By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Linux Anti-capitalist???

Soleron on 02 March 2009
Words Of Wisdom said:
...

They are not free in the respect that if you get CentOS instead of RHEL, you are getting CentOS.  Nearly identical (compiled slightly differently) distros are still different distros.

I never said they were clones so find another strawman to knock down.  I know the history of them quite well and have personally used all but the original Fedora (Core) distro.  Fedora is actually my favorite series of Linux too and it's not unstable.  That's a stupid myth that should have died long ago.

I'm not trying to bash you, really. CentOS is much closer to RHEL than Fedora is, and I know you know that.

And by unstable I don't mean literally, I mean it tends to be at the cutting-edge of new updates which then get tested and bugfixed for up to a few years before RHEL. I would say Ubuntu, Fedora and Opensuse are all in the unstable category like that, whereas RHEL, SLED and Debian are in the stable one.

That said, Fedora tends to be slightly forward of all other distros which can cause "problems" like X Server incompatibility with proprietary video drivers. That's in no way a problem with Fedora.

 



Around the Network
Nickelbackro on 03 March 2009
Soleron said:
On the contrary, I think Linux is the product of a free market, and Linux's lack of success is due to the market not being free enough (see also: my personal vendetta against Microsoft). The FOSS movement shifts focus to selling services around the software, which gives incentive for the companies to make the software free, interoperable and high-quality.

If a major Western government decided to adopt open-source throughout, it would save them a massive amount of money. The interface and programs are mature enough now that switching would be about as hard as XP -> Vista (look how different Office 2007 is to 2003 and tell me retraining costs are low by sticking with MS).

Doing this would force major software companies to drop prices and improve their products in response. This is called "competition". I don't think Adobe, Microsoft, etc. have been subjected to that for some time.

I'm not the biggest anti-trust kind of guy but in terms of the terms of tying the Operating System to OEM computers MS is guilty as sin considering their blatant anti-competitive contracts.



Kickin' Those Games Old School.       -       201 Beaten Games And Counting