail display space. A Linux customer must
    purchase and install Linux without the benefit of an OEM preinstalled
    system.

    The OEM is not allowed to tell the customer exactly which machines can
    easily be configured to run Linux, and which machines should NEVER be
    used to run Linux. The customers usually figure this out for
    themselves, but the OEM can't put this in advertizing or catalog
    descriptions without getting Microsoft's prior written approval, which
    never seems to come in time for the ad deadlines. The OEM just has to
    keep falling back to a "safe" ad that has been approved. Often, both
    ads are submitted the same day, but Microsoft seems to delay the Linux
    ad past the known deadlines.

    Most contracts I deal with, if the approver doesn't provide written
    approval or revisions within 7 days, it is treated as an automatic
    approval, but it seems that Microsoft must only respond within "a
    reasonable time" - not sure what that means - maybe some time within
    the decade?

    The OEM can't make changes to the configuration without Microsoft's
    prior written approval either. Again, if two versions are submitted,
    the Microsoft-only version gets approved within a day, the one
    involving competitors will be revised - perhaps within a year AFTER
    the product release date.
    That whole "reasonable time" thing again.

    I wouldn't say that. There are billions of Linux licensed devices,
    and almost 1 billion internet users access Linux systems such as
    Google every day. They send their e-mail through Linux routers, they
    protect their LAN with Linux firewalls, go to a coffee shop or
    restaurant and connect via a Linux powered WiFi hub. The PC may be
    purchased with Windows, but it may be running Linux as a VMWare
    appliance, as a Virtual PC client, or it may be Linux working as the
    primary operating system and Windows that is running as the
    Virtualized Client. Running Windows as the VM client makes back-up,
    recovery, and system management much easier, and the extra clock-
    cycles burned in virtualization calls are offset by better
    optimization of disk access and memory management.

    Funny, that's not what IBM, Dell, and HP are saying. Most of the OEMs
    like the idea of 2-3 competitors competing for access to the
    preinstalled desktop. If they could have their way, all of them would
    allow all of their distributions to be installed and started as either
    the primary OS using a boot manager, or as a virtualized client. Most
    like both Red Hat and SUSE for the server market, and many also like
    Ubuntu for the client market. Others, including Linspire, Xandros,
    and PCLinux are also willing to give very generous terms.

    Unfortunately, Microsoft seems to be unable to approve any
    configuration which involves any configuration of any product other
    than the Microsoft standard Package. Furthermore, if the OEM makes
    such requests, it often takes a while for the drivers for other
    systems to be approved.

    It seems that Microsoft has all the lawyers it needs for it's "Loyal
    Customers", but there seems to be a single lawyer who speaks very
    little English, as a 3rd language, who can't approve anything for
    months, or even a year or two.

    It seems that Microsoft must respond within a "reasonable time". Most
    contracts I deal with, a specific time such as 5 business days is used
    instead. If a response is not provided within that time period, it is
    automatically approved.

    Rex Ballard
    http://www.open4success.com
     
    Rex Ballard, Oct 7, 2007
    #11
  12. ultimauw

    HeyBub Guest

    I certainly see your point. But, if you don't like Microsoft's terms, don't
    agree to them. Kick MS out the door. Do the right thing.
     
    HeyBub, Oct 7, 2007
    #12
  13. ultimauw

    OK Guest

    OK, Oct 8, 2007
    #13
  14. ultimauw

    Tim Smith Guest

    Nice fantasy. Exactly what mechanism prevents you from leasing space,
    and opening a store there selling Linux computers? (Just like Apple
    does to sell Macintosh computers).

    Answer: absolutely nothing.
     
    Tim Smith, Oct 8, 2007
    #14
  15. ultimauw

    Stephan Rose Guest

    +Vista

    Because *who the hell* is hitslink.com!?

    Their statistics don't represent the entire web.

    Their statistics don't represent users that go to google.com.

    Their statistics don't represent users that go to yahoo.com.

    Their statistics don't represent users that go to microsoft.com.

    I could go on...

    Their statistics ONLY represent users that go to THEIR servers. So what
    servers, of what significance, do THEY host and what content? Different
    content attracts different users which also influences statistics.

    What significance does one single server companies' statistic that likely
    doesn't even capture 1% of all users have to do on a world-wide scale?

    Ultimately their statistics are utterly meaningless.

    About the only statistic I would give any credit to would be Google.com's
    statistic just simply because it is a neutral site that isn't going to
    favor linux, microsoft or mac users. And it is a site that virtually
    everyone uses.

    Google.com however does not show their statistics. Smart move.

    And, if you still don't get it....here is an example;

    marketshare.hitslink.com claims 0.8%

    www.w3schools.com claims 3.4%

    So who is right now? Is it 0.8%? Is it 3.4%?

    If you don't answer that question with "Neither one" then you probably
    don't nor ever will get it.

    --
    Stephan
    2003 Yamaha R6

    å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
    å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
     
    Stephan Rose, Oct 8, 2007
    #15
  16. ultimauw

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> Tim
    Lack of funds. Lack of venture capitalists that won't look into what
    he's doing and realize he won't make any money?
     
    DevilsPGD, Oct 8, 2007
    #16
  17. ultimauw

    Hadron Guest

    How can he make any money? Linux users don't pay for the OS and
    certainly wont pay the hourly rate required for a computer professional
    to install their custom kernels.

