Unified Linux Thread [Archive] - Page 2

rcarring

July 7th, 2006, 01:24 AM

I sit in both camps, I have made no secret of the fact that I sit in both camps. I think the sooner that people put away the bashing that goes on, then maybe we could all work together and come up with a viable operating system that could let kids in third world countries use a computer running an operating system (and using software )made by Apple AND Microsoft AND the Linux community.

As to Eric's missive to Microsoft, I think Microsoft have only themselves to blame for his terse response. I don't even know Mr. Raymond, but I would hesitate to call him names or pass judgment on his letter.

I take comfort from the fact that the ODF convertor, an open source project is being developed by the open source community so that users of Microsoft Word can open, read and edit documents in ODF format such as ODT (OpenOffice.org).

The more we communicate freely ideas and construct real solutions that work the better it will be for all. No one operating system is the best operating system, as so far as I know an operating system is only there to cause all the hardware to work so that software programs may be run and presented on screen to the end user so that they may create documents (or pictures or whatever).

Maybe one day there will only be a computer running an operating system and application software, rather than a Vista pc running Office 2007, or a Linux PC running Gimp or a Mac running Open Office (with X11 support).

Polygon

July 7th, 2006, 01:55 AM

competition is always a good thing, it makes both sides try to better themselfs and is overall good for the consumer.

but the problem is now that the different operating systems have different goals. microsoft's and apples goal is to make money while the vast versions of linux are more for usability, choice, open source and compatability.

if microsoft and apple both went open source then we would be getting somewhere.

Dr. Nick

July 7th, 2006, 01:56 AM

A few problems with a "unified os" that I can see, First off differnet people have different needs/prefrences when it comes to their operating system. It would be impossible to make a os that by default, or through endless custimization, would satisfy the billions of computer users.

Also if you had a single OS you deal with the problem of $$$.
Their is only so much money out their and people go to drastic steps trying to get it. If you had a unufied os then the creators/owners could charge whatever they wanted and you wouldnt have much choice but to pay them.

I however would like to see a open format for video/text/spreadsheet emerge though. That sort of cross platform compatablity would be nice.

H.E. Pennypacker

July 7th, 2006, 01:59 AM

I support your call for unity, but you must realize that Microsoft and Apple are not charities. Why should they care about children anywhere? That is not their mission, and it should not be. You can't be a for-profit corporation and be a charity at the same time.

rcarring

July 7th, 2006, 02:24 AM

Maybe the best we can hope for is for Microsoft and Apple to contribute to open source development. They both seem to have no problem giving away free compilers and software development kits.

DoctorMO

July 7th, 2006, 02:50 AM

I wonder why

vayu

July 7th, 2006, 03:05 AM

I strongly disagree with any lack of diversity. I don't think there is a need for competition, but there is a strong need for variety. I do also like standards. I would like to see compatability along with diversity. Kind of like Gnome and KDE. I can run programs for both on each other. It would be nice to see at least content compatiblity and universality across a variety of operating systems. I think application level compatibility is also a worthwhile goal.

Adamant1988

July 7th, 2006, 03:16 AM

I think that cooperation amongst the linux distros would greately increase the pace at which linux progresses. Right now linux has no face, there's no one organization to contact with to talk to about linux support in general.

I don't think the distros should unite, but I think linux needs to be put under one roof of sorts... (Think: U.N. of Linux Distros)

that's my opinion at least.

Kimm

July 7th, 2006, 07:07 AM

My vision of the future is that a universal binary format is created. Something any Platform can run, no mather if its F/OSS or Proprietary.

atm, the closest thing we have is Java, Mono, Python (and other similar) and HTML.

I personaly believe that Mono is the best solution that we have right now, since its fast, stable and interates nicely into whatever system you are using (closely followed by Python). The only thing we need to develope further is hardware. Not everyone wants to sacrifice RAM and CPU to use a Byte-code compiled program, but as Hardware developes we will notice less differance between the good old native binary and byte-code.

Buffalo Soldier

July 7th, 2006, 07:53 AM

We can't even agree on left-hand drive or right-hand drive car/lane.

Brunellus

July 7th, 2006, 10:02 AM

Maybe the best we can hope for is for Microsoft and Apple to contribute to open source development. They both seem to have no problem giving away free compilers and software development kits.
Yes, but who *owns* all of that?

The fundamental conflict is that Apple and Microsoft assert proprietary ownership rights over the software that they distribute. Users do not have any rights to use the software other than those explicitly granted to them in (increasingly complex) End User License Agreements (EULAs).

Step back into time, and you might understand the situation a lot better. In the old days of printing presses, there were actually quite a number of distinct industrial operations in the production of a book. The most fundamental of these was the making and casting of type itself--the actual metal letter-elements which were set into formes and inked-- from hot metal: one had to cut punches, make matrices, cast type from those matrices, and so forth.

Imagine a situation where a typefounder (a man who makes type) gave away cases of type for free, but retained all the matrices. Certainly, his type would be widely available and widely used. Children would learn to read; whole generations might grow old and die reading nothing but the letterforms that that single tyepfounder gave away for free.

But what happens when type breaks? Or someone wishes to innovate slightly--maybe making a heavier-weight version of that typeface, or an oblique? The original typefounder still holds all the punches and matrices; only he has the means to produce the type that everyone now reads.

Now imagine that the typefounder dies, and the punches and matrices which he uses to make type are lost. The art of makign those letterforms is lost forever.

Free Software is the ability to cut and make your own type from the type that you've been given. Open Source is simply a case of type you got at no financial cost or obligation. The former can be as expensive as you need it to be; the latter binds you irrevocably to someone else's business plan.

So long as enough intellectual freedom exists, there will be free software. Unity is not a priority.

dawg

October 1st, 2006, 08:14 PM

before you read the following, its sort of a rant/praise/something else. THE RANT: i hate the fact that MS wanted me to buy a new copy of xp pro when i had bought an oem copy for 130+ a year prior because i lost the damn sticker/key. does linux do this to me, NO! so instead im forced to do the unthinkable(use your imagination) just to play BF2. THE PRAISE: now i understand that certain programs like wine and cedega helps with that issue, but not all distros are the same. when i was deployed last year, i had mandriva2006/hoary/suse9.3 all running on my laptop. now my personal experiance, mandriva ran better, i was able to play call of duty with out any problems the other two would not run it at all. but still i was able to do everything i had to do, plus i could play my COD not a problem, and of course the os wasn't to different, i had my VLC, MPLAYER, FIREFOX, XMMS that made the change painless. i tell you what, opensource software, I HEART U. THE SOMETHING ELSE: why is it, that distros can't be the same or unified somehow, take the strengths from one and use them with yours. for example, mandriva, i love how it runs, can't really explain much more, just the feel for it, suse, i like the way it looks, ubuntu, well, gnome kicks *** and so does this community, mepis, ubuntu fork, just like mandriva, it just feels right. i think if there were a unified linux, good things would happen ie gaming support. look at apple, games are rolling out for thier os, along with other mainstream applications. if there was a unified linux, wouldn't you all think our user percentage would be higher? the opensource developers have the right idea i think, they make a program that works with the apples, microsofts and linux because a developer likes his linux or his apple. today i ran across this article http://osdir.com/Article9386.phtml . i think mandriva is on the right path right now. what do you guys think about having a unified linux?

have fun trying to decifer what i just wrote, just alot of things running through my mind.

Mr Frosti

October 1st, 2006, 08:38 PM

Your comments sound like Dell's stance on the state of Linux:

http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT6124504657.html

If the package management systems could unify (at the very least), then developers could focus on maintaining one package instead of a ".tar.gz", a ".rpm" for SuSE, a ".rpm" for Fedora Core 4, a ".deb" for Ubuntu, an "ebuild" for Gentoo

Maybe one day, rpm will just die, and everything will use deb! :)

dawg

October 1st, 2006, 08:51 PM

i was reading up on Lenovo the other day somewhere and they're going to start funneling money not only into SUSE, but RED FLAG LINUX. sounds to me like if the big pc vendors decided to pick a distro say ubuntu, and they began paying/hiring programmers to make that distro super compatiable there wouldn't be a problem. could you imagine if Gateway, IBM, HP, Dell all began selling 10% of their desktops/servers/laptops running ubuntu, wouldn't that catch EA, EIDOS, EPIC, ADOBE, and so ons eye? :-k damn you microsoft for your monopoly.

aysiu

October 1st, 2006, 10:23 PM

This issue again?

Read this:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux

bruenig

October 1st, 2006, 11:09 PM

Unification also takes away one of the security advantages of linux. If all is unified, viruses become able to affect more people. With diversity in distros, it is hard to get a virus to really hit every linux computer as all the systems are different.

dawg

October 1st, 2006, 11:34 PM

Aysiu, good read, and i must say i agree with you on some points, not all of them.
"The irony is that a lot of times when this suggestion is made, the person making the suggestion objects to the high number of distros out there and then wants to create a new "unified" distro. If X number of distros is too many, why would you want X+1 distros?"

I have to disagree with you here. There are several Distros out there that i think rock, i assume others do to. But i think its safe to be that several people like certain distros because of various features. i for one, do enjoy using mandriva06 because everything on my laptop worked right off the dvd. i like using ubuntu because of its enormous community but at the same time, i dislike kubuntu, as you well know the KDE variant of ubuntu, but i really like simply mepis which if i understand correctly is a variant of ubuntu using KDE. i can't really place my finger on what i like about it, but it just seems to run smooth and is running well on my laptop, not as good as mandriva06, but i like it the most. if i knew anything about linux, its kernel and programming, i would try to create something that suits my needs. now thats where i contradict myself. because what works for me, may not work for everybody.

"That's like saying people will never eat pizza because there are too many kinds (deep dish, New York-style) or too many topping choices (anchovies, garlic, mushrooms) or too many sizes (small, medium, large). People like choice, as long as they know what the choices are." i like your pizza analogy, lets talk about the core, what do i need to make this pizza? i will need flour, water, and the sauce, can't forget the sauce. if the water is taken away, what do you have? not a pizza, but redish goo. i feel as though certain distro lack a certain something, or there isn't enough "sauce" on them. its all a matter of opinion.

"More publicity for Linux desktop choices. Linspire, SuSE, and Red Hat make it into the news every so often. A few commercials might help Linspire. SuSE and Red Hat target more of the corporate arena.
Mainstream vendors like HP, Dell, etc. selling Linux preloaded. Presumably, HP is already planning to sell Ubuntu computers.
Experienced users helping/teaching new users to install and configure Linux on their already existing computers (I heard that Linux User Groups already have installation parties that happen every so often"

I AGREE, linux does need more publicity.

"So can we please stop with the unified distro talk? It isn't a good thing. It isn't going to happen. And, if it did happen, it would be only momentarily until a split happened. It's also just not needed"

nothing wrong with hoping.

WalmartSniperLX

October 2nd, 2006, 12:21 AM

the.dark.lord

October 2nd, 2006, 11:44 AM

I just wondered if it was possible to unite all the free Linux distros into a single OS (it would be awesome wouldn't it??!!!, and it would be better than Windows, Mac OS or any other OS).

ComplexNumber

October 2nd, 2006, 11:49 AM

i think its an ideal that will never happen, unfortunately. or at least, not for the forseeable future.

Ramses de Norre

October 2nd, 2006, 11:53 AM

It's not possible in the near future I think.. The ideas of the developpers behind various distros may vary pretty much on a lot of topics.

And I'm not sure whether this united Linux would be better, because forcing the presence of only one distro will have a large impact on the freedom around Linux and that is in my opinion one of the bigest strenghts of it.
There is for almost everyone at least one distro that fits his or her needs, and this might not be the case anymore when there is only one distro.

Coôperation between all distro's developpers is certainly a good thing though and I'm sure that allready happens.

Jeroen Vernooij

October 2nd, 2006, 11:53 AM

One of the great things of linux is freedom. Freedom to create your own distribution. Only one distro cannot satisfy all Linux-users, because every person has another idea to how the distro should look like. For example not everybody can run Gnome because of it's hardware-requirements.

B0rsuk

October 2nd, 2006, 11:56 AM

i think its an ideal that will never happen, unfortunately. or at least, not for the forseeable future.

You're right except in part where you said it's an ideal. Different distros exist because people have various needs and expectations.

henriquemaia

October 2nd, 2006, 12:10 PM

There are a lot of Linux distributions not because people are stupid or not maketing savyy, but because they can. It's more a matter of liberty than a "reaching the top" one. As B0rsuk said, "Different distros exist because people have various needs and expectations."

Rhapsody

October 2nd, 2006, 12:18 PM

Whee, I get to play at being aysiu!

Linux Doesn't Need a Unified Distro (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux)

The jist is that a unified distro just isn't going to happen, due to the open source structure of Linux. There are always going to be disagreements, and disagreements frequently lead to forks on open source projects.

bluenova

October 2nd, 2006, 12:18 PM

If there was only 1 distro then there would be no choice. Distro's are all very different and offer different things for different people. We are not all the same and don't all have the same needs.

ago

October 2nd, 2006, 12:21 PM

You're right except in part where you said it's an ideal. Different distros exist because people have various needs and expectations.

This is true, but things have changed....

With Ubuntu you can easily start from a barebone installation (lean and mean, see ubuntu-standard.deb) and customize it to your tastes. All you have to do is to repackage your XYZ distribution into mydistroXYZ-metapackage.deb to be installed after ubuntu-standard.deb, adjust the installer for that and you are ready to rock.

Several distros out there could be easily repackaged in this way as Ubuntu variants (see mepis, kubuntu, xubuntu). This will limit your freedom only in terms of the package manager and a few default settings (directory structure) and maybe the kernel. For all the rest you have complete freedom. On the plus side you will not have to recompile all the packages for your distro and reinvent the wheel over and over (hardware recognition).

I do not think that even so, we can have 1 distro, but I think Ubuntu can shift the development effort from creating a full distro, to create a metapackage. We should probably call them meta-distros. Derivative distros are not new (Ubuntu itself is a derivate), but ubuntu is particularly well suited for the parenting task, it gives more ready-made building blocks than debian/gento and at the same time far more flexibility than RH/fedora/mandriva. This may start a big paradigm shift in the Linux world.

In fact I hope to soon see Ubuntu meta-distros targeting specific niches, like old-people (simplified desktop), children (simplified desktop), people with disabilities (accessibility on by default), geeks (compiz & co turned on), old hardware, music editing, specific server tasks, multimedia set-top-box.... You name it.

lapsey

October 2nd, 2006, 12:32 PM

kubuntu, xubuntu, nubuntu, christian ubuntu, ubuntu-lite are just as much metadistros as anything. All using the same base but using a different default install and presentation style

ago

October 2nd, 2006, 12:35 PM

I am aware of it, but I think it is only the tip of the iceberg. Many existing distros could be rewritten into ubuntu meta-packages, greatly simplifying the work for the maintainers and creating some convergence.

So to answer to the OP, yes I think there will be a LOT of convergence (at least in the desktop/server segment) in the coming years. Probably we will see 2 or 3 big families, with several offsprings being simply metapackages.

aysiu

October 2nd, 2006, 12:42 PM

It's not possible.

http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux

ago

October 2nd, 2006, 12:46 PM

Probably we will see 2 or 3 big families, with several offsprings being simply metapackages.

In fact I think this is one of the most interesting aspects that Ubuntu has brought to the Linux scene and people often forget to mention. Everybody is watching at the "distro for human beings".

But the flipside, is a highly flexible framework where you can build on a solid, yet light base, excellent tools, and a huge array of packages. You can use these building blocks to create with relatively little effort anything you want, targeting very specific audiences (and thus bringing in convergence). And this second point is no less relevant than the first one.

True, most of it must be credited to Debian, but Ubuntu has brought that too to the next level.

ago

October 2nd, 2006, 12:54 PM

It's not possible.

http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux

There is a double meaning here.

By a "single distro" you may intend a "single CD" or a "single family" with several offsprings (i.e. a single framework with metapackages targeting specific needs = one family but "many CDs").

While I do not think that the first case is possible or even desirable, I think that the second one would be beneficial and we will give up very little in terms of choice while greatly simplifying standard adoption and reducing work duplication. Just go through distrowatch and see how many of those distros could be recasted as Ubuntu meta-packages...

Again I do not think that even the second point will bring us a single Linux family, but it will certainly help convergence and I hope that the meta-package model will become more widespread.

aysiu

October 2nd, 2006, 12:54 PM

The only way there would be a single Linux (and not technically single, but for all practical purposes single) would be if one distro started becoming preloaded by Dell on prominently displayed desktop and laptop PCs on dell.com.

If that happened, that distro would be the major desktop Linux distro, and everyone would want to have compatibility with that distro (including precompiled binaries for it for applications).

Lord Illidan

October 2nd, 2006, 01:01 PM

I would leave Linux if that were to come true...I love it the way it is. I want to be free, free to produce my own distro if I wish, and free to contribute to another distro. If Linux had unified way back, then we might have no Ubuntu.

ago

October 2nd, 2006, 01:02 PM

There are 2 driving forces for Linux, one is the market, one is the developers... Developers may simply see that one framework is more convenient and bring less ties... See Mepis.

henriquemaia

October 2nd, 2006, 01:05 PM

It's not possible.

http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux

Already posted before.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1571871&postcount=7

prizrak

October 2nd, 2006, 01:06 PM

That is a horrible, horrible idea. I got a friend who uses Gentoo and loves it. I on the other hand could never get it to work and find the idea of compiling every single package retarded at best. Debian is good but too difficult IMO, SuSE plain sux (also IMO). You see the point here don't you? One Linux distro would be horrible and there is very little work duplication as the sources are available so the programmers don't actually need to reinvent the wheel unless they want to.

Erik Trybom

October 2nd, 2006, 01:46 PM

People go to Linux for different reasons:

1) It's free.
2) It's secure (stable, no viruses/spyware etc).
3) It's customizable.
4) It's fun.
5) Other reasons.

A unified distribution would still be free, but already at point 2 it runs into trouble. Should it have the latest packages or should it put safety first? Whatever way it takes some people are not going to like it.

Then at point 3 the trouble continues. Obviously one unified distribution can never offer the same choice as several. Just agreeing on one window manager would prove an impossible task (which the K- and Xubuntu forks show). The GPL is designed to prevent people from forcing these kinds of decisions upon others. A unified distro would only be divided again by people who don't like the path it takes.

I think unifying Linux would destroy its purpose and just make it another Windows. People like Linux because it offers so much choice, not despite it.

aysiu

October 2nd, 2006, 01:53 PM

I think unifying Linux would destroy its purpose and just make it another Windows. People like Linux because it offers so much choice, not despite it. Ah, we'd like to think so, but a lot of people come to Linux not for what it offers but for what they think it offers--Windows without problems. They want Linux to be a Windows clone but without Windows' security and maintenance issues.

ago

October 2nd, 2006, 01:58 PM

Should it have the latest packages or should it put safety first?
Well if you based your distro as a meta-package for Ubuntu you would have LTS (stable) releases as well as a recent release, with relatively little effort. You would not have to choose one or the other.

Then at point 3 the trouble continues.
Again if you base your distro on a good framework like Ubuntu, your flexibility is only limited by ubuntu-standard, which is a very thin layer. You can build on it many, many different "distributions" very different among themselves.

Obviously one unified distribution can never offer the same choice as several.
I think we should clarify the distinction between a distribution "node" (e.g. kubuntu) and a distribution tree (the ubuntu family). You can have several choices within a tree. And you can even have a few trees.

Today thanks to metapackages and existing building blocks, you can have different flavours of the same distribution in order to address different tastes. A few years ago', to accomodate different target audiences you would have seen completely different distros. Therefore there is more scope for consolidation today than there has been in the past. That does not mean that different tastes will be catered for with a single dish, only that the kitchen is gonna be the same (or a few ones).

