On 30/06/07, Donal McMullan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
> More important than giving users fully working hardware out of the
> box? That doesn't seem reasonable. Users don't care about "open
> source," they care about supported, working hardware.
Many users care about both.
I would ask you to prove that. Most of the world runs Windows, OS X,
etc., so obviously they don't care that much about open source. They
just care about what works.
> If the "open" option is fully functional and supported, sure, it can
> be used in place of the other. But as long as there is a better,
> redistributable option, that's the one we should be using to give the
> user the best experience possible "out-of-the-box."
Ok, but then you're handing a key differentiator to Linux, and people
will tell each other that OpenSolaris is irrelevant because it's not
really open.
No, it would not be. It's the same problem that GNU/Linux distributions face.
It's the same reason that Ubuntu developed a policy that basically
says that they will ship binary blobs to ensure certain functionality
work as intended. Ubuntu is wildly successful, yet is smart enough to
realise that its best to ship a working system out-of-the-box via
"restricted modules" than it is to make excuses about ivory tower
ideas and philosophy.
Users expect things to just work, and excuses about philosophy,
freedom, etc. just don't fly.
There are *many* GNU/Linux distributions that care more about users
than idealism and ivory tower goals that some distributions focus on.
In fact, I would argue that by being willing to use the "right tool
for the right job" when it is available, OpenSolaris could
differentiate itself in the *right way*, just as Ubuntu has.
One of the key perceived problems vendors have with the Linux world is
that they do not believe that the Linux world does not want to
actually work with them at all, all they hear about is "its our way or
the highway, hand over all your valuable IP, trade secrets, or else!"
It is the same reason why after spending years trying to support the
GNU/Linux gaming community by buying lots of titles from Loki
Entertainment, maintaining a GNU/Linux game engine port, contributing
patches to port games to Linux, etc.; I stopped. I have contributed to
several "open source" projects over the years but I also do commercial
development for my employers, as well as proprietary but
"free-as-in-beer" development too.
The closed-minded attitude of many parts of the GNU/Linux community
leaves no room for working with proprietary vendors (even those that
are "free as in beer", but not "open source").
"Everything must be free at all costs!" seems to be their mantra. It
is no wonder that we do not see more ISV development in the areas of
games and business applications. The GNU/Linux world is a licensing
minefield waiting to happen, with no standard APIs for many basic
pieces of functionality, or poorly written ones in many cases.
It is a world where backwards compatibility is tossed to the wayside,
where the solution to fixing things is to upgrade half the system,
without any concept of major or minor binding, and where documentation
is the last thing done years after it was needed.
That is why I use Solaris as much as possible now for my development
work, because I never want to go back to an environment where
developers care more about furthering *their own* goals and beliefs
instead of giving users what they really want: a great OS/Platform.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. " --Donald Knuth
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
