Unified Linux Thread

[aysiu]

While I believe that competition is healthy, too much competition can also have negative impact and tend to slow down progress as too much resources are spent working on adapting identical features. New features are usually upstream and shared by all the Linux distributions. And all the code is open source, which allows people to share and improve code without starting from scratch (and thus duplicating efforts).

What you describe would be a problem only for proprietary / closed source software.

[zeex]

Hi,

I've been wondering, there are so many distributions of linux out there. Main distributions like Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat, SuSe, Mandriva, etc and then variants based on these. New users are often confused what to choose. For 'em Ubuntu, Gentoo or Fedora etc all is the same. Sometimes even linux users (not newbies) wonder and try other stuffs.

What i'm wondering about is that there are so many people around the world working on different forms of linux. Wouldn't it be great if they all or most of 'em come togather and work on one project. you know like supporting one distribution. Combined effort would make OS shine better than ever. I feel all the efforts are distributed. popularity is divided. So is the marketing/Ad efforts and the opinions of the users.

What do you guys think ???

[Skripka]

Because people disagree on what is best to emphasize in an OS.

Latest Apps?

Most stability?

New user friendliness and hand holding?

Speed and simplicity?



There are 100s of linux distributions because there are lots of opinons and tastes as to what users want. It is the glory of freedom of choice. Instead of having only 1 or two options (Windows or MacOS for example)---I have hundreds as to what I can run depending on what I want and how much work I want to do.

I run Arch because none of the big distributions does it for me. None of them.

[pwnst*r]

i say the more the merrier. choice is good.

[zeex]

i say the more the merrier. choice is good.

A choice is always good but what about too many choices :) .


Because people disagree on what is best to emphasize in an OS.

What if one day someday everybody disagree with each other.

I'm talking about keeping the spirit of FOSS and Linux alive in one supreme OS for all. We are competing with each other. I think of people coming together and work for one GNU/Linux OS released everytime with variations like Newbie_Version, Mid_level_version and expert_version, but all of a single OS.

[pwnst*r]

A choice is always good but what about too many choices :) .




that just means you may have to do a little homework. i don't mind.

[issih]

I'm on the fence here...

The right to be able to branch off and do whatever you want is a vital part of the oss philosophy, and it is what gives us the ability for things to be changed dramatically by a good new idea filtering in.

The trouble is this assumption that choice is inherently good. That is in my opinion fallacious. Mobile phone companies offer 8 million pricing plans that all differ in subtle ways. By doing this they make it impossible to perform a simple analysis of what is the best value for your usage and therefore con you out of extra money.

Choice is only good where the benefits of one choice over another are clear cut and easily differentiable for different usage scenarios. I would argue that linux has jumped this fence, many of the distributions are now redundant, and offer little clear differentiation. In addition the proliferation of solutions for core components (in particular package managers, but it applies to other areas) makes binary compatability and consistency of behaviour extremely difficult if not impossible to enforce.

I think that some more standardisation would be beneficial amongst major distributions, at least from a normal user's perspective. Sadly it would inevitably restrict the development patterns, which is not desirable.

It is a difficult circle to square, and my opinion varies from situation to situation.

[zeex]

The trouble is this assumption that choice is inherently good. That is in my opinion fallacious. Mobile phone companies offer 8 million pricing plans that all differ in subtle ways. By doing this they make it impossible to perform a simple analysis of what is the best value for your usage and therefore con you out of extra money.


You are right about too many choices. I only hope for fewer main distributions. May be 2 that way at least the competition is there. Also they should release a version highly customized for newbies. Although Ubuntu has made Linux quite user friendly but still people run into trouble in almost every new task.

The reason for saying this is because I've been talking to my friends and they use windows and love it.They don't wanna change to Linux simply because Linux needs a little work and they don't wanna do that. Linux users usually dismiss this by saying like "If you feel this way then Linux is not for you" The end result of this is that there is one less person using Linux. I know Linux is totally different from windows and so is the user experience but I also want to see everyone using Linux.