To make an example, say you want to create a distro around E17, you could start from scratch and provide your own autodetection system, your own package manager, your own packages, your own installer, your own configurations, your own kernel... Or you could use Ubuntu and simply create a metapackage ebuntu17-desktop. To the end user it will be the same thing, all he cares about is probably just E17, but the meta-package route will save a lot of work to the devs while improving consistency and QA. Will the user give up choice? No. Will you give up development of building blocks (like package manager and installer)? No. They will still be developed, but as individual components not as part of a new distro, see smart package manager in Ubuntu.

kornelix

November 26th, 2006, 04:19 AM

Why Ubuntu?

Mark Shuttleworth explained why he started Ubuntu:
http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth

The above document is long, but here is 90% of the content with 10% of the effort:

#1. Mark did Ubuntu to fix bug #1: Microsoft has >90% market share. Ubuntu's goal is to bring free open source software (FOSS) to the world, as an alternative to proprietary products from Microsoft and others. Canonical will get revenue from support and services around Ubuntu, but Ubuntu will always be free.

#2. Binary compatibility (among different releases of Ubuntu or with other Linux distributions) is NOT a goal. Control of upstream development (the thousands of FOSS projects that funnel into most Linux distributions) is not possible. Even the Linux kernel does not maintain binary compatibility: there are no fixed ABIs for device drivers, which must always be compiled together with the kernel. Ubuntu's job is to improve on the source code (fit, polish, bugs, features) and make this available to others, as they make their work available to Ubuntu. All applications in each Ubuntu release are compiled from source and are self-consistent, but not necessarily compatible with prior releases or other distrubutions.

#3. Ubuntu source code revisions are published in a way that upstream developers and other distributions can easily understand and use them (if they choose). Ubuntu is investing in tools to facilitate and promote collaboration and coordination among upstream projects, Ubuntu, and other distributions.

#4. Mark does not believe that Ubuntu is helping to "fork" (Balkanize) the development community, splitting the limited FOSS development talent into competing factions that do redundant or overlapping work, or (worse) competing and incompatible work. Debian is not being threatened, and Debian is in fact critical for Ubuntu's success.

#5. The DCC Alliance is an organization to define a core Debian Linux distribution which is LSB compliant. Linux distributions based on this core would be able to run LSB compliant applications without change (binary compatibility). DCC is not a part of Debian itself, and cooperation is apparently voluntary. Mark thinks this effort will fail, and that Ubuntu membership in DCC would only slow down Ubuntu development.

#6. Ubuntu was launched as a separate project from Debian because:
* Ubuntu would target a few popular architectures rather than virtually all of them
* Ubuntu would target ~1000 popular apps instead of the 15000 Debian apps
* Improving collaboration among distributions and upstream projects was more important and would have more impact than helping Debian directly.

My Take

Reason #1 (Microsoft monopoly) is a fine goal shared my many Linux developers, but the rest are in conflict with #1 and insure that #1 cannot be met.

Lack of standards and the Balkanization of Linux will insure that it remains below 3% market share. Both the users and providers of software apps need standards to broaden the base and simplify development and support. The current chaos in Linux insures that most app users and providers will continue to use MS Windows, in spite of its cost and security issues.

This same battle was fought 15 years ago, when a (technically pathetic) Windows 3.1 routed Unix on the desktop, mainly because Unix was split into many semi-compatible small warring camps, and Windows was a standard, even if a poor one (at the time, I was trying to get VC money for a Unix project, and I was advised to port my stuff to Windows). Today, Linux must compete with a much stronger opponent than Windows 3.1.

Reasons #2 to #6 are unconvincing. They are also typical attitudes for Linux geeks and software developers in general. "Freedom to Innovate" is the real factor behind the scenes, and this is far more important for developers than following "confining" standards or making something that other people can effectively use. Linux remains their playground. Linux is not market- or customer-driven, and it shows.

Some people blame other factors for limiting Linux adoption, such as lack of drivers and lack of pre-loaded systems. I believe that the chaos has to be fixed first, before Linux has a chance of convincing hardware vendors to invest in drivers, or convincing Dell and HP to offer and support pre-loaded systems. When Michael Dell was recently asked about supporting Linux, his response was "which one?".

What if Linux were not Balkanized and most Linux developers were pulling together? This must be Bill Gates's worst nightmare.

RAV TUX

November 26th, 2006, 04:49 AM

aysiu

November 26th, 2006, 04:50 AM

Circus-Killer

November 26th, 2006, 04:58 AM

i totally agree with jan, Linux would be overwhelmly better than windows by now,
( now is a good replacement) with all the contributions that linux users have done, but with every distro creating their own solution it just makes linux develop slower , yeah, linux is getting there but if we merged forces would be waay better.

a lot of people are missing the point. not only is linux about choice (and believe me did i try out a LOT of distros before choosing ubuntu), but work is not slowed down by having many distros.

this is a prime example of people not understanding what a distro is. for the most part, a distro is simply a collection of different packages that have been put together in a way that the maintainer's see best. but take two distros that both contain BASH (as most do). neither distro created their own versions of bash. they both just took the same bash and integrated into their distro.

in other words, whether you merged all distros or kept them seperate, doesnt matter. each little peace of software is a project on its own independent of a distro. this is a brilliant way to work. it also gives distros the choice of which app they would like to use. maybe a distro feels ksh is better than bash. doesnt mean any distro is responsible for the two.

hopefully, i've made myself clear enough. i feel that might of made a mess of this post. this is all just my opinion. but i think the way things are done in the OSS community is perfect atm.

shining

November 26th, 2006, 06:12 AM

a lot of people are missing the point. not only is linux about choice (and believe me did i try out a LOT of distros before choosing ubuntu), but work is not slowed down by having many distros.

this is a prime example of people not understanding what a distro is. for the most part, a distro is simply a collection of different packages that have been put together in a way that the maintainer's see best. but take two distros that both contain BASH (as most do). neither distro created their own versions of bash. they both just took the same bash and integrated into their distro.

in other words, whether you merged all distros or kept them seperate, doesnt matter. each little peace of software is a project on its own independent of a distro. this is a brilliant way to work. it also gives distros the choice of which app they would like to use. maybe a distro feels ksh is better than bash. doesnt mean any distro is responsible for the two.

hopefully, i've made myself clear enough. i feel that might of made a mess of this post. this is all just my opinion. but i think the way things are done in the OSS community is perfect atm.

You're right to point this out, that the major part of the job is done outside a distribution's scope. But that still leaves a big job for a distribution. Packaging every oss, dealing with bugs, with upstream, staying up to date. This requires a lot of work, and many people.
I for one believe every distribs would benefit from more contributers and more users.
One unique distribution would be a very bad idea IMHO, but between one and 359 (http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=All&origin=All&basedon=All&desktop=All&architecture=All&status=Active), there is a big difference.
Maybe, it's not very harmful, but I'm not sure it's perfect and ideal. I could obviously be wrong though.

humptydumpty

November 26th, 2006, 06:26 AM

I wonder where we would be now, if Linus Torvals has not got been around! Thanks to him and the Linux Community out there, we have seen very rapid inmprvements in the availability of Linux software, and the quality and effectiveness of the various distros.

Just think back only a few years - remember those first distros - nothing like Ubuntu is now!

When microsoft started it took very many years for it to degenerate from Dos into an all singing - all dancing (oops! that should read "falling over" not all dancing) system.

When Linux has been around as many years long as Microsoft, I wonder if Microsoft will still exist as we know it??

I believe that a large door will be opened once the large PC manufacturers stop sleeping in the same bed as Microsoft and "allow" purchasers to
opt for Linux, rather than the obligatory MS Windows XP or Vista - then we will see a rapid take up of Linux powered systems.

I know of many individuals who have resorted to building their own PC's rather than being forced to pay for software which they will never use. Let's hope the likes of Dell et al., see the light for the mass market!

dbbolton

November 26th, 2006, 06:29 AM

doesn't that contradict linus' originally decision to share his kernel openly ?

frup

November 26th, 2006, 06:51 AM

I tend to look at it this way: Look how many users sit there and go I want this app in the default distribution. Now when that gets to a significant proportion of apps, unless they get placed in the default system, you need a fork. and if you don't fork and just place them in the default, the people who liked the old method might fork. Thats fine.

I think many of the distros are ego driven though. some lonely dev wanting to be the next big thing, with NIH syndrome. I don't like those ones as they just reinvent the wheel often. but most of them are so unused its not funny.

Arguing against many distros is difficult though. Would you like the choice to use Kubuntu Ubuntu and Xubuntu removed? thats good distro forking (especially since they can all be grouped as ubuntu)

What about Fedora/RH, OpenSUSE/SuSe, Mandriva, Debian, Slackware, Arch .. whatever. What about BSD? They all provide something people want and thats why they are popular. They are obviously doing the right thing.

I also have to ask about competition. AIGLX and XGL for example... created to compete with each other so i guess that makes the product better. Both serve different purposes too. Compiz and Beryl...

KDE and GNOME of course and all the other window managers.. Choice... There are people who would never use the other.

Rhythmbox or XMMS?

Oppenoffice or Koffice or Star Office?

Thunderbird or Evolution

Firefox or Seamonkey or Konquera or Epiphany or Opera...

Next I'll bring up Damn Small Linux or Puppy... providing the needs of older computers.

Gentoo compiles from source.
Linspire has codecs and makes idiots think they are using Linux :P

So tell me, should all those examples not exist?
Which of those choices would you choose to remove?
Which of those choices would be in the default?
Which one would your neighbour want?
Are justified in making the choice for someone else?

Why should GNU/Linux exist at all?
We don't want freedom of choice do we?

shining

November 26th, 2006, 07:54 AM

Why should GNU/Linux exist at all?
We don't want freedom of choice do we?

GNU/Linux isn't about freedom of choice to me. The most important thing about GNU/Linux is the GPL, which is a very restrictive license.
Shouldn't it be public domain for freedom of choice?

So tell me, should all those examples not exist?
Which of those choices would you choose to remove?
Which of those choices would be in the default?
Which one would your neighbour want?
Are justified in making the choice for someone else?

But isn't that anarchy? Maybe that would be an ideal model in a ideal world, but in a real world, it's less obvious.

argie

November 26th, 2006, 09:16 AM

I think the concept of a "Unified Linux" is ridiculous. Maybe the idea of a simple standard to promote compatibility but making one huge monolithic OS is ridiculous and it won't work because each dev is going to work on what he likes.

Also, imagine if Red Hat were to be this idea of a unified distro, we wouldn't be having apt-get, repositories and all this, and we wouldn't have the people who would use Gentoo, and what about the people who want to use specialised Linux OSes like DSL on a USB stick, or DSL embedded, or Knoppix. Each of these OSes exist because there's someone who finds them useful. As long as someone finds them useful, and as long as the GPL is in force, you will not be able to force people to use your single distro.

kornelix

November 26th, 2006, 10:36 AM

I would suggest you read the thread I merged you with. Then, please propose your master plan for reversing the balkanization of Linux. Also include how you would keep everything from splintering again. Practical steps, not lofty ideas.

A) Thanks for reversing my Balkanization of threads.
B) I accept your criticism, in that I have no great answers. The first step to solving a problem is to recognize the problem. Some of us are at least working on this first step.
C) I will read through this thread as you suggested. Thanks.

jnoreiko

November 26th, 2006, 11:08 AM

Freedom of choice that is what it's all about.

What's so great about choice?

kornelix

November 26th, 2006, 12:47 PM

Aysiu,

I read your essay on "unified Linux" on your web site. I guess this is your answer to all of us who complain about the balkanization of Linux.

I have mixed feelings. For what it's worth, here are a few comments about your essay.

<<
If X number of distros is too many, why would you want X+1 distros?
>>
This is not what is proposed by anyone complaining about balkanization of Linux.
<<
... energy spent developing one distro or parts of one distro often comes back to help the rest of the community.
>>
Unless developers are working on different programs with overlapping function.
Unless developers look down on the "improvements" of others.

<<
... But this 'unified' distro doesn't suit the needs ... and a new distro is born.
>>
Standards need not reduce the no. of apps or distros to one instance. Standards make apps interoperable. Apps can implement standards better or worse (e.g. the many web browsers and media players), or can extend functionality that is not standardized. Standards do not eliminate competition and innovation. I admit that they can sometimes get in the way of innovation.

<<
... diversity leads to survival and growth.
>>
Darwinism may eventually work for Linux, but this is very slow compared to managed evolution. If one distro can reach critical mass and set defacto standards, the problem would be solved or at least moderated.

You compare diversity in Linux with diversity in pizzas. You should understand the difference better than this. There is no cost to switching pizzas. There are huge costs in switching Linux distros, making apps that work on many distros, or technical support for many distros. What would happen if all autos had non-standard wheel rims? Used different kinds of fuel?

<<
... HP, Dell, etc. selling Linux preloaded.
>>
They will have to pick a distro, and in so doing write-off the 95% using some other distro (or hope they will change distros at some time). Maybe one day they will take the plunge with the hope of having bet on the winning horse.

<<
... some say Linux doesn't need more market share.
>>
But what about bug#1? Mark Shuttleworth apparently wants market share, but it seems he is not helping the problem, since Ubuntu does not support the orgs advocating more standardization of Linux. Ubuntu is not inhibited by the defacto standards in place: they change directory structures and file names, and even (sometimes) change libraries and break apps.

You point out that market share is important for hardware and software vendor support. This is a chicken-and-egg problem: the market share does not come unless the support is there. Lack of standards undermines both sides.

"Unified distro" is not the answer, for the reasons you pointed out, and for the reason that much of what is good about Linux would be undermined: creative freedom brings innovation and progress. The challenge is to have standards that make Linux viable for hardware and sofware vendors and for more users, and not kill freedom and innovation. This is the same problem faced by all high-tech companies competing with rivals. There are "standards wars" which impede progress here, too.

I do not know what the answer is, but the present chaos and lack of management will never get Linux over the 10% threshold. Linux and the FOSS movement consists of thousands of projects with almost no overall management.

The kernel seems to be well-managed. Is this an example for the rest of FOSS?

The freedom-loving and creative geeks that control FOSS are in conflict with the idea of market share and fixing bug #1. They are winning.

NyquistLimit

November 28th, 2006, 02:30 PM

I'd just like to get people's thoughts on what I believe to be one of the biggest obstacles for the adoption of Linux based operating systems; diversity. Too much diversity causes headaches for software developers and subsequently affects the quality and capacity for that software to integrate well with distributions and desktop environments. This lack of integration causes limitations and inconsistencies in the overall users experience offered by a typical Linux operating system.

In the world of the Linux OS you're never short on choices. You can choose from a plethora of different distributions and after making that choice you can choose to use one of many desktop environments. This is all great, because everyone has different preferences which each distribution / DE may cater for.

Unfortunately the problems this causes for software development is IMO a complete nightmare. Developers have to choose to develop for a specific desktop environment, which usually boils down to either KDE or Gnome. Then when it comes to release time they have so many different distributions (and multiple versions of the same distribution) to cater for that they usually release a product that has to be manually compiled rather than easily installed via a distro specific package. What's really needed is a distribution neutral method of packaging software so that developers can release a product that everyone can easily install.

You may be thinking that distribution specific respositories take care of this by packaging up thousands of applications, easily accessible via Synaptic or whatever. Unfortunately the truth of the matter is that there are usually plenty of applications that don't make it into the repositories until weeks after they've released a new version and alot of users usually rely on third party repositories / debs to get the software they need. e.g. the latest versions of Beryl, Amarok, Exaile, Brasero etc. The existence of getdeb.net (http://www.getdeb.net) and other .deb hosting sites shows that there's a huge hole in linux software distribution that needs to be addressed.

In my opinion the biggest problem that stems from the overabundance of diversity is the constant act of reinventing the wheel. Any software written for KDE has to be ported to Gnome and vice versa; or an equivalent application has to be written from scratch for the other DE. Amarok for example is a very mature and feature rich music management application. The ability to run it under Gnome is fine but lacks the integration of a native Gnome app. Thus the creation of Exaile, an excellent GTK based music app that states on its homepage: Exaile is a media player aiming to be similar to KDE's AmaroK, but for GTK+. No disrespect to the Exaile developers but coding something from scratch to achieve nearly identical features of an existing application for the same operating system seems completely absurd! I understand the need for such a project but wouldn't it be better if there were a framework for applications to integrate seamlessly regardless of the DE used?

Another example; Firefox when run in a KDE environment will display a Gnome based file-save dialog instead of a Konqueror dialog. This requires a hack to force Firefox to use a feature-limited QT save dialog. The necessity for the Firefox developers to code exceptions for each of the DEs is inefficient because it takes time away from developing real innovative features.

So we have Amarok and Exaile, Kaffeine and Totem, Adept and Synaptic, Konqueror and Nautilus, K3B and Brasero....the list goes on. Each one of these applications is designed to emulate the features of it's desktop environment counterpart. There is no innovation happening here, it's like an endless game of cat and mouse.

I think it's truly unfortunate that my choice of DE ultimately restricts the choice of software I'm able to use. It almost negates the advantage of having that choice in the first place because if I choose to use an application designed for "the other" DE I'm left with an inferior user experience due to poor integration and inconsistency.

The reason Mac OS X has been so successful is because its integration of software is so complete and consistent that users can freely drag and drop objects between different applications without fear of that action failing to perform the desired function. The Mac OS experience is such that you feel as though you're using a single product rather than a mish mash of isolated programs.

We need more integration and collaboration between distributions and desktop environments to create a framework where diversity can co-exist with globally accepted standards. This way developers can focus on features rather than having to worry about the multitude of distros and DEs. It also means less developers having to port existing applications, emulating each other and diluting the already scarce free software developer pool. Without this stability we'll always find ourselves chasing our own tails, re-inventing the wheel and alienating the users who expect an operating system experience worthy of todays high standards.

I'm eager to hear everyones comments on this.

Bezmotivnik

November 28th, 2006, 02:58 PM

I've always thought this was glaringly obvious. :rolleyes:

Brunellus

November 28th, 2006, 03:06 PM

You must be new here. Welcome.

Many users seem to think that if only various software developers would get together and combine, there would be this enormous, Open-Source Voltron of Software Freedom Righteousness that would sweep away microsoft and usher in a thousand years of earthly paradise.

This is neither possible nor desirable.

"Unification" under this model would require a level of coercion--non-freedom--that is very hard to attain, given the terms of the GPL. One of the basic freedoms of free software is the freedom to fork the software if you happen to think that things could be done better another way. Thus, the diversity.

Is this a good thing? From a development standpoint, yes. Many different approaches to many problems can be tried, tested, and even rejected. So long as all developers and users abide by all the terms of all the relevant licenses, everybody wins. There's always a lot of carping in the GNOME or KDE community when one or the other adopts a useful feature from its free "competitor," but that is really what software freedom is about.

The other way to get coercion is through the marketplace. Red Hat and Novell are presently making their plays for this in serverland--their dominance of corporate Linux means that third-party, commercial vendors will only really support RHEL nad SLED. If enough momentum gathers around those two distros, then they become your leaders. Once again, however, so long as all the license terms are adhered to by all parties, everyone wins.

The major barrier to mass adoption has nothing to do with choice (or lack thereof) in text editors or web browsers on a given OS. It has more to do with installed base, OEM pre-installation, and vendor dependency.

Lord Illidan

November 28th, 2006, 03:06 PM

Your biggest problem is with the two DEs, right? You'll be pleased to hear about this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Project

It is a project intended to unify GNOME and KDE.

However, you have a mistake where you say : Linux' biggest weakness is too much diversity. Linux is only the kernel. And there is only 1 Linux kernel (with many versions, but still, only 1 kernel at the end.)

blueturtl

November 28th, 2006, 03:16 PM

I think you need sleep on this.

