Breaking Microsoft

[Primordial Webdrifter]

I want to make a statement and see how many of you agree.
And if you agree, what actions do you propose to BREAK MICROSOFT.

STATEMENT:

The ONLY reason that Microsoft rules and Linux has a hard time defeating Microsoft is because the Linux world is hopelessly devided in dozens of groups that believe they can make the best distibution of Linux or Linux Applications. If all would organize within ONE single organisation of volenteer programmers and this organisation would hold an effective democratic process of well structured and well informed decision making to which everybody would commit then we could easely BREAK Microsoft.

ALL FOR ONE & ONE FOR ALL !!!

[nolliecrooked]

Microsoft dont need breaking, they have contributed a lot. they just have to learn to stop being so greedy.

and they need better customer support. because it freakin sucks ATM.

[mhgsys]

Well,
I don't feel the need to break microsoft, because I have a choice in which OS I use.

If you don't want to be bugged by windows errors, then don't use windows.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Any positive Remarks outthere?
On how to improve the Linux world so to make it a better competitor against microsoft!

And please also give your opinion on the Statement I made.

[hatten]

It would suck to only have one distro, there is a reason that not everybody uses the same, and that is because we want so different things. Person A wants to compile everything himself in order to get the fastest possible, and start out with a minimal install, Person B already got a fast enough computer, but no time, so he doesn't want to compile anything, and want everything he might ever need installed from the beginning. If they only had one distro, both cannot be happy.

[tx-uturn]

Why break Micorsoft? Because we are jealous of their superior marketing? Business is supposed to strive for growth and more market share, that's what they do.

As to your unified Linux idea. The main reason I switched from M$ is for choice and options, now you want me to get on board with some sort of collective? No thank you.

[koshatnik]

I want to make a statement and see how many of you agree.
And if you agree, what actions do you propose to BREAK MICROSOFT.

STATEMENT:

The ONLY reason that Microsoft rules and Linux has a hard time defeating Microsoft is because the Linux world is hopelessly devided in dozens of groups that believe they can make the best distibution of Linux or Linux Applications. If all would organize within ONE single organisation of volenteer programmers and this organisation would hold an effective democratic process of well structured and well informed decision making to which everybody would commit then we could easely BREAK Microsoft.

ALL FOR ONE & ONE FOR ALL !!!

1. Detach keyboard
2. Throw out of window

[ZackM]

Microsoft is licensed software. Obvious statement... With that, they make a lot of money, which they can use to advertise as they please. Linux, however, is distributed in many groups of open source software, which is... Free. Yes... That means there's no money flow coming in to advertise to the mass media and become more well known. Now, I'm not saying that Ubuntu or any other distro should change from open source... That would be terrible, but given that they don't have the kind of money to have a commercial every other minute of they day like Mac or Window, it's hard to be as known.

Not to mention a lot of novice Windows users probably couldn't handle using Linux. They would be lost on how to work things, even the most simplistic of applications. Linux isn't for everyone, unfortunately.

[Screwdriver0815]

open source is a not-regulated growing movement. When there is a lot of Linux Distros then there is a reason for that.

But the reason for Linux to exist is not to break Microsoft. It exists because people use it. People use it because they want to use it.
People use different Distros because they want to use them.
People in the open source community choose this way of computing because it is all about choice.

So why should there be the willing inside of the open source community to give up the things which are the PRO argument for people who engage themselves in this movement?

For a goal that nobody wants to achieve? Great idea! :D

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Clearly this community likes to lag behind by diversifying it's efforts and rollover into negativism or did the positive people stay at home? Maybe I was wrong, and the problem isn't the way the Linux world is organised, but the problem is the people organizing it?

STAY DIVERSED, STAY SMALL, LAG BEHIND - That seems to be the motto.

[Sealbhach]

That's Ubuntu Bug #1.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1/+viewstatus

Bug description

Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace.
This is a bug, which Ubuntu is designed to fix.
Non-free software is holding back innovation in the IT industry, restricting access to IT to a small part of the world's population and limiting the ability of software developers to reach their full potential, globally. This bug is widely evident in the PC industry.


Steps to repeat:


1. Visit a local PC store.


What happens:

2. Observe that a majority of PCs for sale have non-free software pre-installed.
3. Observe very few PCs with Ubuntu and free software pre-installed.

What should happen:
1. A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software like Ubuntu.
2. Ubuntu should be marketed in a way such that its amazing features and benefits would be apparent and known by all.
3. The system shall become more and more user friendly as time passes.

[ZackM]

Clearly this community likes to lag behind by diversifying it's efforts and rollover into negativism or did the positive people stay at home? Maybe I was wrong, and the problem isn't the way the Linux world is organised, but the problem is the people organizing it?

I think you're missing the point. We're not being negative... Quite the contrary. In fact, it could be suggested that you are being negative. You want to take the choice away from people, it seems. If someone wants to use Windows, that's their choice. If they want to pay an arm and a leg for it, then okay. If they want to use OpenSuse instead of Ubuntu, then okay... Let them. That's their cup of tea. You want to take the choice away, and that's not right. That's being negative.

[mhgsys]

I want to make a statement and see how many of you agree!

Then don't b*ch if people don't agree.

[khelben1979]

It would suck to only have one distro, there is a reason that not everybody uses the same, and that is because we want so different things.

Agreed. I like Debian myself and I understand that this is not how everyone else feels.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Microsoft dont need breaking, they have contributed a lot. they just have to learn to stop being so greedy.

and they need better customer support. because it freakin sucks ATM.

They will only start to give you that when you start breaking them!

[ZackM]

They will only start to give you that when you start breaking them!

Yeah... That's a contradictory statement... Considering, you know... The lack of customer support is only aiding in breaking themselves.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Then don't b*ch if people don't agree.

You have a fair point there.

