In the news: Eric S. Raymond shifts to Ubuntu

[Conrad Knauer]

On 2/21/07, Frank McCormick <fmccormick at videotron.ca> wrote:

> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01006.html
>
>    Boy, if you think things get a little testy on this and other Ubuntu
> (and Debian) lists.....read Redhats development list after ESR's
> message !!!

I note some... interesting ideas... about Ubuntu, e.g.:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01012.html

"IMHO, Linspire/Canonical means Canonical is seeking a way to earn
moneys with the inclusion of patented codecs on their free
distribution. Have you eared the term "victim of its own success"?
There will be a price to pay."

Okaaaay....  IMHO I don't think having Linspire based off Ubuntu is
going to hurt Ubuntu any more than it hurt Debian when it was based
off that.  Linspire clearly sees Ubuntu as an extra level of
refinement (http://net2.com/OSbuildingblocks.jpg), but the only real
benefit to Canonical that I can see is that it increases the mindshare
around Ubuntu as a standard distribution.

In the long run I don't see an Ubuntu-based Linspire/Freespire taking
off any more than the current Firefox-based Netscape (market share
<1%), but I do see this as the beginning of Linspire changing their
business model from offering/selling proprietary software for Linux as
part of a distro to them offering it to *any* distro
(http://www.cnr.com/).  One area where Linspire might do very well
would be if they distributed Linux-working versions of well-known
games (WoW springs to mind).

Also, from the same post, a comment about the number of disks:

"You should know you can use a boot disk to do a network install a
system. Five CD is aiming for people who don't have broadband
connection which is still the case on many countries."

Is it just me, or are the same people who are most likely to need five
CDs also the least likely to be able to get (e.g download) them?  I
know that I'm biased in favor or Ubuntu by the simple fact that its
the distro I use, but this seems to me to be a point that any neutral
observer would side with Ubuntu; I can understand distributing all the
packages anyone you could ever want, but the first disk really should
be able to install a base system.  Also, what if you're installing on
a system that has network hardware that doesn't 'just work' under
Linux (certain wi-fi springs to mind) or only has dial-up?  A single
install disk for a base system is also great if you're going to
distribute free CDs, since it significantly cuts down on costs :)

Then there's this post:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01015.html

"That's all well and nice for Ubuntu which seems to be a desktop
centric OS.  But I've always seen Fedora as primarily a server
platform (given it's the basis for RHEL). And that is fine for me
because I don't want to play windows media. I want Apache, Fedora
Directory Service and a fast kernel. Web browsing and email are great
for a workstation but everything else is a luxury."

This part makes it clear why Fedora is not going to succeed as a
desktop OS.  Anyone who wants to use Linux instead of Windows or Mac
OS has no need for Apache or a minimalistic kernel that best suits it;
the 'luxuries' are what make a desktop OS a nice place to use a
computer.  I want no-hassle audio and video, rich-content internet and
wobbly windows would be a nice touch too ;)

But here's where he gets offensive:

"At the end of the day if I really "need" to see that video of the
Chimp falling out of the tree after smelling his finger then I'll drop
mplayer on from a public repo.  If you want that standard then yeah,
maybe Fedora isn't for you."

I'm sure comments like that are going to make ESR switch back from
Ubuntu even faster ;p

CK