| |||||||||||||
Choices, choices...Choices, choices...Posted Feb 28, 2006 20:15 UTC (Tue) by freeio (guest, #9622)Parent article: Linux fragmenting at last?
The thing to remember is that neither RedHat nor Novell/suse represent gnu/linux by themselves. Yes, they are a couple of popular distributions, but they nevertheless do not define what the users can or must use. If the code is free/libre, then there is the possibility that others will develop it further, or it is possible that it will wilt and die. But so what? Each approach to solving a preceived problem is useful, if for no ther reson than that it provides something to try and see if it is the best solution, or even a good one.
The great benefit to free software is that no one is forced to use any particular commerical distribution's preferred methods. We have the choice. That, in and of itself, is not fragmentation. It is merely part of the evolutionary process which is inherent to free software.
(Log in to post comments)
Choices, choices... Posted Feb 28, 2006 20:34 UTC (Tue) by mrshiny (subscriber, #4266) [Link] It's true that we have a choice, but then, users often had the choice to switch to a different version of Unix in the past. The only read advantage that a fragmented Linux has over a fragmented Unix is that the various Linux fragments will work with the hardware you have, whereas changing Unixes often implies changing hardware.
But choice is often illusory as well: Users have a choice of Windows or Linux (or whatever), but often the choice isn't a true choice since there is something that locks a user into a particular system. For example, a company may widely deploy RedHat or Suse, then get "locked" into that system by inertia caused by accumulated staff experience and management tools. So it's not always easy or even possible to switch to a different distro without incurring a high cost.
Forward looking Posted Feb 28, 2006 21:39 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Your statement seems to me rather a wish than a necessity; things can possibly work out that way, but we must fight for it to be true. If we just stand by and don't watch Red Hat and Novell closely (or Mandriva and Ubuntu, for that matter), they might try a plethora of tricks to lock users in, starting with the tools that differentiate them -- and following with certifications, specifications...True, there's always community-based distros to counter-balance corporate distributions; but they are an even bigger reason to participate and not let them languish.
Community-based distributions as the answer Posted Mar 1, 2006 1:43 UTC (Wed) by freeio (guest, #9622) [Link] "True, there's always community-based distros to counter-balance corporate distributions; but they are an even bigger reason to participate and not let them languish."
Free software prospered even before there was commercial support. The well-known commercial distributions have helped various parts of the development along, to meet their own commercial needs, but it is indeed well to remember that even if the major vendors dropped all support today, that free software in general, and linux in particular would continue to develop.
So, yes, my most recent installs have been using the traditional community-based distribution (debian) not only for philosophical reasons, but because none of the high-dollar distributions support the Sun U5 hardware I run, while debian does. That profit-motive makes it not worth their time to support anything but the potentially high-volume architectures, and so the last version of Red Hat which supported Sun 5U was 6.2, and the last version of SuSE which supported Sun 5U was 7.3.
If we use only the few commercial distributions, then we are well on our way to lock-in and monoculture. Free/libre software development not only does not require that outcome, but provides the means to avoid it. That is not the feared fragmentation, but rather the healthy operation of a free software ecology.
Community-based distributions as the answer Posted Mar 1, 2006 17:02 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] I think that saying "Free software prospered before ..." should be added with the caveat "in a completely different way than now." Most of the people I knew who were doing Free Software were doing it at universities or in their spare time and the number of people was MUCH MUCH less than is currently doing it. This is because of communication changes (a larger percentage of programmers on the Internet), culture changes (more risk-averse managers feeling ok with non-propietary software), and a lot of other socio/politico/economic changes that have made things the way they are now.
The second caveat is that if Red Hat and Novell were plundered in medieval fashion by some unscrupulous company tomorrow, their programmers put on stakes in the public commons, managers who accepted Free Software in their business publically whipped, etc.. Free Software would survive. It just wouldnt survive in the way it currently does, and very less likely in the way it did in the past. From what one can tell in various other population culture shifts.. people will find some completely new way to subvert the older system using Free Software.
|
|||||||||||||