Choice is good if you understand it but can a common/normal computer user can understand these choices. Most people don't know much about OS and computers they wanna just use it and that's why they use windows. I'm just hoping for one highly customized or like geeks say noobified version so that common people start accepting Linux. (and ubuntu is not the answer for noobified Linux yet)

[mohitchawla]

Bleh. What mumbo jumbo. It is a terrible idea , should not be done, can't be done, won't be done.

[zeex]

It is a terrible idea

Why do you think it's such a terrible idea ?

[C!oud]

Why do you think it's such a terrible idea ?

Because your idea of what a linux distro should be is probably no where near what I think. Also a person has the right to fork any open source distro they want and to say otherwise is violating that.

[gjoellee]

Linux is freedom, Linux give your more then one choice. This is the strength of Linux but also it's weakness. Just look at a ll the people having trouble with Windows. Whet happens if they get the choice between;
KDE
GNOME
XFCE
Openbox
Blackbox
Fluxbox
IceWM
JWM
Enlightment
CDE
OlvWM
FvWM
Sawfish
Metacity
After Step
AmiWM
SCWM
VTWM
WM2
MVM

...and about 50 more or so...

[benj1]

i really don't see why this is a problem.
first there is always a distro du jour today its ubuntu tomorrow it might be anything else ,, but its something people will associate with linux.
Second a quick google search will give you a list a linux distros you are likely to like, then you are free to download and try them, its not as if you have to pay for them,
3rd no one calls for this in the proprietary products, help my BMW has 4 choices of engine, 3 choices of trim, 8 choices of colour, 4 choices of alloy wheels, sat nav?, convertible? etc etc.

at the end of the day anyone today doing the most basic research into linux, will find ubuntu and find its easy to use for new users, they can use that, or they can do more research to find a different distro, if for what ever reason, ubuntu ceases to be as good as it was/as good as other distros then another distro will take the role ubuntu fills, all the while we will have 100s of different distros all trying to differentiate themselves, if one does something particularly successfully other distros will pick up on it and we all gain.

[starcannon]

A huge draw to GNU/Linux is that its Libre. Lots of distro's may seem strange, but its a direct result of people being able to do what they want, and no one dictating what they may do. Sure on certain points parallel development occurs; particularly obvious would be sound frameworks. Instead of trying to confine the entire process to a single distro, perhaps it would be more feasible and sensible for the sake of liberty, to find those areas where consolidation would work without inhibiting the freedom that seems to me fundamental to the spirit of GNU/Linux.

Even at that, I think it may not be condusive to innovation. While it may at times be bothersome to have 3 sound frameworks that are under heavy development, when all is said and done, we end up with some really cool and innovative results BECAUSE there are several projects running, and developers trying out their ideas; ideas that may be radically different and would not be easy or possible to integrate.

Anyway, nah, I don't think this is something I'd be behind. I'll err to the side of liberty every time.

[mohitchawla]

Why do you think it's such a terrible idea ?

Because a Harley is not a Suzuki. And fried chicken is not boiled chicken.

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

A LINUX COMMUNITY CALL TO COOPERATION

Greetings all. Going out on a limb here and calling on the Linux community to unify and grow.

Why am I doing this? Because although I'm a recently-retired professional corporate computer consultant with almost three decades of experience... entering the Linux community recently required extensive research, experimentation and forum-questions to even get off the ground. I hear this same report from person after person who has tried to switch to Linux. Such confusion among new users-- the inability to just grab a Linux disc and install it-- is harming the acceptance of Linux by the mainstream computer community.

Chaos seldom breeds order. Right now the Linux community is a confusing and disjointed association of multiple "distros" and offerings that serve nothing more than to confuse those who might be interested in the OS.

FACT: Most new users don't even know what "distro" means.
FACT: People don't care about Ubuntu / Kubuntu / Mint / Lime / Debian / this distro / that distro. They want to shove a Linux disc in their computer, have it load, it works. Period.

