> -----Original Message----- > From: Ashley Sheridan [mailto:ash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 5:27 PM > To: Jochem Maas > Cc: Boyd, Todd M.; php-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Re: Why MS Won't Retire Browsers --was: Interntet > Explorer 8 beater 2 > > On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 19:46 +0200, Jochem Maas wrote: > > Ashley Sheridan schreef: > > > On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 18:35 +0200, Jochem Maas wrote: > > > > > >> why do the vast majority people keep buying M$? > > > > > > Well, do they really? > > > > yes and no, Office is a very big cashcow if you recall. > > > > > I mean, most sales of Windows come from the sales > > > of computers, because Microsoft give very nice incentives to > retailers > > > who bundle their OS with a PC... > > > > M$ structure the market in such a way that retailers et al don't have > any > > choice in the matter, it's not so much 'nice incentives' as 'take the > hint it's > > good for you either that or we'll burn you' > > > > nonetheless people still buy the PCs. but that's not the point, the > point is > > that the concept of choice has been completely warped to the extent > that people > > generally believe that being offered 400 different cartons of milk > equates to > > freedom ... it's a marketing trick of the highest order ... niether > freedom > > nor choice come into it. > > > > applying such convoluted concepts to linux is actually counter- > productive, the > > only real beneficiaries to the linux distro holy-wars are the boys at > M$. > > would be interesting to know how much money M$ pump into various > distros to keep > > them finghting amongst themselves, I'm guessing that the figure is > above zero. > > > > > It sounds a bit like when Microsoft announced how many people were > > > downloading the IE7 browser, when in actual fact it had been > forcing it > > > on users with the automatic system updates, and was still counting > those > > > as user requested downloads! > > > > it's statistically proven that you can prove anything with > statistics. > > > Microsoft are only remotely involved with Suse, although I think they > did convince another distro to purchase licenses against their > "intellectual property". Basically though, for people who know little > of > Linux, there are only a handful of distros to choose from, Ubuntu, > Fedora and Suse, and Suse is aimed more at the server market than the *cough* Did you just say there are only a handful of Linux distros to choose from?? You left out Slackware, Debian, Mandriva, openSuSE (not the same as SuSE), PCLinuxOS, MEPIS, Knoppix (which is just Debian extended, I guess... but so is k/x/ed/ubuntu), Gentoo, ... the list goes on. If you left them out because people are unfamiliar with them and you were only listing "friendly" distros, then several of my example still stand (Debian, Slackware, PCL, Mandriva and Knoppix are all capable of holding the user's hand). > desktop one. I've used many many different ones myself, just because > I'm > not so wet behind the ears now, and I know what I'm doing, and am even > happy infront of the command line. There is little difference when you > get to that level, and like I said, it's generally only those who are > into Linux that are aware of quite how many distros there are. There is a difference, depending on what it is you're trying to do. Default file system (ext2? ext3? reiserfs? xfs?), system directory structure, packaged kernel headers and modules, package management system/methodology, and the actual packages available in a distro's repository. Granted, with software like "alien", the packages can be converted amongst distros--but that gets a little weird sometimes. > I don't > think that having many distros is actually a problem, and it's > something > that has naturally arisen due to the nature of Linux rather than large > corporations encouraging arguments between factions. Linux is largely > driven by enthusiasts (and that's not to say that you can't have paid > enthusiasts,) who will often develop along the direction they wish, > rather than in one unified direction. Heck, if the Linux developers did > that, then we'd be little better off than we are with Windows. It's > innovation by individuals sometimes that achieves some of the greatest > breakthroughs. I think you're making Linux out to be a bit more of a "hobbyist" OS than it is. Sure, it used to be that way (hell, it was made in the first place as Linus Torvalds' hobby), but the movement is heading in a new direction now. With companies like Novell and Microsoft funding Linux research (and I believe Hewlett Packard is going to be working on a Linux distro instead of using UNIX in a lot of their servers), hardware recognition and networking functionality have taken a much more defined shape that would have taken years upon years to accomplish if it had been left to just "enthusiasts". Don't get me wrong--I agree... Linux is pretty kick-ass. I just think it's progressed further than many people give it credit for nowadays. And besides... all this talk is mostly about end-user Linux experience. I don't think Linux has received hardly any of its momentum from end-users; more likely, it's come from Linux's staunch server reliability and productivity. Todd Boyd Web Programmer -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