I just never expected this short sightedness, and got frustrated about it.
The point is everybody seems locked on wanting more choice but they don't seem to realize that more choice doesn't always give you better programs and faster innovations.

Freedom and improvement doesn't come from more choice it comes from better choices!

[ZackM]

You have a fair point there.

I just never expected this short sightedness, and got frustrated about it.
The point is everybody seems locked on wanting more choice but they don't seem to realize that more choice doesn't always give you better programs and faster innovations.

Freedom and improvement doesn't come from more choice it comes from better choices!

I can agree with that. But there's always going to be stiff competition, even in our own Linux community. However, another thing I think you've been missing is the fact that the competition actually helps create those better innovations. If there weren't other systems to compete with, the breakthroughs that have been created wouldn't be as grand.

[LowSky]

so how many times do people need to post this same topic...

[mhgsys]

Freedom and improvement doesn't come from more choice it comes from better choices!

I agree on that,

The thing is: The best choice depends on the one who chooses.,
meaning; the best choice for you could be the worst one for me.

That's why variety is a good thing.
And my freedom is based on the choices I make, not someone elses.

Thats why I got rid of MS in the first place,
They decided what's good for me to click on, and what's unable to click.
That's what they agreed that was best.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

so how many times do people need to post this same topic...

Maybe until they get it?

Ubuntu in fact, proves that the direction I wish to take is a correct one.

Ubuntu is effectively concentrating development capacity around a limited number of distributions. I just wish they could find a way to work together with other programmers which are now still working on other distributions. To my opinion this can only be done within a common organisation in which all developers have a vote according to the effort they put into that organisation, and the products or services it delivers.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

I agree on that,

The thing is: The best choice depends on the one who chooses.,
meaning; the best choice for you could be the worst one for me.

That's why variety is a good thing.
And my freedom is based on the choices I make, not someone elses.

Thats why I got rid of MS in the first place,
They decided what's good for me to click on, and what's unable to click.
That's what they agreed that was best.

Variety is only a good thing as far as it doesn't slow down development.
As it is now diversity is slowing down development.

Nobody will ever get the perfect programs, that is why good programs offer choices within themself. I don't want more distro's I want less and better distro's that offer me more (but also more clear and easier to implement) choices from within themselves.

[Dragonbite]

I want to make a statement and see how many of you agree.
And if you agree, what actions do you propose to BREAK MICROSOFT.

STATEMENT:

The ONLY reason that Microsoft rules and Linux has a hard time defeating Microsoft is because the Linux world is hopelessly devided in dozens of groups that believe they can make the best distibution of Linux or Linux Applications. If all would organize within ONE single organisation of volenteer programmers and this organisation would hold an effective democratic process of well structured and well informed decision making to which everybody would commit then we could easely BREAK Microsoft.

ALL FOR ONE & ONE FOR ALL !!!

No, the ONLY reason Microsoft rules is not that the Linux world is hopelessly devided (divided?).

Linux is about choice; choice of distro's with different philosophies, desktop environments, applications, shells, etc.

Somebody may prefer Gnome's "simplistic" philosophy while another prefers KDE's customizability. Somebody may prefer FOSS-pure while others just want it to work. Somebody may prefer a server with no extraneous services or GUI, while others kinda like have a GUI on their desktop ;)

I kinda think of Linux like cars.. you would not want to go on vacation with 4 kids in a Mini-Cooper or drive like a racer in a minivan. Each car has their purpose and focus.

Or for the paranoid out there, "one Linux to rule them all" also means one company/organization for Microsoft and Apple to bring down! Diversity has proved security for open source so far.

Linux is collaborative, not competitive. I don't know of any open source software on one Linux that cannot run on another Linux?

As for "Breaking Microsoft", why does Microsoft have to be broken? They are a company. They have worked into their current marketshare, whether from shady practices or good technology and marketing. Regardless of what Microsoft has done, what did Linux do about it? What did Apple do about it? Why didn't anybody do anything about it? Can't really darn a company for advancing and achieving their goals because nobody was able to stand up against them.

But things change, and Linux is (finally) rising to the challenge in their own way, and Apple, too, is rising to the challenge in their own way.

I do favor seeing Linux gaining more ground and even Apple gaining ground so it is competitive. Competition breeds innovation.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

That's Ubuntu Bug #1.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1/+viewstatus

Bug description

Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace.
This is a bug, which Ubuntu is designed to fix.
Non-free software is holding back innovation in the IT industry, restricting access to IT to a small part of the world's population and limiting the ability of software developers to reach their full potential, globally. This bug is widely evident in the PC industry.


Steps to repeat:


1. Visit a local PC store.


What happens:

2. Observe that a majority of PCs for sale have non-free software pre-installed.
3. Observe very few PCs with Ubuntu and free software pre-installed.

What should happen:
1. A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software like Ubuntu.
2. Ubuntu should be marketed in a way such that its amazing features and benefits would be apparent and known by all.
3. The system shall become more and more user friendly as time passes.

I totally agree, and for that we need to concentrate programming (and marketing) capacity, like Microsoft does.

[Screwdriver0815]

Clearly this community likes to lag behind by diversifying it's efforts and rollover into negativism or did the positive people stay at home? Maybe I was wrong, and the problem isn't the way the Linux world is organised, but the problem is the people organizing it?

STAY DIVERSED, STAY SMALL, LAG BEHIND - That seems to be the motto.
you think it is all about competition, right?

no, the motto is not "ah we need to compete with [insert company name]"

the motto is:

we do things the way we think it is okay. We serve the customers needs which are not served by others.

thats why Red Hat, Novell and Canonical are successfull. Because they serve the needs of their customers.
All three companies have their own type of customer. Why the hell should they join? To leave lots of unsatisfied customers alone in the wild?
Why should a community, consisting of thousends of different types of people be forced to go together? Just for the sake of being forced together?
The way, open source works is the reason for its success.

I don't want more distro's I want less and better distro's that offer me more (but also more clear and easier to implement) choices from within themselves.
who cares about things YOU want??? Should it be like this, that YOU say "there is only one distro - the one I choose" and millions of users and developers say "Jawoll mein Führer"?
Or what is the reason for your trolling around?

[Primordial Webdrifter]

........ Competition breeds innovation.

This is the most wide spread urban mythe !!!!!

Competition only breeds innovation when competition can compete.

As it is now Linux is hardly any competition for Microsoft.
This is because there is to much competition among distro's in the Linux world.
From the viewpoint of Microsoft, Linux is only a free recource for innovation on which Microsoft can build it's profits.

Further the value of innovation depends on the people it reaches. Linux doesn't reach many people and Microsoft only implements innovations that help it to make more money and not because it can be more usefull for more people.

If the Linux world would compete less and cooperate more it would innovate more and faster. Competition only breeds innovation up to a certain level. It stops innovation when external competition starts to undermine internal cooperation, as it does in the Linux wolrd.

Microsoft and other OS like Solaris and Unix should be the competitors to focus upon.
The focus of competition should not be on other Linux distro's or at least not on to many Linux distro's. Linux should come together more than they do now. Only this will lead to faster and more widespread innovations in the Linux world.

[mhgsys]

Variety is only a good thing as far as it doesn't slow down development.

. I want less and better distro's that offer me more (but also more clear and easier to implement) choices from within themselves.

Lol,
Come to think of it, Maybe Windows is the perfect OS for you.
;)

[Dragonbite]

Microsoft and other OS like Solaris and Unix should be the competitors to focus upon.
The focus of competition should not be on other Linux distro's or at least not on to many Linux distro's. Linux should come together more than they do now. Only this will lead to faster and more widespread innovations in the Linux world.

Is that why Linux's server marketshare is increasing while Unix's are decreasing?

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Lol,
Come to think of it, Maybe Windows is the perfect OS for you.
;)


Windows doesn't offer choices, it forces an installation upon people.

Linux has the potention to really offer choices but it doesn't do it within one single distro or a limited amount of distro's but within a large amount of distro's. This confuses people and holds development of Linux back.

[Sealbhach]

Have patience my friend. You cannot push the river forward no matter how hard you try.

.

[Screwdriver0815]

Windows doesn't offer choices, it forces an installation upon people.

the same way you like it - could you please use Windows? Thanks.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Is that why Linux's server marketshare is increasing while Unix's are decreasing?

As I said, the fast development and growth in popularity of Ubuntu is making my point exactly. However, we need to concentrate development power more if we want to beat Microsoft (or at least become an equal competitor in the market).

This will keep Microsoft on it's toes and deliver better software to the community faster.

[Screwdriver0815]

A However, we need to concentrate development power more if we want to beat Microsoft (or at least become an equal competitor in the market).


who wants to beat Microsoft?

Maybe all your effort is something, nobody cares about? Did you ever think about, that your ideas are not the center of the universe and surely not the ideas of all the bosses of Linux-Companies and Distributions?

[Primordial Webdrifter]

the same way you like it - could you please use Windows? Thanks.

If that is really what you think than you either don't grasp what I want or you underestimate the potention of Linux in bundling the choices that are now offered within several distro's.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

who wants to beat Microsoft?

Maybe all your effort is something, nobody cares about? Did you ever think about, that your ideas are not the center of the universe and surely not the ideas of all the bosses of Linux-Companies and Distributions?

That is certainly true. Since many of them started a commercial enterprise for themselves.
Their interest is not with the Linux community first, but like Microsoft with their own pockets. However, that doesn't mean there are no people out there that would like to see Linux innovate faster. And become standard available on computers in stores.

[Screwdriver0815]

If that is really what you think than you either don't grasp what I want or you underestimate the potention of Linux in bundling the choices that are now offered within several distro's.
there is a third possibility: or you are unworldly and have no other issues to solve besides of thinking about things which

1. will never happen anyway

2. nobody besides you really wants

3. do not make any sense

4. will not achieve anything positive for the user

As I wrote some posts before:
the open source model is not driven by ONE leader. When there is a bunch of appr. 365 Linux distro's out there, then there is a reason for that. The reason is: CHOICE. A user prefers Distro A over Distro WFJOS because it has features he wants.
Then you step in and say: STOP IT!! FROM NOW ON THERE IS ONLY ONE DISTRO - THE ONE I WANT.
And all developers of Distro A and Distro WFJOS are forced to do everything out of these 365 into one, two or five distro(s).
Of course all features can not be implemented into one, maybe two, maybe five Distro(s). So some features will be removed and disappear. The user who wants the features which are dropped, will be disappointed and move away.

Whats the advantage of that? If you say, this is the way to beat something, Linux does not want to beat... huuu? Hello? Is it possible that this is just stupid?

If you just want to reduce the choice, fine. Then please go playing on the Windows playground.

[karellen]

I guess some people really have a lot of spare time (and patience)

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Have patience my friend. You cannot push the river forward no matter how hard you try.

.

True but you can divert it's direction and thus concentrate several small streams into One strong river.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

there is a third possibility: or you are unworldly and have no other issues to solve besides of thinking about things which

1. will never happen anyway

2. nobody besides you really wants

3. do not make any sense

4. will not achieve anything positive for the user

As I wrote some posts before:
the open source model is not driven by ONE leader. When there is a bunch of appr. 365 Linux distro's out there, then there is a reason for that. The reason is: CHOICE. A user prefers Distro A over Distro WFJOS because it has features he wants.
Then you step in and say: STOP IT!! FROM NOW ON THERE IS ONLY ONE DISTRO - THE ONE I WANT.
And all developers of Distro A and Distro WFJOS are forced to do everything out of these 365 into one, two or five distro(s).
Of course all features can not be implemented into one, maybe two, maybe five Distro(s). So some features will be removed and disappear. The user who wants the features which are dropped, will be disappointed and move away.