This confusion of the numerous and diverse distros is counter-productive to the Linux community. There is nothing wrong with having distros-- so long as the core system is the same in all such. The fact that it is NOT is one of the primary things that is preventing the broader end-user community from breaking off from their current OS and going with Linux. The result: the Linux community is fighting a hard, up-hill battle for community acceptance.

Game companies avoid supporting Linux for this reason. Professional software companies avoid supporting Linux for this reason. The concept of trying to provide a support platform for a multitude of diverse Linux distro installments is simply a tech-support nightmare.

Observation: Unless the Linux community gets the big dog companies in its corner... Linux will never become what it needs to be and what we want it to be-- the most widely accepted operating system on the planet... one capable of dethroning existing stranglehold monopolies.

LINUX MUST UNIFY. We as a community must decide on a core, universally-accepted distribution package, one that is found in every computer magazine, in every computer store, in every bookstore. This "centralized distro" must have a name that is neutral, universally acceptable, and that reflects the scope of the product. UBUNTU is a good distro. It's an excellent product. BUT... the "cutesy" and unfamiliar / unrecognizable name (no offense intended) as well as the localized African theme fails in its potential to be a universal product. Something else is needed.

In recognition of this, I am calling out to the Linux community as a whole to adopt a core Linux product, a single, unified, community-approved distro. I suggest the name LINUX: GLOBE as a proper signifier for such a package.

This concept does not limit the community. Some distros appeal to business, some to end users, some to the education community. Rather than presenting each of these distros as separate packages, they could be all presented under the core LINUX: GLOBE package... with EXTRAS added on as end-user need requires. Distros should be ADD-ONS, not the core product.

The steps would therefore be simplified:
1. Any user wanting to examine or switch to Linux would download / acquire LINUX: GLOBE. No matter where they are, what magazine they buy, what bookstore or computer store they are in, LINUX: GLOBE will be what they will look for.

2. Once they have that installed, they can install any other "distro" packages included with the core product. That is where the distros and external names could come into play. This is how the computer industry has worked for decades. Again, distros should be ADD-ONS, not the core product. The core product would be LINUX: GLOBE.

Mind you, the LINUX: GLOBE nomenclature is not etched in stone. It's simply a suggestion-- a naming concept that would be easily recognized and would adequately represent the concept behind the package: a global, universally-installable Linux core product that will provide people with Linux and the basic, generally-preferred packages most users would want.

LINUX: GLOBE would contain of course the OS, a universally-accepted word processor such as Open Office, a popular and acceptable Web Browser, and other core-function programs that are generally considered essential to common computer use. It would include some basic games, because that's what the community wants and expects (Solitaire of course is a MUST). LINUX: GLOBE would provide people with everything they need to get started in Linux, no questions asked, turn-key install, and universally recognized.

LINUX: GLOBE would have a universally and widely-visible name, logo and market recognition.

LINUX: GLOBE would unify a currently fragmented Linux community. Until the community becomes unified-- Linux will never achieve its true potential.

I'm not the one to implement this. I have neither the Linux experience, knowledge or skills to get this rocket off the launch pad. The task I take here is to provide the tiny spark necessary to ignite the fuel. The launch will require you, and folks like you, getting together and saying, "Hey, you know this is right. We have got to unify and organize and agree on a common, central Linux package that we can present to the computer community as a whole, world-wide, globally".

This core product may be formed around Ubuntu. It may be formed from several distro companies getting together and compromising. However it is done... this step is essential. Our community needs to stop being a group of separate "states" all dedicated to their own whims, agendas and goals-- and become a unified body capable of telling the computer community, "THIS is the first thing you want to install."

LINUX: GLOBE will be the starting point. With LINUX: GLOBE, no user will ever again say, "Which of these Linuxes do I need?" There will be one, and one only-- and where they go after that will depend on what they want to do.

