(subject was: Re: [Quanta] OT successors to Quanta+)

Hi,

Thanks to all the Quanta team for a magnificent product. I have missed Quanta
terribly these past few months, although I still remain eternally greatful to
the Bluefish team for their product.

This inability to find a sufficient number of dvelopers to keep developing
Quanta is, to me, confirmation of the insanity of the large number of
distributions of Linux.

Whilst, of course, diversity and choice is to be welcomed, on what planet is
there a need for 50, 100, 200, let alone 320 Linux distributions?
(http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity).

If the number of distributions were reduced to a more sane figure, then it
surely would be possible for many who are applying their talents towards
maintaining any one of these distributions to instead, apply their talents
towards software packages like quanta (or towards making each of the
fewer distributions more robust and versatile).

If this were to occur, Linux and open-source software in general would have no
trouble knocking over propietary software monopolies[1] such as that of
Micro$oft.

So, it seems obvious obvious to me one reason that is contributing toward the
excessive number of Linux distributions. Whilst many behind the different
distributions are no doubt acting for sincere motives, I think
that a good many distributions have to have been ultimately driven by people
acting for the likes of Micro$oft.


regards,

James


FOOTNOTES

[1] At least proprietary software has a business model upon which people who produce
software can expect to be remunerated. A new business model is still needed to fairly and
adequately remunerate those who put time and effort into developing open source
software. I suggest something like http://flattr.com .

_______________________________________________
Quanta mailing list
Quanta@mail.kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/quanta