Only, I wish for us Power Pack subscribers, they'd provide more then just 1 mirror that's out of France.
Estimated time of completion, 24 hours 26 minutes.
The "problem" with too many choices is that not one will be able to develop a large userbase.
Obviously, if the hardware works great with a distro there is no need to upgrade to the newer version. But when Mandriva 2009 is released, it is pretty obvious that no new linux enthusiast will consider Mandriva 2008. Had Mandrive released a patch to upgrade any older version to the latest version, while avoiding to release a proper Mandriva 2009, the number of users using a particular OS would have been larger. A larger userbase would lead to greater interest among develops to cater to that distro.
This fragmentation is good for only one party. And sometime I wonder if that party is encouraging frequent releases to splinter the Linux movement.
Blah, blah, blah...Same point being raised over and over again about diversity not helping Linux adoption. (Although in the context of distros, the fundamental argument is the same).
Guess what?! The model that Linux is operating isn't about market share. Its about contributing something that all can share. Its about providing a free solution (in both monetary and liberty sense) to your fellow man.
Only people who have been so used to living under such a traditional business model, worries about market share, adoption numbers, user base, and the like.
The intent isn't to dominate some market or the world. It never has been. Only Microsoft and Apple think in those terms. (When one think in those terms, they're only interested in selling something. Often regardless of quality.)
Take a step back and look at how the community works. You'll soon realise it operates in a model completely foreign to what most people think.
I loaded the spring 2008 with KDE and like Ubuntu with Gnome better. I may have to download this (use my Mac to burn the ISO) to have a look at the new KDE desktop, oops downloading now.
htnakirs wrote:
>The "problem" with too many choices is that not
> one will be able to develop a large userbase
Imagine applying your statement to the car market: "the problem with too many choices of car models is that not one will be able to develop a large userbase". Is that a problem? No it isn't. Imagine if 90% of us drove the same model of car, while those who chose something different were considered odd or unusual risk-takers.
The reason why the proprietary software market is dominated by one party is because that's the only way proprietary software can survive. Free software comes in so many different versions and combinations precisely because all those versions and combinations are not that expensive to develop, distribute and support. That's fundamental economics, which is never going to change.
You invalidate your own comments. The very fact that what you're railing against is such a hot topic proves it IS in fact on the minds of Linux promoters. If that weren't the case, per your logic, you would have nothing to comment about. Ipso Facto: the "condition" prevails; therefore, you made comments.
I think you're missing the point, from a Linux standpoint, "market share" is a euphemism for "user base". And one expressed concern is that of dilution: many distros means fewer users per distro. And the logic follows that fewer user per distro equal smaller "market share" which translates as a weakened "user base".
Say what you will about MS, they understood this years ago and went to a "support one OS at a time" business model. And never think Linux is not a business. It might not be a "for profit" business but it fits a general definition of "business". And some think the Linux "business" is too diverse to succeed as it could with more concentrated and focused efforts.
Soon enough, Android will put all the penguins in a row , Linux will become an organized platform, and finally be a viable OS alternative to the masses.
Nothing else in Linux will matter.
Only, I wish for us Power Pack subscribers, they'd provide more then just 1 mirror that's out of France. Estimated time of completion, 24 hours 26 minutes.
Mandriva is my favourite distribution
The "problem" with too many choices is that not one will be able to develop a large userbase. Obviously, if the hardware works great with a distro there is no need to upgrade to the newer version. But when Mandriva 2009 is released, it is pretty obvious that no new linux enthusiast will consider Mandriva 2008. Had Mandrive released a patch to upgrade any older version to the latest version, while avoiding to release a proper Mandriva 2009, the number of users using a particular OS would have been larger. A larger userbase would lead to greater interest among develops to cater to that distro. This fragmentation is good for only one party. And sometime I wonder if that party is encouraging frequent releases to splinter the Linux movement.
Blah, blah, blah...Same point being raised over and over again about diversity not helping Linux adoption. (Although in the context of distros, the fundamental argument is the same). Guess what?! The model that Linux is operating isn't about market share. Its about contributing something that all can share. Its about providing a free solution (in both monetary and liberty sense) to your fellow man. Only people who have been so used to living under such a traditional business model, worries about market share, adoption numbers, user base, and the like. The intent isn't to dominate some market or the world. It never has been. Only Microsoft and Apple think in those terms. (When one think in those terms, they're only interested in selling something. Often regardless of quality.) Take a step back and look at how the community works. You'll soon realise it operates in a model completely foreign to what most people think.
I loaded the spring 2008 with KDE and like Ubuntu with Gnome better. I may have to download this (use my Mac to burn the ISO) to have a look at the new KDE desktop, oops downloading now.
htnakirs wrote: >The "problem" with too many choices is that not > one will be able to develop a large userbase Imagine applying your statement to the car market: "the problem with too many choices of car models is that not one will be able to develop a large userbase". Is that a problem? No it isn't. Imagine if 90% of us drove the same model of car, while those who chose something different were considered odd or unusual risk-takers. The reason why the proprietary software market is dominated by one party is because that's the only way proprietary software can survive. Free software comes in so many different versions and combinations precisely because all those versions and combinations are not that expensive to develop, distribute and support. That's fundamental economics, which is never going to change.
You invalidate your own comments. The very fact that what you're railing against is such a hot topic proves it IS in fact on the minds of Linux promoters. If that weren't the case, per your logic, you would have nothing to comment about. Ipso Facto: the "condition" prevails; therefore, you made comments. I think you're missing the point, from a Linux standpoint, "market share" is a euphemism for "user base". And one expressed concern is that of dilution: many distros means fewer users per distro. And the logic follows that fewer user per distro equal smaller "market share" which translates as a weakened "user base". Say what you will about MS, they understood this years ago and went to a "support one OS at a time" business model. And never think Linux is not a business. It might not be a "for profit" business but it fits a general definition of "business". And some think the Linux "business" is too diverse to succeed as it could with more concentrated and focused efforts.
Approximately 12 minutes to complete from http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/mandrake/official/iso/2009.0
Soon enough, Android will put all the penguins in a row , Linux will become an organized platform, and finally be a viable OS alternative to the masses. Nothing else in Linux will matter.