one thing i find anoying is

[Michael T. Richter]

On Wed, 2006-03-05 at 17:50 +1200, Brendon wrote:

> that the open source market is becoming so popular and so wide spread these
> days,  that it makes me think why some the major players in the compter
> idustry, and some of the major isps  are not supporting os's like linux.


First, it's not as popular on the desktop as its advocates seem to
think.  And nor will it ever be while it is still so difficult to
configure for all but a small subset of available hardware.  Now it's
improved drastically on that front since my first exposure to it (to the
point that Ubuntu has replaced XP on my system despite its failings --
but not to the point that my wife uses it), but it is still not ready
for mass market.

Second, whenever I hear the phrase "supporting Linux" brought up I wince
inwardly.  Why?  Because I've been on the receiving end of that request
and the first question that invariably comes to mind is:  "Which Linux?"
There is a bewildering array of kernel versions, functionality patches,
kernel patches, libc versions, gcc versions, etc. which all interfere
with supporting Linux.  Hell, even the location of important system
files can change from distro to distro (and I know of at least one that
generates the system files from XML descriptions of them!).  No company
that is sane is going to support Linux while there are literally
hundreds of different possibilities to support.  Want Linux to stop
being a pariah in commercial support circles?  Standardise.  (This could
start with Linus promising an ABI freeze on core components.)

  

> i have had the problem when ringing up a help desk and been asked , what
> operating system are you using and get the reply "im sorry we don't support
> linux only microsoft and mac"  which in some way has been confussed as the
> mac is, is sort of linux based.


The Mac is BSD-based.  And a heavily hacked BSD to boot.  But that's not
the important issue.  The important issue is that every OSX Mac out
there has only one OSX.  The system files are in the same place.  The
kernel is the same.  The settings are the same.  The GUI is the same.
(Within limits, of course.  There are enhancements, etc. rolled out --
but the ABI will be the same across versions or Apple cuts its own
throat.  Further.)

The same cannot be said for Linux.  It would be impossible to support
"Linux".  At best a reasonably-sized company could support one or two
distros.  Then comes the problem: which distros do you pick?  Whichever
ones you pick will generate a huge wave of whining from the other camps.
Let's say Ubuntu gets picked.  Debian fanatics will whinge.  So will
Redhat fanatics.  So will Gentoo fanatics.  And so on ad nauseum.

So in the end no company is going to support Linux the way you want it
done -- not until, at least, Linux stabilises enough that it is
commercially viable to do so.

--
Michael T. Richter
Email: ttmrichter at gmail.com, mtr1966 at hotpop.com
MSN: ttmrichter at hotmail.com, mtr1966 at hotmail.com; YIM:
michael_richter_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber:
mtr1966 at jabber.cn

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists." --Abraham Lincoln
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20060503/a7517df6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20060503/a7517df6/attachment.sig>