I think a more appropriate tile might have been “we have met the enemy and he is us”. “Us” being some 362 acive distros followed on DistroWatch.org with 192 on the waiting list. Having choices may be good but too much is well, too much. Consider the effort that goes into the packaging, programing, customizing and releasing all these different versions and what that effort could accomplish if it was focused on a considerably smaller number.

Ubuntu is easiest to upgrade and plays well with others. Mandriva has better hardware support. Suse has the coolest desktop, but doesn’t play well with windows and other distros. Fedora doesn’t play well with other distros, either.

Linux distros need plug and play wireless support and native cross-platform ability.

If Ubuntu can solve the wireless compatibility problems and incorporate cross-platform capability, then Windows won’t continue to share space on my personal machine.

The other than base system would be our choice of KDE, GNOME, or other software.

As far as illegal software, my understanding is that it is not illegal for use, but to distribute, and that latter limitation depends on the country of origin. So, livna, freshrpms and the other sites are offshore from the USA and are perfectly legal in their country. And as far as I know, it is perfectly legal for me to download from these sites.

Diversity and choice are strengths and the raw material of versatility. If you need to be told what to do or need to have one single choice in order to make the right decision, then you are a fool. Linux is not for fools.

Vive la difference!

As for commercial apps being better than their open source counterparts? So what? Let enterprises use VMware or whatever. Xen will catch up, of course, but it’s not a stopping point for deployment.

It doesn’t matter whether there are 500+ distros. A good portion are specialized and already becoming the default for their niches.

I know from first hand experience that the only users that have trouble adapting to Linux on the desktop are the power users. “Normal” users need maybe a week or so to get acclimated. The real impedance to adoption is in the minds of management. And as we all know, management does not like change.

as a side note to belltoller, wireless is extremely easy on any Linux box. You just get an
ASUS WL-330gE Wireless Access Point, or something similar, and you’ll never have wireless access problems again.

Joe

P.S. Who is the Witch and how did she die?

Anyway, the whole point of open source is that it’s a bazaar not a cathedral (credit Eric Raymond). The variety and choice is necessary because what open source is really doing is innovating. The best way to innovate is to just try a whole bunch of stuff and eventually you’ll get something that’s better than what you have.

Open source isn’t about toppling Microsoft or your favorite proprietary nemesis. It’s about innovating. Yes, it’s inefficient and messy and uncoordinated. That’s the point.

I’m not saying that Linux should be more like Windows or the Mac. What I’m saying is that people who are migrating from those platforms need their “equivalent functionality” and those equivalent applications and features needs to be as robust and well-designed as their Windows and Mac counterparts, otherwise there is little impetus to migrate to Linux as a desktop platform in the first place

After all if I have to learn a new way of working why not do it with Linux as least this way I can have it my way, so thanks M$ I’m back to having fun again and I just remembered how much fun learning is.

Flavors, the more the better keep ‘em coming, each of us can have our own, as for “Office” so soon we forget about Lotus Symphony, Word Perfect, and M$ Word and how well they worked together, NOT! so what else is new.

Remember even a “MAC” is a pc. LMAO

The witch I am referring to has its corporate headquarters in Lindon, Utah. :)

Oh well. Each to their own – diversity and brains to me.

I find the argument that because there’s so much more diversity that Linux is less of a worm or virus target. It’s much more logical to say that because of the Linux/Unix style architecture where applications are treated as applications and not welded into the underpinnings of the OS (and because the OS is Open Source, thus allowing a faster fix turn around time) that it’s more secure, not due to the diversity. You could just as easily say Solaris 10/OpenSolaris is as secure as Linux, or even the BSDs, because they are Open and have a Unix architecture, not because they have diversity.

Would this be the same Ransom I know and Love? Good to see you — and I always thought UnitedLinux was a great idea ahead of its time.

It might go down in history as a threat that never really had any fangs, but it was a huge distraction in time and financial resources, and it had a significant impact on those enterprise environments which had concerns that they too would be litigated or inherit legal problems by moving to Linux. Many environments didn’t care, but a lot did.