| |||||||||||||
Trademarks and their limitsTrademarks and their limitsPosted Feb 7, 2013 16:38 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Trademarks and their limits by robert_s Parent article: Trademarks and their limits
"Linux will never succeed on the desktop until..." You mean Linux have succeeded on desktop? News to me. So where are these people now who espouse that the "right" way to do software distribution is to have users find an "easy to download and install package" on the project website? It's still an important facet of the OS. But the question is less about the "random site" but more about "random developer". iOS succeeds despite the fact that officially you can install apps only from one repository, but the important fact is that apps in said repository are placed by the developers themselves, not by some packagers who may delay delivery for years (and will reject closed-source apps out of hand).
(Log in to post comments)
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 8, 2013 6:09 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
Instead you have Apple delaying apps for unpredictable periods and rejecting apps out of hand.
So the repository maintainers are paid by Apple instead of being volunteers or paid by a Linux company, that doesn't mean that there aren't problems sometimes.
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 8, 2013 9:15 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Perfection is impossible, but there are large difference between these two approaches. In Windows world and even in iOS world the right to present your creation to user is, well... developer's right. Sure, it's not unconditional right (in Windows world you need to convince people to download and install your creation and in iOS world there are a gatekeeper which is sometimes exceedingly picky), but it's still a right. In Linux world it's treated as a privilege which can be conditionally given to you if you are lucky. And to earn this privilege you need to start with something absolutely unacceptable to most developers: you must publish source for your application (you can sometimes earn this privilege without publishing source - see nVidia drivers, for example, but these are rare exceptions, not rule). You may rave about moral wrongness of closed-source software all you want (and you will even be correct), but fact of life remains: most desktop software is closed-source, Joe Average accepts it and as consequence demands it (Joe Average does not care about source availability at all but s/he does care about latest fashionable software creation which invariably happens to be closed-source - see Windows Phone RT woes: Windows Phone is much less picky then Linux distributions yet it still hurts from lack of fashionable software) thus without support from closed-source software developers you can not win battle for desktop.
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 8, 2013 17:50 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
show me a quote _anywhere_ where I "rave about moral wrongness of closed-source software" That is not something I do, because it reflects a stance I do not believe in.
distro systems have their set of requirements (which boil down to "it must be freely redistributable as source, not too hard to build, and someone must volunteer to do the work"), plus the user/developer has the option of bypassing the distro
iOS has their set of requirements (which boil down to "it must not be deemed offensive in any way, and must not compete with Apple in any way"), and the user/developer has no option for bypassing Apple (except on the developers device)
Google has their set of requirements (which boil down to "it must not be fraudulent"), plus the user/developer has the option of bypassing Google (see the Amazon android app store for an example)
It's hard to see how Apple's stance is better than the others.
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 8, 2013 22:22 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] plus the user/developer has the option of bypassing the distro User yes, developer no. It's extremely hard to create binary package for Linux (the most you can usually hope for is few different packages for a few popular distributions... and even then there are no guarantee that said packages will be forward-compatible because libraries come and go in Linux distributions willy-nilly. show me a quote _anywhere_ where I "rave about moral wrongness of closed-source software" That is not something I do, because it reflects a stance I do not believe in. In the very next sentence, basically. Actions speak louder than words. distro systems have their set of requirements (which boil down to "it must be freely redistributable as source, not too hard to build, and someone must volunteer to do the work") Right. And since it's the only way to make your software easily available for the distribution user it basically means it's an ultimatum "create FOSS-software only, or else we'll punish you". iOS has their set of requirements (which boil down to "it must not be deemed offensive in any way, and must not compete with Apple in any way"), and the user/developer has no option for bypassing Apple (except on the developers device) Sure. It's a problem. But There are no pure black nor pure white in our world, it's all shades of gray and iOS is much, much, MUCH more developer-friendly shade. It's hard to see how Apple's stance is better than the others. Really? It's very easy to measure: how many developers find Apple's stance unacceptable vs how many developers find Linux distributions stance unacceptable. Sure, Apple are not saints, but they: Note that I'm not saying that Linux distributions must support commercial developers. They are mostly volunteer organizations and they can do whatever they want. But they can't simultaneously talk about "desktop for Joe Average" and ignore needs of developers who create software for said "Joe Average".