I know you must have at least thought about it, but doesn't it strike you that the very thing that makes Linux so strong is in your eyes a flaw? Once you remove diversity, you remove choice. There is always someone who thinks that something should be done differently. Someone who prefers other features or other type of functionality. That's why there are so many choices to begin with. The problem with Windows and the Mac is that once you want something different you are stuck with what you get.

You argue that having applications for different DE's takes away developer time from true innovation. I disagree on the basis that the copying of work and ideas over to other DE's is not done by the same developers who wrote the original code (at least not necessarily).

A typical Linux program is written to perform through command line. Once it is mature enough someone might go as far as to create a front-end for it. Front-ends can then be for as many different DE's as possible, but the workload is still a whole lot less than having to write the application from scratch. Case in point is MPlayer. It works on Windows, Linux and OS X and it doesn't necessarily require a GUI at all on any of them! Another case in point: CD and DVD burning are done by command line applications in Linux but we have K3B, a full blown graphical disc burning app that competes with Gnome's minimalistic GUI-integrated burning functions. Sure there are projects like Amarok and Exaile that are written from scratch all the way to the top, but that doesn't make it "the way".

As far as consistency goes, if you use anything other than MS apps on top of Windows you will get plenty of inconsistency. Heck, even Microsoft breaks it's own rules: hitting 'x' in the latest Microsoft Excel will cause all the open spreadsheets to close, not just the one that is active. This is not the way I'm used to apps functioning in Windows (the program closes once you close the last instance or window). The Mac is a whole other animal, but then it has the lowest amount of applications available. The point in this is not to attack other platforms, but rather to note that you seem to think a centralized and integrated environment would make things better (which in my opinion it usually doesn't).

There is no central command for Linux application development, rather just small HQ's here and there. A heterogenous environment is a better in the long run, because the needs of both niche's and average joe's are met. It's a rather magnificent development process. Considering that each distribution is essentially it's own operating system I think it's wonderous that things work as well as they do.

I'm not sure I'm very clear about my path of thought, but let's hope you get the idea.

Lord Illidan

November 28th, 2006, 03:19 PM

If Linux was not as "chaotic" as it is now, I wouldn't be using it. Part of the fun is the experimenting, and the joy of finding something new to do each day.

Bezmotivnik

November 28th, 2006, 03:53 PM

If Linux was not as "chaotic" as it is now, I wouldn't be using it. Part of the fun is the experimenting, and the joy of finding something new to do each day.
Yes, that's what attracts a few Linux hobbyists, but surely you must realize that these are hardly the priorities of the marketplace.

In the eyes of the marketplace, where the typical user does not view his OS as a toy or an ongoing experiment, Linux is chaotic, and that's totally confusing and unattractive -- a pure negative.

Predominating standards are good. Otherwise we'd still be back in 1982 with thirty-something different and incompatible floppy disk formats.

Never mind the terrible squandering of desktop Linux's severely limited monetary and organizational resources by uncoordinated and redundant development. Seriously, I'm amazed desktop Linux works at all. It might actually be significant someday if its development ever stops being like trying to herd cats.

Brunellus

November 28th, 2006, 03:56 PM

Yes, that's what attracts a few Linux hobbyists, but surely you must realize that these are hardly the priorities of the marketplace.

In the eyes of the marketplace, where the typical user does not view his OS as a toy or an ongoing experiment, Linux is chaotic, and that's totally confusing and unattractive -- a pure negative.

Predominating standards are good. Otherwise we'd still be back in 1982 with thirty-something different and incompatible floppy disk formats.

Never mind the terrible squandering of desktop Linux's severely limited monetary and organizational resources by uncoordinated and redundant development. Seriously, I'm amazed desktop Linux works at all. It might actually be significant someday if its development ever stops being like trying to herd cats.
what happened in '82 was that the predominating standard won in the market. Same thing will happen in Linux eventually.

Remember, the only thing that's monolithic about Linux is the kernel. Everything else is added on, adapted, or built around. But if you came looking for the emperor, I'm afraid all you'll see are penguins.

aysiu

November 28th, 2006, 03:56 PM

I've merged this with the "Unified Linux" thread.

You can also check out more related discussion at Linux distributors unite on desktop standard (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=164336&highlight=unified+linux)

shining

November 28th, 2006, 04:04 PM

Your biggest problem is with the two DEs, right? You'll be pleased to hear about this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Project

It is a project intended to unify GNOME and KDE.

The second major problem is the packaging one.

However, you have a mistake where you say : Linux' biggest weakness is too much diversity. Linux is only the kernel. And there is only 1 Linux kernel (with many versions, but still, only 1 kernel at the end.)

So, Linux must suck then if what Brunellus said isn't possible for the kernel:
Many different approaches to many problems can be tried, tested, and even rejected.

Personally, I don't know what to think, as always... One one hand, as the OP said, too much diversity indeed really looks like a big waste of time.
On the other hand, as Brunellus said, unification is nearly impossible, because there will always be conflicts of opinions, and secondly diversity can indeed have some benefits.
It seems to me the majority of users like either Gnome or KDE, and don't really like the others. I think the same holds true for the different kind of package formats, the music players, ...
How do you make everyone happy, especially when the needs are very different?

However, what was suggested is:

We need more integration and collaboration between distributions and desktop environments to create a framework where diversity can co-exist with globally accepted standards.

It's not about killing the diversity, only limiting it slightly by having standards, and that can't be a bad thing.
And the portland project seems indeed to go in the right direction.

Bezmotivnik

November 28th, 2006, 04:07 PM

what happened in '82 was that the predominating standard won in the market. Same thing will happen in Linux eventually.
It can't happen in the same way, because it was a money decision based on an exasperated "pick one and move on" choice. Remember the story of why DOS won over CP/M.

Remember, the only thing that's monolithic about Linux is the kernel. Everything else is added on, adapted, or built around. But if you came looking for the emperor, I'm afraid all you'll see are penguins.
Well, emperors make history; penguins just mill around squawking at each other in the polar wastes. In that respect, the choice of the penguin mascot was eerily prescient.

Brunellus

November 28th, 2006, 04:08 PM

The second major problem is the packaging one.

So, Linux must suck then if what Brunellus said isn't possible for the kernel:

Personally, I don't know what to think, as always... One one hand, as the OP said, too much diversity indeed really looks like a big waste of time.
On the other hand, as Brunellus said, unification is nearly impossible, because there will always be conflicts of opinions, and secondly diversity can indeed have some benefits.
It seems to me the majority of users like either Gnome or KDE, and don't really like the others. I think the same holds true for the different kind of package formats, the music players, ...
How do you make everyone happy, especially when the needs are very different?

However, what was suggested is:

It's not about killing the diversity, only limiting it slightly by having standards, and that can't be a bad thing.
And the portland project seems indeed to go in the right direction.
the kernel is infinitely variable; again, there's one official Linux kernel, but there can be infinitely many kernels, one for each user, theoretically, each doing something slightly different. Ubuntu has patches applied to its 'stock' kernel that are still pending in the main kernel.

Why is this so? Ubuntu devs think the patches are ready, and redistribute them (with source) under the terms of the GPL. Kernel maintainers might not have gotten to approving those patches for inclusion into the main trunk yet--but this is no big deal.

Until the Kernel maintainers merge that patch, what you have is, in effect, a little fork of the main Kernel.

Every distro does this. So there are literally dozens of kernels floating around, all based off the main Kernel, each with their own patches and fixes which, in turn, await inclusion (or otehrwise) into the main Kernel stable branch.

aysiu

November 28th, 2006, 04:15 PM

I've posted this in the past (however many pages ago), but I think proponents of unifying Linux should read this:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux

shining

November 28th, 2006, 04:24 PM

the kernel is infinitely variable; again, there's one official Linux kernel, but there can be infinitely many kernels, one for each user, theoretically, each doing something slightly different. Ubuntu has patches applied to its 'stock' kernel that are still pending in the main kernel.

Why is this so? Ubuntu devs think the patches are ready, and redistribute them (with source) under the terms of the GPL. Kernel maintainers might not have gotten to approving those patches for inclusion into the main trunk yet--but this is no big deal.

Until the Kernel maintainers merge that patch, what you have is, in effect, a little fork of the main Kernel.

Every distro does this. So there are literally dozens of kernels floating around, all based off the main Kernel, each with their own patches and fixes which, in turn, await inclusion (or otehrwise) into the main Kernel stable branch.

Right, but what I fail to see is why this model couldn't work for other projects if it works for the kernel?
Wouldn't it be possible to just have one major desktop environment, with several little fork? Actually, I believe that's already done by the major distributions, who slightly modify kde or gnome, but maybe in a smaller extent than for the kernel. Except that there are two major desktop environments, and only one kernel.
So do you think there should always be as many alternatives as possible? And it's just not possible for the kernel, because it's a much bigger project, and there isn't enough ressources (developers with free time) for developping an alternative?

Brunellus

November 28th, 2006, 04:33 PM

it's politics, in a word. Users and developers are willful creatures. If a maintainer is particularly emphatic about how he wants something done--and a big enough corps of developers and users disagree--nothing prevents the fracture of teh community along those lines.

Consider Debian, which for my money is the closest thing to the "One Distro To Rule Them All," once you add in all the Debian Daughters like Ubuntu, Mepis, DSL, etc, etc, etc. Every one of the Debian Daughters split from Debian because the various maintainers were more interested in serving specific needs:

DamnSmallLinux wanted the best OS they could fit on 50 megabytes. Ubuntu wanted a more aggressive development cycle. Mepis wanted more plug-and-play at the expense of software freedom, as did Xandros and Linspire. Those goals were fundamentally incompatible with the Debian projects' stated aim, which was to build a free operating system. So, off they went their own ways.

Again, those code snippets are out there and GPL-ed, so nothing prevents the Debian community from benefitting from the experience of their Debian Daughter distros.

For the kernel, the pain of maintaining a permanent fork is too great to be compensated by the pleasure of having a new Free kernel (Brunellix, anyone?).

NyquistLimit

November 28th, 2006, 05:24 PM

I've always thought this was glaringly obvious. :rolleyes:
But if this is so obvious why does the current situation exist? Why isn't there a gargantuan effort towards a set of standards that will help integration and unify software distribution?

However, you have a mistake where you say : Linux' biggest weakness is too much diversity. Linux is only the kernel. And there is only 1 Linux kernel (with many versions, but still, only 1 kernel at the end.)
You're right there, I meant nix-based operating systems...or thereabouts. It's confusing which terminology is correct because the concept of a linux operating system is so varied.

As far as consistency goes, if you use anything other than MS apps on top of Windows you will get plenty of inconsistency
I totally agree with this. In fact I've recently abandoned Windows in search of an operating system with more modern features. I consider Windows to be ancient history in the way it deals with things, especially integration. But for all its flaws it still has a much easier path to installing applications and drivers etc because the software developers don't have to worry about what format to package the software for release. Again I have to mention here that repositories are great for default software but cause the user to be limited by the decisions of the repository teams i.e. when to upgrade packages, which packages to include for any specific version of the distribution etc.

The issue I mentioned with all the different package formats is completely insane imo. Most software is released as source in tar.gz files because it's too time consuming to make all the relevant distribution packages. Isn't there a need here to create a global standard that can be adopted by all distributions?

Don't get me wrong, I think the forking of projects and diversity of everything within the world of linux is great but I can't help but notice that in its current form it's causing some severe problems for software distribution and consistency in applications.

The problem I mentioned with Firefox, that the save dialog is GTK even when run under KDE, is something that is jarring and inconsistent with the rest of the DE. I don't think that KDE and Gnome should merge I just think that something as fundamental as a save dialog needs to be made relevant to the host DE without tremendous amounts of work on the part of the software developer. Is the software developer to blame here for failing to integrate with all DEs or wouldn't it be good if there were a middleware framework that could invoke the correct dialog dynamically based on the host DE? This is what I meant when I mentioned collaboration between the different DEs.

You argue that having applications for different DE's takes away developer time from true innovation. I disagree on the basis that the copying of work and ideas over to other DE's is not done by the same developers who wrote the original code (at least not necessarily).
I propose that if the framework was designed in such a way that the original application could integrate into the "other" DE without modification then there would be no need to port the application.

I'm not implying that all distributions and DEs should amalgamate to form some kind of behemoth linux machine, different distros and DEs should remain but there must be some way to help developers so that porting between DEs and software distribution issues cease to exist.

The other way to get coercion is through the marketplace. Red Hat and Novell are presently making their plays for this in serverland--their dominance of corporate Linux means that third-party, commercial vendors will only really support RHEL nad SLED
But if there is a dominant force in the market that others choose to adopt as a standard doesn't this eliminate the concept of choice? For example if Ubuntu became so popular that all software was primarily developed for it wouldn't the world of linux become just Ubuntu. Sure there would still be other distros but what's the point if no-one was developing for them anymore?

A dominant distro would be a good thing imo because software would then be developed with more integration and less worry about the capabilities of all the host distros.

ubuntuman001

November 28th, 2006, 05:35 PM

Hi,

besides Canonical being Ltd., there is one more thing that drives me crazy - why do we the hell have that many linux distros around?

Isn't is different folks developing parallely exactly the same things? This greatly decreases the productivity of the whole community. I mean sure a lot of distros use the same packets etc., but for example the PROMOTION, which linux really really need in order for OEM to ship new pc with LINUX INSIDE, instead of that Microsoft crap beeing in every god damn mobile device now (got a PocketPC recently - Win mobile 2003 - and I am about to spit fire and throw it against the wall if I wont get linux inside soon!!!

I would be pretty happy with one universal distro around, beeing nicely boosted with features for everyone... I think Ubuntu goes this way and thats what i love it for. Until someone in Canonical screws up...

JanI did not read through the whole thread, I just wanted to respond to the first post, so here it goes.

GNU/Linux is not about competing against proprietary OS's or striving to be the best (well, except for a handful that do like to compete for marketshare, whether it be desktops or servers---Red Hat, Linspire, Xandros, Suse, and Ubuntu)...it's all about its own pace and the freedom to do whatever the hell you want. That's why there'll always be 300 different distros, cause nobody really cares whether microsoft has 95% marketshare or 92%, to developers (non-paid ones i mean), linux is like a hobby or a passion.

I'm not saying that if all devs united and strive to make the best distro ever, that it could not become very successful; that very well could be the case. But it's not gonna happen, because people don't like to unite under one goal, they have their own reasons to make different distros and they're sticking to it.

that's why i don't really understand bug # 1...even though Mark Shuttleworth himself has stated that it is not a joke, it does seem unreal...

aysiu

November 28th, 2006, 05:39 PM

GNU/Linux is not about competing against proprietary OS's or striving to be the best...it's all about its own pace and the freedom to do whatever the hell you want. That's why there'll always be 300 different distros, cause nobody really cares whether microsoft has 95% marketshare or 92%, to developers (non-paid ones i mean), linux is like a hobby or a passion.

...

that's why i don't really understand bug # 1...is it kind of a joke or something? Bug #1 (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1) is what Ubuntu sets out to fix, and it means competing directly against Microsoft Windows--Mark Shuttleworth himself has said this, and it's not a joke.

What you're talking about (general freedom with total disregard for market share) applies to many distros but not all of them. For example, I would say Gentoo, LFS, Slackware, Debian, and Damn Small Linux are a few examples of distros that couldn't care less about desktop market share or competing with Windows.

On the other hand, Red Hat, Linspire, Xandros, and Ubuntu are all in direct competition with Windows and actually do seek to gain market share.

ubuntuman001

November 28th, 2006, 05:57 PM

Bug #1 (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1) is what Ubuntu sets out to fix, and it means competing directly against Microsoft Windows--Mark Shuttleworth himself has said this, and it's not a joke.

What you're talking about (general freedom with total disregard for market share) applies to many distros but not all of them. For example, I would say Gentoo, LFS, Slackware, Debian, and Damn Small Linux are a few examples of distros that couldn't care less about desktop market share or competing with Windows.

On the other hand, Red Hat, Linspire, Xandros, and Ubuntu are all in direct competition with Windows and actually do seek to gain market share.okay, i do stand corrected, but i still stand by my post (i'll edit it actually, with aysiu's corrections)

argie

November 29th, 2006, 01:03 PM

I'd hate to get into this, because what you want requires forcing people to do something they obviously don't want to. I think this stems from a misunderstanding of how this works. As a developer, if I think your Unified Distro's philosophy sucks, and I think there's better use for all that nice code, I'm not going to work with you.
But for all its flaws it still has a much easier path to installing applications and drivers etc because the software developers don't have to worry about what format to package the software for release.
If source tarball, there is no problem. Someone interested will .deb it and someone else .rpm it.
Also, AFAIK, there's only .deb, .pup, and .rpm to worry about, and .pup is just a binary with a script tacked on.
Then there's just distributing precompiled binaries.

Again I have to mention here that repositories are great for default software but cause the user to be limited by the decisions of the repository teams i.e. when to upgrade packages, which packages to include for any specific version of the distribution etc.

The issue I mentioned with all the different package formats is completely insane imo. Most software is released as source in tar.gz files because it's too time consuming to make all the relevant distribution packages. Isn't there a need here to create a global standard that can be adopted by all distributions?

Sounds good. LSB chose .rpm, I think. But I think .deb is better personally (only because my personal experience with RHL has been bad). I'd rather be given the choice of which package format to use, as is currently the state. Your idea assumes that some God User sees that Package Format #326 is the Ideal Package Format, and so all must be subject to its power! There is no such god user.

Don't get me wrong, I think the forking of projects and diversity of everything within the world of linux is great but I can't help but notice that in its current form it's causing some severe problems for software distribution and consistency in applications.

The problem I mentioned with Firefox, that the save dialog is GTK even when run under KDE, is something that is jarring and inconsistent with the rest of the DE. I don't think that KDE and Gnome should merge I just think that something as fundamental as a save dialog needs to be made relevant to the host DE without tremendous amounts of work on the part of the software developer. Is the software developer to blame here for failing to integrate with all DEs or wouldn't it be good if there were a middleware framework that could invoke the correct dialog dynamically based on the host DE? This is what I meant when I mentioned collaboration between the different DEs.

Actually, here I'd ask the software developer to do it, or better yet, if there is enough demand, someone who can do it and wants to do it will do it. I mean, is my save dialog so much worse/better than yours? Oh, by the way, perhaps this will help a little? http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Integrate_Firefox_with_KDE

I propose that if the framework was designed in such a way that the original application could integrate into the "other" DE without modification then there would be no need to port the application.

Portland is all about this, I think.

But if there is a dominant force in the market that others choose to adopt as a standard doesn't this eliminate the concept of choice? For example if Ubuntu became so popular that all software was primarily developed for it wouldn't the world of linux become just Ubuntu. Sure there would still be other distros but what's the point if no-one was developing for them anymore?

Personally don't see this happening. Primarily because no single OS can fill out everyone's quirks.

NyquistLimit

November 29th, 2006, 02:07 PM

If source tarball, there is no problem. Someone interested will .deb it and someone else .rpm it.
I think this is a serious problem. Isn't it the job of the developer to provide the installer for their software? Otherwise you end up with the current situation where end users are forced to search google or forums to find someone who has created a .deb file. This is crazy and completely counter intuitive.

The current situation seems to cater for advanced users, who can compile the software themselves, and beginners, who have no choice but to rely on the repositories. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground where an average user wishes to try software outwith the repositories but lacks the knowledge required to manually compile it.

Is it really acceptable to expect end users to hunt around the internet looking for debs and rpms for their particular version of distribution? The dependency on third parties (anyone other than the developer) to provide software packages causes confusion and results in a haphazard distribution network.

The other solution is to wait for the software to be included in the repositories, but that is completely out of end user control. The software may not even be guaranteed to be included in the repositories for many weeks, or in some cases not at all!

Can someone point me to information regarding the decision making process for the inclusion of apps into the repositories? Who or what group makes these decisions?

BTW, just to clarify, I am not advocating the unification of all linux distributions, just the standardisation of fundamental aspects that are shared by ALL distributions; namely: software packaging and distribution.