Whats the advantage of that? If you say, this is the way to beat something, Linux does not want to beat... huuu? Hello? Is it possible that this is just stupid?

If you just want to reduce the choice, fine. Then please go playing on the Windows playground.

I first didn't understand your stupid reaction about "ONE LEADER", especially since I advised on a democratic meritocratic process as a structure for cooperation.

But than I noticed you are from Germany.

And further you clearly: "Underestimate the potention of Linux in bundling the choices that are now offered within several distro's".

[like coffee]

There already is a river it's called GNU GPL.
Go read it!

[Primordial Webdrifter]

There already is a river it's called GNU GPL.
Go read it!

GNU GPL is great and Linux should stay under that Public License. However this has nothing to do with my proposal.

[Screwdriver0815]

That is certainly true. Since many of them started a commercial enterprise for themselves.
Their interest is not with the Linux community first, but like Microsoft with their own pockets. However, that doesn't mean there are no people out there that would like to see Linux innovate faster. And become standard available on computers in stores.
this brings another thing for you to think about:

what about Novell, Red Hat, Canonical, IBM and so on?

1. do you really think that the leaders of these companies will agree if someone like you pops up and tells them that they from now on have to work on ONE distro which fits all their individual and the needs of their customers?

2. a customer who has choosen SLED over RHEL has done it because of several reasons. Not because he was confused about all this confusing choice out there.
Why the hell do you think that this particular customer will be satisfied with a distro which is a mix out of SLED, RHEL, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware, Gentoo, Arch, and so on? Maybe additionally when the main feature which was the reason for him to choose SLED is dropped due to complexity?

3. did you ever hear the Boss of Novell say "I want to beat Microsoft"?
did you ever hear the Boss of Red Hat say "I want to kill Microsoft"
Did you hear M. Shuttleworth say this?
Have you ever read or heared about the Debian guys, screaming and yelling "lets kill Microsoft"

???

have you?

No you did NOT. Because nobody of these guys wants to kill or beat Microsoft. The only thing, all Linux people want, is: to be acknowledged as a competitor and to drive a competition, based on the needs of the customer.
The first rule is: nobody tells the customer what he needs. The customer tells the vendor what he wants. And the vendor delivers it, if he can. This is choice, competition and innovation.

Your way is monopolism, restriction and regression

[karellen]

this brings another thing for you to think about:

what about Novell, Red Hat, Canonical, IBM and so on?

1. do you really think that the leaders of these companies will agree if someone like you pops up and tells them that they from now on have to work on ONE distro which fits all their individual and the needs of their customers?

2. a customer who has choosen SLED over RHEL has done it because of several reasons. Not because he was confused about all this confusing choice out there.
Why the hell do you think that this particular customer will be satisfied with a distro which is a mix out of SLED, RHEL, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware, Gentoo, Arch, and so on? Maybe additionally when the main feature which was the reason for him to choose SLED is dropped due to complexity?

3. did you ever hear the Boss of Novell say "I want to beat Microsoft"?
did you ever hear the Boss of Red Hat say "I want to kill Microsoft"
Did you hear M. Shuttleworth say this?
Have you ever read or heared about the Debian guys, screaming and yelling "lets kill Microsoft"

???

have you?

No you did NOT. Because nobody of these guys wants to kill or beat Microsoft. The only thing, all Linux people want, is: to be acknowledged as a competitor and to drive a competition, based on the needs of the customer.
The first rule is: nobody tells the customer what he needs. The customer tells the vendor what he wants. And the vendor delivers it, if he can. This is choice, competition and innovation.

Your way is monopolism, restriction and regression

+ for that :)

[Screwdriver0815]

I first didn't understand your stupid reaction about "ONE LEADER", especially since I advised on a democratic meritocratic process as a structure for cooperation.

But than I noticed you are from Germany.

And further you clearly: "Underestimate the potention of Linux in bundling the choices that are now offered within several distro's".
did you read the whole post?

If not, guess what you are?

[JordyD]

The diverse distributions bring the community together and increase development, not decrease it. In all the different distros, they are just packaging together what they like. That is all a distro is. A distro is a box. It doesn't matter for what distro you are developing. If you develop for F-Spot on Ubuntu, you improving F-Spot and helping the people developing F-Spot on Arch or Slackware or any of the other numerous distros using F-Spot. Thus, if we had one distro, we would have one, very boring box. Maybe I don't like this box. I want the stuff in that other box. Just because you want this box does not mean we all should.

Finally, as long as there is somebody that wants that other box and has the freedom to fill it, you can not get them to help fill your own box, and asking them to is just selfish.

[quantum64]

I have found Microsoft products to work well out of the box but customizing it to fit your needs is difficult. Which is why I think so many move to linux. Where would linux be without all the personalized distros?

[JordyD]

[snip]
But than I noticed you are from Germany.
[snip]

I am not from Germany, but I would find this offensive if I was. This is just prejudice.

[karellen]

I am not from Germany, but I would find this offensive if I was. This is just prejudice.

I've noticed that too, but I suppose he's just a bored kid

[overdrank]

I would like to remind all of the Code of Conduct (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy)

[Screwdriver0815]

I am not from Germany, but I would find this offensive if I was. This is just prejudice.
I have no problem with that because I also have provoked him with another saying which he obviously has read but did not understand.

In my eyes he pops up over here and behaves like a dictator who wants to tell people how to do certain things... so I told him about this in a sarcastic way which he did not understand... anyway, he is a kid and a troll... so what.

[Grez]

Getting back to the main thrust of this thread, why would you want to break Microsoft to replace it with another Microsoft?

We've got choice, stability, security and are free of bloat-ware and fast marketing to make a quick buck. That's why many of us like it.

