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

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.

 

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.

-

 

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

*plonk*

 

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‚‰

 

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

 

AWWWW Did I upset the little shillbot?

 

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.

 

"Everyone", or just trolling idiots like Oxtard?

 

"ultimauw" is not OxRetard

It is either flatfish or the "linux-sux" cretin

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

When does it become rlevant then? 10 servers, 100? 1'000?
What about 40'000?

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

0.8% after 15 years of free availability? Linux will never make it.
Face it.

Meanwhile:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Windows+Vista

 

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.

 

+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‚‰

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.