I’ve never owned a vehicle and had to get gas from a particular oil company. What are you talking about? For that matter, I’ve never run a Linux distribution and had to get all my software from its repositories, but if I were to follow your version of the analogy, I would have to get my distribution (my car) from one source and my applications (my gas) from another. Hmmm… come to think of it, that is pretty much what it is like in the Windows world.

“The problem with multiple Linux distros is that Linux is a *platform* to run other software on. As such, it needs to be standardized enough for it to be easy for that software to target the platform. Why is that so hard to accept?”

Who has a hard time accepting that? (Microsoft, perhaps?) Software written for the POSIX standards is easier to port from one unix variant to another, including to different Linux distributions, than porting software written for one version of Windows to another version of Windows. There are no standards in Windows that software developers can count on to remain from version to version. Changing programming APIs is one way Microsoft ensures that users upgrade to new versions of Windows and that ISVs write programs that work only on newer versions. That’s one reason software developers like to write for unix. And it is also one reason why developing software for Windows is so costly.

“Do you think ISV’s explicitly do *not* want to make Linux versions of Quicken, Photoshop, etc? They can’t – plain and simple. Oh, they *could* alright, but not cost-effectively.”

Why not?

“Perversely, the whole idea that an Operating System consists of such a ‘complete’ set of software was introduced by Microsoft.”

Who told you that? When have you ever seen a Windows operating system that included all necessary applications in the box. It doesn’t exist. That honor doesn’t even belong to Linux, though Linux distributions have expanded that idea to “perverse” proportions.

“Open Source allows Linux distros to similarly provide ‘all the necessary software’, because they have access to tons of application source code. And that model works great, to the extent that it works. But venture beyond that model, and it doesn’t work at all.”

What does it mean to “venture beyond that model”? Describe what you see beyond it and how it “doesn’t work at all”.

Okay, so, the car analogy doesn’t work because there must be as many gas stations as there are manufacturers, which, of course, blows the whole customer choice point right out of the water; the problem with Linux is that it needs to be standardized, and the fact that there are hundreds of Linux distributions all derived from the same code base means, of course, that there is no standard; Microsoft invented the concept of operating systems that consist of all necessary software, which, of course, means that Linux is simply following Microsoft’s lead in supplying all necessary applications in the box; and ISV’s can’t port their software to Linux, because they don’t have the financial resources, so, naturally, Linux is bad–Windows is good.

…And this has what to do with consolidating Linux distributions and how too many choices will send consumers running in fear back into the safe arms of Microsoft?

The problem with multiple Linux distros is that Linux is a *platform* to run other software on. As such, it needs to be standardized enough for it to be easy for that software to target the platform. Why is that so hard to accept?

Most linux users don’t venture far beyond their distro’s repositories. That is, they don’t use any software that isn’t supplied as a part of the platform. Perversely, the whole idea that an Operating System consists of such a ‘complete’ set of software was introduced by Microsoft. Open Source allows Linux distros to similarly provide ‘all the necessary software’, because they have access to tons of application source code. And that model works great, to the extent that it works. But venture beyond that model, and it doesn’t work at all.

Do you think ISV’s explicitly do *not* want to make Linux versions of Quicken, Photoshop, etc? They can’t – plain and simple. Oh, they *could* alright, but not cost-effectively.

Pat

Dear Jeni

Thanks for the link to that page. I removed Vista from my hard disk as soon as I bought my laptop, and kept running XP on a virtual machine, just in case, but now I’m determined to delete the virtual machine, too. And if I ever think that I can draw an objective conclusion after reading such crap, please, shoot me.

Most likely that statement is quite wrong with regard Red Hat being more familiar than Ubuntu: http://www.google.com/trends?q=red+hat%2C+ubuntu%2C+linux%2C+novell&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

The reality appears to be that Ubuntu is becoming synonymous with ‘Linux’ in consumer minds.

Xandros will continue to offer downloads through the digital software distribution warehouse for a variety of Linux platforms, including Freespire, which will continue to be maintained as an open source Latest News about open source project, the company said.

Pending further planning, both product lines will be maintained, said Typaldos.

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/63657.html

Try not to “think” too much Jeni, it’s obviously not a strong point for you if you believe “The truth about Linux” article.

Perhaps Microsoft will also sponsor you on a trip to Hungary to lecture them about your happy views on the benefits associated with being locked into the Microsoft proprietary environment. Don’t forget to hand out lots of eggs (Hungarians LOVE eggs)!