RE: Nautilus ?
>From: Joris Lambrecht [mailto:jlambrec@landis.be]
<snip>
>Why doesn't the
>linux community adopt something like a Linux Carpet that will
>work on all
>kinds of desktops/window managers ?
Sorry for the length, but...
Well...I believe that despite our best efforts, money is still required to
live. Since the OS is being given away, they (companies) are hitting on
these services for revenue. Which, of course, means that there will be
several different competing ways of providing the autoupdate as the various
companies will need that money stream. Which might answer my question. Why
would they support a free updating mechanism when they are trying to sell
one (or will be). APT *is* the way. APT is ART!
I don't mind paying for services. That seems more natural somehow. Give me
something I want, I'll pay for it; A good movie (note the 'good'), a
pleasant waitress, someone fixing my muffler, etc. I just don't think that
our Linux companies are trying to provide the 'right' service. 'Course, if I
was a diehard Red Hat user I would probably pay to avoid those headaches. I
took one look and ran the other way.
I'm afraid that it just seems like extortion. When I hear of MS going to the
'rented' applications model I shudder. Now these developers are saying,
"We'll make it easier, but your gonna have to pay...and pay...and pay." Just
doesn't seem like the right way, but I don't have the 'right' way myself.
I just hate seeing good Linux companies going down because the user base
isn't big enough or the model wasn't right. I think we might need to, as a
community, tell the companies what we will pay for. We should go to the
developers and say, "Look, I'll pay you for this." or "If you did this, then
I'd give you this.". We need to help them out, we will need them for the
future. Hell, they are us! We should get together as a community and tell
our companies how to survive. We know that Linux is a non-standard model,
let's figure out how to work the model as a community, the same as we work
together on the software and users.
Reply to: