> Open source might be part of the answer to this, or some kind of legal 'right to migrate'.
It isn't. Everyone who tried to decide over which version of a distribution to run should know this. It's fine as long as you run the newest or don't need new things. But once you need something specific and especially once you start installing things outside the package manager things go down hill quickly.
I wish people wouldn't use this argument in favor of open source, because if you make institutions choose between open source and proprietary solutions based on "updates" it's appstores, cloud software and subscriptions that will win.
>>Everyone who tried to decide over which version of a distribution to run should know this
I have used Linux as my primary operating system for more than 15 years, I have been using Arch as my primary distribution for more than 5 years. I do not know this.
>t's fine as long as you run the newest or don't need new things.
So which is it, I am fine if I want to run the newest, or if a do not need the newest? Your statement is a contradiction
>But once you need something specific and especially once you start installing things outside the package manager things go down hill quickly.
No, not really... I install things all the time outside the Package manager, of course I know what I am doing so...
>because if you make institutions choose between open source and proprietary solutions based on "updates" it's appstores, cloud software and subscriptions that will win.
How so? App stores to not solve the Lockin problem the OP is talking about, if anything it makes it worse
It's not very appealing to respond when you don't give any reasons. I work with making and maintaining Linux distributions for enterprise, and previously embedded, systems (including desktop). We commission open source work, buy 'support' from major vendors and upstream our own changes. I don't share your views and judging by the development in things like e.g. configuration management I don't think I'm alone.
> So which is it, I am fine if I want to run the newest, or if a do not need the newest? Your statement is a contradiction
I don't see the contradiction, maybe I didn't express myself very well. The problem is when you mix old and new software and distributions. As long as you run a single release (old or new) and all software is for that release you're fine. When you have to deal with many different versions of third party software, libraries, interpreters, shells, build systems etc. is when you run into problems. Just like in the case with "ExpensiveScannerManager95".
>>I don't share your views and judging by the development in things like e.g. configuration management I don't think I'm alone.
How does the development of Configuration Management tools for linux support any of your statements? I fail to see the connection. Linux has needed enterprise configuration management tools for awhile, it is one area where Windows is better as there are many many many many Configuration Management tools for Windows.
>>maybe I didn't express myself very well.
I think this is true, because I still do not understand
1. What you are really system
2. Why you believe windows is better at any of these things than linux
3. How it is relevant to what we are talking about.
Yes when you mix old and new things you may have problems, depending on the system. I however maintain you have LESS problems with linux than you do with Windows, having managed both systems in large enterprise environment, Windows is a finicky broken system that does not play well with anything.
I spend the majority of my time fixing broken shit on windows. The idea that Linux is worse is laughable
> If someone has a computer hooked to an MRI machine and to the hospital network, and it runs outdated/insecure software then someone made a mistake somewhere.
If you want a system to reach 100% it can't rely on not making mistakes. If all operating systems are supposed to be updated, then this has to be enforced as part of the software. The software e.g. shouldn't accept traffic unless it's up to date.
I get what you're saying. I don't like part of the direction Microsoft is taking either. Yet, I don't agree with your perspective.
What's happening here is that Microsoft, after a number of years of troubles keeping up, are following the market. WSL is presumably not meant to compete with Linux or FOSS as a desktop OS, but with Mac OS and Linux as developer platforms.
Companies like Google and Apple figured out that if you just give people their pony e.g. base your things on FOSS, they won't notice when you centralize everything, track everyone and generally behave badly. In many ways Microsoft is doing better here. Their projects aim to be cross platform and are being developed together with the community. Instead of usual the code dump and silent mailing list we've become accustomed to from some companies.
Linux have had the chance to do better for awhile now (and in some ways it has). Microsoft have been critized constantly for Windows 8 and now Windows 10. Apple left a huge hole in the "professional" market for years, including after the new Mac Pro and the new MacBook Pro. If some developers move to Windows because of this I think that's fair.
> What's happening here is that Microsoft, after a number of years of troubles keeping up, are following the market. WSL is presumably not meant to compete with Linux or FOSS as a desktop OS, but with Mac OS and Linux as developer platforms.