If we ended up pooling the resources and producing one big Linux distro, what happens to Mint, sysresccd, DSL etc? We're looking at one size fits all and that's really what most of the gripes about MS are based on.

I don't want to have the philosophy of "If the lastest release won't drive your scanner then go and get a new one!"

I've got Jaunty running on an 866 MHz box with 512 MB of RAM. XP was sluggish on it and Vista won't even touch it. The danger is that with one distro, Linux will go the same way....

IMHO of course.

[like coffee]

Here's a link since you obviously did'nt read the license.
http://rkvsraman.blogspot.com/2007/10/gpl-for-dummies.html
Notice in particular

4) Re-distribute the modified work as GPL.

This is perhaps the trickiest part to understand. The GPL says that any program that uses GPLed code as a inherent part of it, automatically has to adhere to GPL terms like open sourcecode, modify, re-distribute etc.

Many people would feel that this is unfair. They feel that if they downloaded a code and added value to it they should be able to have total right to the code. This is where they get selfish and hurt the development at large. GPL treats software as wisdom. Wisdom is not something that you own and keep it for yourself. Once you give some advice to somebody, that person is going to use it, modify it and give it to others. Once an advice is given for a particular context, same advice will be modified and re-distributed. Thus you might someday get back the same wisdom that you gave to somebody in a much refined and enriched form which will be good for you too. GPL ensures the same about softwares. Isn't that great?

[Primordial Webdrifter]

this brings another thing for you to think about:

what about Novell, Red Hat, Canonical, IBM and so on?

1. do you really think that the leaders of these companies will agree if someone like you pops up and tells them that they from now on have to work on ONE distro which fits all their individual and the needs of their customers?

2. a customer who has choosen SLED over RHEL has done it because of several reasons. Not because he was confused about all this confusing choice out there.
Why the hell do you think that this particular customer will be satisfied with a distro which is a mix out of SLED, RHEL, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware, Gentoo, Arch, and so on? Maybe additionally when the main feature which was the reason for him to choose SLED is dropped due to complexity?

3. did you ever hear the Boss of Novell say "I want to beat Microsoft"?
did you ever hear the Boss of Red Hat say "I want to kill Microsoft"
Did you hear M. Shuttleworth say this?
Have you ever read or heared about the Debian guys, screaming and yelling "lets kill Microsoft"

???

have you?

No you did NOT. Because nobody of these guys wants to kill or beat Microsoft. The only thing, all Linux people want, is: to be acknowledged as a competitor and to drive a competition, based on the needs of the customer.
The first rule is: nobody tells the customer what he needs. The customer tells the vendor what he wants. And the vendor delivers it, if he can. This is choice, competition and innovation.

Your way is monopolism, restriction and regression

What makes you think that peolpe will flock into one organisation. I think they should at least unite as much as possible. Of course many will not do so. But that doesn't mean there won't be any people wanting to. It's al about vision. If people lack that vision. Than I can't help it. Of course that will mean that the Microsoft's of this world will win and keep monopolizing the market. And Linux will remain a nche market for the few.
If that what the Linux world wants than they are welcome to it.

[Screwdriver0815]

What makes you think that peolpe will flock into one organisation. I think they should at least unite as much as possible. Of course many will not do so. But that doesn't mean there won't be any people wanting to. It's al about vision. If people lack that vision. Than I can't help it. Of course that will mean that the Microsoft's of this world will win and keep monopolizing the market. And Linux will remain a nche market for the few.
If that what the Linux world wants than they are welcome to it.
nothing makes me think that people will flock into one organisation.
If you would read my post and think then you also would realise this and you never would have asked this question (which shows that you are just a kid).

So you say that they have to unite, right? And if they do not want, then you can't help them... what happens to them?
Why do you need to help them?

This is by the way exactly the behaviour of the Leader ;):
thinking that you are the one who saves lifes, brings everything into a better shape, improves things nobody wants to have improved... by forceing people to do things they don't want... but you only want to help...
so even if you grew up (or are still growing) in a democratic country... there is something wrong... I would think about this, if I were you. Trust me, I am experienced with this.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Why do you need to help them?



I don't need to help them, they need to help themselves. If they don't, than Linux will just never beat Microsoft, and lag behind more and more. That means that in the end there will be ONE well developed program from Microsoft and many underdeveloped Linux distro's. At that moment you will choose for Microsoft because it will be by far the best OS out there. But you will have to pay the full price for it and you will never ever have a choice for a better, more for your individual needs suited, OS.

[like coffee]

Given the GNU GPL why do you not see that the distro's are working together already. Any enhancement released in one distro under the GPL can freely be implemented in another distro etc.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Given the GNU GPL why do you not see that the distro's are working together already. Any enhancement released in one distro under the GPL can freely be implemented in another distro etc.

With that I fully agree. But still this does not mean that the allocation of programming capacity is well coordinated.
And also the abundance of distro's confuses most people, hindering them in their choice for Linux.
This keeps money and thus programming capacity away from the Linux world.

[JordyD]

[snip]
If they don't, than Linux will just never beat Microsoft, and lag behind more and more.

As far as I can tell, we don't want to. Diversity is not harming Linux. Did you read my earlier post?

As for lagging behind, Linux has been gaining traction over the last few years, it has been catching up (in fact, I would say it's ahead, which is why I'm using it).

But you will have to pay the full price for it and you will never ever have a choice for a better, more for your individual needs suited, OS.

By creating just one Linux OS, we will just be creating a new Windows. It cannot be suited for individual needs because every individual has different needs, therefore different OSes. If it were not this way, Linux would not exist in the first place.

[JordyD]

With that I fully agree. But still this does not mean that the allocation of programming capacity is well coordinated.

Actually, it is. We have Verison Control Systems, like Git and Bazaar, which coordinate the development of applications. We also have things like Mailing Lists and forums where developers for, say, GNOME, can talk about what is most important and develop for it, no matter what distro they're using.

