If open source architecture is financially undersupported, then why is it still around?
Read The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
Regarding one main repo there's nothing to stop is being mirrored anywhere to prevent outages but it needs to be common amongst distro's as does software compatibility. And again your comments just show that to are a user with a higher understanding that most users will ever obtain. Just grabbing some RPM packages there you go you've lost them already they won't do that they don't want to do that their PC is a tool not their job or their hobby or something that really interests them. The average user is NOT INTO COMPUTERS. You seem to be completely missing the point I made. For 99% of home users this is too much hassle.
Then there's the business case yes you could train them to use Linux quite easily but therein lies another problem if you're a business with 1000 employee's what do you the costs of implementing and maintaining Linux as a server and Linux on your desktop are? Do you think they are free? They actually cost more to deploy than Windows once scaled up you have training costs, deployment and maintenance costs running a Linux network requires a different skill set and then there's compatibility with other systems and file formats.
Until Linux can do everything Windows does better than Windows does and easier and simpler for totally non technical people then it will not gain ground.
Aha but the max OS is a BSD derivative I hear you say yep it is and it's on the most expensive home computers you can buy. People initially buy macs mostly as a status symbol first and as a computer second. Linux is OSX's poor relative and until it can shake that PR image it's be held back and it's got that PR image from being FREE.
Brian
You are ignoring that the average user on a closed system evolves a very different behavioral pattern than one on a free one. FOSS is based around community interaction. A commercial closed product on support. Community interaction within an open platform does only help the average user. It actually educates him in both knowledge and self-sufficiency when it come to the technology he uses. As a result his needs, skill and wishes shift radically and you cannot really compare him to an average user on a closed environment that his knowledge is saturated and limited by the dependence on the monopoly of developer on the product he uses.
Plus i think you underestimate the easy of use of current linux distros. And the reason why things like windows seem easier to use.
I've already answered that. Open source has it place and always will and there are some great benefits of open source but the mere fact that it's open is its downfall or why is closed so dominant and open so minor?
Most users don't want to be part of the community again you are missing the point I drink milk in the mornings doesn't mean I want to run a farm and milk a cow every day.
You have no concept of the average user to you the average user is a computer nerd this is simply not the case. You are looking at this from your own view point and not that of the average person on the street. Try doing tech support for a job you will understand how little the average user cares for computers they simply do not.
Brian
The current gen of Linux distro's are far far slicker than even a year to two ago but the gaming support is still hampered. Try Mint or Ubuntu and install steam out of my library I get manybe 15-20 titles that run on Linux and I think all but 1 is a valve game. Go Go Steam OS. Not...
Iâm sorry, this post was solely a reply to RazorLR1s post. And I am sorry if I made the impression of an angry Linuxfanboy to you.
As I wrote in my first post: it might be the case that Linux does not fit your needs / the needs of many users. And this is perfectly fine. But why have this discussion at all? I mostly see complaints about Linux all under the flag of âWhy I use Windowsâ. I donât get what you try to accomplish with this thread.
What do you miss in Windows so that you want Linux as an alternative?
Why not just stay with Windows if it works for you?
And just for protocol:
I think this is the main reason for this discussion (in general, not just in this thread).
I disagree with this statement and other people agree with it. But this is not a really constructive argument.
I installed ALL codecs with that. The average user will open the "Music" app and the first time it tries to play an MP3 File it will say that they need an extra, and if you want to download it (same happens with Videos app). You click ok, it installs and plays the mp3. no big deal. Having all in one place is just for convenience, since I don't have to wait for the install for each specific codec.
It reads: * "Banshee Media Player needs an additional plugin to read this file. The next file is needed: MPEG.... (mp3)
Do you want to search for it now?" *
after you click "Search" you are asked for your admin pass and the codec is installed automatically, then the file starts playing.