Actually, here I'd ask the software developer to do it, or better yet, if there is enough demand, someone who can do it and wants to do it will do it. I mean, is my save dialog so much worse/better than yours?
It isn't a question of which is better or worse, it's the matter of how well integrated and consistent it is. The save dialog should be the same throughout all applications running in the host desktop environment.

Oh, by the way, perhaps this will help a little? link (http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Integrate_Firefox_with_KDE)
Thanks for the link, however, it highlights the problem of requiring an end user to perform such a task to achieve something as fundamental as a consistent save dialog. BTW the above hack produces a save dialog that is not as functional as the one found in native KDE apps (no bookmarked folders etc), so in that respect it is still not consistent.

The Portland Project seems like a great initiative and I really hope it manages to provide the framework required for desktop environment astraction.

Brunellus

November 29th, 2006, 02:23 PM

Developers can't be expected to package their software for all distributions. If they do that, cool. But if not, well...binary packaging, installation, and testing is a pain in the neck. The GPL only compels availability of source code--so they can comply with that requirement and let everybody else worry about packaging.

leandir

December 9th, 2006, 05:07 AM

leandir

December 9th, 2006, 06:39 PM

About Firefox, I was just able finally to get it have a KDE feel! Apart from the Gentoo link up there, there is another quirk needed for having it functioning (can't recall what the link was...):

-go to your /usr/share/applications/
-in terminal digit sudo kate nautilus-folder-handler.desktop
-look for the voice "Exec:" and change the default entry to konqueror %U
-Enjoy your Konqueror manager for downloaded files - no more Nautilus! (yeppie!)

(Sorry, I just dislike GNOME...KDE rocks for me :-P )

I have sadly to correct myself...I have uninstalled gnome completely yesterday, and now the fix does not function anymore. :( It is really annoying that I must have nautilus installed to be able to use konqueror...

patrick295767

December 24th, 2006, 04:11 AM

Hi,

I just wish Linux could have more users but unfortunately the Mac and Windows population, is far bigger than Linux.

We are already a few, and isn't it too much distro versions existing ?
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4953
http://www.linux.org/dist/

Shouldn't the time be spent more on developments of apps, games ... & fixing bugs ?
than making new distros again.

Are we too divided, and then less effective ?

==
I know your reply, that the source can make it
But maintenance and deb creation for each distro is quite some time consumming.
(Debian is more stable and has less bugs than Ubuntu)

-
Superiority to Windows for games
Photoshop far better than Gimp
Microsoft Office 2000 better than Openoffice
Superior Professional apps: Adobe Illustrator and suite, Autocad, ...

Polygon

December 24th, 2006, 04:53 AM

well, this is kinda true and kinda not

with games like unreal tournament, they usually work on any distrubution as long as you have open gl / accellerated 3d / alsa or OSS working. As all you really need is included with the game.... same thing goes for windows. 99.99% of the stuff needed for games is installed when you installed the game, and the only requirement is that you have sound / accelerated 3d / directx working.

and for apps, alot of stuff is written for a specific WM like gnome, kde, xfce, etc... but a lot of things are written in gtk and are pretty cross platform.

and the fact that linux users have so much choice is what makes it so great. if one person likes program a, but another person doesnt, they can use another program. The same goes for distrubutions, work managers, etc etc.

sweemeng

December 24th, 2006, 05:02 AM

on one hand there is there is initiative like LSB to standardize linux, and project portland to provide standard programming interface for application development, and a few apps develop from it.

on the other hand, it is really a non issue. if you have the source code, you can compile it provided you fulfill the dependency.

also(i could be wrong in this) there is things like alien, that allows package from other distro to be ported to another. autopackage, that make it easier to install application without depends too much on package from distro. and it is not uncommon for a developer to release software in binary form, like java, google earth.

Klaidas

December 24th, 2006, 08:00 AM

Are we too divided, and then less effective ?
Yes. However, I don't see how this could be solved any time soon :|

Redlance

December 24th, 2006, 09:36 AM

Actually for now that might hold a bit true.
Linux has grown. In terms of users and also in terms of potential.
I have seen Computers and OS's come and go.
Started off on a timex sinclair 1000 (american clone of european zx80)
went to Commie 64 (Damn i miss it sometimes, Long live vice!!)
Almost joined amiga
286-16 Dos
386sx DrDos
486Dx DrDos
486DX2 Winblows
| | | | | | | | | | |
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/
Athlon amd64 2.1Ghz Winxp home/Ubuntu 6.10

5 years from now I will be surprised if Microsoft still has the same market share but im totally confident it will not.. its suffering from many ailments and bad business model. and its a monopoly. In the end it will fail and die. (I am seriously thinking that Vista is its first major coffin nail but not the final one)

OsX and Linux have grown well. Will they be The OS King of the future? Unkown.. doubt it.
but they will gain more support in the future. Especially Linux. Countries like S. America, India, China will be the major players in the future and in the OS's future. America had its Heyday. Now with outsourcing and all innovation being done abroad the future looks bad for microsoft/apple. When Drivers go open source for new hardware. that will be the true deathknell for microsoft. as they will lose the 'edge' in the enthusiast arena. As it is they are already losing in other areas but the losses are being hampered by workstation programs being Windows based/windows only apps. When the other countries start churning out more programs (mostly native to linux) till it achieves critical mass then linux MIGHT become 'king' but then problems that plague MS might start plagueing us. (Virii, trojans, adware and root kits)

mykalreborn

December 24th, 2006, 11:49 AM

well... games are pretty silly :> :p [please don't throw tomatoes at me].
now seriously... it's true that the linux comunity is pretty divided, but when think about it, you'll see that linux people just are friendlier than windows or mac people. plus a larger comunity with numerous alternatives of software, operating systems, etc just leads to better programs, better pc interaction. check ubuntu for instance. if it weren't these people's determination to make a "linux for human beings" we would still have to spend a whole month or more learning how to install slackware. i'm not trying to say slacware is bad or anythig :D.
plus the greatest thing about linux is that it's FREE.
and no matter if you are a redhat type of guy, or a debian, or even a bsd, if you ask a linux guy for help, he will most certainly help you. and his answers won't be a sort of legend like you get on windows forums where people don't really know what they're talking about because it closed source. ;)
and the linux community is not that small. i'm sure i'm not exagerating when i say there are tens of millions of linux users. or at least millions. and at least on the net, or in other countries than the us or canada, mac users are fewer in comparison to linux. plus, the majority of internet providers, or network servers use linux operating systems...
and i say again: it's all for FREE!!

meng

December 24th, 2006, 11:54 AM

There is division, but there is a lot of open-sourcing too, so much information is shared. This seems to me better than having separate and secret projects. Also, the diversity means that I'm more likely to find an application that suits my preferences, or can be readily customized to suit them.,

bobbybobington

December 24th, 2006, 03:04 PM

There is division, but as long as people stay out of each others hair and go along their merry way, its all good. We just need to accept our differences and keep them from hurting our common goals.

23meg

December 24th, 2006, 04:15 PM

This comes up very often; here's my take on it (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1339459&postcount=28).

aysiu

December 24th, 2006, 05:09 PM

This comes up very often; here's my take on it (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1339459&postcount=28).
And here's my take on it:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux

By the way, I've merged this thread with the other "unified Linux" thread.

hanzomon4

December 24th, 2006, 05:39 PM

My uninformed opinion is this:

I don't think the real issue is too many distros, I think the incompatibility between distros is the problem. I think having developers make packages for ten different distros is a pain and causes some devs to shy away from linux. If developers could make one package that would run on any linux I don't see any reason why more devs wouldn't develop apps for linux.

ubuntoy

December 25th, 2006, 04:24 AM

My view point is that, linux is a squatter when it comes to pc. So does the mac version. And the Xbox, ipod hack.

Osx and mac are made for each other.
So does pc and windows. When they say game versions; xbox, ps2 and pc, the PC part is windows pc, no linux there.

Linux is looking for its home, fortunately it found a lot, like routers, robots, dvd players, cellphones, servers, super computers etc.

But we want a linux desktop computer.
And if you want a thriving linux desktop computer, the future is in cell based computers.

windows is for pc
osx for mac
linux is for cell

If i were you i would be getting my cell computer and make it a desktop powerhouse using linux before some prop os snatcht it

mushroom

December 25th, 2006, 05:15 AM

I don't consider Linux to be one unified thing. I consider Linux a kernel, and all of these distributions as individual OSes that happen to use that kernel. We don't need unification because one of the OSes is going to rise and become the dominant distribution. It may be Ubuntu or Fedora or Suse or something else. It doesn't really matter that there are two dominant DEs and it doesn't really matter that there are two dominant toolkits that make compatibility between each other difficult, all that matters is how these elements are packaged in the distribution. I don't even consider Ubuntu and Kubuntu to be variations on each other; I consider them two different OSes that just happen to be made by the same entity. If one of them rises to popularity and beats Microsoft (God willing), it's certainly not going to take the other with it, and the majority of OEMs won't put two OSes that essentially accomplish the same thing on display. I'm all for choice, Hell, that's why Microsoft needs to lose the desktop "war" (more like massacre at this point), but should Linux rise to popularity (again, God willing), it won't be in the form of all distributions suddenly receiving wide use, it will be in the form of one.

Quite frankly, the lack of unification is last on the list of priorities concerning widespread adoption, right next to "Make installation easier" and "Have to use the terminal too much" (it's a myth, admit it). Number one on the list is "Marketing marketing marketing". We haven't had any promotion beyond "grass-roots" efforts, and that really hasn't gone anywhere. We need big corporations putting commercials on television that appeal to the consumer rather than to IT professionals (see IBM's Linux commercials that aired a few years ago). Commercials that say "[distro] is a more easy, efficient way to get your work done and can still be fun. Grab a live CD at [address] to try it out, it doesn't do anything to your files and runs completely from CD. If you're satisfied with it, use the easy installer application to use it full-time. The best part? It's completely free, and in more ways than one. To find out more, head to [address]". Something like that. It's hard to communicate the idea of an operating system to people who think that the cd drive is a cup holder in thirty seconds, but I think there has to be a way. A great start would be corporational funding. Would Canonical be able to handle something like this?

Cows

December 25th, 2006, 08:55 PM

I was talking to my friend just a few minutes ago, and we were discussing the differences and simularities of what vista is taken away from linux and apple. I told him that it would be really cool if all the linuxes could just merge together and form one powerful linux. That will defenetly help the linux community grow way more faster and would also take down apple and microsoft. I mean it is common sense. What is more powerful 100 + little different linux operating systems and communitys, or one big community with one big operating system. On the other hand, why do you think microsoft is so powerful in the technological field..? maybe because microsoft is ONE, and is taking stuff from the little linux people and even from the one apple. Think about it like this, if there are 100 cocaroaches and 1 bottle of raid.. which one would win? the bottle of raid ofcourse lol. So I posted this to get people thinking of what linux can become if this would happen. Post your suggestion and ideas =].

Sammi

December 25th, 2006, 09:26 PM

jpkotta

December 25th, 2006, 09:36 PM

In a way Linux is already only ONE, because there is only one central kernel, that most distros use: http://www.kernel.org/

And hasn't this been discussed to death millions of times before? Anyone know a link to a good tread or article on the subject?

It's not a Linux system unless it uses Linux (which is technically just the kernel and nothing more). By definition, all Linux distributions use the kernel, and thus all have the same base to build upon. But we all know what original poster meant (homogenization of distros). And it won't happen, and it's not necessarily a good thing. Your argument holds no water. Apple is far more centralized than Microsoft.

LMP900

December 25th, 2006, 09:37 PM

If there was only one distribution, we would have to settle with one philosophy. It is inevitible that one group will be displeased with the current state of the single distribution and separate themselves by creating another distribution.

Repeat this hundreds of times, and we're back to many distributions we have now. ;)

Cows

December 25th, 2006, 09:39 PM

Im meaning the OS not the kernel.

EDIT: Yes this is true, but if there was one linux os not kernel since there is already one kernel. The linux os can make a paid version for servers idk but i seen alot of os that have a paid server os and a free desktop os.

23meg

December 25th, 2006, 09:42 PM

it would be really cool if all the linuxes could just merge together and form one powerful linux. That will defenetly help the linux community grow way more faster and would also take down apple and microsoft. I mean it is common sense.Not really; take a look at this (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1339459&postcount=28).

RAV TUX

December 25th, 2006, 09:46 PM

Cows

December 25th, 2006, 09:48 PM

haha distro imperialism. I was thinking also that each distro should work together because it brings more ideas together. If ubuntu makes a new feature, maybe mandriva or suse would want to use it thus developing the linux community. Perfect example would be novell's xgl and compiz. Correct me if im wrong but now that novell developed this there are alot of distros using it, now XGL is evolving into AIXGL .. again correct me if im wrong.

23meg

December 25th, 2006, 09:51 PM

haha distro imperialism. Ignore that part, it's part of the discussion in that thread; my point is in the first two paragraphs. I was thinking also that each distro should work together because it brings more ideas together. If ubuntu makes a new feature, maybe mandriva or suse would want to use it thus developing the linux community.They are exchanging a lot of code, ideas and bugfixes already. Distros aren't isolated worlds; they just each have their own ways of going about things. Within the framework of the GPL, no code belongs to any distro; it's all in the open, free for everyone to use.Perfect example would be novell's xgl and compiz. Correct me if im wrong but now that novell developed this there are alot of distros using it, now XGL is evolving into AIXGL .. again correct me if im wrong.They developed them behind closed doors, and opened them up later. There are many examples of code under open licenses developed for or around one distro finding its way into others; it's very common practice.

mike3k

December 25th, 2006, 10:02 PM

One size doesn't fit all. No one distro will fit everyone's needs. If you try to be everything to everyone, you end up with a bloated mess like OpenSUSE 10.2 :p. The nice thing about Ubuntu is it comes with a reasonably useful set of applications and you can easily customize it to fit your needs exactly.

jimcooncat

December 25th, 2006, 10:17 PM

No, please!

I love having all these different distros. I never would have got this far with Linux if there was only one.

sweemeng

December 25th, 2006, 10:43 PM

for most people:
linux==redhat or ubuntu or name-your-favorite-distro

Cows

December 26th, 2006, 03:35 PM

yes that is very true, linux would not have gotten this far if it weren't for all the distros. Well this was just my 'left' hand thought, now you probably know what was already in my right hand ( the opposite of what this post is about =] ). Thanks.

forrestcupp

December 26th, 2006, 03:57 PM

The main problem with hundreds of different distributions is that there are too many different ways to install software if you don't want to compile everything. You're not even guaranteed that a debian binary package will work on Ubuntu. If you don't want to have to compile, then you had better hope that someone comes up with a binary package of the program that you want for your particular distribution. A great example of this is Cinelerra. It's not easy to install on Ubuntu. If this at least could be worked out, it would help things. It's all about making things easier for mainstream use, and I don't think so many different incompatible ways of installing things makes things easier. imo alien just doesn't cut it.

Lord Illidan

December 26th, 2006, 04:12 PM

Hendrixski

December 26th, 2006, 04:19 PM

Didn't they try something like that before, to create one united distribution? The politics didn't pan out if I remember correctly.

mdsmedia

December 26th, 2006, 04:20 PM

Basically, other than installation methods, I don't see any advantage whatsoever in ONE BIG LINUX DISTRO.

One BIG disadvantage Windows has is it tries to be all things to all people.

In the same way one big advantage Linux has over Windows is the choices we have as users.

Any disadvantage we have by having "too many distros" is one of perception only (probably other than installation methods, which I believe still advantage Linux over Windows).

23meg

December 26th, 2006, 04:22 PM

Didn't they try something like that before, to create one united distribution? The politics didn't pan out if I remember correctly.
Who tried it? I'd like to know; did they also try destroying every distro in existence after creating the Grand Unified Distro, since they'd be no longer needed? Funny.
You know what's really funny about this.

You get a person with little or no linux experience automatically becoming a couch expert and stating : You know what Linux needs to beat Windows? It needs to....etc, etc,etc

You need to get to know Linux a little more before you spout off statements like that.
It happens. On forums, everyone is an expert.

lyceum

December 26th, 2006, 04:45 PM

When I first got into Linux I met a guy who "was past his Linux phase" (his words). He stated that every Linux OS was the same, just a different name and pick you GUI. I have learned from experience that this is not true, and what OS may work for one might never work for another. I like Ubuntu, not because it works for me out of the box, but because I agree on the things that make the distro, like easy of use without being a "for dummies" Linux and I love the price :mrgreen: I also prefer sudo to root. I, for one, am glad for the different flavors. Rather than one version with 900 DVDs trying to meet the needs of everyone, Everyone just picks the one that works for them! (subliminal message: pick Ubuntu ;) )

phen

December 26th, 2006, 07:15 PM

i dont understand such rule-the-world dreams. why do you want to "TAKE DOWN" apple and microsoft???
linux needs a big enough user base that it cannot be forgotten by companies when they port their applications and drivers. that would be useful. and i think linux is getting there.
this is not command and conquer. everybody uses and codes what he wants. imho, thats the spirit of linux, not monopolism!

mdsmedia

December 26th, 2006, 07:32 PM

Isn't it interesting that MS has not ported Office to Linux? It has a Mac version, but not a Linux version. And Linux has a similar desktop marketshare to Mac.

Does that say something about the threat that Linux already is to Windows?

And if one Linux was a good idea, why doesn't Mac have a greater marketshare? There's only one Mac.

Yes I know that Mac is (supposedly) more expensive than Windows and Linux, but it's a good OS apparently.

mdsmedia

December 26th, 2006, 07:35 PM

Who tried it? I'd like to know; did they also try destroying every distro in existence after creating the Grand Unified Distro, since they'd be no longer needed? Funny.
It happens. On forums, everyone is an expert.Wasn't there a United Linux? I don't remember the details, or what happened to it, but I wasn't over interested in it either.

23meg

December 26th, 2006, 07:40 PM

And if one Linux was a good idea, why doesn't Mac have a greater marketshare? There's only one Mac.And there's only one Windows; apples and oranges (forgive the pun).

Wasn't there a United Linux? I don't remember the details, or what happened to it, but I wasn't over interested in it either.
I don't know, hence my question. I've never heard of someone actually attempting it, but I hear discussion of whether it would be good or bad it every day.

23meg

December 26th, 2006, 07:42 PM

forrestcupp

December 26th, 2006, 11:49 PM

Isn't it interesting that MS has not ported Office to Linux? It has a Mac version, but not a Linux version. And Linux has a similar desktop marketshare to Mac.

Does that say something about the threat that Linux already is to Windows?

That's just a fantasy. If MS thought they could make more money by selling Office to Linux users they would do it in a heartbeat. The reason they haven't ported to Linux is not because Linux is a threat, but because most Linux users are too proud and stubborn to use it. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and resources. I don't think Linux will ever truly be a threat because of the elitist mentality that the core users have.

lyceum

December 27th, 2006, 11:02 AM

That's just a fantasy. If MS thought they could make more money by selling Office to Linux users they would do it in a heartbeat. The reason they haven't ported to Linux is not because Linux is a threat, but because most Linux users are too proud and stubborn to use it. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and resources. I don't think Linux will ever truly be a threat because of the elitist mentality that the core users have.

I am not sure, I have read that Office 2007 will not be released for Mac & that MS WAS working on Office for Linux. With their Novell deal, who knows what will happen? I really don't think they would skip Mac for Linux though. Also, with crossover office, why waist their time?

deanlinkous

December 27th, 2006, 11:29 AM

linux as one - the day the linux stood still!
THAT would be the end of linux. Nothing would ever get done. Nothing would ever get agreed on. As a matter of fact, I think it is the silliest idea I have ever heard even on these forums.

MrHorus

December 27th, 2006, 11:46 AM

So should this one Linux use vi or emacs?

KDE or Gnome?

MySQL or Postgres?

Different distributions do different things in different ways - that's what is so good.

I like Kubuntu on my laptop since most stuff "just works" and I like the look and feel of KDE whilst on my server I run Debian because it has rock solid stability and an excellent security record.

You will also notice that different distributions have different attitudes in their communities. Personally I find that Ubuntu users are very helpful for most things but are unable to offer assistance for more advanced topics whereas Debian users will know how to do lots of clever things with Linux but can sometimes be elitest and tell newbies to RTFM.

I like the status quo and I think it's a good thing that there are different philosophies and I wouldn't like to be told how to do things by the "One Linux" any more than I like being told what to do by the "One Windows".

deanlinkous

December 27th, 2006, 11:50 AM

elitist - consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group

The cool thing is that anyone is welcome to join the group! How is that a bad thing?

lyceum

December 27th, 2006, 12:00 PM

elitist - consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group

The cool thing is that anyone is welcome to join the group! How is that a bad thing?

It only becomes a bad thing when people have different ideas on what is and is not the group and cannot handle anything that does not fit into their ideas. Being an elitist has become something bad as the idea instills the idea that elitists do not seem to like people with differing views.

Think about the "bad guys" in Caddy Shack.

MrHorus

December 27th, 2006, 12:09 PM

elitist - consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group

The cool thing is that anyone is welcome to join the group! How is that a bad thing?

Yes but my early perception of Debian was that you were *not* welcome to join the group - not until you had gone away and learned enough to be accepted.

It's a very different feel to Ubuntu - the polar opposite I would say.

deanlinkous

December 27th, 2006, 12:18 PM

so driving a car is elitist?
you did have to learn BEFORE you were allowed to join the group of car drivers, right?

lyceum

December 27th, 2006, 12:27 PM

so driving a car is elitist?
you did have to learn BEFORE you were allowed to join the group of car drivers, right?

Yes, it can be. When you learn how you do not know everything, and what KIND of car are you going to drive, a stick a gas guzzler, a pretty car, etc... can you fix the car your self? Where I live some people look down on people that take the bus, as they have cars and "those people" do not. I am sure you have met people that think they are the only ones that can drive. The list piles on, so yes, it can be.

MrHorus

December 27th, 2006, 12:33 PM

so driving a car is elitist?
you did have to learn BEFORE you were allowed to join the group of car drivers, right?

No - I paid a driving instructor to give me lessons and guide me in my education and answer any questions, just like pretty much everyone else I know of.

forrestcupp

December 27th, 2006, 02:38 PM

Even the friendly Ubuntu - Linux for Humans has elite minded who aren't very friendly to the uninitiated. All you have to do is read through this very thread. Count how many people ridiculed the OP and said what a stupid idea it is. These people did so with a total lack of grace. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting some sort of unification. Maybe there shouldn't be One Distro to Rule Them All, but there definitely should be a unified way of doing things so that Linux basically works the same all around. You can have your choice of desktop environment and software, but what would be wrong with having a standard for file/directory structures, installation of files/programs, and things such as this? Then you could have a thousand different distros that set up a customized look and set of tools, but it would be laid on top of a standard frame so that everything would be compatible. One of the main problems with Linux is the lack of compatibility with itself. I think that is the heart of the OP, and that is not worthy of ungraciously ridiculing.

kazuya

December 27th, 2006, 03:31 PM

Re: Linux as one !!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i dont understand such rule-the-world dreams. why do you want to "TAKE DOWN" apple and microsoft???
linux needs a big enough user base that it cannot be forgotten by companies when they port their applications and drivers. that would be useful. and i think linux is getting there.
this is not command and conquer. everybody uses and codes what he wants. imho, thats the spirit of linux, not monopolism!

I agree with the comment above by Phen.

I also agree that we should not be elitist to questions no matter how ignorant they may seem to us. As a newbie ages ago like 3 years ago, I wondered why not all be unified so we all have one way of doing things.

As I matured in distro use and familiarity, I realized the need for diversity. The negative side effects are the seemingly lack of similarity from one distro to another. This though bad is also very good. So there is no true answer to that issue.

As for the subject of elitism, I do not think it acceptable, but I find it an innate characteristics of us as humans as well. As your knowledge on a subject expands to a point, sometimes you forget that other users may not have the luxury, time, and conviction as yourself to work out issues. This is bad. It is in their nature. Heck, I may be guilty, even with my little or no real linux skill.

But they are humans, and human beings err. This does not mean that they err all the time. I can speak for this Ubuntu community as one that really helps its users as does many other distros. Example Vectorlinux, mepis, pclinuxos, sabayon, zenwalk, slackware, and many more.

They all give you a cost effective and excellent solutions to whatever issues you may encounter for the price of zero dollars.

So, I politely say, no to "one linux distro." and no to one desktop interface.

23meg

December 27th, 2006, 05:04 PM

Count how many people ridiculed the OP and said what a stupid idea it is.One?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting some sort of unification. Maybe there shouldn't be One Distro to Rule Them All, but there definitely should be a unified way of doing things so that Linux basically works the same all around.I think that is the heart of the OP,No it's not. Read again:I told him that it would be really cool if all the linuxes could just merge together and form one powerful linux. That will defenetly help the linux community grow way more faster and would also take down apple and microsoft.The thing is, the idea of "unified Linux" is suggested all the time, and I have yet to see anyone who can back their argument properly.

Imagine this: you're running a store that's part of a chain of stores, and everyday someone new comes to your door and says "You know what would be really cool? If all these stores joined to form one big megastore, you'd beat the competition" without providing any proper reasoning, any methodology, any supporting facts. Every day you tell them that you're satisfied with your business model, that you're quite convinced that this is how you'll compete with your opponents best due to the nature of your business. Yet they keep coming. At the same time, you're also aware that your distributed model brings certain shortcomings: you can't ship supplies to all stores simultaneously, they go out of stock often, etc. but you keep looking for ways to remedy these instead of abandoning your model altogether, and things seem to be improving steadily.

For how many days could you keep explaining to those guys that their suggestion is unfeasible very politely, and in great detail?

This is the position of the users you deem "elitist". They know how the system works, they know how it's reached this point, and almost every day, someone who has no idea or only a vague idea of how things work makes a post that goes "You know what would be really cool? ..."

How many times can they politely explain that they should get a better idea of what they're talking about before suggesting radical changes?

Even if I felt very strongly that mathematics and geometry should be taught together in schools as one lesson instead of separate lessons, I wouldn't burst into the middle of a maths class or knock the door of the minister of education and say "You know what would be really cool? If you taught maths and geometry together, the pupils would learn much easier". Even If I was well rounded in pedagogy and psychology and was very much convinced this would be a good idea, I'd look at the specifics before suggesting a change as radical as that: I'd give myself some education on maths and geometry and test my theory on them. If it seemed to work, I'd prepare a well reasoned study and take it to the appropriate authority. With the former, there would be zero chance of causing any change. With the latter, there would be some chance, depending on the strength of my case.

Nobody does the equivalent of the latter in Linux forums. Everyone I've seen suggesting "unified Linux" has come up with naive arguments that are easy to refute.

In short, this has nothing to do with elitism. I'm not saying that there's no elitism at all in the Linux community in general; there is plenty of it, but the subject of this particular thread and the attitudes of the people here have nothing to do with it. And about whether the elitist attitude of some Linux users can inhibit the proliferation of Linux at any substantial rate, you have to separately convince me.

lyceum

December 27th, 2006, 05:10 PM

Imagine this: you're running a store that's part of a chain of stores, and everyday someone new comes to your door and says "You know what would be really cool? If all these stores joined to form one big megastore, you'd beat the competition"

Well, based on this I guess the super Linux could be called Wall-Nux (Wal-Mart/Linux). :-D

jpkotta

December 27th, 2006, 06:07 PM

This guy says it pretty well.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000150

This is one of free software's greatest and least-appreciated strengths: the fact that it can continue to evolve in an almost organic fashion, untrammelled by constraints of economics, or even feasibility. It is this fecundity that drives free software forward unstoppably, and that distinguishes it from the sterile code monster that is Windows, which, trapped within the carapace of its closed source, only slouches towards Redmond to be born every five years or so. And it is precisely because of this ever-present, irrepressible urge to trump what has gone before, and to create the ultimate distro, that there will never be one.

Mateo

December 27th, 2006, 06:22 PM

At the same time there is no financial incentive to achieve. Which is why iPod support is still in the beginning stages 6 or 7 years after the iPod came out.

Lord Illidan

December 27th, 2006, 06:24 PM

At the same time there is no financial incentive to achieve. Which is why iPod support is still in the beginning stages 6 or 7 years after the iPod came out.

Um, iPod support could be easier if Apple helped us out, instead of the devs having to reverse engineer everything. Also, most of the devs do what they do as a hobby. Some lucky guys are paid to work on open source...

Cows

December 27th, 2006, 07:10 PM

You know what's really funny about this.

You get a person with little or no linux experience automatically becoming a couch expert and stating : You know what Linux needs to beat Windows? It needs to....etc, etc,etc

You need to get to know Linux a little more before you spout off statements like that.

Now, I agree that some unification is necessary, but not in the distro side. I'd like to see some standard in the deb/rpm debate for example.

But when you have a group of programmers who are doing what they like best, that is, programming and hacking Linux and other open source apps, let them do what they like best, don't try and force them into doing something else.

That way, you get choices. If I am a tinkering type of guy who wants to know every nut and bolt in my system, I can chose Gentoo or LFS. If I am a granddad who just wants the whole thing to work with minimal intervention, I can choose Linspire, Ubuntu or Mandriva. If I am an officeworker, I can chose SUSE, Ubuntu, Fedora..whatever. If I am a max performance kind of guy, I can use Gentoo, Zenwalk, or Arch.
If I am...u get the pattern?

However, with Windows, you can be any type of person, yet you only get 1 version of Windows. Ok, so Windows Vista has 6 versions, you say. But most of them are crippled, so as to drive down the price. Whereas, Linux distros are not crippled in any way.

maybe you should read more before you start a minimum offense. as i said before was that i get the point and that i had both ideas in my mind.. they unite pros/cons and as seperate distros pros/cons. on top of that you just stereotype me because i dont got enough experience on linux.. well duh , i gave linux a try and i liked it.. everyone doesn't start of being a genius with something. then also you say i turn into a couch meanwhile i got no linux experience.. well i used windows for a long time and i have done my research, btw my first post was just a idea and my hypothesis .. so you don't need to be saying i have no experience.

EDIT: Also alot of people are misunderstanding that this was just a theory that was said by a normal linux user. Also i just read about the stores and chain of stores said by a poster ( srry for not remembering your name ), That was what i had on the other hand.

Example: toys r us is united states most powerful toy store to my knowledge. so lets say that every single distro was toys r us but it was just a local toys r us with different ideas and theorys.
there can be a toys r us in ny while at the same time there can be a toys r us in florida .. california and so on.

MrHorus

December 27th, 2006, 07:53 PM

At the same time there is no financial incentive to achieve. Which is why iPod support is still in the beginning stages 6 or 7 years after the iPod came out.

Which is why I flashed the firmware with Rockbox :)

Now I can playback Ogg Vorbis and FLAC and I can just drag and drop music files across rather than have to use the ubfuscation that Apple employes...

23meg

December 27th, 2006, 09:49 PM

you just stereotype me because i dont got enough experience on linux.. well duh , i gave linux a try and i liked it.. everyone doesn't start of being a genius with something.We're aware of that, but the point here is that you need a certain degree of credibility to suggest radical changes, that you need to back your statements if you want to start a productive discussion on those changes. If you don't, and you still make such suggestions, you shouldn't take offense at the reactions you get.then also you say i turn into a couch meanwhile i got no linux experience.. well i used windows for a long time and i have done my research,Would you expect to be taken seriously if you went to the Windows forums and suggested dividing Windows to 100 different versions, in the exact way you did here, without anything backing your idea?
Also i just read about the stores and chain of stores said by a poster ( srry for not remembering your name ), That was what i had on the other hand.

Example: toys r us is united states most powerful toy store to my knowledge. so lets say that every single distro was toys r us but it was just a local toys r us with different ideas and theorys.
there can be a toys r us in ny while at the same time there can be a toys r us in florida .. california and so on.That example was meant just to illustrate the fact that this suggestion comes up very often and goes nowhere, so the store - distro analogy may not be a good one in a broader discussion. But still, how is what you're describing different from the current state of things? There are distros with different mindsets, catering to different needs, located at and localized for people of different backgrounds, and yet they still use the same kernel and more or less the same software, as well as exchanging code, ideas and fixes.

Cows

December 28th, 2006, 12:47 AM

yes you are right.

aysiu

December 28th, 2006, 01:19 AM

Merged with the other "unified Linux" thread.

forrestcupp

December 28th, 2006, 10:26 AM

For how many days could you keep explaining to those guys that their suggestion is unfeasible very politely, and in great detail?

This is the position of the users you deem "elitist". They know how the system works, they know how it's reached this point, and almost every day, someone who has no idea or only a vague idea of how things work makes a post that goes "You know what would be really cool? ..."

How many times can they politely explain that they should get a better idea of what they're talking about before suggesting radical changes?

These "elitists" seem to forget their option to not say anything at all. Why not just let people say what they think, and eventually learn from their mistakes? It's a waste of time to give a detailed explanation, so just don't say anything; don't even read those threads if you don't want. This particular area of the forum happens to be the community cafe where people have the right to voice their opinion as long as it falls within the guidelines. People also have the right to ignore those opinions.

You are right that making these suggestions on a forum would do no good. There is no one here that could make these kind of changes if they wanted to. It's just a venue to share opinions and revelations, and to get/give help and support.

But I still believe that Linux's incompatibility with itself is a problem that could be worked out without having to dissolve all of the different distros and flavors. Just imagine being able to install any program on any distro and all you have to do is download one file. Imagine developing a Linux program that you want everyone to be able to use, and you only have to create one package for any Linux user to download. You can't tell me that wouldn't be sweet.

clevijoki

December 28th, 2006, 10:41 AM

PartisanEntity

December 28th, 2006, 10:50 AM

You raise points that are mentioned very often, if you read around you will realise that it has do with open source vs. proprietary drivers. Also not all hardware manufacturers make drivers for Linux while they all make drivers for Windows.

In order for Ubuntu not to infringe on intellectual property as well as copyright laws it cannot come included with all kinds of drivers.

You are right that not everyone can install Ubuntu, but in the interest of fairness not everyone can install Windows either.

Linux distros have come a long way and are constantly improving. For now many of us will have to invest some time and nerves to get everything working, more than might be necessary for Windows, but things are getting better.

:)

Sef

December 28th, 2006, 10:53 AM

You know the whole RTFM way of installing things doesn't really cut it anymore.

If someone in this forum told you that let a moderator know and provide a link to the post.

My video card does not detect itself. My monitor resolutions are not detecting. My wifi does not work. My mouse does not work. These all work under windows without drivers.

I have provided a definition of a driver since you do not understand what a driver is.

Computer Science A piece of software that enables a computer to communicate with a peripheral device. American Heritage Dictionary

Without drivers, your periferals will not work.

I'm on my second install of ubuntu because I botched the first one following some random forum guy's instructions. Now I'm trying some other method.

It obviously was not on this forum because this is your first post. If you could explain your problem in detail, you will get help.

I am somewhat of a power user. I am a programmer, I write casual video games.

You might know Windows, but you do not know Linux. With Linux, you are starting from square one. Yes that is frustrating to deal with, but if you stick with it and ask for help instead of just ranting, you will learn.

One thing that I have learned is if you make people RTFM nobody will play it. And such is the same with linux.

True. Which is why RTFM is banned from here.

Last: I moved it to the Ubuntu forum since you are ranting and not asking for help. If you want help, then please describe each problem in an individual post.

BarfBag

December 28th, 2006, 10:58 AM

Ubuntu has the easiest installer I've ever used (and I've used everything)! Have you ever installed Windows? A newbie has a much better chance of installing Ubuntu.

OffHand

December 28th, 2006, 11:06 AM

You know the whole RTFM way of installing things doesn't really cut it anymore.

My mom could not install ubuntu and set the screen resolution properly. I still haven't been able to do this. Why is it still like this? Piles of work have been done on the rest of linux but the install is still scaring off everybody. My video card does not detect itself. My monitor resolutions are not detecting. My wifi does not work. My mouse does not work. These all work under windows without drivers. I'm on my second install of ubuntu because I botched the first one following some random forum guy's instructions. Now I'm trying some other method.

I am somewhat of a power user. I am a programmer, I write casual video games. One thing that I have learned is if you make people RTFM nobody will play it. And such is the same with linux.

My videocard gets detected without any problems. My mouse works too. The only thing that is def way harder on Linux is getting wireless to work properly. A lot of stuff doesn't work out of the box either. Is your mom able to install Windows? A lot of people do not know how to install Windows. I also see this is your first post. Why didn't you ask for help instead of complaining?

fuscia

December 28th, 2006, 11:07 AM

even when i knew much less than i know now, ubuntu was always drunken child simple to install.

ComplexNumber

December 28th, 2006, 11:11 AM

ubuntu needs at least some admin tools...in the same way that suse, pclinuxos(same as mandriva), and mandriva has a full suite of them.

xpod

December 28th, 2006, 11:16 AM

My video card does not detect itself. My monitor resolutions are not detecting. My wifi does not work. My mouse does not work. These all work under windows without drivers.

:shock:

I am somewhat of a power user. I am a programmer,

:-k
No offence meant mate but you really dont seem to know too much about the stuff you do this "programming" of yours on.
Unlike you?.... im not very experienced with computers and have only been using them for some 9 months but even i know that every bit of hardware on your computer requires some sort of drivers to run the thing.

Have you ever tried installing windows i wonder??
Somehow i dont think you meant you had recieved a "RTFM" on this forum....it actually sounds like your just not happy about having to read anything at all to learn what it takes to have this great OS up & running...

The more i read the more i discover just how much better than that other crap this thing really is so mabey if you gave it a go you might just learn yourself WHY we all prefer it.;)
Time & patience...along with a wee bit of reading goes a long long way m8.

Good luck regardless:-k

tseliot

December 28th, 2006, 11:26 AM

My video card does not detect itself. My monitor resolutions are not detecting. My wifi does not work. My mouse does not work. These all work under windows without drivers.
The explanation is very is easy: the manufacturers of your devices develop drivers for Windows and Windows ships with these drivers or they provide the drivers for Windows on a CD.

Something different should be said about graphic cards. Let's just say that the Xserver (Xorg) is evolving and we're going to catch up with Mac's Xserver.

It is true that Linux distros could be more userfriendly. Try Opensuse 10.2, it has some nice GUIs to set up almost everything.

PatrickMay16

December 28th, 2006, 11:34 AM

I have provided a definition of a driver since you do not understand what a driver is.

He obviously meant that it all works in windows XP without the need to install extra drivers.

meng

December 28th, 2006, 11:36 AM

deanlinkous

December 28th, 2006, 12:00 PM

So the elitists do not get a say? Is that it? How will anyone learn from mistakes if nobody ever points out that something is wrong with that idea?

One package that works properly on any linux. That would make it a lot simpler and nicer for anyone wanting to write some form of malware. That is fo sho...

yea imagine if we had a UnitedLinux or a DCCAlliance or a ....
(those are failures by the way)
Why create a one size fits all sort of thing - is anyone ever happy with that?

remember it's just a venue to share opinions.....and a elitist has a opinion also....

I am still confused about how the term 'elitist' applies to linux at all but please use it all you want to offer YOUR opinion.

jdhore

December 28th, 2006, 12:20 PM

MrHorus

December 28th, 2006, 12:37 PM

I am still confused about how the term 'elitist' applies to linux at all but please use it all you want to offer YOUR opinion.

It doesnt - it applies to certain groups of users, as stated in my posts.

Linux is no more elitest than Windows is stupid - it's all down to the users.

Tomosaur

December 28th, 2006, 12:42 PM

deanlinkous

December 28th, 2006, 01:01 PM

excuse me...

I don't see how ANY linux USER could be under the misconception that they are somehow elite. I also do not know why anyone would label people with that since it is obviously a misconception.

igknighted

December 28th, 2006, 01:08 PM

i've been seeing a lot of posts lately about why/why not/how/when Ubuntu will "take over" Windows...so here's my take on it:

Currently, Linux won't outshine Windows' market share...it's the truth...i wish it wasn't, but it is. But i've been studying psychology and stuff like that for years and here's my opinion:

1. When stuff goes wrong, normal users don't want to be stuck at a command-line with no idea what to do and now way to really check google to find out what to do. There needs to be some kind of failsafe for xorg.conf and other important files where if X can't start (for example), you get some sort of message like: X is unable to start. Please press 1 to try to fix the problem yourself, please press 2 to have the system refer to a default xorg.conf

2. Wine and virtualization software really needs to improve. there are some users that really can't live without their windows apps and until like 90-95% of Windows apps are supported in Wine, or software like VMWare and QEMU gets more reliable and faster, the people that need windows for stuff are gonna stay with Windows.

3. Make it easier to upgrade important software...when i ran Dapper, i tried to upgrade FF1.5 to FF2 and even for me it was a pain in the ***...on Windows, i just ran the installer...speaking of that, that's the other thing, it's easy to install software via Synaptic and apt-get, but when you have to compile stuff or install from a .rpm...there needs to be an easier way, me i have no problem with typing ./configure, make, make install or alien -i, but most normal windows users are afraid of the commandline.

4. (this one is mostly personal) Make it easy to sudo up in a GUI app (like Nautilus).

Linux really needs to spread and get the CORRECT word out...all of my friends be it computer geeks or not think Linux is either like SuSe was back like 4 years ago or all commandline, no GUI, etc.

Some very good points. I think the idea for xorg.conf is terrific. Upgrading does in fact need to be improved as well. As for the sudo in GUI, this already exists. I dont believe ubuntu does it, but many distro's (when in the file browser) let you right click on a fiel and select 'edit as root' which essentially is the same thing. Also, when setting up a launcher for a GUI program that needs root access just append 'gksudo' or 'kdesu' in front of the command.

Virtualization is one of those things that I hesitate to encourage heavy development. The time and resources spent on tricks and workarounds to make pricey closed-source software run could be better spent making free and open-source apps that would be superior to their windows counterparts. Virtualization does have its roles, especially in the server market. If I want to run a database server on windows, but a web/mail server on linux (for whatever compatability/security reasons) then virtualization lets me do all of that on one box and not have to buy a second server. For desktop users, however, there is much less value. If I leave Windows because its unstable and gets viruses, and then run all my apps in a virtual windows, I am still at risk of all those same things, so all I have accomplished is a more sluggish system. At some point, the applications that come with an operating system are part of the decision on what OS to use.

Linux needs an identity. Linux needs its own apps that people know and want to use. Beryl is getting to this point, with people that have seen it. I've put linux on several of my friends computers because they saw Beryl and wanted to try it. Firefox and Thunderbird are also widely recognized. The upcoming release of Songbird will be a big boost I believe as well. These high quality, free, linux native apps are what linux needs to become successful... not a cheap workaround to run expensive microsoft programs.

forrestcupp

December 28th, 2006, 01:08 PM

So the elitists do not get a say? Is that it? How will anyone learn from mistakes if nobody ever points out that something is wrong with that idea?

remember it's just a venue to share opinions.....and a elitist has a opinion also....

Have you been reading this thread, or just my one post? I was responding to someone who was complaining about wasting their time trying to explain things all of the time. Of course anyone has the right to voice their opinion, but if someone is complaining about having to say the same thing over and over, they also have the right to say nothing at all. I have voiced my opinion on this matter, and there is nothing more for me to say.

jdhore

December 28th, 2006, 01:13 PM

The problem with xorg breaking is that it's usually not xorg which breaks. It's the kernel or some other factor which fails to load xorg properly. This is why most people keep at least one older kernel version back. However, I still think there should be a more obvious way of at least TRYING to get xorg working again, than dpkg-reconfigure.

As for the other stuff - it's all been heard before. I don't think the 'sudo up' idea is possible, since permissions are set at runtime, which is why add/remove turns into synaptic once you choose to sudo-up (two different programs). While it would be possible to make nautilus restart with root permissions from within nautilus - it's still just the same as closing nautilus and typing 'gksudo nautilus' or whatever. Nautilus already supports custom scripts (which means you can do this yourself), and the devs probably have more pressing issues to deal with. Some kind of system-wide 'sudo up' ability would probably require a kernel module or something, and may not be a good idea anyway since it could be exploitable.

As for the upgrade stuff - I've never had a problem with it. The system updater works perfectly for me, and firefox has it's own updater. I don't know what problem you're having, but it may just be you.

As for wine - it works well enough unless you're playing a game or something, in which case there are already 'solutions' available. The problem isn't Wine, it's that nobody develops for linux. What you're suggesting would just compound the problem: if Wine was perfect, then people would still just develop for Windows, except now they'd have customers using Linux. What's easier: run Windows program through Wine on Linux, or run Linux programs on Linux?

you make some really good points...and i'll debate you a bit in a second, but 1 thing i forgot first: Browser Extensions...flash for firefox, Java for firefox, in-browser PDF...they're all a pain to install...not at all like it is in Windows where it tells you what plugin you need and it automatically downloads and installs it for you.

now time for the debating part:

i agree with you on the Xorg part for the most part...i personally have no problem with dpkg-reconfigure, but a lot of people get very intimidated when they're at a CLI and they don't have a GUI to fall back on...it needs to be a bit easier

on the sudo-up thing...i wasn't referring to having it auto-sudo-up evertime i load Nautilus, i want to have some kind of option in the menus to restart as root or something like that...instead of having to open up terminal and type: "gksudo nautilus"

with Firefox...2.0 wasn't in the apt repos yet so i was installing it from the tar.gz file and to overwrite 1.5, i had to do A LOT of moving and copying of files and that was kind of a pain in the ***..

i agree on the wine thing...but there are some apps that don't have Linux equivalents...there's no money-management app for Linux with a similar interface to Quicken 2K7, but Quicken doesn't run in Wine...i know it's not Quicken's fault...it's the group that works on Wine that needs to get their **** in gear a bit.

Dragonbite

December 28th, 2006, 01:15 PM

I know how to install Windows... go out and buy a new PC! ](*,)

I installed Windows and it took me 2 tries and a lot of time to FIND the drivers, and then to install them.

Ubuntu I had running after the first (or was it the second?) try. After installing Gentoo (the documenation is great), Red Hat (8,9 & CentOS 4.3), SuSE (9.1) and then Ubuntu I have to say Ubuntu is the easiest (so far) that I've come across.

Plus after installing Windows THEN I got the fun of installing everythign else (anti-spyware, anti-virus, office, email client, Firefox, instant messenger, Flash, Acrobat Reader, etc.) that Ubuntu nicely installs for you, giving you a usable platform even if you choose to uninstall things and replace them with something else!

Ultimately going to Linux is a waste if you aren't willing to go into it with an attitude to learn.

bonzodog

December 28th, 2006, 01:38 PM

a) Can aysiu or anotjher mod create a mega thread or something for these posts.

b) The XOrg problem is being sorted out. Soon, If it can't get any other X driver close to your card working for whatever reason, it will fall back to the Vesa driver, which gives a usable X interface in the main desktop, Gnome. Some distros already do this (Mandriva and Suse).

The upgrade problem is more down to the devs and the way they work. You can either wait for Dapper to get FF2.0, or upgrade it yourself, which does require commandline work. There is no way around this - that would be up to the Firefox people to create a graphical installer for the Linux release.
The big reason that it has problems installing java or flash is simply because you use your browser, installed in the root dir, from the user account. To install things like flash or java system wide, it needs root access. Firefox has no current way of asking for your root password to install updates, and can only do so locally in your user account - themes and extensions can go in there.

Tomosaur

December 28th, 2006, 01:41 PM

you make some really good points...and i'll debate you a bit in a second, but 1 thing i forgot first: Browser Extensions...flash for firefox, Java for firefox, in-browser PDF...they're all a pain to install...not at all like it is in Windows where it tells you what plugin you need and it automatically downloads and installs it for you.

now time for the debating part:

i agree with you on the Xorg part for the most part...i personally have no problem with dpkg-reconfigure, but a lot of people get very intimidated when they're at a CLI and they don't have a GUI to fall back on...it needs to be a bit easier

on the sudo-up thing...i wasn't referring to having it auto-sudo-up evertime i load Nautilus, i want to have some kind of option in the menus to restart as root or something like that...instead of having to open up terminal and type: "gksudo nautilus"

with Firefox...2.0 wasn't in the apt repos yet so i was installing it from the tar.gz file and to overwrite 1.5, i had to do A LOT of moving and copying of files and that was kind of a pain in the ***..

i agree on the wine thing...but there are some apps that don't have Linux equivalents...there's no money-management app for Linux with a similar interface to Quicken 2K7, but Quicken doesn't run in Wine...i know it's not Quicken's fault...it's the group that works on Wine that needs to get their **** in gear a bit.

Like I said, nautilus already supports self-made scripts which would let you do that. Sure, it wouldn't hurt to have it as a feature, but this really isn't the place to request it. The Ubuntu devs don't read this forum much, and I doubt the Gnome/Nautilus devs do either unless they're using Ubuntu. So, I would suggest you take it up with them. Not trying to be rude, it's just not the right place.

As for the Quicken/Wine thing. I absolutely disagree. It is not the Wine dev's problem to get Quicken working. Yes, they chose to embark upon the Wine project, but to suggest for one minute that they're somehow in the wrong for Quicken not working is outrageous. Blame Microsoft for their tactics, blame the Quicken devs for not supporting Linux, but don't blame the Wine devs. As far as I can see, Wine is a phenomenal project. It's amazing that they've managed to get so much working in the first place, considering how closed Windows is.

And yes, I agree that installation/upgrade is sometimes a pain in the backside. There are two solutions - one is to change how Ubuntu works, and to stop automatically including a somewhat bastardised version of firefox post-install, and the other is to streamline the way upgrading works across Linux. If Ubuntu just used the ordinary firefox download, this problem probably wouldn't occur, but since the files are placed slightly differently, it introduces this problem and means the user has to wait for the 'Ubuntu' version to be upgraded. If, however, installation become a unified and consistent thing, then this problem could be removed. The problem with this is that open-source kind of rubs against the grain of real unification and standards. There'll always be someone who disagrees with how something is done, and will choose to do it their own way. Without some kind of low-level intervention, probably within the official kernel, to streamline and standardise an installation method, then this problem, will always exist, since people are pretty much just going to do whatever they feel like unless something stops them.

christhemonkey

December 28th, 2006, 01:46 PM

The xorg problem should be at an end soon,
as in one of the next releases of Xorg, they are planning to implement a dynamic X server, ie no xorg.conf but automatic configuration.
So if its all well, that should be awesome!

EDIT:
Found a reference: http://wiki.x.org/wiki/XHotplugProposal

meng

December 28th, 2006, 01:46 PM

Funny, I had to manually install drivers for two pieces of hardware under Windows XP. One was an ATI video card. The other was an internal modem. Could it be that not everyone experiences the same troubles with installation? Surely not!
Oh wait, I forgot I needed to manually install drivers for the printer too, so that makes three manual driver installs. Not only that, but you don't get the option of installing just the drivers, oh no, you have to install 450 MB worth of associated imaging/albuming software too (it's a multifunction). Afterwards, you have the option of uninstalling 350 MB of this crud, but you still need to keep 100 MB just to keep the printer drivers installed. Hello??? On Ubuntu you specify the printer model and it's all done. So which OS is easier to install?

23meg

December 28th, 2006, 01:47 PM

b) The XOrg problem is being sorted out. Soon, If it can't get any other X driver close to your card working for whatever reason, it will fall back to the Vesa driver, which gives a usable X interface in the main desktop, Gnome. Some distros already do this (Mandriva and Suse).xorg.conf itself seems to be going away soon; Xorg 7.3 won't even require an xorg.conf.

d3v1ant_0n3

December 28th, 2006, 01:56 PM

On my last windows install, I had to manually install the following drivers:

Graphics driver- windows used a vesa driver by default, but no 3d rendering or resolution above 800*600.

Sound Driver. No sound at all on initial install.

Chipset driver.

Network driver.

THEN I had to install all the apps I needed. Office, Antispyware, AntiVirus, Firewall, etc, etc.

Last time I had to install Ubuntu I didn't have to install a single thing.

bobbybobington

December 28th, 2006, 02:03 PM

xorg.conf itself seems to be going away soon; Xorg 7.3 won't even require an xorg.conf.

SWEET! Should be released in time for fiesty +1?

John.Michael.Kane

December 28th, 2006, 02:15 PM

Threads merged..

23meg

December 28th, 2006, 08:42 PM

SWEET! Should be released in time for fiesty +1?Yes.

M_the_C

December 31st, 2006, 12:45 PM

I was wondering what people think would happen if there was only one Linux distro.

Off the top of my head I can think of five major distros (including Ubuntu) with roughly the same amount of users and programmers. What if all of these joined together?

Would Linux users unite and become a major force to be recconned with?
Beating Windows by working together on the same problems and programs and not multiple groups working on the same thing.

Or would there be squabbles as people wanted to run things there own way, re-splitting the community into individual distros?

happy-and-lost

December 31st, 2006, 12:55 PM

insane_alien

December 31st, 2006, 12:59 PM

if there was only one distro then (quite rapidly) it would split into many many distros like we see just now. besides, there is only on linux which is the kernel. everything else is just random programs stuck on the end of it.

M_the_C

December 31st, 2006, 01:01 PM

Strictly speaking, that's already happening. The thing common to all distros are being worked on by users of all distros. For example, the Gnome used by default in Ubuntu is the combined effort of everyone who uses Gnome (Well, with a big help from big companies like Novell and Sun). The different distros are just different ways of packaging what everyone has done.

True, but there are some programs which are promoted more in different distros.

I may be wrong, unfortunately I don't know that much about this kind of thing, the only example I can think of it Debian using LILO as a boot manager and Ubuntu using GRUB.

You only need one boot manager at a time (unless you like doing complicated things) and so what if there was only one boot manager would everyone working on it make it better or worse?

if there was only one distro then (quite rapidly) it would split into many many distros like we see just now. besides, there is only on linux which is the kernel. everything else is just random programs stuck on the end of it.

I was using Linux as a general term.

aysiu

December 31st, 2006, 01:06 PM

I've merged this with the other "unified Linux" threads.

As you can see, this has been suggested many, many times before. Even if you assume the goal is desirable, there's no practical way to force it to happen.

23meg

December 31st, 2006, 01:12 PM

Choad

December 31st, 2006, 01:19 PM

if all were merged in to 1, then people would argue about what DE to use, then that 1 would fork in to 2. gnome and kde. then there would be people arguing about source/binary package distribution. the 2 would fork in to 4. then people would argue over whether it should start off with a base install and have people add the DE and apps later. the 4 would fork in to 8. then package management systems.

etc.

you will find that as it stands, each of the big distros offer something unique, and offer something that is in demand by end users. all the little distros that you will not have heard of and comprise of <1% of the linux market, well they either dont offer anything unique, or what they offer is not in demand, and either way there is very little development force lost to that distribution because it is so small.

kde devs benefit dozens of distros, as do gnome devs. distribution specific devs will nearly always send their work upstream if possible.

at least this is how i understand the situation to be. its dynamic and it works and it will grow indeffinately

aysiu

December 31st, 2006, 01:20 PM

Just adding a poll to this super-long thread.

EdThaSlayer

December 31st, 2006, 02:51 PM

The more the merrier! :D
Diversity is a blessing!
Humans choose which distro they like the best and that distro survives while the weaker[less popular] ones die[stop being updated]! Then these surviving distros can pass their code to the next generation of distros! And the cycle keeps going round and round!:D

deanlinkous

December 31st, 2006, 03:51 PM

prizrak

December 31st, 2006, 07:08 PM

turning it into ONE would certainly benefit microsoft since that would allow them to focus on shutting down ONE instead of many.....

I don't like one-size-fits-all anything and that includes my OS!

Check out UnitedLinux and DCCAlliance and that should show that you cannot "join" a handful of distros much less all of them.

I agree, there is a good reason why there are so many Linux distro's since some people want different things. It makes sense for "desktop" distros to have some kind of a standard to simplify software installation but no point in having Gentoo and Ubuntu with a unified base since it would pretty much completely obliterate the reason for both existing.

It doesn't even matter whether there is one or many, we will have a dominant distro that is preinstalled and bunch of others that people will use. The great thing is that since it's still Linux all the good stuff will trickle down to less dominant distros.

m.musashi

January 1st, 2007, 12:06 AM

Hasn't microsoft more or less added credence to the multiple distribution idea with vista? Instead of just one flavor they are releasing like 4 - each tuned to a specific market or user (or pocketbook). If they weren't so tied to specific apps, I bet they'd release even more. In fact, it's to microsoft's disadvantage that they can't release a firefox version or a multimedia version that has some decent apps because they can't just up and use proprietary apps in their distro and they can't develop them all themselves.

xtknight

January 1st, 2007, 01:33 AM

Noo....Linux is about choice! The variety is what makes the Linux community so awesome. It's like every distro is a state but we are a country as a whole and our beliefs are the same.

Kossilar

January 12th, 2007, 08:55 PM

Guys, I've gotta say, as a person who's been using Linux for less then a month, I'm a bit frustrated.

It seems like Linux developers are more concerned with their particular distributions and their various flavors then actually making the damn thing work. I think there's nothing more discouraging, to me, as a former Windows user, to see that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of people working on various forms of Linux and related software but I still have to wrestle with my damn computer to get the simplest software packages working properly. This problem doesn't exist on Mac OS or Windows for one very good reason:

The people who wrote Mac OS and Windows are working together on their respective projects, not working parallel to each other on different projects with the same overall goal.

What is the goal? From my perspective its a free, open source, open everything operating system.

So why are there dozens of them?

As a computer user, this is what I want:

* One operating system.
* Software that can be installed and run on that operating system with a minimum of hackery and forum searching.
* Things to work and keep on working so that I can work and actually get things done.

See, my problem isn't the fact that I have to use the command line every once in a while. Its not that things sometimes don't work and I have to surf the forum and hack my own system. That's not the problem. I understand that Linux is a work in progress.

The problem is that people are writing new "flavors" of Linux and we don't even have one, single, copy that just works.

Windows and Mac OS will continue to kick our asses, despite the fact that we probably have more programming power, more resources, more voice and more innovation in our collective left pinky then both those corporate monstrosities put together.

Why?

Because we're too busy doing our own thing to actually get the job done.

I'm a musician. I'm trying to figure out how to make MIDI work on my system. Instead of finding a solution, what do I find? Somebody is trying to make an audio oriented distro for Linux.

How about putting your efforts into improving what's already here? How about making THAT work before creating another distro that won't?

Windows is whatever you want it to be. It can be a music studio, a film studio, an artists studio, whatever. Just install the right software and hardware and GO. Mac OS. Same deal.

Linux? Forget it.

I don't want an OS that's focused on a particular thing or a particular media. I want an OS that does what I need it to do when I need it to do it.

Developers, please stop writing new "flavors" and help the Linux community get what it really needs:

An OS that not only works but completely beats the crap out of corporate controlled proprietary nightmares.

meng

January 12th, 2007, 09:00 PM

Rackerz

January 12th, 2007, 09:18 PM

Welcome to real life. No one choice is perfect for all users. What suits me may not suit you. As to your main thesis, you seem to be confusing distributions with operating systems. But the bottom line is, if it doesn't work for you, go back to something that does. Thanks for sharing though.