Once this is accomplished, Linux might have a chance of becoming the dominant operating system on the planet. Anyone else out there like that idea? ;)


HOW YOU CAN HELP IMPLEMENT THIS IDEA:
Copy this forum post wherever you frequent. I'm giving total "open source" access to this call to cooperative construction of the Linux project. Duplicate this post anywhere you feel warranted and comfortable; it is public domain. Any idea must start somewhere. If we get enough people interested in doing this-- then perhaps the people who are capable of getting it done will join in and make this a reality. The reward: Linux given the recognition it deserves-- and the world-wide acceptance the computer community needs.

-- Wayfinder Wishbringer 2010-May 11

[sgage]

That's just not the way it works. It works quite well as it is. Linux doesn't need to dominate the planet, it just needs folks to keep it going.

The "chaos" as you call it is part of the strength of Linux. Another way of looking at it is "freedom" and "choice", and recalling that at the end of the day, this whole thing is a labor of love.

If that slows down world domination for a year or three, so be it. If there was a centralized Global Linux, it would sort of negate what many of us love about Linux.

There's not some sort of game going on that needs to be "won". I've been happily using Linux for at least a dozen years. It's only gotten better and better. I am so not worried about world domination.

This is a perennial theme: "too much diversity, too many distros, it's too confusing, and it turns people off". Maybe. Oh well. They'll get it sooner or later. Or not.

Meanwhile, Linux just gets better and better...

[nothingspecial]

A LINUX COMMUNITY CALL TO COOPERATION

Greetings all. Going out on a limb here and calling on the Linux community to unify and grow.

Why am I doing this? Because although I'm a recently-retired professional corporate computer consultant with almost three decades of experience... entering the Linux community recently required extensive research, experimentation and forum-questions to even get off the ground. I hear this same report from person after person who has tried to switch to Linux. Such confusion among new users-- the inability to just grab a Linux disc and install it-- is harming the acceptance of Linux by the mainstream computer community.

Chaos seldom breeds order. Right now the Linux community is a confusing and disjointed association of multiple "distros" and offerings that serve nothing more than to confuse those who might be interested in the OS.

FACT: Most new users don't even know what "distro" means.
FACT: People don't care about Ubuntu / Kubuntu / Mint / Lime / Debian / this distro / that distro. They want to shove a Linux disc in their computer, have it load, it works. Period.

This confusion of the numerous and diverse distros is counter-productive to the Linux community. There is nothing wrong with having distros-- so long as the core system is the same in all such. The fact that it is NOT is one of the primary things that is preventing the broader end-user community from breaking off from their current OS and going with Linux. The result: the Linux community is fighting a hard, up-hill battle for community acceptance.

Game companies avoid supporting Linux for this reason. Professional software companies avoid supporting Linux for this reason. The concept of trying to provide a support platform for a multitude of diverse Linux distro installments is simply a tech-support nightmare.

Observation: Unless the Linux community gets the big dog companies in its corner... Linux will never become what it needs to be and what we want it to be-- the most widely accepted operating system on the planet... one capable of dethroning existing stranglehold monopolies.

LINUX MUST UNIFY. We as a community must decide on a core, universally-accepted distribution package, one that is found in every computer magazine, in every computer store, in every bookstore. This "centralized distro" must have a name that is neutral, universally acceptable, and that reflects the scope of the product. UBUNTU is a good distro. It's an excellent product. BUT... the "cutesy" and unfamiliar / unrecognizable name (no offense intended) as well as the localized "African" theme fails in its potential to be a universal product.

In recognition of this, I am calling out to the Linux community as a whole to adopt a core Linux product, a single, unified, community-approved distro. I suggest the name LINUX: GLOBE as a proper signifier for such a package.

This concept does not limit the community. Some distros appeal to business, some to end users, some to the education community. Rather than presenting each of these distros as separate packages, they could be all presented under the core LINUX: GLOBE package... with EXTRAS added on as end-user need requires. Distros should be ADD-ONS, not the core product.

The steps would therefore be simplified:
1. Any user wanting to examine or switch to Linux would download / acquire LINUX: GLOBE. No matter where they are, what magazine they buy, what bookstore or computer store they are in, LINUX: GLOBE will be what they will look for.

2. Once they have that installed, they can install any other "distro" packages included with the core product. That is where the distros and external names could come into play. This is how the computer industry has worked for decades. Again, distros should be ADD-ONS, not the core product. The core product would be LINUX: GLOBE.

Mind you, the LINUX: GLOBE nomenclature is not etched in stone. It's simply a suggestion-- a naming concept that would be easily recognized and would adequately represent the concept behind the package: a global, universally-installable Linux core product that will provide people with Linux and the basic, generally-preferred packages most users would want.

LINUX: GLOBE would contain of course the OS, a universally-accepted word processor such as Open Office, a popular and acceptable Web Browser, and other core-function programs that are generally considered essential to common computer use. It would include some basic games, because that's what the community wants and expects (Solitaire of course is a MUST). LINUX: GLOBE would provide people with everything they need to get started in Linux, no questions asked, turn-key install, and universally recognized.

LINUX: GLOBE would have a universally and widely-visible name, logo and market recognition.

LINUX: GLOBE would unify a currently fragmented Linux community. Until the community becomes unified-- Linux will never achieve its true potential.

I'm not the one to implement this. I have neither the Linux experience, knowledge or skills to get this rocket off the launch pad. The task I take here is to provide the tiny spark necessary to ignite the fuel. The launch will require you, and folks like you, getting together and saying, "Hey, you know this is right. We have got to unify and organize and agree on a common, central Linux package that we can present to the computer community as a whole, world-wide, globally".

This core product may be formed around Ubuntu. It may be formed from several distro companies getting together and compromising. However it is done... this step is essential. Our community needs to stop being a group of separate "states" all dedicated to their own whims, agendas and goals-- and become a unified body capable of telling the computer community, "THIS is the first thing you want to install."

LINUX: GLOBE will be the starting point. With LINUX: GLOBE, no user will ever again say, "Which of these Linuxes do I need?" There will be one, and one only-- and where they go after that will depend on what they want to do.

Once this is accomplished, Linux might have a chance of becoming the dominant operating system on the planet. Anyone else out there like that idea? ;)


HOW YOU CAN HELP IMPLEMENT THIS IDEA:
Copy this forum post wherever you frequent. I'm giving total "open source" access to this call to cooperative construction of the Linux project. Duplicate this post anywhere you feel warranted and comfortable; it is public domain. Any idea must start somewhere. If we get enough people interested in doing this-- then perhaps the people who are capable of getting it done will join in and make this a reality. The reward: Linux given the recognition it deserves-- and the world-wide acceptance the computer community needs.

-- Wayfinder Wishbringer 2010-May 11

I don`t think you quite get it, do you?

Yes, Ubuntu is aimed at getting linux into the mainstream, but not at the expense of all else.

Good luck with linux-globe.

[marshmallow1304]

That will never work. Even if you did manage to unify everything to a single distro, many, many people would be unhappy with one thing or another and they would make forks of the main distro or build their own distros from scratch. Eventually, everything would end up back about as it is now, except with a lot of missed opportunity for real development since people will have been wasting time "unifying".


Frankly, removing modularity removes the main strength of GNU/Linux. If a new user can't take the time to learn about distros, he/she is probably better off using Windows or Mac OS.

[lisati]

Moved to "Community Cafe": this looks more like letting off steam than a support request.

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

No, not letting off steam at all. This is a professional observation regarding why it is that mainstream users are so adverse to Linux. The reasons are amply demonstrated in the first replies to this post.

These come down to some basics:

* We like it how it is

* If new users don't want to research, they don't need to use it

* Freedom (ah, that ethereal and emotional word)-- as if creating a generally recognized package would somehow destroy our "freedom" to design Linux as we need it to be... by installing the separate distros / add-ons we need.

If indeed this is a repeated call that shows up again on a regular basis-- perhaps folks, that's because this is something that is needed... and the Linux community just isn't listening.

Look, I've worked with end computer users, corporate managers, techs and "geeks" all my life. I know the way it works and believe me-- it's not because I "don't get it". Seriously, perhaps a less down-the-nose stance is called for here. We "don't get it"? I assure you we do. Get what?

The fact that the vast majority of computer users are being held over the barrel by a monopolistic, price-gouging, "our way" company and have little or no way out of that.

The fact that game companies are largely ignoring the Linux community because of this continued refusal to cooperate with them-- and game companies have been dominant in forming the history of personal computers. (Yes, it's the gamers, not the businesses, that have forced new technology at an amazing rate).

The fact that the average computer user-- unlike you folks-- are not techno-wizards and need a system that is common, well-documented, understandable and easy to use.

So this is what I'm presenting to the community. It's not a matter of "if it takes Linux 2 or 3 more years to catch on, I'm okay with that". It's that Linux will likely never "catch on" unless the Linux community as a whole is willing to make some concessions-- and make a universal Linux distro accessible to the average computer user.

This has to do with more than what we as individuals are comfortable with, what we want, or that we as individuals know how to use Linux. This is about all the other people out there that are socked in to using an expensive, ungainly OS that they don't like but are forced into using... because the Linux community is comfortable within its "safe zone" and refuses to branch out and reach out to others. This is about the OTHER 80% OF THE MARKET who are currently tied in to an OS that they're not all that happy with... because they haven't been offered a viable alternative.

So, that's my two cent's worth. I know some will disagree with this concept. Others may agree. The market will do what it will. But if the Linux community expects to sit back on its haunches and just expect the world to magically accept Linux-- without any effort or compromise-- then the community is in for some rather rude disappointments. that's not how the world works.

The techs are obviously happy where they are. They may resist any suggestion of change. That's okay. There are others out there who I'm sure know exactly what I'm talking about-- who experienced the same thing when trying to first install Linux-- and who know that changes need to be made.

If folks DON'T want Linux to go mainstream, if they don't want it to be accepted by the public, if as some stated above, they don't "need" it to become the hottest OS on the planet... hey, stay the course. Good job. Headed in the right direction.

But if anyone wants Linux to reach its full potential, well... that's going to take some effort-- and some willingness to look beyond our own personal needs.

[nothingspecial]

Have you heard of POSIX ?

[sgage]

Yo Mr. Professional,

I'm a professional too, as probably a lot of folks are here.

As someone above mentioned, you simply don't get it.

Linux is not a top-down command and control kind of phenomenon. You are not the first person to chafe at this, but you need to get used to it.

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

@sgage: BTW, I agree with you that Linux just keeps getting better-- which is the main reason I started looking in to it so seriously. But... despite the fact that I've been in this business for a while-- it took me some 2-3 weeks to research and decide on a "distro". For me, that was Ubuntu... and I came to that decision for one reason and one reason only-- because Ubuntu is unified.

Yes, that's Ubuntu's greatest strength isn't it? It is a centralized, core, "here's where you find it" OS that is designed to be simple and easy to use. Of all the Linux distributions, I see Ubuntu as being the one most end-user friendly... mainly because it IS organized and centralized.

So all I'm presenting here is a simple concept with which you folks are already well-acquainted: take that strength to its next logical level. Don't just ride the horse-- reach for the brass ring.

But as for my "needing to get used to" anything... sorry. The entire history of mankind is made of of people who refused to "get used to" the way things are. That sir, is a concept generally referred to as progress... the refusal to stick with current thought-- and advance to improved order and functionality.

[TheNessus]

-- Wayfinder Wishbringer 2010-May 11

Do you know how many Windows 7 versions exist?
Windows 7 starter
Windows 7 basic
Windows 7 home
Windows 7 home permium
Windws 7 professional
Windows 7 ultimate

So many windows 7's...


"FACT: Most new users don't even know what "distro" means.
FACT: People don't care about Ubuntu / Kubuntu / Mint / Lime / Debian / this distro / that distro. They want to shove a Linux disc in their computer, have it load, it works. Period."