@RazorLR1
Yeah these are actually working pretty well. I've tested several distros and this one is the most stable regarding propietary drivers. It's not bleeding edge though, you get version 331 of the nVidia drivers, but they are around 80% of the performance I get on Windows.
Screenshot: Witcher 2 maxed @ 1080 (without AA) running at 40fps in town (flotsam square?)
I could get it up to 60fps if I tweak the settings but I didn't have time for it yet. Besides I already finished W2 a long time ago and I downloaded it expecting to play with the Full Combat Rebalance mod.
The only consistent problem I have with these drivers is that sometimes Vsync doesn't work and I get some tearing. For example on Warframe (under Wine) the fast pace makes the tearing really noticeable. But hey, Even a year ago I wouldn't have dreamed of this performance on Linux!
Being part of a community is a more healthy social relationship than commercial support. That is strictly my opinion indeed but i do believe in this full heartily. Easy it is not , but that does not mean it cannot be beneficial to everyone.
You claim you know the average user needs but you basically treat them as monkeys that they can never learn thus you have it dumb down everything even though this sacrifices many freedoms and learning potential. That is really patronizing and cruel way of treating other people. A very high horse you are rinding there.
Closed environments does not give to the average user the options to be anything more than what the developer of the product wants him to. My opinion is, and indeed it is only mine, that people can always improve if given the option. Whether they want to or not its their choice. But you do not have the right to remove the option from them and then claim they are just average and they will never require anything else than what is given. Streamlining and user-friendliness (which is massively important) without removing this ability to learn can only be accomplished within an open environment. Windows and apple cannot provide that and if anything they impact things towards the opposite direction.
Because I want there to be an alternative to Windows and I want Linux to do the things I need it to so that alternative can become a reality. And if all the feedback Linux gets is of fan boys blowing smoke up it's ass telling it that the world is rosey then it will never see a different point of view. People need to feedback of the users that don't use their products not the ones that do.
I am staying with Windows that was the point of the post for my daily driver but I also have a Linux box as well mostly to keep in touch.
And you can disagree with my statement about Windows but in 20 years Linux has improved greatly it's still the smallest used OS on the desktop why is that? Because it hasn't addressed the things it needs to it's address the thing to computer nerds think it should be which is why the average person on the street doesn't touch it. It can be as technically brilliant as you like but until non computer people can do everything they need to simply they won't use it.
Because Linux is not just another better product.
Because using, developing and operating in a FOSS environment whether you are a private user or a businesses comes with a completely different way of seeing things and a completely different production method. It requires a cultural difference and shift. Especially when the traditional side of closed source has already monopolized the field and the market before FOSS even existed and develped (android for example that operated in a more or less virgin territory had a much easier time dominating the market). These things do not happen in a day. They happen and change gradually.
They are monkeys when it comes to computers they really are they use computers in their day jobs and the post pictures of their cats on facebook and that's them happy. I'm not saying they are dumb I'm saying they don't want to learn this stuff, again you miss the point completely. Having done tech support for a long time and working with customers for even longer I'm not insulting anyone when I say they're not a computer nerd. Most people agree because you like computers you think everyone does and the vast majority do not. Ipad sales alone should prove this to you, users like nice safe walled gardens where they don't have to be a technician and they're spoon fed as much as possible. People are not dumb they are brilliant they are artists, composers, writers, photographers, movie makers, fly fishermen, dog trainers, hairdressers insert any number of abilities here you like what they are not is computer nerds and to them a computer is a tool like a hair dryer or paint brush nothing more. Again you are failing to see how your knowledge and skillset it not transferred to the average user. I'm not insulting anyone I'm just saying THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED in how it works only that it does. And you can not like closed environments as much as you like Apples $90Billion in the bank shows you that most people disagree with you. And clearly your comment about learning only being possible in an open environment is wrong 95% of people learned Windows/IOS to a greater or is most cases lesser degree.
