Robin 'Roblimo' Miller wrote:
>> What other IP to they really have? This is what has always amazed me
>> about commercial Linux distributions. The installer is where 90% of
>> their support calls come from. The more "secret sauce" they pour into
>> the installer, the fewer support calls they will tend to get. Distro
>> producers make their money on selling a supported package - if an
>> OpenSource project came along that would remove most of the need for
>> their valuable support, what differentiates them from their competitors?
>
> What differentiates one car from another if they're both powered by
> fuel-injected Otto-cycle gas engines? Why have both Cadillacs and
> Chevrolets -- or both pickup trucks and sedans -- made by the same
> company? Or more than one car company at all, since all their products
> are based on the same engineering?
Marketing. Appealing to the wants and needs of the masses. Supply and
demand. Commercialism. Nothing wrong with it.
If you can identify a need, and fulfil the need well, people will pay
for it.
From an Engineering perspective, they're almost all KDE or Gnome based
desktops with some proprietary/commercial software addons. Underneath,
it's the same kernel, same GPLed tools, same LSB layout - throughout.
I guess what I was trying to say is: if a 100% OpenSourced community
distribution can fulfil 99.9% of a commercial distribution - what is the
driving force behind having commercial distributions? I've never been
much of a fan of paying for Linux distributions to begin with.
Commercial distributions offer:
0. A customized kernel
1. An installer
2. Support
3. Testing
4. Customized GPLed packages
5. Additional proprietary/commercial packages
I can understand paying for #2, and the quality aspects of #3. I can
understand paying for #5. I cannot, myself, understand why #0, #1, and
#4 are really neccesary - if the community can standardize on something
common to all distributions.
Not that I don't mind revolutionary ideas. I really like Darwin's
filesystem layout, for example. The arcane Unix style LSB conventions
really could use an overhaul, IMHO.
> Let's start with a premise alien to many old-school Linux users and most
> programmers, but well-known to auto marketers: The trim and paint are
> more important to most consumers (corporate desktop users) than what's
> under the hood.
Smoke and mirrors. Glitz. Marketing. The "ooh, shiny!" response. I
understand this is human nature (who doesn't like playing with themes?)
> Let's add another thought that goes against the traditional Linux grain:
> Since most computer users never change default settings, the defaults
> are all-important. (Choice is nice, but probably only 5% of all computer
> users exercise it in any meaningful way.)
>
> Combine these two premises, and you end up with the "perfect" user-level
> distro being one that offers a number of theme/package/menu options out
> of the box, and makes it super-easy to switch between them.
I'm all for that. A distribution with a target audience is a great thing.
> Now let's sell not only premake cute themed package choices that can be
> switched with a single click, but sell convenience. Yes, you can usually
> upgrade a Debian install with apt and have most things work after you're
> done, but it would give 99% of the people out there more confidence in
> Linux if they could pay a small sum - I keep coming back to that
> $30/year figure - and get their software and updates from a single
> company's secure servers, and leave the package testing to the company
> that gets the $30, plus emails or other alerts every time there's a
> security update or something new/cool available.
> No one, I repeat, no one, has ever come out with a total end-user Linux
> package as a true consumer product. Michael Robertson has come closest,
> but his personality and business methods have screwed it up.
The model itself isn't flawed, merely the implementation and image.
> I've been covering the Linux "beat" continuously as a journalist longer
> than anyone. I was unquestionably the first non-geek journalist to use
> Linux full-time, and I was one of the world's first point-and-click
> Linux users. When I say, "This is so," or "That won't work," My
> statements are based on long, careful research and observation.
>
> So I will state firmly: There are many ways for Linux distributions to
> differentiate themselves from each other that they haven't tried yet
> because they have been so wrapped up in duplicating each others' work on
> utilities.
Very good point.
> I will now bring in another industry analogy: Consumer electronics. Have
> you ever looked at how *few* chipsets are used in the majority of TVs,
> VCRs, DVD players, and other common devices? Many of them are
> essentially identical inside, despite wide variances in external
> appearance -- and in price.
Amazing, isn't it.
> Still, there are many companies all selling these things under their own
> brand names -- and most of them seem to make money at it most of the time.
>
> Why in the world shouldn't Linux distributions publishers work on
> selling a *finished product* along with *value-added services*?
>
> My wife's new Hyundai didn't come with Hyundai-developed tires. It came
> with Michelins. Shouldn't Linux distributions all use the same tires, as
> it were, and differentiate themselves in other ways?
Nothing wrong with this at all.
My reference was really toward the value add of having a distribution
proprietary installer - most commercial Linux distro vendors place a LOT
effort in their installers. I was really alluding to the way these
vendors stress their uniqueness by NOT contributing their efforts back
to the community.
-- - Ian C. Blenke - Director of Service Delivery <icblenke@nks.net> (This message bound by the following: http://www.nks.net/email_disclaimer.html)----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:57:02 EDT