[svlug] Fedora or Ubuntu for novis

[Alan DuBoff]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008, Chris Miller wrote:

> Up until two years ago Linux on the desktop was cumbersome 
> unless you had a machine that was more or less hand-picked for 
> Linux compatibility.

This is debatable, IMO.

I think it was very usable in the late 90s when I was working at 
VA, and a good number of folks had IT manage their system and 
were able to get their work done just fine.

> You're missing the point of Open-Source.  It's not about 
> controlling the source and who gets to use it - it's about 
> /not/ controlling the source and who gets to use it.

I agree with you, but think you may have missed my point. What I 
was trying to point out is that companies who work in open 
source don't always develop with that intention, nor do they 
think about the community before their own interest. As an 
example, a company makes changes to open source, but doesn't 
push the changes upstream. This gets worse for the ones that 
sell services, support, or make distributions from open source.

> The best one is that Adobe is getting requests from special 
> effects studios for a Linux port of Photoshop.  Apparently 
> it's cheaper to run Linux than it is OS X or Windows.

I don't know how you quantify that, what does "apparently" 
actually mean in this context?

> Lawyers aren't going away.  I wouldn't suggest even starting that
> struggle, it will only end badly.

Certainly not, but as an example, many large companies with 
lawyers listen to their advice, yet open source is not something 
that has been entrenced in those lawyer's heads, there has 
really not been a lot of court cases involving open source yet. 
And for that matter, the BSD (one of my faves, BTW) is one of 
the few, if not the only one that has stood up in a court of 
law of common open source licenses.

> Even embedded Unix.  iPhone is using the same Darwin that OS X 
> uses. And that attracted a swarm of software.  It's not that 
> hard to port OS X apps to Linux through GNUStep!

Yeah, but this is a good example of an open source system, that 
is not done as open development, and there lies a difference.

> Will they ever be?  They want to make money.  That will never change.
> How can you give them a sufficiently monetized business model using an
> Open-Source platform?

Services and support for one. Apple has changed their company to 
provide services, and the ipod with itunes started to change 
that for them.

Look, I want them to make money, because I don't work for free 
myself. I do work for free on my own time, but I do have a 
family to support also and need to provide for them. I don't 
think I'm alone. I prefer to do that on open source if I can.

> First we need a phone...

Yes.

> They want to sell contracts.  If open-source becomes a better 
> means to that end, then they will come in relatively quickly. 
> Until you can find a way to demonstrate that Andriod is a 
> better way to make their phones more attractive to customers, 
> then they will not budge.

I want them to sell contracts, and I want them to do it with 
open source. I will buy my service from them if they provide me 
service for an open source phone.

--

Alan DuBoff - Software Orchestration