A distribution is part of an operating system.

On the whole I agree, Linux is going nowhere because it has so many 'flavours'.

I know too many people who've wanted to try Linux but as soon as they get down to it there is too much choice, too many distributions all offering the same thing so they don't know what to pick.

Ok the big players like Fedora, Debian, Novell etc, have made names for themselves. They don't need to advertise we know they work (well enough). But if all the distribution developers got together to make one distribution, ONE Linux it will kick the crap out of Windows and Mac.

It's never going to happen, there's too many things that could go wrong, to many differences and indifferences. Imagine though?

beercz

January 12th, 2007, 09:21 PM

But ....

Linux is about choice and freedom.

If everything was the same and standardized, then linux would be just like Windows or Macs.

I prefer the choice and freedom. Linux does work, it just requires a bit of time and effort. The rewards are well worth it in my book.

Thanks to the OP for sharing and hope he/she sees the value of choice and freedom, even if he/she chooses not to use it.

Solver

January 12th, 2007, 09:24 PM

Having different distributions is, overall, good. But I think it does make things too confusing for people who want to try Linux. If they have no clue and search the Web, they'll, say, come up with a list of some major distros: Mandrake, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, SUSE, Gentoo, maybe a couple more. Then, hopefully, they'll read about what each distro is so that they know what to try. Lots of confusion potential, though.

I, myself, don't like the Ubuntu flavours. I think they create lots and lots of confusion. Initially, I wondered when I saw there's Ubuntu and Kubuntu and Xubuntu and whatnot. I thought these are really different distros and, from experience, things don't work the same between distros (like, take the deb-based ones vs. the RPM-based ones). Only later, reading this forum, I realized that all these flavours are just Ubuntu with a different selection of default packages / window manager. So yeah, I think that's done too confusingly.

d3v1ant_0n3

January 12th, 2007, 09:32 PM

This has been said before, but I'm not sure who by or where (it was probably Aysiu tho')...

Due to the open surce nature of GNU/Linux, if there was one unified distro made, within a few days/weeks/months, someone would decide that that distro wasn't exactly what they needed. And fork it. And then within a short time, we'd be back to where we are now.

Choice IS overwhelming, but it's also a good thing.

FuturePilot

January 12th, 2007, 09:42 PM

But if all the distribution developers got together to make one distribution, ONE Linux it will kick the crap out of Windows and Mac.

Wow! Just think about that. That would be amazing if that happened. That's when you would really see the philosophy of open source come to life. With thousands of Linux developers working together on one Linux. Imagine the possibilities. It would beat the crap out of Mac OS and Windows and then some.

doobit

January 12th, 2007, 10:16 PM

Wow! Just think about that. That would be amazing if that happened. That's when you would really see the philosophy of open source come to life. With thousands of Linux developers working together on one Linux. Imagine the possibilities. It would beat the crap out of Mac OS and Windows and then some.

No it wouldn't.
Macintosh and Microsoft have the advantage of momentum over time. Both of them started in the late 70's and were literally responsible for the home computer revolution. Linux has only been around since 1995 and has not been developed with any one hardware package. IF it were a commercial product, and IF it had a large marketing department and IF it was developed for a particular hardware platform, like MacOS and Windows products are, then it might have a chance as a newcomer in the OS world.

or you can take this approach:

The philosphy of open source is all about YOU and YOUR support of a community developed product and YOUR input as part of the community, and YOUR word of mouth marketing of the product. That's where YOUR LINUX is. Learn it, live it, love it.

d3v1ant_0n3

January 12th, 2007, 10:19 PM

The philosphy of open source is all about YOU and YOUR support of a community developed product and YOUR input as part of the community, and YOUR word of mouth marketing of the product. That's where YOUR LINUX is. Learn it, live it, love it.

:cool: Well said.

Possible new sig quote.

Just as an aside, what is it with all the Floridians on tonight? Seems to be more than normal....

PurplePenguin

January 12th, 2007, 10:19 PM

I try out different distributions of linux because I just really don't like some of them. Tons of people out there love Fedora, Suse, Slackware, Sabayon, [add distro here], but the only ones that I really feel at home with are Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS.

If somebody tried forcing me to use ONE distro, I'd probably hate it. I'd switch to *BSD or something (shudder... I can never get them working!) because I like having the freedom to set my system up how I like it.

I don't use Windows because I have to do things either Microsoft's way or the highway. Want to change the taskbar or radically change anything on the desktop? No luck, unless you want to hack the registry or download some kind of program like WindowBlinds that will make the change for you (just what my computer needs... another program running in the background, taking up precious memory).

Most of the guys putting together the hundreds or thousands of distributions aren't even the guys writing the programs. *You* could make your own distribution. In many cases, it's just a different selection of software or 3rd party drivers put onto a Gentoo/Debian/etc. base. So by people putting together new distros, they're not taking any programming time away from the guys developing software.

Take a look around the linux forums some more. Some guys like Fluxbox, others love KDE. Some guys are really into Linux From Scratch or Gentoo, others are scared getting into anything more than Ubuntu. This leaves a heck of a lot of room for the average computer hobbyist to *learn* and develop computer skills.

With all due respect, I, for one, don't want to be a part of your one-linux world!

maniacmusician

January 12th, 2007, 10:28 PM

Kossilar, I totally get where you're coming from; but your perspective is all wrong. If we had thousands of people working on one distro, it wouldn't make it too much better; if anything there would be more arguments! plus, with all those developers doing their thing and putting it back into the main branch of the OS, there would be too many initial bugs just because of so many people writing different code!

I dunno if you totally understand the way Linux works. It's good that other distros are doing their own thing; the best part of it is, when they do work, they release source code. So, if another distro has something that we don't, and we want it, the developers can facilitate us with much more ease by looking at the source code of other distros as a starting base. They can even replicate it if they want. And this is but one example.

The work that other distros are doing, can still make its way back to us. The work that we do can make its way to other distros. It's all about collaboration. We can do anything we want with the setup we have, it's very powerful, and very unique.

nerdman978

January 12th, 2007, 10:44 PM

Dude, I think you are missing the point of Ubuntu and Linux distros in general.

Linux is about rebelled against the MAN, especially the MAN who slapped the price of $240 on Windows Vista!!!!!!

Also, Linux is not for everyone, perhaps trying a Mac would work better for your music (Mac is used more by artists in general).

So, maybe linux just isn't for you?

Polygon

January 12th, 2007, 11:01 PM

another flaw in your reasoning:

you have to remember that ubuntu, and other distros, are just distros! A distro is simply a collection of programs that runs on the real operating system, the linux kernel.

You say that everyone is working against each other, which is true for distos, but for the kernel, every single linux distro uses the offical kernel, and even if its a bit modified its still the same thing that every distro uses, suse, ubuntu, debian, redhat, all of those.

and now the main reason why sometimes stuff doesnt work in linux, linux is open source. Most likely Everything running on your linux comp right now you can go download the source somewhere and look at it, change it, improve it, whatever. But, this also means that companies are VERY reluctant to releases linux drivers for their hardware. Why? Because in order to not get yelled at by every single linux user and developer, the drivers have to be open source so they can be included in the kernel and developers and edit and improve them if need be to keep linux's reputation for being really stable. But, this also means that other competing hardware companies can look on the drivers, find out the hardware works and then possibly make their product better....

So in short, most hardware companies dont release open source drivers, so linux is forced to use closed source binary driver which cause unstability and crashes

And package management and programs is really not that hard. You want a program, you search through synaptic and find one that suits your needs, and then download it. or you can download a deb from a website and install that. if something needs to be upgraded, you either let synaptic do its thing or just double click a upgraded deb and click install. Usually the ppl who package these debs are smart enough to include the dependencies so you dont even have to worry about that

Kossilar

January 13th, 2007, 12:20 AM

Well I think my big thing is that I keep thinking about MIDI. Midi is a format which allows all hardware equipped with it to speak to each other and pass along information. I feel that Linux software needs to connect in this way.

I'm just sick of having to download dozens of different software packages that never work. And then, in my search I invariably find some distro-in-progress that's about to focus exclusively on the content I'm looking for. Its irritating. And its the differences between the Red Hat/Ubuntu/FreeBSD/ whatever which make it so complicated because more often then not software was written by a coder using a different version of Linux then me, so it simply fails to work.

](*,)

saulgoode

January 13th, 2007, 12:27 AM

And it would be so much simpler to find good music if all musicians limited themselves to playing polkas on an accordian. :D

aysiu

January 13th, 2007, 12:34 AM

And obviously no restaurant can be successful since all the chefs aren't working together on one restaurant...

Merged into the one "unified Linux" thread.

shining

January 13th, 2007, 08:45 AM

Nobody thinks it can _sometimes_ be better to contribute to an existing project than starting a new one? I say only sometimes, because you might have a wonderful new idea, that is totally incompatible with any already existing projects. But in the other cases..
Packages takes a lot of times, once an initial package is made, there is still a lot to do, testing it, checking the bug reports, and in case it's a packaging bug, fix it, if it's a bug in the program, report it to upstream developers. Then update the package each time a new upstream version is made, which requires more testing.
So of course, that would not make one distrib one billion times better, but it would increase its quality, by increasing the number and the quality of its packages.
Now, just having one single unified linux distribution is difficult to imagine, but that's not really what I'm thinking about.

But I could be wrong. Maybe all these people starting little new distribution without a big interest couldn't contribute in any way to the more interesting and used ones. Or maybe there is really one thousand ways to use a computer so different that a totally different distribution is needed.

deanlinkous

January 13th, 2007, 11:22 AM

On the whole I agree, Linux is going nowhere because it has so many 'flavours'.

I know too many people who've wanted to try Linux but as soon as they get down to it there is too much choice, too many distributions all offering the same thing so they don't know what to pick.

Yea and do those people also have troublechoosing a car? a hamburger? a pizza? a can of vegatables? a bottle of water? a beer? a bag of chips? a pair of socks? underwear? etc....

I wear boxer briefs and I conclude that everyone should wear boxer briefs - everyone happy with that? ;)

As previously stated by me -
Turning it into ONE would certainly benefit microsoft since that would allow them to focus on shutting down ONE instead of many. One good lawsuit and if they win then linux is no more.

one-size-fits-all....no thanks! Debian is about as close to a universal OS as I want to see. And the cool thing is that since Debian doesn't actually exist then nothing can ever shut it down.

And if you want to see proof as being impossible then check out UnitedLinux and DCCAlliance and that should show that you cannot "join" a handful of distros much less all or even most of them.

Circus-Killer

January 13th, 2007, 11:27 AM

having a single linux distro would amount to nothing more than having another microsoft/apple. wouldnt take more than a year for them to close the source and start charging.

secondly, the whole thing as said so many times is choice. i would not use linux if there was only redhat or only suse. the fact that i can say, ooooo, i like this one the best, and not care what distros other people run, well thats the way it should be.

aysiu

January 13th, 2007, 12:15 PM

I think some people are missing out that when open source projects fork, they are still open source.

Yesterday, out of curiosity, I was clicking the About button for network-manager, and guess what I saw--the Red Hat team did it, and the icon is also by someone at Red Hat.

That's right. Ubuntu can use something from Red Hat.

Likewise, I believe the KDE version of Beagle (Kerry) was created by the SuSE team.

And it's not like Ubuntu creates AmaroK. AmaroK is created by the AmaroK team, and it's the same AmaroK in Fedora or in Mandriva or in Slackware.

Ubuntu is based on Debian but contributes its changes back to Debian. Mepis is based on Ubuntu and uses Ubuntu repositories.

Forking while remaining open source is, in a sense, being unified. And don't forget the Portland Project and recent LSB discussions about packaging. People do want to cooperate with each other while remaining independent. It's called real life.

saulgoode

January 13th, 2007, 01:28 PM

This morning, I saw a question on a GIMP users forum about how to assign a menu command to a key. The respondants pointed out that:

You could tear off the submenu; thereby having the command just a mouse click away.
You could add an icon to the toolbox for the command (not available for all menu items, but it was for the one in question).
Use the Preferences window to assign a keystroke to the command.
Use the "Dynamic Keyboard Shortcuts" option to permit you to press a key while the mouse is hovered over the menu item in order to have the key assignment made.
No one recommended editing the MENURC configuration file, but that also would have been an option.

Having multiple solutions to a single problem is a condition that permeates throughout the entirety of Linux. Viewing this as a disease which needs to be cured is, in my opinion, misguided.

jnoreiko

January 13th, 2007, 01:30 PM

Having multiple solutions to a single problem is a condition that permeates throughout the entirety of Linux. Viewing this as a disease which needs to be cured is, in my opinion, misguided.

Don't confuse choice with quality.

saulgoode

January 13th, 2007, 01:39 PM

Don't confuse choice with quality.

Restricting choice will inevitably lead to limiting quality.

aysiu

January 13th, 2007, 08:20 PM

Apart from the fact that choice hasn't hampered the growth of many non-computer products in our lives (books, music, restaurants, clothes, places to live, jobs to have, banks to use, cars to drive--not to mention other modes of transportation), I don't think people realize that forcing Linux into being unified in the "traditional" sense (working on one project, as opposed to working on separate projects and sharing code and programs) defeats the purpose of Linux and open source. It makes about as much sense as the cliche "Curing the headache by cutting off the head." It's like trying to achieve gender equality by killing all women (there--no more sexism because we're all one sex now).

Also consider that Apple has, for years, been making an OS that has a *nix-like file structure, is touted as intuitive and stable, and gets support from third-party hardware and software vendors. Apple has not divided its efforts and has poured millions, if not billions of dollars into developing Macs. What's its desktop marketshare? 3-5%, give or take.

So why would "unifying" into one distro suddenly make Linux more of a contender for desktop market share? Especially since most of the people working on Linux are there in the first place because of its open source nature (including the ability to fork). If you want a closed source and "unified" contender, just use a Mac.

Never mind that no one in this thread has offered a single practically implementable suggestion for how this unifying process would take place...

deanlinkous

January 13th, 2007, 08:31 PM

(applause) to aysiu

maddog39

January 14th, 2007, 02:23 PM

Well in my opinion, the real linux developers only work on the kernel and there is only one linux kernel so their efforts are really concentrated and completely unaffected almost by all the distro forking. Its simply alot of other people who had an inovative idea for linux and decided to implement it. And if anything is good for linux, 1 million distros is, because now all those inovative ideas are now availible for anyone to use and or modify (thanks to open source) and now other big distros like Ubuntu maybe, will adopt those and ultimatly make the Linux Desktop experience that much better. :)

LSparky

February 22nd, 2007, 07:37 PM

Currently there are thousands of Unix distributions out there.
Many doing so many different things and this is cool.
Now currently there is a battle going on between Microsoft and every other OS out there.
Vista has already gotten a bad rep. before it went on the market.
This is a critical point.
This gives the Unix community a opportunity to gain significance in the OS market.
This is the year in my belief that Apple will gain significant market share and also linux to some extent.
If linux/BSD/OpenSolaris community does not take advantage of this opportunity, then these OS's could face a very high decrease in its current progress and momentum.
What this community needs is unifaction of developers and focus.
There are many problems facing the Unix mostly because of diversification and unification.
I would like to see Linux and the like succeed.
In order to do this I suggest that there be some communion on ideas bringing the best of all distros together and finding a standard and a way of making even a better linux by bringing the best of BSD, OpenSolaris, Mac, all Linux flavors, and even seeing if there is any good in MS Windows. By doing this, Linux would execelerate in my opinion at a significant rate.

And with all the great minds and developers coming together to create one distro would be phenomenal!
Think of how much Unix would progress then?

po0f

February 22nd, 2007, 07:43 PM

And we're being teleported to the cafe...

PurplePenguin

February 22nd, 2007, 08:23 PM

Ubuntu seems to be the most popular distribution of linux (at least, it seems that way from the distrowatch rankings), so if there was only one version (say, ubuntu), I doubt that the Gentoo, Slackware and Linux From Scratch guys would be very happy. :)

Are you going to use Gnome or KDE in your unified distro? (Don't actually answer this - it could get messy!). What about people with old computers? Can they still use fluxbox or xfce in your unified distro? What about Beryl, if they want eye candy? Chances are, whichever way you unify it, you're going to satisfy about 5% of the linux population. The rest will dislike one thing or another that you've chosen.

I use linux because I like choice. I don't want to be forcefed ONE kind of anything. That's exactly why I got away from Windows.

I don't want your unified linux.

yatt

February 22nd, 2007, 08:29 PM

Why? Linux is about having your computer doing what you want, not taking over the desktop world. If that just happens to be a side effect, then great, but its not the point.

ronacc

February 22nd, 2007, 08:32 PM

While the current situation is messy , Freedom is always messy , one size does not "fit all" . I see no profit for linux turning into a bloated monolith that tries be all things to all people. Probably the best step we could take tword "standardisation" IMHO would be a universal way of installing apps and components and we are already moving in that direction (slowly).
Diversity is part of the greatness and allure of linux , trying to shoehorn it into too tight a box would be a great mistake.

maxamillion

February 22nd, 2007, 08:33 PM

Ubuntu seems to be the most popular distribution of linux (at least, it seems that way from the distrowatch rankings), so if there was only one version (say, ubuntu), I doubt that the Gentoo, Slackware and Linux From Scratch guys would be very happy. :)

I use linux because I like choice. I don't want to be forcefed ONE kind of anything. That's exactly why I got away from Windows.

I don't want your unified linux.

1) debian is actually the most popular distribution of linux, ubuntu after all is just debian with a little sugar on top (among hundreds if not thousands of others like Knoppix, Morphix, Xandros, Mepis, etc.)

2) Linux unification would kinda defeat the purpose ... but I do think we could all benefit from ending the package management wars.

beartard

February 22nd, 2007, 08:47 PM

One of the beauties of Linux is that it works like a free market. What works tends to hang around. What doesn't work tends to get left behind. It's more-or-less a great democracy (and I'm not talking about what modern governments call democracy.)

As an operating system, it is more "living" than Windows or MacOS. Part of being alive is accepting (or at least tolerating) the diversity around us. Isn't that the point of Ubuntu?

I'm a big Linux and Open Source fan. Linux and FreeBSD turned me from a pirate to the captain of my own ship. I don't want to see distro unification. Sooner or later, what works will stay and what doesn't will fall by the wayside.

glotz

February 22nd, 2007, 09:04 PM

There's this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base

A single distro wouldn't be a good idea for reasons stated above but standards are good.

lamalex

February 22nd, 2007, 10:50 PM

GNU's Not Unix dude.

AusIV4

February 22nd, 2007, 11:18 PM

As others have said, unification would largely defeat the purpose of Linux. Some people want Gnome, some people want KDE, others want Fluxbox/XFCE/Rat Poison. Some people want cool eye candy, others want integrated (or even no) graphics. Some people like to put Linux on everything they own. Linux can run on most game systems, iPods, practically every computer out of the last 15 or 20 years regardless of processor. Some people want to compile everything before they install it, and build their system from the ground up, others want to do an installation and have a webserver in under 45 minutes. Some people want to run Free software exclusively, others just want things to work. Some people love the command line interface, others scared to death of it.

Linux can do all these things and more. Many of these things would conflict if you tried to do both at once, so a unified Linux could never satisfy everyone - this would be a digression, not progress.

A unified package manager might be conceivable and would be a decent step forward - software distributors would be able to use one method to distribute their program to everyone, rather than having one package for Debian users, one for Fedora core, one for Suse, one for gentoo, and all of the other different distros with different package managers. To satisfy the majority of users, a unified package manager would need to track dependencies, install and remove programs and their dependencies, offer the option to download binaries or compiling source. Aptitude does many of these things, but I'm not sure it would satisfy everyone.

I say a decent step forward because despite the fragmentation of package managers, there's not much software you can get that you can't get through your distro. For example, I don't believe Adobe distributed flash 9 in any form other than a tarball, but you can download and install it with one command or a few clicks from almost any distro.