And also the abundance of distro's confuses most people, hindering them in their choice for Linux.

There is an easy fix for this: research. People may read about all these different distros, but certain adjectives are attributed to specific distros. For example, you may hear that Fedora is the best general use desktop, and that Ubuntu is the easiest to use. Which one of those things do you prefer? The solution to this problem is not restricting freedom or choice, it is providing information on what distro is best for what, which is already done.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

By creating just one Linux OS, we will just be creating a new Windows. It cannot be suited for individual needs because every individual has different needs, therefore different OSes. If it were not this way, Linux would not exist in the first place.

An installation program or online installation support can be made so that people can change their installation according to their needs. They could choose for a lean or for a full installation or one optimised for special purposes. All this from ONE Linux resource.
You don't need several distro's to suite many choices.

[Screwdriver0815]

I don't need to help them, they need to help themselves. If they don't, than Linux will just never beat Microsoft, and lag behind more and more. That means that in the end there will be ONE well developed program from Microsoft and many underdeveloped Linux distro's. At that moment you will choose for Microsoft because it will be by far the best OS out there. But you will have to pay the full price for it and you will never ever have a choice for a better, more for your individual needs suited, OS.
oh no? you don't need to help them? Some posts ago you wanted to force them that they let you help them... maybe now you don't want anymore because I have opened your eyes regarding your dictatory behaviour?

So if you say that Linux is lagging behind... and we all know that you are the one who knows best about all this... then so be it. Linux is behind.
And now? Do you want all Linux users to say the sentence

Linux is lagging behind

three times each evening before going to bed? And if one does not do it, do you want to punish him, maybe with forcing him to use Windows?

Or is maybe the world the same as it was before? And nobody gives a ***** if Linux is behind (which it actually isn't because it is leading)?

[Screwdriver0815]

An installation program or online installation support can be made so that people can change their installation according to their needs. They could choose for a lean or for a full installation or one optimised for special purposes. All this from ONE Linux resource.
You don't need several distro's to suite many choices.
okay, so lets make a decision here. We stop all this with several distros and we make one.

Primordial Webdrifter is responsible. So please come up with a detailed business plan, a timing plan and a feature list.

When will you present these plans and lists??

[izizzle]

When will people understand that Microsoft is not an enemy. There is a difference between a war and a competition....Linux isn't trying to "break" Microsoft. We just wanna let people know that there is something else out there...

Oh, and the whole "Every distro should come together as one" idea is probably the worst idea ever (no offence). The beauty of Linux is that we have so many choices and variety....every distro coming together as one would basically kill the whole idea.

[tcoffeep]

Microsoft dont need breaking, they have contributed a lot. they just have to learn to stop being so greedy.

and they need better customer support. because it freakin sucks ATM.

I couldn't say it any better.

[like coffee]

An installation program or online installation support can be made so that people can change their installation according to their needs. They could choose for a lean or for a full installation or one optimised for special purposes. All this from ONE Linux resource.
You don't need several distro's to suite many choices.

Well that's sort off where were at today :)

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Actually, it is. We have Verison Control Systems, like Git and Bazaar, which coordinate the development of applications. We also have things like Mailing Lists and forums where developers for, say, GNOME, can talk about what is most important and develop for it, no matter what distro they're using.

This coordination is only within the development of one application and talking is about sharing knowledge and not about coordinating programming capacity. There is hardly any coordination of CAPACITY between projects.

There is an easy fix for this: research. People may read about all these different distros, but certain adjectives are attributed to specific distros. For example, you may hear that Fedora is the best general use desktop, and that Ubuntu is the easiest to use. Which one of those things do you prefer? The solution to this problem is not restricting freedom or choice, it is providing information on what distro is best for what, which is already done.

Most people don't even no how to bake an egg. So don expect them to research distro's.
If we want programming capacity to come into the community we need money to come into the community. For that we need to program and market for those who cannot even bake an egg. The "Geek" community will benefit because they will be able to finance their wishes from the economy of scales that come from such a development.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Well that's sort off where were at today :)

Strange, before this you were stating you needed distro's.

[JordyD]

An installation program or online installation support can be made so that people can change their installation according to their needs. They could choose for a lean or for a full installation or one optimised for special purposes. All this from ONE Linux resource.
You don't need several distro's to suite many choices.

That's acceptable, but now where are we? It is the same as having different distros. Now we just have one box that everyone has to hassle with to get what they want. Well, I know, why don't I publish my customisation of this box so that everyone else that wants the same customisation (which is a lot) can just download it here without all this hassle? Well, then I just created a distro.

Development, since it was organized fine in the first place, will continue unhindered and with no benefit.

Plus, which package manager do you use? One person wants apt-get, another wants pacman, and another yet wants yum. do we install from source? Binary? Who decides these things? And what if I want to use yum and RPMs instead of apt-get with DEBs? Do I make another distro using this?

Most people don't even no how to bake an egg. So don expect them to research distro's.
If we want programming capacity to come into the community we need money to come into the community. For that we need to program and market for those who cannot even bake an egg. The "Geek" community will benefit because they will be able to finance their wishes from the economy of scales that come from such a development.

If people want to use Linux, they will research, or get advice from a friend. If people don't want to use Linux, we can't force them, and I don't think it's right that we do. Let them use Windows/Mac if they want to.

[like coffee]

Strange, before this you were stating you needed distro's.

Well Linux is the kernel eg. one source.
And GNU are all programs built around Linux to form an os.

Look at the distro's as choices built around one Linux.

edit: Very simplified and might be very off.

[JordyD]

Well Linux is the kernel eg. one source.
And GNU are all programs built around Linux to form an os.

Look at the dostro's as choices built around one Linux.

This is what I was trying to get at in an earlier post:

Distros are just packaging for the same stuff. Only having one box is not going to improve what gets put inside.