I understand and agree with that point, I don't believe I remarked on pushing WSL as a Linux or FOSS desktop OS, my point was more that it was way to lure developers to Windows, after Windows has spent time and money making moves that do not benefit developers and hurt competition.
Also I already hear the "oh just run it in a VM" argument all the time right now (not saying it has no merit), as reasons for why people don't run linux distributions, and thought this was similar.
> Companies like Google and Apple figured out that if you just give people their pony e.g. base your things on FOSS, they won't notice when you centralize everything, track everyone and generally behave badly. In many ways Microsoft is doing better here. Their projects aim to be cross platform and are being developed together with the community. Instead of usual the code dump and silent mailing list we've become accustomed to from some companies.
It certainly depends on the product, but "developed together with the community" feels to be to always only be true up to a point (and usually not the point that people end up wanting). Benevolent dictators make sense as the governance model for open source products, but I just don't believe in Microsoft as my benevolent dictator anymore than I would in Google.
Also, I'm totally fine with code dump and silent mailing list, it's not the company's job to give you the fruits of their internal labor for free. I don't expect that from any big tech company. I can't see that Microsoft is doing "better", they're just trying to get in the same game that the other companies are already in. Maybe I just haven't interfaced with enough companies running F/OSS projects to know the difference, if it's that stark.
> Linux have had the chance to do better for awhile now (and in some ways it has). Microsoft have been critized constantly for Windows 8 and now Windows 10. Apple left a huge hole in the "professional" market for years, including after the new Mac Pro and the new MacBook Pro. If some developers move to Windows because of this I think that's fair.
I assume your rationale behind developers moving to Windows being "fair" is that it will encourage competition (and cause the linux community to get off their laurels)? Based on that assumption, while I agree that more competition is good, it's that very competition that microsoft (and most other companies) has seeked to crush at times. The linux community is fundamentally different. Redhat is not (I think) fundamentally different than Microsoft, but the linux community certainly is, because the structure, principles, and philosophy are just not the same.
The linux community is not just a competing OS, it's a way of thinking. Shoe-horning a different way of thinking into your own without actually changing your own (and in fact sometimes making philosophical movements in the opposite direction) looks like nothing more than a ploy to entrap people into thinking "microsoft gets me" when they (in my opinion) would be better off committing to an actual group of like-minded people.
Also, I'm not 100% sure what exactly you disagreed with in my comment... To sum up:
- Microsoft is different partnering closely with the community
This is a pretty ironic comment though. The article is basically arguing that our views, to a large degree, are based on our previous held ideas and that the way to remedy that is by taking a more complex and serious view of things. And now you're essentially saying "ignore that, here's what I think" in reference to the article.
Except that this doesn't work. Or, perhaps more appropriately, it doesn't work faster than the forces spewing misinformation work. Converting people one at a time doesn't work when the opposition is converting them via mass media.
I think you all are missing the point. As Google gave away Android for free with the support of their brand, services and user base it essentially killed all the alternatives (MeeGo, WebOS, BlackBerry 10) and companies that were focused on software (Palm, Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola, BlackBerry). It's not at all unexpected that these Asian companies can't compete in terms of systems design, both in terms of experience and ownership, but also just cost. Almost no one is making any money (other than Samsung, which is extremely very vertically integrated, at least in theory). Throwing in cheaper chips and making the software flashier is really the only business model that is available, even if some manufacturers like Mi do offer long term support.
They are of course entitled to their feelings, but saying that Spotify was doing something nefarious is unreasonable. Being able to send a receive information is part of how the Internet is supposed to work. That's what's makes it different from other things like cable TV.
It's DRM, data caps and walled gardens that have convinced people otherwise. The next logical step is separating clients and servers altogether. Why should I pay for data if I'm only a consumer? In that case we might as well let youtube and netflix pay to deliver the content. And then it's back to cable TV again.
PS. You also have to remember that Spotify is 10 years old. Internet infrastructure and things like cloud offerings wasn't as good. It wasn't just a move to save bandwidth, but to actually be able to offer a good service (low latency, high throughput, for free). Which still isn't easy.
