1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19124324
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19432702
3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30855065
Buy a home at a 33% discount from a black owner, then sell it as a white owner for an instant profit.
No doubt people are lined up to do this right now.
I’m not trying to start some distro flamewar, but manjaro is considered quite shady compared to basically all the other distros by taking arch maintainer’s work without attribution, as well as the recent HN post about them. Sure, settle on any of the distros, but the odd one.
About the shadiness: every project takes or is inspired by other projects, none have come up in a vacuum. Even with the sketchy reputation, Manjaro seems to have the support needed to actually turn into a Linux winner in the long-term.
they "sell" it as "25x duplicated effort" but in reality, there's 25x little tweaks to a build system, that give thousands of people zero effort to port their known platform right away. Now those thousands of people will have REAL effort to adapt their knowledge and existing ways to fit that one holy way enforced by the device true owners.
In reality it is "25x places where i will have to hide my plan for monetize this". Just like most other projects, greed always destroy everything the community help build in good will.
This is not a zero sum game: I believe we can have both an OSS approach to Linux while at the same time having a channel of commercial development that brings more adoption (and fun, hackable devices!). This "one holy way" and the multitude of community-based distros can coexist, in the same way that commercial software companies and OSS communities have already learned to.
* OS 1 finds a bug in Gnome, reports it and perhaps fixes it
* OS 2 benefits from pulling in the new code as well, fixing bugs
* OS 3 writes a driver for the camera and publishes it as part of their kernel
* OS 4 finds a bug in the camera driver they started using, publishes their fix
Yes, there's some overheard to running 25 projects. There's also a huge downfall to excluding 24 projects from contributing as first class members of the project. To boot, it's also a situation where the more contributions make the fixes contributed even more battle tested and beneficial.
tl;dr - OSS development styles don't map onto commercial development styles cleanly
Commercial development allows you to afford to control the hardware, make deals with other companies, and pay people to build compatibility with your system (i.e. Nvidia), which is what Microsoft and Apple did to keep their position. Server distros like Debian, Ubuntu, and Redhat already have deep foundational and corporate backing, and are a joy to use.
There are definitely drawbacks such as vendor lock-in and all the issues that come with corporate vs community control of the software. However, I believe having a single center of development and revenue (to pay for the development), while at the same time having fully open source software and hardware is possible and would have a huge impact.
Also: I've seen some hidden costs of supporting custom OS installs being discussed, i.e. procuring extra chips to allow open boot. This may have factored into Pine64's decision.
Pine64 is making enthusiast products for hackers, not mass-market devices for non-hackers. Non-hackers have access to plenty of phones which just werk. Part of the promise of Pine's platform and the appeal to the target audience is the commitment to community.
Sounds like either Pine64 has grown past this and decided to pivot, or has been losing revenue due to a lack of customers from this niche market. Personally, as a hacker I love playing with different OSes. However, if I was to use any open source device like a PinePhone or Pine64 board to build something, I'd prefer a stable environment backed by an established foundation. Environment setup is hell, and figuring out which open-source OS works best, if it will be supported in the future, and how to install it would slow me down immensely.
But is that really what PINE64 should be trying to do? So far their support hasn't come from the "mass market". It's come from a niche market of open source hackers trying to build and support various Linux distros for mobile devices. Why does improving mass market appeal have to mean alienating your existing supporters?