>From: Joris Lambrecht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --<snip>-- >services (don't get me wrong here :-)/applications but don't see why a >common update/installation interface would be a drawback for commercial >company's. In fact it would be advantageous to them, offering >free publicity >(in a list of sites to add to your update/services list) to >their services. Hadn't really thought about that - which would be a plus, but that is because I think know why they won't.
>One would simply choose the service that best fits her/her >needs and budget. Consider that they will all be providing almost the exact same thing. How many different ways can you deliver software and check for new versions? When you refer to free FTP servers, you discuss the merits. When you refer to pay FTP servers, you discuss which is the least expensive and still does what you want. >Even offering on-demand documentation would be one of the >implementations i >see for such a service. Maybe the Linux Documentation Project >can be put to >world-wide use here as an on-demand knowledge/solutions >database ? There Ahhh, but the information is supposed to be free, right? Science vs. corporation, right? If you limited the information access the barrier to entry would immediately become almost too great. >Ximian triggered the idea really but i'm not fond >of an update >service that doesn't work on my system. Don't understand why they don't >develop to it's full potential. They will, but it will be Ximian. That is their future revenue stream the same as Redhat and Eazel. The only way to have someone use your product instead of the competitors is to differentiate (or severely under-cut in price), which is why they won't create a standard. Which is why APT might ascend to the throne. I feel for them, but you are going to have several companies fighting for the same small slice. Possibly a model where an over-arching service existed that collected for it's update service, but passed on money to those that developed the products it dispenses to reward them for those that use their goods. But then we are back to paying for software, aren't we? The big difference is that those who had their software actually used more would automatically get the bigger share of the funds and if I had five word processors, then it would be split.