Personally, I like Linux the way it is. I chose Ubuntu, but I wouldn't want to force anyone to use Ubuntu over their distro of choice. The best things that can be done to improve the Linux desktop experience would be to improve the applications - OpenOffice is great, but lacks some features some people really need from MS Office. The Gimp is pretty cool, but it's interface is unintuitive and it lacks some features that professional artists and photographers need. The Linux desktop needs to be able to convince people it does everything they need to do without much (if any) extra work. If Linux gets a reputation as an OS that does what you need it to do, the users will come.

Kateikyoushi

February 22nd, 2007, 11:22 PM

If the standard base becomes reality that's already enough, a unified package manager could also be useful but going further would be counterproductive.

aysiu

February 22nd, 2007, 11:26 PM

And we're being teleported to the cafe...
Yup. This isn't a Feisty discussion. This is a Cafe one.

We'll be unifying something--all the "unifying Linux" threads. But there will not be one ultimate Linux distro. If that's your goal (to close it up), you might as well use Mac OS X: *nix-like base and closed code (no forking allowed).

Another cheap plug for...
Linux Doesn't Need a Unified Distro (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux)

glotz

February 23rd, 2007, 08:55 AM

LOL! :twisted:

Merging these an sich pointless threads really adds insult to the injury. It's a horrible idea, let's really rub it in! The results say it all.

Brunellus

February 23rd, 2007, 10:45 AM

1) debian is actually the most popular distribution of linux, ubuntu after all is just debian with a little sugar on top (among hundreds if not thousands of others like Knoppix, Morphix, Xandros, Mepis, etc.)

2) Linux unification would kinda defeat the purpose ... but I do think we could all benefit from ending the package management wars.
The debian daughters descend from Debian, but are not themselves Debian. If you want an object lesson, try running your Ubuntu from straight Debian repositories and see how much breakage you get.

prizrak

February 23rd, 2007, 02:38 PM

The reason there is no need for a unified Linux and that there will not be one is the same reason we have more than one race of people and indeed more than one living organism on the planet. Each difference within the species or between organisms has been dictated by environment and purpose. You can't be an autotroph and move fast at the same time. You can't swim like a dolphin and run like a cheetah. Each environment/requirement dictates certain adaptations.

Ubuntu is a nice desktop system but would make a horrible render farm or A/V OS. Why? Because the way it is built it has a alot of dependancies that are going detrimental to performance in those environments.

Gentoo is great for an enthusiast system or an environment that requires huge customization but would suck for an organization wide roll out especiall on production systems. Why? Because updating/installing anything requires compilation. Spending 10 minutes on compiling a security update for Apache is just not going to work for a corporation.

While I hate SuSE and would never use it, it's great for organizations because there is a single point of contact and a well known company that is behind it.

Here is a question to all the proponents of Linux unification:
Do you believe there should be only one type of car on the road? Do you think that we should all drive SUV/Sportscar/Sedan/Semitruck/Motorcycle/Minivan hybrid?

Adamant1988

February 23rd, 2007, 02:48 PM

Hi,

besides Canonical being Ltd., there is one more thing that drives me crazy - why do we the hell have that many linux distros around?

Isn't is different folks developing parallely exactly the same things? This greatly decreases the productivity of the whole community. I mean sure a lot of distros use the same packets etc., but for example the PROMOTION, which linux really really need in order for OEM to ship new pc with LINUX INSIDE, instead of that Microsoft crap beeing in every god damn mobile device now (got a PocketPC recently - Win mobile 2003 - and I am about to spit fire and throw it against the wall if I wont get linux inside soon!!!

I would be pretty happy with one universal distro around, beeing nicely boosted with features for everyone... I think Ubuntu goes this way and thats what i love it for. Until someone in Canonical screws up...

Jan

Ah, behold the beauty of open-source. When someone disagrees with your method of development they can take all the work till that point and branch out following their own ideas. Unfortunately, this means you have 9 different groups developing 9 different versions of the exact same thing with really only minor differences between, instead of coming to a compromise and trying to make it work for everyone.

There will never be a unified linux distribution. I shudder to think at what could be accomplished with everyone actually working together, but it won't happen.

prizrak

February 23rd, 2007, 03:39 PM

Brunellus

February 23rd, 2007, 03:47 PM

Ahh but the beauty of open source is in that all those 9 different versions can look at each other's code and actually borrow the good parts and keep out the bad. Another beauty of this is that only the good/useful survive as their code will become dominant. Look at speed of improvement of Ubuntu vs speed of improvement of Windows/OS X or just about any other closed software and tell me if FOSS really does fail....
Yeah. But they can't all join together into an unstoppable GNU/Voltron and form blazing sword.

Adamant1988

February 23rd, 2007, 04:07 PM

Ahh but the beauty of open source is in that all those 9 different versions can look at each other's code and actually borrow the good parts and keep out the bad. Another beauty of this is that only the good/useful survive as their code will become dominant. Look at speed of improvement of Ubuntu vs speed of improvement of Windows/OS X or just about any other closed software and tell me if FOSS really does fail....

They can, but they don't unless it's convenient or necessary to meet deadlines.

23meg

February 23rd, 2007, 04:17 PM

Ah, behold the beauty of open-source. When someone disagrees with your method of development they can take all the work till that point and branch out following their own ideas. Unfortunately, this means you have 9 different groups developing 9 different versions of the exact same thing with really only minor differences between, instead of coming to a compromise and trying to make it work for everyone.

Forks are always last resorts, meaning that developers do try to come to a compromise and make it work for everyone. They don't resort to a fork at the first sign of disagreement. There's almost always extensive dialogue between the forked and the forking parties that ensures the fork is the only way to make things happen. For more on how the developer community operates regarding forks (as well as other internal affairs), check out Eric Raymond's Homesteading the Noosphere (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_10/raymond/index.html).

There will never be a unified linux distribution. I shudder to think at what could be accomplished with everyone actually working together, but it won't happen.Everyone is more or less working together, actually; you're using the same core software in just about every major distro, configured and brought together in different ways. Most of the workforce is going into writing that common body of software that gets reused, not into the making of the distos themselves, so there being less distros will not result in a substantial concentration of the workforce. This is not to say that distros are collaborating ideally regarding the sharing of fixes and features, but the way to solve that isn't unifying them, but inventing better tools and social methods for collaboration.

deanlinkous

February 24th, 2007, 07:28 PM

unified linux distribution.
makes me shudder

what could be accomplished with everyone actually working together,
I would say what would happen would be EXACTLY what has happened over the past 10 or so years, especially the last 5 or so.... no shuddering

JAPrufrock

February 24th, 2007, 08:10 PM

The strength of Linux is its diversity. For that reason, unification would be its death knell. Windows is the opposite- it is homogeneous and monolithic. Power (MS) vs agility (Linux). Let the better OS win.

kornelix

March 11th, 2007, 06:15 AM

The following article by the editor of Linux Magazine indicates that some Linux advocates are becoming aware that the rampant proliferation of flavors and general Balkanization of Linux is killing it for general usage.

Choice or Chaos? The Cost of Linux Fragmentation
Monday March 05, 2007 (04:33 PM GMT)
Freedom of choice is one of the great benefits of Open Source Software in general and Linux in particular. This freedom gives consumers the ability to select, without fear of litigation, what software they will use and how they will use or modify it. As a principal, this freedom is extremely valuable. However, a couple of announcements this week seem to indicate that market value of freedom of choice has dipped considerably. The biggest hurdle Linux adoption faced this week wasn't Microsoft, it was an enemy from within: Linux fragmentation...

Read more at linux-mag.com (http://www.linux-mag.com/id/2940/) »

beefcurry

March 11th, 2007, 06:50 AM

Yes I believe there is definately Balkanization of Linux, but the choise is also still there. You can use a big distro i.e. Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse or a small unknown flavour. It dosnt always mean a bad thing :)

MedivhX

March 11th, 2007, 07:15 AM

Well maybe there is "balkanization" and maybe there is not... And like beefcurry said you still have the choice, and I really hope that it will stay like that.

BTW what is this stupid word "balkanization"??? Do you English/US people always have to put labels on people??? Does everything bad associate YOU on BALKAN or similar regions? There is more freedom in Balkan then in US or England or any western country... I don't want to start a flame war in here but you people should really choose more appropriate words...

I currently feel very very offended by this word.

kornelix

March 11th, 2007, 08:42 AM

Here is the definition of "Balkanize" from dictionary.com:
1. to divide (a country, territory, etc.) into small, quarrelsome, ineffectual states.
2. (often lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) to divide (groups, areas, etc.) into contending and usually ineffectual factions: a movement to balkanize minority voters.

I believe this is an accurate analogy for the hundreds of Linux distributions.

Some have already responded with the "freedom" thing. The cited article pointed out how the freedom of Linux, and the resulting chaos, is precisely what makes it inappropriate for the general user and for companies like Dell and HP.

Those who feel that their freedom (to create or to choose) is of paramount importance need to admit the negative side of what they are doing.

The kernel is standardized and no one complains (true?). Why not the rest of it?

beefcurry

March 11th, 2007, 08:58 AM

You'll note he said:

"There is more freedom in Balkan then in US or England or any western country..."

If anyone has injected politics into this thread, it is MedivhX. He could have reasonably objected to the term "balkanization" without attacking other nations, but he chose not to do so.

Then please stop flaming it more. Well if you want to go into the technicals England has an Anti-Slander Law, France also has similar laws but the Balkan states being mainly newly founded hasnt got very mature laws, hence more "free". MedivhX here did take on Balkanization too personally which i think should be avoided next time because the use of Balkanization here is not to offend the Balkan states in anyway or form.

Is GNU/Linux systems being weakened from Balkanization due to capital funding being split? or is it that GNU/Linux on Desktops has not matured yet, too many ways to argue this. But I opt for freedom.

euler_fan

March 11th, 2007, 12:00 PM

On the plethora of available distros (please, I don't want to discuss the semantics, just the original question) I tend to believe as follows:

1) For the desktop market, there is probably no reason to have more than a few "mainstream" distros, but it is nice to have others which do a certain amount of the customization and tweaking for you (Sabayan [sic?] which takes care of Beryl, for instance) or specialty ones like DSL for those with older machines, etc. Then those who want mainstream can get it from a well supported and popular OS without much fuss and those of us more willing to experiment/customize can go do that. Even within Ubuntu we can see that having three different "official" windowing systems (Gnome, KDE; Xfce) and other community supported ones (Flux, Beryl, etc, . . .) lets, from what I have read on these forums, everyone find something they like. IMHO this is awesome, but definitely not for everyone.

2) For servers there is clearly a different set of needs. I would argue that EnGuarde or another "security- and server-optimized" flavor is a good idea for those who want to run a server. Right now I am thinking I would prefer to run OpenBSD (for its reputation as near-uncrackable and very stable, both good for me as I don't want to spend a lot of time maintaining it once I set it up). Another case in point is the Ubuntu server edition--it is designed to be set-up and run "headless" (which I understand is the most common way to do it--command line over SSH).

3) Special purposes: I have read at least one thread on setting up a home-made cluster. Okay, so almost no-one will do this (percentage-wise), having a flavor set up for it is not a bad thing at all, as it saves those people time and effort.

I think the biggest issue is going to be and remain that there will always in Linux be a thick line between those who want (as I do at the moment) a good desktop distro (which I think can be done for the general user if it has not been done already) and those who want something more powerful/specialized/experimental/customized/etc.

koenn

March 11th, 2007, 01:00 PM

While there are certain downsides to this fragmentation/splintering/... , (users confused by too much choice, companies having difficulties picking the 'right' distro for pre-installs, ...), it's inherent to Open Source (as a development method).
Some of the key properties of Open Source development :
- the freedom to choose the project you're contribute to, or start your own if you want to. That usually leads to higher motivation, and better work.
- The plethora of competing projects (or in this case : Linux distro's) that results from it is subject to some sort of Darwinian evolution : survival of the fittest - meaning that those that 'fit in' or 'are suitable to a purpose' will remain, the rest will disappear.
This again contributes to the overall quality of open source products.

- The work done on projects that (have or will) become obsolete isn't lost, because the source is 'in the pool', available for others to re-use it.

So, fragmentation is inherent to the development method, and the consensus is that the open source development produces high quality work. What's the problem, then ?

----
this discussion will be assimilated into te 'unified Linux' thread. Resistance is futile.

kornelix

March 11th, 2007, 01:39 PM

So, fragmentation is inherent to the development method, and the consensus is that the open source development produces high quality work. What's the problem, then ?

Not a problem for you and many others who value "freedom" over conflicting goals such as standards adherence, compatibility, supportability, etc.

It is more of a problem for those Linux advocates who want a low-cost high-quality Microsoft alternative for normal users. Ditto for HP and Dell who might want a Linux distro that had more than 5% mindshare.

IMHO, it is possible and desirable to have a highly standardized base system which geeks can still customize by replacing standard modules or adding special ones on top. Only the kernel works this way. The rest is chaos.

koenn

March 11th, 2007, 04:46 PM

Not a problem for you and many others who value "freedom" over conflicting goals such as standards adherence, compatibility, supportability, etc.

I based my point on open source as a distributed development method that apparently leads to
1- quality software
2- "splintering" / "fragmentation" / ...

I did not mention "freedom" in any meaning other than the fact that open source projects are often run on a volunteer basis, and you can not force anyone to join this or that project voluntarily.

On a side note : you'll find more standards adherence and compatibility in open source software than anywhere else, if only because the developers are aware that their programs will have to cooperate with other software in circumstances beyound the developers' controll. standards and clean open interfaces is the only way to go then.

Ditto for HP and Dell who might want a Linux distro that had more than 5% mindshare.
My guess is that, if they were to roll out pre-installed Linux on their PC's, whatever distro they pick will have an evolutionary advantage and develop the larger user base.

kornelix

March 11th, 2007, 05:17 PM

I based my point on open source as a distributed development method that apparently leads to
1- quality software
2- "splintering" / "fragmentation" / ...

I did not mention "freedom" in any meaning other than the fact that open source projects are often run on a volunteer basis, and you can not force anyone to join this or that project voluntarily.

On a side note : you'll find more standards adherence and compatibility in open source software than anywhere else, if only because the developers are aware that their programs will have to cooperate with other software in circumstances beyound the developers' controll. standards and clean open interfaces is the only way to go then.

My guess is that, if they were to roll out pre-installed Linux on their PC's, whatever distro they pick will have an evolutionary advantage and develop the larger user base.

Quality? Linux apps are very mixed. Some of them crash or exit without a hint of what is wrong. Others are quite good, e.g. Firefox, Gimp.

Standards? Like KDE and Gnome and xfce and ... ? there are so many window managers I cannot remember all their names.

Ubuntu 6.10 is not ABI compatible with 6.04 (programs compiled on 6.10 crash on 6.04, but the reverse order seems to work).

The many Linux distros do not agree on package naming and contents, making a search for missing programs a pain. Some distros even use different directory structures and file names, requiring apps to be recompiled or even get code tweaks to work.

I have some Gnome GTK software that runs on some KDE desktops and not on others, even after bringing in the missing libraries.

Chaos.

When Michael Dell was recently asked about pre-installing Linux, his response was "which one?". There may be some hope that Ubuntu will get enough critical mass to set some standards and pull others along, but this is also dubious. HP's recent announcements about certified distros were limited to Novell and Red Hat.

aysiu

March 11th, 2007, 05:43 PM

I've merged this with the Unifed Linux Thread.

The tangent about the word balkanisation has been moved its own thread in the Backyard (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=382094).

koenn

March 11th, 2007, 06:00 PM

Quality? Linux apps are very mixed. Some of them crash or exit without a hint of what is wrong. Others are quite good, e.g. Firefox, Gimp.
And the web server that runs 90% of the Web, the mailer damons that process 80% of all internet email, and the operating system that runs on a giant cluster to drive the worlds most popular search engine.

Standards? Like KDE and Gnome and xfce and ... ? there are so many window managers I cannot remember all their names. You're taking a number of separate applications and then complain that they're not the same. Do you also complain that a Mercedes is different from a BMW which is also different from a Chevrolet ? They're all cars, they ought to be standardized !
I thought you meant standards : HTML, XML, ODF, TCP, IP, DNS, ...

Ubuntu 6.10 is not ABI compatible with 6.04 (programs compiled on 6.10 crash on 6.04, but the reverse order seems to work). Whether or not to maintain backward compatibility is a design decision - not maintaining backward compatibility results in cleaner, faster code and less bugs, and is generally not necessary when upgrade/migration paths are freely available (as is the case in open source, and as opposed to non-open software so backward compatibility is more a consern outside the open source world)

The many Linux distros do not agree on package naming and contents. Some distros even use different directory structures and file names, requiring apps to be recompiled or even get code tweaks to work. If they were all the same, the evolutionary thing wouldn't work and things would stagnate. The end of innovation. You could argue that they'd have to agree on a standard before introducing something new, but we all now that's often a recipy for not getting things done. Just leave them be - evolution will sort it out.

Chaos.
"Chaos is an order you don't understand"

koenn

March 11th, 2007, 06:01 PM

We got unified !

euler_fan

March 11th, 2007, 07:49 PM

We could have a unified Linux distro (ULD). I can be done. However, it would have to tackle being all things to all people.

This leads to my two objections:

1) Sooner or later someone will come along who only wants their OS to do some subset of what out the ULD can do and does not want the rest in the system demanding their time and attention. Thus, they create a new distro with only what they want and chuck the rest. Bingo, a new distro is formed. This is even more true if they post it to the web and get some community support for it (I'm thinking of a distro optimized for secure mail servers or something like this for instance).

2) The beauty of having multiple distros is that if _I_ want to do some list of things, then I can more than likely find a distro that does at least 95% of that out of the box and get the rest without too much work without the effort of doing what I suggest in (1). Ergo, it is convenient to have multiple distros. It ups the odds of finding the best one for you, even if that is not the one that is best for me.

Nothing in these remarks in intended to imply that I believe having 500 distros that all do essentially the same things is a good idea. So long as each distro in each genre, so to speak, is well supported by its own user base, then I say live and let live.

Further, I would tend to agree that in each genre (desktop, for instance) there will and/or should be a small number of really popular ones that vie for market share amongst Linux users and have the most active communities, thus providing a backbone of sorts for that genre.

my $0.02

ErikTheRed

March 11th, 2007, 08:03 PM

I would say a parallel situation would be desktop environments, we have KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Fluxbox, Enlightenment, and many others. Sure consolidating into one would increase overall productivity on its development, but I'm sure we would lose a lot of creativity/experimentation. Plus you'd **** off a lot people who had preferences already. Not to say that there shouldn't be more cooperation across distros and desktop environments. That's why I don't get the whole KDE vs Gnome war, they should be sharing ideas and working together rather than being bitter towards each other, although it seems that the users of these desktop environments are more at fault than the developers.

This is one of the things that makes linux great, variety. It gives you the ability to try a bunch of different things and settle on something that is most appealing to you or easiest to use for you.

IYY

March 11th, 2007, 09:13 PM

kornelix

March 12th, 2007, 03:06 AM

It's a difficult question. The simplest answer is, it would be nice to have a unified Linux, but it can't be done. However, it's not as simple as that. The reason why this can't be done is the very essence of Linux and the GPL. By its nature, there can be no leader with an absolute say on any issue in the Free software world. Without such leader, there is no possibility for a unified distribution.

Think kernel. It works. It is unified. I don't think it is stagnated.

Total freedom (anarchy, chaos) is not the only alternative to standards. There is such a thing as thinking, planning, and managing of development. New and creative ideas can be implemented, after debate and refinement and incorporation into a roadmap.

The myopic view is that this slows things down, but the broader view is that overall progress is greater, even if individual projects may be slowed.

The problem is that many individuals do not want to be subject to discipline or defend their ideas before others. Programmers are by nature this way.