4 ms·

Same with linux distros. Variety is unproductive.

jrimbault 9y ago
Counter argument, variety is choice, choice is freedom. (not strictly true, you could have only the illusion of choice and freedom, and other arguments, I mean I've written essays on choice...)
- fredley 9y ago
  Choice is tyranny! http://www.economist.com/node/17723028 http://www.economist.com/node/17723028
  - ourmandave 9y ago
    Control your versions, you must! Variety is choice, choice is freedom, choice is tyranny, choice leads to the Dark Side.
- jrimbault 9y ago
  PS: In the case of companies selling many different versions of the same product/service, choice can be used to confuse consumers.
throwaway7645 9y ago
Most distros are geared to different things like Arch Linux is bare-bones...etc. You are correct that there are plenty of distros where the main difference is the default desktop environment like cinnamon or kde and that isn't super helpful and fractures the community.
- wutwutwutwut 9y ago
  You mean like Windows versions...
- Accacin 9y ago
  > Arch Linux is bare-bones...etc No, it isn't. But I get the general idea.
  - 0xTJ 9y ago
    The commenter's point was that it comes bare-bones. There is very little installed on a stock Arch installation. Unlike a distro like Ubuntu, Mint, etc., which are some of the most common desktop distros and come with a large variety of packages, Arch's install file is shockingly small, and the base packages themselves are very limited.
    - Accacin 9y ago
      The default Arch install is about 700Mb. How is that shockingly small? If you do a minimal install on most distro's you'll get something similar. Probably less, as Arch bundles all it's packages together and you can't chose to, for example, not install the dev packages. I use the OS myself, so I'm not hating on Arch linux but the misinformation spread about Arch is crazy.
shubb 9y ago
Linux isn't a single company though. There are around 25 different editions of windows 10. It's very difficult to know what you need to buy. And when you read their... licensing white paper... it quickly becomes clear that you can't legally affordably use any of them for a lot of normal usecases.
- MikusR 9y ago
  You get the one that comes with the device you buy. All other cases your company has departments that can figure it out.
skywhopper 9y ago
Linux distributions are created and maintained by different organizations, and they differ, not in what they are able to do, but in how they accomplish it. Microsoft is a single organization creating artificial strata within a single product. Both lead to a confusing array of choices, but while the diversity of Linux distributions is an organic outgrowth of Linux's licensing, leading to competition for users and maintainers which drives changes and innovation in the resulting products, the Windows stratification is completely artificial and does nothing to drive change or innovation, instead simply increases user confusion only in order to capture pricing flexibility in the market. I'm sure it's profitable for Microsoft to do this, but as a user, it's incredibly frustrating. Luckily I am able to choose not to deal with the Microsoft market-shaving licensing morass anymore, and I can spend my mental energy thinking about what I'm building, instead of choosing which licensing strategy is most cost-effective, and constantly worrying about compliance.
- Numberwang 9y ago
  How can it be profitable to do and not lead to innovation? Do you know how corporations work?
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    When you don't really have competition, the more profitable strategy is to make licensing complicated so that customers end up paying more. Innovation is only more profitable when you have solid competitors.
ptx 9y ago
There is an important difference. Linux distributions represent the efforts of different teams to make the best systems for their particular niche. With Windows, on the other hand, a single organization develops a single system (the canonical good version), and from that they create various worse versions by applying limitations in different combinations to the good version.

Counter argument, variety is choice, choice is freedom. (not strictly true, you could have only the illusion of choice and freedom, and other arguments, I mean I've written essays on choice...)

fredley 9y ago
Choice is tyranny! http://www.economist.com/node/17723028 http://www.economist.com/node/17723028
- ourmandave 9y ago
  Control your versions, you must! Variety is choice, choice is freedom, choice is tyranny, choice leads to the Dark Side.
jrimbault 9y ago
PS: In the case of companies selling many different versions of the same product/service, choice can be used to confuse consumers.

throwaway7645 9y ago

Most distros are geared to different things like Arch Linux is bare-bones...etc. You are correct that there are plenty of distros where the main difference is the default desktop environment like cinnamon or kde and that isn't super helpful and fractures the community.

wutwutwutwut 9y ago
You mean like Windows versions...
Accacin 9y ago
> Arch Linux is bare-bones...etc No, it isn't. But I get the general idea.
- 0xTJ 9y ago
  The commenter's point was that it comes bare-bones. There is very little installed on a stock Arch installation. Unlike a distro like Ubuntu, Mint, etc., which are some of the most common desktop distros and come with a large variety of packages, Arch's install file is shockingly small, and the base packages themselves are very limited.
  - Accacin 9y ago
    The default Arch install is about 700Mb. How is that shockingly small? If you do a minimal install on most distro's you'll get something similar. Probably less, as Arch bundles all it's packages together and you can't chose to, for example, not install the dev packages. I use the OS myself, so I'm not hating on Arch linux but the misinformation spread about Arch is crazy.

shubb 9y ago

Linux isn't a single company though. There are around 25 different editions of windows 10. It's very difficult to know what you need to buy. And when you read their... licensing white paper... it quickly becomes clear that you can't legally affordably use any of them for a lot of normal usecases.

MikusR 9y ago
You get the one that comes with the device you buy. All other cases your company has departments that can figure it out.

skywhopper 9y ago

Linux distributions are created and maintained by different organizations, and they differ, not in what they are able to do, but in how they accomplish it. Microsoft is a single organization creating artificial strata within a single product. Both lead to a confusing array of choices, but while the diversity of Linux distributions is an organic outgrowth of Linux's licensing, leading to competition for users and maintainers which drives changes and innovation in the resulting products, the Windows stratification is completely artificial and does nothing to drive change or innovation, instead simply increases user confusion only in order to capture pricing flexibility in the market. I'm sure it's profitable for Microsoft to do this, but as a user, it's incredibly frustrating. Luckily I am able to choose not to deal with the Microsoft market-shaving licensing morass anymore, and I can spend my mental energy thinking about what I'm building, instead of choosing which licensing strategy is most cost-effective, and constantly worrying about compliance.

Numberwang 9y ago
How can it be profitable to do and not lead to innovation? Do you know how corporations work?
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  When you don't really have competition, the more profitable strategy is to make licensing complicated so that customers end up paying more. Innovation is only more profitable when you have solid competitors.

ptx 9y ago

There is an important difference. Linux distributions represent the efforts of different teams to make the best systems for their particular niche. With Windows, on the other hand, a single organization develops a single system (the canonical good version), and from that they create various worse versions by applying limitations in different combinations to the good version.