Who gives a shit. Every project available is governed by the contractual agreement the owner/developer/patent holder applied to it. One cannot justify saying that it should be one way just because it would better suit a broader audience in one individual's perspective. If the general public cannot govern themselves then what is the point of doing business. Why the hell should anybody do anything for anyone else. We might as well just destroy one market to destroy every other market in existence. The ignorant view of people is astounding sometimes.
I'm not putting blame on you Estanislao. I'm just pushing the argument further. Fundamentally those two stipulations provide so much conflict it's impossible for people to see straight. If private property is forced into public domain then why even try to do anything. But at the same time, if there is an exploit out there shouldn't the consumer be able to protect themselves in a timely, respectful manner? I'm about ready to dump Linux and focus solely on BSD. This bullshit of open standards is wearing thin quickly to no general benefit to business or even the consumers the software is trying to provide a solution for.
It feels like I'm at the end of my wits sometimes. Every effort put things in their own allocated place but obligations get strained in order to fulfill those same obligations. As you might or might not know or even care for that matter, what I wish to achieve. The best ideal is to provide jobs for programmers. To do that I have to focus on my own efforts to build capital. I would prefer to do it within reason to keep my efforts pure from interests that could eventually undermine what I belie
but the evolution of Linux begins at the base. With new releases being a norm every six months, new developments come and go. The linux kernel is the fundamental base. The extensions surrounding the kernel should have a fundamental to reshape how the kernel is exploited. There needs to be a market leader to invest time and resources to simplify how the kernel should be exploited. It will change the dynamic for Linux distributions while maintaining the integrity of the opensource community. The fundamental of the kernel isn't the problem, it's the fundamental of the extensions surrounding the kernel that is.
In my belief, there needs to be a distribution that bridges the gaps between other distros, then another one to break down dependencies exclusively. It doesn't necessarily require totalitarian consolidation but there needs to be a community effort to focus on variations of the types of consolidation.
Fedora has done great efforts with security but has some fault with stability for certain features. It's cutting edge just not as stable as I would like it to be at times. OpenSuSE has stability, ease of use and great insight into stable features but with encrypting the root and swap partition by copying files over to another partition, repartition, then move the files back is a bit of a stretch for the average user. The system updates could be more aggressive but hardware support for nvidia and ati drivers is perfection. Debian is great and stable, very proactive in terms of updates but in terms of getting it to meet up to current technological standards without sacrificing it's open integrity is the only thing that keeps me from switching over fulltime. Ubuntu needs stability. Most of the updates are no more than scripts to get things by. You see this when trying to do a base server install and then attempt to piece together a decent windows manager on top of it. If a system had the security of Fedora/Red Hat, the stability and ease of use of OpenSuSE/Novell, not to mention the integrity of Debian, you would have one hell of a distribution. If anybody has the time, they could learn a lot from Linux from Scratch. I'm doing my part but I'm just one person. Anybody out there willing to work on a project like this, I would be more than willing to help out.
The best way to answer this question comes in two parts, three if I include Microsoft. The first part is to examine what happened with XFree and Xorg a while back. XFree changed its license, people revolted and focused more effort on Xorg. Licensing can change at any level of development to fit the needs of the community but when there's a point where the project has to fork, it will fork. How this can relate to cost will be explained later.
The second example of this is compiz, beryl and compiz-fusion. It has been forked and consolidated over the life of its development. It has done this in part to provide equivalent functionality of other OSes, if not more flexible, to the Linux community. Innovation spring boarded because of how forking and consolidation worked together. I'm sure people would be hesitant to agree with this especially if they were directly involved with the development. When you're in the middle of a battle, it's hard to see straight. The value of this was flexibility in order to develop a stable package in a short amount of time and get it so it can be built upon through a community of plugin developers. While most projects never see the light of day, this one did.
I'll include one aspect of Microsoft. If you haven't read the news for the past 10-15 years you might've missed how MS treat ideas and how they assume it into their own system. A lot of the ideas and features MS provides today come from various communities that provide a means to capitalize on these ideas and then centralize the profit without concern to the communities that support it. The cost is recouped on businesses and their ability to achieve better effectiveness because of speedy implementation. MS hasn't been as speedy as I would like them to be for quite a long while. Their development cycle has slowed a bit for my own personal tastes. In a way, they are at the will of the developers willing to provide innovative code into the fray. The developers are very leery of their own patents and how other people can profit from them. While there has been a lot of change, sometimes things stay the same the more they change.
What does this mean in the long of it for OSS? Well, the cost to distribute is a problem because development relies on ISPs. Mirroring of repos can help to distribute taxation to servers. P2P can distribute the load to the end user. Developers can volunteer depending on the availability to perform. In a weird way, their own need to express themselves through code inspired the need to find ways to divert cost.
On the other side of the coin, various personal reasons can keep people from being more active. The general economy is a big part of the equation. In order for innovation to evolve at a reliable speed, a certain level of integrity of the community has to exist. Commercial involvement would be welcome as long as the flexibility to perform remains untouched. I don't speak for the community at all when I say any of this, just so you know.
Syphoning ideas from end users can only go so far. Maintaining the integrity of the dreamer can be ridiculous at times, but can provide a means to surprise every once in a while. I'm sure there are people more than willing to do anything if they knew what that thing was. All in all it is all chance unless you find a man with a plan. I think if you find that. You find your answer. And as a reminder, this is all my own humble opinion.
I really hate bashing Microsoft at this point. I'm not going to. I will say this and leave it at that. Security within Windows can be problematic if you don't properly setup your permissions. Hacking the registry helps but you either have to rely on Windows update or a third party for any real fix. You really need someone who knows what they are doing though to do it effectively. Antivirus and firewalls don't cut it all the time when you have poor policy practices. That's true for any system.
I hate suggesting this but the US government needs to implement Linux or something similar in all their security critical systems. Linux is great for setting up local repositories for local networks.