    The only way would be disk cloning and a good "Lets get started" FAQ on
    how to use Synaptic and the like.
     
    Hadron, Oct 8, 2007
    #17
  18. ultimauw

    TheLetterK Guest

    So, who's good ideas are we prepared to give up? Could we live with the
    loss of developers and interest? Where will new ideas get tested and
    promoted? What's the advantage? I'm not having compatibility problems.
    Are you?
     
    TheLetterK, Oct 8, 2007
    #18
  19. ultimauw

    Rex Ballard Guest

    Not as easy as it sounds. Remember, Microsoft gets less than 1% of
    it's revenue from Windows licenses sold directly to retail customers.
    Remember, those customers would be those who went to CompUSA, Staples,
    or BestBuy and purchased a "Full Version" of Windows XP or Vista. Of
    those, even most of those purchases are made as emergency recovery
    media for systems that have already been licensed under OEM or
    Corporate licenses. Typically, those who would pay $500 for Windows
    at a retail store are those who are likely to lose thousands or
    hundreds of thousands of dollars in commissions or bonuses if they are
    unable to make a critical presentation to a prospective customer on
    the verge of signing a contract.

    For 99.9% of all PC users, the Windows operating system was installed
    whether they wanted it or not. Even if they wanted a PC without
    Windows, the OEM had to pay for the license, not for that specific
    machine, but for a pool are "bucket" of licenses that often exceeds
    the number of machines actually produced by as much as 20%. OEMs do
    this to get deeper discounts. In many cases, the cost of 120% of
    their need has a lower total cost than an order for 80% of their need
    due to steep discounts for exceeding the minimum threshold.

    Microsoft uses similar tactics with corporate customers. Many
    companies must license PCs for every employee, even if many of those
    employees don't use PCs as part of their job. Even the Janitor gets a
    Windows license.

    Even in the face of all this, end users still install Linux, often
    using VMWare converter to relgate Windows or Vista to a secondary role
    as a virtualized "application". Even many corporations are
    discovering that the same advantages of virtualized server systems
    provides similar benefits to those using virtualized desktop and
    laptop systems. With USB drives dropping to $100 or less, VMWare
    player available for free, and VMWare converter also available for
    free, it's now quite trivial to generate a virtualized VMWare client,
    save it to a USB drive, convert the machine to Linux, install VMware
    Player, recover the VMWare client, and have a Windows system that can
    be fully recovered as often as needed.

    The bigger advantage is that different appliances can be created for
    different systems. For example, one can be customized for
    presentations, another for collaboration, another for project
    management, and another for application development or other
    specialized uses.

    Micrsoft is beginning to realize that Linux has created a "Better
    Windows than Windows", but realizes that it still controls licenses
    and intellectual property rights critical to the success of such a
    strategy. This may be one of the reasons why Microsoft expressly
    forbids the use of Vista Home edition as a Virtualized client (pushing
    the client to order directly from OEMs and upgrade to Vista Business
    Edition rather than purchasing retail PC versions).

    The irony is that rather than hurting Microsoft, Linux has actually
    turned out to be a BOON to Microsoft. Microsoft is now getting
    premiums, possibly as much as 20% (anyone have hard numbers?) for the
    Vista Business edition upgrade, from OEMs. The premium also gives
    OEMS the ability to sell the same machines with XP Professional
    instead of Vista Business.

    Ironically, the Retailers are the ones getting burned badly. Home
    Basic is sitting on the shelves and prices of "Vista Only" systems
    have fallen drastically. Meanwhile, "Linux Ready" machines,
    especially those with higher resolution monitors, are back-ordered,
    hard to keep in stock, and prices are remaining quite firm (producing
    higher profits than Vista only machines).

    It could be interesting to see how much longer the OEMs continue to be
    willing to let Microsoft continue their anticompetitive practices.
    There seems to be a substantial market for "Linux Ready" machines
    using 64 bit processors, WSXGA and WUXGA displays, OpenGL or FireGL
    graphics cards, Linux friendly WiFi cards such as Intel's, and Linux
    optimized storage, such as SATA/300 hard drives and SATA laptop
    drives.

    Microsoft designed Vista Home edition to be a "Showdown" with Linux,
    and has found that they have lost. Vista Friendly Linux hostile
    systems containing DirectX-10 video cards, WXGA graphics, Atheros WiFi
    cards, and Linux hostile versions of Intel Core 2 chips have not been
    selling well, in fact, they have now been reduced to clearance
    prices. Many retailers are even having a hard time selling the
    display models.
     
    Rex Ballard, Oct 8, 2007
    #19
  20. ultimauw

    7 Guest

    Micoshaft Asstroturfer wrote on behalf of Micoshaft
    Corporation:
    Install Vista PISTA on your machine and pistify your machine? No thanks.

    Linux is a lot better.

    Linux has many consolidated master distros.
    Free to download loads of them from here..
    http://www.livecdlist.com
    http://www.distrowatch.com

    Each as masterful as the other.

    The fact is they are all better than windopws crap.
    You can see them in action at
    http://www.youtube.com search for beryl and compiz to view demos.

    Use for example GParted to boot up from CD and format a disk drive,
    or a broken flash drive or a USB stick or an SDCard.
    Most of this cannot be done with a windummy OS because there
    are no inbuilt utilities for it.
     
    7, Oct 8, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.