distros: community != commercial

[mike808@users.sourceforge.net]

> What distro does Red Hat charge for and not give telephone installation 
> support?

Why, the same distro that a typical home user Windows Refugee looking to
experiment with a new desktop OS (namely, this "Linux" thing) would be likely to
purchase from Red Hat. Oh, wait, they don't *have* one. Ergo, no support.

This was not true, however, prior to the Fedora fork. Hence my assertion that
someone *new* to Linux has only one distro currently providing phone
installation support geared to the n00b that is included in the purchase price.

> > The main point being that Fedora doesn't offer phone installation
> > support *either*.
> 
> Fedora is a _community_ distro, just like Debian.
> Don't compare _community_ distros to _commercial_ distros.

Why not? The end user doesn't care. All they know is that it is "Linux", and
that someone recommended it to them, or they read a review somewhere and
identified with the reviewer's points (good or bad) to apply to their situation.

> Just because Red Hat provides free build systems and paid developers doesn't
> mean it is a _commercial_ distro.

Again, the user *doesn't care*. They got a distro (paid for it or not), are
trying to install it, and something *doesn't work*.

The question is how does the Linux community intend to address connecting this
new user with the appropriate support to complete the goal of a successful Linux
install. The fact is that Linux will likely only get one shot at a refugee, and
by flubbing it, they are even more convinced to remain within the safety of
hostageware from Redmond (regardless of merits of "support" from Microsoft).

We don't have Tier-1 OEMs shipping container loads of systems with Linux
pre-installed to get users through that pain. It also means that distro
installers need to actually be *better* than an MSWin install, since there is 
no hardware/OS combination "certification" process.

> Commercial support costs money.  You either pay for it one way or another.

But consumers don't "get" that. All they hear is "Free" this and "Free" that
from the Linux community. And Microsoft is right there, whispering, "Well, you
get what you pay for..." into their ears.

So, maybe "commercial" support isn't the answer. Maybe "community" support is?
We have matured communities around the software development process (forums, SF,
Savannah, mailing lists, conferences, etc.), but not around the distribution
process.

That's what I (and Robert, I think) are trying to explore in this mutating
thread. :=)

> And I could care less about such users.

You mean like the Bush/Republican/Trickle-down/Reaganomics/Supply-side
philosophy of "Only the poor will suffer, and they're used to it"?

> Not too long about 9 out of 10 Linux reviews were just the installer!

Maybe that should be a trend that should come back. I'd definately like to see
the distros do a much, much better job of letting the user determine how well
their particular computer will be supported by a distro (hardware-wise) --
before they have a bad experience trying to install it.

That's where Knoppix has been successful, but it's not designed to be
permanently left and used on your system. And their hardware detection is better
than pretty much all of the other distros. So, being able to boot and run a
knoppix disk is no indicator as to whether any other distro will work on your
system.

But that's only part of it. The other part is answering the question "Where to
turn when a Linux install goes bad".

Mike/

---------------------------------------------
http://www.valuenet.net



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.