I still donât get why you need Linux as an alternative. I am not even sure if most people do. Maybe thats the reason why Linux isnât so successful on the Desktop for 20 years? Maybe there is no real need for this. So again: why this discussion? Why this thread?
Linux serves well for scientific computing, servers, on clusters, supercomptuers, embedded systems, mobile devices, whatever. Itâll become more important in the future if you ask me, but this is a statement of software in a whole, not just for the Desktop part. You might be right, that Linux doesnât fit to the needs of most (Desktop-)consumers. So be it.
BUT with this approach you are always consumer. You never really learn how things work under the hood. You just get a blurred picture which is distorted through corporate secrets. If you donât want to spend your time on this topic and just use â Again: this is perfectly fine!
The momentary campaign for Linux here is, as I said, of educational nature. Chances are that many people in this community benefit from that. But this does not mean that you are forced to change or share the opinion. If Windows fits to your needs the best, stay there! Itâs okay!
I really would appreciate if you would stop being so polemic.
edit:
my biggest issue with this thread is, that you are trying to come to general conclusions from your own experience.
Your opinion is noted. Our main disagreement is basically that we see people with a very different light i guess.
20 years isn't long enough clearly.
Androids dominance came not from it being free or open source (you still need a google licence agreement) but from google pumping in an enormous amount of money and development time to unify a fragments echo system base so that it could sell adverts for commercial gain. If you think Android is a free OS you're mistaken google owns it and controls it and makes money hand over fist from it. Android was a completely commercial operation from the get go.
I don't want to remove the option from anyone who wishes to learn I'm merely pointing out that to the ipad set most of what you call learning they call unnecessary. Imagine having to drop to a shell to get your lightening sd card reader to work or having to recompile a driver to make your Apple TV to work users are not interested and you've lost them. Apple has done a brilliant job in shielding their users from all that and users have responded by buying bazillions of Apple phones and tablets showing that that is how they like it. Apple understand that the experience is more important than the tool and if you have to spend time making the tool work properly you will most likely just use another tool. If spoon feeding them gets more people into computers fantastic that can only be a good thing for us nerds but the vast majority of users are these users and not users like you and I. I'm not saying don't give people options or restrict their ability to learn but most people would rather learn how to play an instrument reading a musical score off their computer screen than spend that same time making their computer work so that they can even display the scores to start with (an oversimplification I know).
Why do you have such an aggressive stance towards any post that even mildly supports Linux?
Believe it or not, I use Windows on my main rig too. The reason? Games and Autodesk applications ( I am a mechanical engineering student ). You used the word "average", and I assumed it had a meaning similar to casual. Word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, listening to music and movie watching, are nothing but average and casual usage. You can do such things in phones and tablets too!
I didn't just consider it better than XP. XP were just fine for my brother's and sister's usage scenarios. But they aren't supported anymore, Mint was free, and had what they needed. So, why not?
No, my point is that open source is *not* financially undersupported... Open source ideology has been around since the 80's, and hasn't gone away. You would think that an open-source developer would realize that he's not making any money - therefore, there must be some sort of monetary gain with going open-source.
That's what we call an opinion, or a great question to ask in order to look at the ideologies and sociologies (which is well covered in the book, but since you seem so stubborn, I digress).
The simple reason that the proprietary model is more common spread is that it's a more traditional business model by conventional standards. Development environments (generally speaking; software consoles, target packages like Gnome or KDE, etc.) are served developer first, then consumer. It states the sort of tautology that the easiest option is the most popular one. This is referring to development as a business rather than a meritocracy, as the open-source ideology is based on. Microsoft and Apple can and have achieved a successful business model because they operate under the traditional business model, which is easy for the average consumer to understand and easy to shove money at. Meritocracies are understandably harder to understand and predict, and depending on how open they are, also harder to throw money at - sort of like charity.
A good example of a meritocracy in action is Valve. They're not strictly open-source, but if you have never read anything about their structure, there are only employees, no managers. It is essentially a closed meritocracy, as you are evidently paid the same as everyone else, but you can get kicked out for whatever reason or another. It's easy to say that they're not the same since they actually produce proprietary products (despite being available on all platforms, typically), but the point is that the system works on different levels. Inside the business itself, it functions on the same principles that open source runs on, and it works for them.
As for how any given project can make money, there are a few different ways. Commonly, there is a optional donation. A lot of projects adopt this with varying degrees of success. Kickstarter could be seen as a variant of this concept.
The second option is with sponsors. Some open-source projects may be supported by certain companies (like the OpenSSL project) to continue development or support.
The third is merchandise, in case a project's users are dedicated enough to want to flaunt it.
The fourth is through selling the product itself (yes, you can do that with open source), for sale value, or selling support for it. This may be done by some sort of subscription model (by dates or versions [more commonly]).
These are the four most common ways to get money as an open source project. While Tek Syndicate is not strictly open source, it does implement the first three options and seems to be doing well. (sponsors=tek support and other companies at times.) In fact, they're even contributing back to the community in more than content, with giveaways and a bonus for creating a t-shirt design that they use. Almost every other open source project will have some way to contribute to it. Keep in mind that, as a developer, you don't need to stick with just one project. You can take up multiple projects, both contributing more to the meritocracy (which is beneficial to the community) and having the potential to make more money. Essentially, you are more likely to get more by doing more.
Technically, yes, any sort of project could die without support, which is totally possible. It has happened. It is probable that either there wasn't a dependency on that project, no demand as it may not have been unique, or just outlived its necessary development, or the leader of that project decided to move on and no one picked it up. In all cases, it's about a lack of demand. Some people are smart enough to recognize that if they don't donate to projects at all, they may as well stop being projects, thus as demand increases, the funding does as well. Fertile projects conjure fertile funds. You don't need to demand to the customer their loyalty if your existence is demanded by the customer already.
My last thought is that open source must exist in the face of proprietary projects. There might exist a world where the traditional model "wins", but open source never really goes away. Without open source, it makes it a lot harder to share and learn from each other, and by obvious means to help debug and support. While it does encourage competition, it devalues the sort of meritocracy that open source projects thrive in, and developers are less about contributing to the community and more-so just about existing, living, being able to have a stable income, as you said. While the implications of poor development are inline with the companies work, it puts more effort on the making money part of things rather than the making great code. While the two major points are still there, the intents are backwards. If you don't understand why this is an issue, that's fine - it's just that, you will never understand open source development.
The android reference was an example of how a new technology product can much easily dominate in a relatively virgin market. While Linux on desktop does not have the same advantage.
As I only have my experiences these are I'm afraid all I can draw on, having dealt with users, devs and customers for some 23 years now both in development (spending months optimizing ui's) and support I can only base my judgements on what I have experienced.
I am not trying to change anyone's opinion about using Linux in fact my opinion is that there are barriers to entry that would benefit Linux as a whole and the community if they were fixed. You seem to think by pointing out potentials whereby Linux could improve and make itself more appealing to non technical users I am anti-Linux which I am not. I posted this in the Windows section of the forum especially to not anger the Linux section. Isn't it weird how it's ok to post Linux is great Windows sux in the Linux section and no one cares but post a positive Windows thread in the Windows section offer some pointers of areas that Linux my benefit from by improving and people go nuts :)
Academia has always leaned toward Linux/Unix as the people generally working in this field tend to be working a lot of the time on theoretical and bleeding edge dev projects where there may be no obvious commercial benefit (blue skies research) and are more open to the 'free' mentality because they are not constrained by the commercial realities of business. As a Learning tool being open source is invaluable but commercially this is a problem. I'm all for people learning what's under the hood but the reality is that 99.9% of users don't want that experience.
And my biggest problem with this thread is that you are doing EXACTLY the same thing.
And surely every time you reply you're being as polemic as I am?