[Screwdriver0815]

That's acceptable, but now where are we? It is the same as having different distros. Now we just have one box that everyone has to hassle with to get what they want. Well, I know, why don't I publish my customisation of this box so that everyone else that wants the same customisation (which is a lot) can just download it here without all this hassle? Well, then I just created a distro.

Development, since it was organized fine in the first place, will continue unhindered and with no benefit.

Plus, which package manager do you use? One person wants apt-get, another wants pacman, and another yet wants yum. do we install from source? Binary? Who decides these things? And what if I want to use yum and RPMs instead of apt-get with DEBs? Do I make another distro using this?



If people want to use Linux, they will research, or get advice from a friend. If people don't want to use Linux, we can't force them, and I don't think it's right that we do. Let them use Windows/Mac if they want to.
no, you just can use the programs, the leader err I mean the webdrifter-something judges as okay.
So if you want to modify pdf's you maybe can do this only by using pdfedit because the leader is not able to use pdftk because of he is lacking knowledge in the command line.

And we only can use one package manager too of course because the leader... err I mean Primordial Webdrifter tells us which is the right one.

Because he says that this is best for us. So we should believe him. Because we have to beat Microsoft.

... *voice from behind* "but I don't want to beat Microsoft" ... shut up! You have to! The leader ... err I mean Primordial Webdrifter (I don't know why I always say leader... sorry for that) wants us to do this so we have to, because otherwise we will stay the same as we are

*voice from behind* "but its okay, like it is now" ... shut up! the leader err I mean Primordial Webdrifter says it is not okay! He knows best about all this so we have to change this.

*voice from behind* "but why?"
... don't ask! He knows, and when we do it like he wants to then everything will be fine

*voice from behind* "but I don't want to" ... shut up! You have to! Otherwise you are not allowed to use Linux anymore!

*voice from behind* "so what... then I will create my own... or I use another system"

...

does anyone see... that freedom can not be narrowed, without looking really stupid? And that freedom can not be narrowed in general?

[Primordial Webdrifter]

That's acceptable, but now where are we? It is the same as having different distros. Now we just have one box that everyone has to hassle with to get what they want. Well, I know, why don't I publish my customisation of this box so that everyone else that wants the same customisation (which is a lot) can just download it here without all this hassle? Well, then I just created a distro.

Development, since it was organized fine in the first place, will continue unhindered and with no benefit.

Plus, which package manager do you use? One person wants apt-get, another wants pacman, and another yet wants yum. do we install from source? Binary? Who decides these things? And what if I want to use yum and RPMs instead of apt-get with DEBs? Do I make another distro using this?



If people want to use Linux, they will research, or get advice from a friend. If people don't want to use Linux, we can't force them, and I don't think it's right that we do. Let them use Windows/Mac if they want to.

Within my concept you could of course offer people fully customized distro's and thus change from one distro into the another fully automated. But you would also give them the possibility of creating their own without the dificulties that would give you now. All supported from ONE single resource on the internet (Or maybe in larger organisations from a private server running it?).

This would greatly enhance the choices people have, if only because it will be so much easier to implement changes.

The profit for the Linux society comes from the better marketing possibilities of the Linux platform and from the money flowing into the community from that. Also it would make coordination of development capacity better and thus development more effective and faster.

[Screwdriver0815]

Within my concept you could of course offer people fully customized distro's and thus change from one distro into the another fully automated. But you would also give them the possibility of creating their own without the dificulties that would give you now. All supported from ONE single resource on the internet (Or maybe in larger organisations from a private server running it?).

This would greatly enhance the choices people have, if only because it will be so much easier to implement changes.

The profit for the Linux society comes from the better marketing possibilities of the Linux platform and from the money flowing into the community from that. Also it would make coordination of development capacity better and thus development more effective and faster.
so, repeating my question:

when will you come up with a timing plan, a business plan and a feature list??

When you present these, please provide your funding concept too.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

no, you just can use the programs, the leader err I mean the webdrifter-something judges as okay.
So if you want to modify pdf's you maybe can do this only by using pdfedit because the leader is not able to use pdftk because of he is lacking knowledge in the command line.

And we only can use one package manager too of course because the leader... err I mean Primordial Webdrifter tells us which is the right one.

Because he says that this is best for us. So we should believe him. Because we have to beat Microsoft.

... *voice from behind* "but I don't want to beat Microsoft" ... shut up! You have to! The leader ... err I mean Primordial Webdrifter (I don't know why I always say leader... sorry for that) wants us to do this so we have to, because otherwise we will stay the same as we are

*voice from behind* "but its okay, like it is now" ... shut up! the leader err I mean Primordial Webdrifter says it is not okay! He knows best about all this so we have to change this.

*voice from behind* "but why?"
... don't ask! He knows, and when we do it like he wants to then everything will be fine

*voice from behind* "but I don't want to" ... shut up! You have to! Otherwise you are not allowed to use Linux anymore!

*voice from behind* "so what... then I will create my own... or I use another system"

...

does anyone see... that freedom can not be narrowed, without looking really stupid? And that freedom can not be narrowed in general?

I am not going into this very much, since it ridiculess without any ground and makes clear that you do not crasp the concept.

[Primordial Webdrifter]

so, repeating my question:

when will you come up with a timing plan, a business plan and a feature list??

When you present these, please provide your funding concept too.

It was an idea for improvement, I have no wish to run the Linux society. The Linux society should run itself, be it Perish or Survive.

[Screwdriver0815]

I am not going into this very much, since it ridiculess without any ground and makes clear that you do not crasp the concept.
ah yes, I am sure that I do. What else do you mean?

- you want to beat Microsoft with Linux (something nearly nobody wants)

- you want to narrow choice for the user

thats what I have illustrated. Its not more ridiculous than your ideas and statements.

ah and I forgot:

repeating my question:

when will you come up with a timing plan, a business plan and a feature list??