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 8, 2013 23:49 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
if you take this as me ranting about how closed source is unethical you are hopeless to talk to, goodby
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 9, 2013 22:32 UTC (Sat) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link] User yes, developer no. It's extremely hard to create binary package for Linux (the most you can usually hope for is few different packages for a few popular distributions... and even then there are no guarantee that said packages will be forward-compatible because libraries come and go in Linux distributions willy-nilly. that's what the Open Build Service is for (openbuildservice.org or in action (for free, yes, and supporting 7 architectures and 15+ distro's) on build.opensuse.org) Otherwise, I disagree with you argument on other counts as well. It's not about gatekeeping, it is about money. The target group is too small on the Linux Desktop and yeah, we don't make it particularly easy to make $$$. But even when we do (on Ubuntu, for example) it doesn't happen to a great extend.
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 9, 2013 23:42 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] that's what the Open Build Service is for (openbuildservice.org or in action (for free, yes, and supporting 7 architectures and 15+ distro's) on build.opensuse.org) This is cool, but it does not solve the underlying problem: you still need to build bazillion packages to support tiny portion of [potential] users. It's not about gatekeeping, it is about money. Aren't they the same things? Most developers out there are commercial developers. They want to create and sell things. A lot of applications are created for a single buyer - and while it's not clear how well Linux does for these I don't think it's a big deal. But for desktop shrinkwrapped software matters, too. And this is where gatekeepers matter: they may raise investment needed to reach the audience (Linux distributions case) or they can reject your creation out of hand (Apple). When you hit this stage we are talking ROI - and ROI for Linux software is incredibly poor. Both because it's hard to distribute Linux software and because there are so few potential users. But even when we do (on Ubuntu, for example) it doesn't happen to a great extend. Why do you say so? Because there are no 500'000 applications? That's wrong measure to take. Let's not talk about "big boys" (Windows, Android, etc). Let's take a look on small players. You know, webOS (less then 5 million users, 5000 applications), Chrome web store (30 millions users, about 6000 applications), Samsung's Bada (around 4 million users, around 2400 applications). Ubuntu boasts 12 million users which means that we should expect about 3-5 thousand applications. And there are about 4000 of them, which sounds more-of-less fine. But these are Ubuntu apps, not Linux apps (all the links for RC Mini Racers will send you to the Ubuntu Software Center). Are we Ok with creation of Apple-style directory? If yes, then everything is fine: looks like Canonical knows what it does. If not, then well, we need to think about Linux's desktop future.
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 8, 2013 9:12 UTC (Fri) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
It runs on _my_ desktop and mostly does what I want. So yes, it's a success.
Does it need to be a mass success to be a success ?
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 8, 2013 9:17 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Linux was desktop OS from the day one (it was Linus's desktop). Yet somehow people don't perceive it as "success" thus I think yes, your (and mine, BTW: I'm writing this on Linux system) example does not count.
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 9, 2013 22:44 UTC (Sat) by Jandar (subscriber, #85683) [Link]
Why do we accept the judgement over success (or not) from some unspecified "people"? I'm using Linux as sole desktop (1) since 0.9* (exact version is long forgotten) and judge Linux as a long-running success. I'm tired of reading about the question if the year of Linux-desktop comes, the first decade of Linux-desktop is already history. World domination may not come the next years, but this doesn't devaluate the successfull running Linux-desktop.
(1) several years ago I had booted for non-desktop use a specialized game-loader (aka Windows ;-))
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 9, 2013 23:56 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Why do we accept the judgement over success (or not) from some unspecified "people"? Because we are humans. Look, you can assign arbitrary meanings to random words all you want but the more you do that the less understandable you become. If there are some widespread meaning assigned to words then it's much better to stop trying to explain that you are right and the whole world is wrong. Even if initially words had other meaning. Think hacker (which now means less of "a person who enjoys exploring the limits of what is possible, in a spirit of playful cleverness" and more of "someone who seeks and exploits weaknesses in a computer system or computer network"). Or addict - who's no longer "a debtor awarded as a slave to his creditor". And we no longer use girl in relation to males (yes, initially it meant a young person of either sex - dictionaries said so just a hundred years ago). So the right question is not "why do we use terms as perceived by others" but "why would we use terms in some other way" - and I see no reason to do so.
Trademarks and their limits Posted Feb 10, 2013 14:48 UTC (Sun) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
Precisely. And you confuse the words "domination" and "success".
|
|||||||||||||