When you present these, please provide your funding concept too.

[Screwdriver0815]

It was an idea for improvement, I have no wish to run the Linux society. The Linux society should run itself, be it Perish or Survive.
so do you allow the Linux society to do it like they want it? But this means that there will be a bunch of Distro's out there... which is growing... and they don not want to kill Microsoft...they just want to compete with each other and with Microsoft and Apple... Hopefully you can stand and accept this...

[Primordial Webdrifter]

ah yes, I am sure that I do. What else do you mean?

- you want to beat Microsoft with Linux (something nearly nobody wants)

- you want to narrow choice for the user

thats what I have illustrated. Its not more ridiculous than your ideas and statements.

ah and I forgot:

epeating my question:

when will you come up with a timing plan, a business plan and a feature list??

When you present these, please provide your funding concept too.

We are not going to agree on this. Just keep doing what you are doing and see who was right in about, let's say, 25 years or so. Bye.

[rshprd]

I sort of have to agree with most of the replies.

There really is no need to "break" Microsoft, I think they are doing a pretty damn good job of that themselves. But as one poster said, I have a choice so who really cares. OS like Ubuntu and other Linux/Unix system will catch on as Microsoft's lack of quality and more important, greed, continues.

Not to mention the best advertisement is not bashing the "competition" but rather by showing performance. There is a saying, "the best revenge is success".

I don't care for Microsoft but have to admit that some of their stuff is ok. Nevertheless, I don't feel the need to attack them or do anything to "bring them down". Also, diversity of the Linux/Unix OS is a good thing, it keeps us from creating another Microsoft.

Just My 2 Cents



I want to make a statement and see how many of you agree.
And if you agree, what actions do you propose to BREAK MICROSOFT.

STATEMENT:

The ONLY reason that Microsoft rules and Linux has a hard time defeating Microsoft is because the Linux world is hopelessly devided in dozens of groups that believe they can make the best distibution of Linux or Linux Applications. If all would organize within ONE single organisation of volenteer programmers and this organisation would hold an effective democratic process of well structured and well informed decision making to which everybody would commit then we could easely BREAK Microsoft.

ALL FOR ONE & ONE FOR ALL !!!

[Primordial Webdrifter]

Breaking Microsoft is not the same as bringing them down. And you also did not crasp the flexibility of my concept. But as I said, I'm out of here. Going to use my time more productively.

[P1umb3r]

It was an idea for improvement, I have no wish to run the Linux society. The Linux society should run itself, be it Perish or Survive.

It has survived since the '80s, I don't think its in any danger...

[K.Y.A]

Haha, break Microsoft?

They are going to break themselves, unless they figure out better business tactics.

GNU/Linux is good the way it is. Improving, evolving, letting other companies legally steal our ideas.

Use it. Enjoy it. Don't whine that everybody uses something else.


For example, you and your friends have the only rocket car that can go into space and back. Would you want to kill Ford, GMC, etc, because of their business tactics and the fact that they are more popular? Wouldn't you want to keep to yourself? Start attracting attention, and bad things happen. Along with that good things, too.

[Dragonbite]

There is an easy fix for this: research.
And LUGs and other advocacy methods and public awareness programs (without preaching, please).

An installation program or online installation support can be made so that people can change their installation according to their needs. They could choose for a lean or for a full installation or one optimised for special purposes. All this from ONE Linux resource.
You don't need several distro's to suite many choices. Well that's sort off where were at today :)

Actually that DOES exist. SUSE Studio (http://susestudio.com/) allows you to Build an appliance — or your own custom Linux distro — with a few mouse clicks. Customize it to your heart's content, and share it with the world!

I haven't fooled around with it much yet, but what little I did collect in a project looks very promising and it is only time that has kept me from using it too much.

Then there is also the openSUSE Build Service (https://build.opensuse.org/) which The openSUSE Build Service (https://build.opensuse.org/). is an open and complete distribution development platform that provides a transparent infrastructure for development of the openSUSE distribution.

The openSUSE Build Service is the only service that allows developers to package software for all major Linux distributions. The service provides software developers with a convenient and easy to use tool to create and release open source software for openSUSE and other Linux distributions on different hardware architectures and for a broad user audience.

So in a way, the "one distro" concept framework is more easily attainable and is being built. Start your own "perfect" distro!

[raymondh]

I say "live and let live"

We all have the choice as to which OS or distro to use.

[Screwdriver0815]

But as I said, I'm out of here. Going to use my time more productively.
great Idea!!!

[sh228]

Most people don't even no how to bake an egg. So don expect them to research distro's.
If we want programming capacity to come into the community we need money to come into the community. For that we need to program and market for those who cannot even bake an egg. The "Geek" community will benefit because they will be able to finance their wishes from the economy of scales that come from such a development.

Generally, people do know how to bake an egg. Don't use the "people are stupid" argument without the expectation that this will just become a flaming competition.
To research a distro, all you need to know how to do is type. You go to google and type in "Linux os" or something like that.

PS: You need a spell checker.

[CJ Master]

Begin the level by disabling the force feild and jumping into the ammo shack, fill up on ammo. The Redmond Ninjas will be patrolling the area, so be cautious. Run up to the tower of doom and use the beamer to beam to the enemy ship. Once there go through the door. You will see the sentient glass-like lifeform that they enemy has made called "microsoft." Intel belives that they named this sarcastically, as it is very large and very hard. You must hit it with the bazooka! After 5 launches, it will break. Mission complete!

[Sealbhach]

When will people understand that Microsoft is not an enemy.

I wish you could go back in time and tell that to Netscape.

.

[starcannon]

I feel no need to break that which for me was already broken.
I use what works for me, I expect others will follow suit; if that is MS Windows, Mac OSX, or some form of Linux or BSD, or even Minix, /shrug, none of it matters; so long as I am free to use what works for me I say let everyone else eat cake.