Most people don't even know what Windows means. Most people don't care about "basic", "home", "professional"... they want to shove a windows disc in their computer, have it load, it works. period. They sometimes don't care to an extent that they call their OS "explorer", or "office". They simply don't care.

Difference between Windows users and Linux users is that Linux users do care.

[nothingspecial]

I still don`t think you get it.

[nothingspecial]

Deary me.

What we do, I think, on Ubuntu Forums (at least), is try to help new users who have problems.

Converting the masses to linux is not what we do here.

Good luck with linux-global.

**** Take no account of my post count ****

[McRat]

I experimented with Linux about 7? years ago. I could not get most the hardware to work on a stock IBM Pentium machine, not even the mouse.

Today I guess, is a LOT different. So far I'm 2 for 2 on Ubuntu Linux in about a week, even with no experience, I set up a Server and a Workstation, including Network Printing (Ricoh multifunction 11x17 ethernet-linked machine), CAD software under WINE, a Adobe Acrobat replacement, complete MSOffice compatible suite, etc.

I'm way ahead of schedule. It's scary though. Things are going TOO smoothly. There must be a catch...

[mechro]

This concept does not limit the community. Some distros appeal to business, some to end users, some to the education community. Rather than presenting each of these distros as separate packages, they could be all presented under the core LINUX: GLOBE package... with EXTRAS added on as end-user need requires. Distros should be ADD-ONS, not the core product.

Er... isn't that what we have already? :confused:

Speaking as a professional non-technical idiot, I have enjoyed the sometimes frustrating 5 year learning curve it has taken me to get comfortable with Linux. I'm grateful to open source for that. I think it's a brilliant concept that should be encouraged rather than neutered by globalisation.

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

Do you know how many Windows 7 versions exist?
Windows 7 starter
Windows 7 basic
Windows 7 home
Windows 7 home permium
Windws 7 professional
Windows 7 ultimate

So many windows 7's...

Most people don't even know what Windows means. Most people don't care about "basic", "home", "professional"... they want to shove a windows disc in their computer, have it load, it works. period. They sometimes don't care to an extent that they call their OS "explorer", or "office". They simply don't care.

Difference between Windows users and Linux users is that Linux users do care.

You make a very good and valid point Nessus... and one with which I fully agree. However, I think we'd also agree that we don't want Linux to imitate Micro$oft, yes? : )

That's exactly the point being made here. Micro$oft fractures their own product... and causes severe confusion in the process. Why not just release one product, for one reasonable price... and let people choose what features they want to use or not use? That's what installation wizards are for.

Your list here isn't even the half of it. Add to that the "OEM" and "Builder" versions... and it becomes even more confusing. Then add to that the fact that the retail versions have some features that aren't included in the OEM versions and-- well, we can see why people need an understandable alternative to Window$.

So... what are we going to do about that? Sit back in the satisfaction that WE know how to use Linux... or help others do the same?

You are right-- Linux users do care. Even those above who disagree with the concept of the original post, do so because they care about the community and Linux itself. One of the things that helped me greatly in choosing a Linux distro was the ready and eager help of the Linux community on the forums.

But that's really the point-- the fact that I *had* to have that assistance to choose a distro. Surely there is a better way. Bottom line, that's what it comes down to: making a better way for people to acquire and install Linux for the first time. That's what this proposal is about: offering the public ONE Linux distro rather than two dozen. That's really not all that strange a concept.

Micro$oft has mucked the works up by confusing their users with multiple "distros". It's not smart, it's not helpful, and yes, it fragments their market. That's the whole point... working smarter than Micro$oft and giving people what they need-- a recognizable, easy-to-install Linux operating system that they can acquire, install, and they're running. No confusion, no "distro" issues, no giving up out of frustration. We need a Linux distro that works for everyone. What "distro" extensions they add after that is totally up to them. Surely the Linux community can organize and cooperate enough to accomplish that basic goal: a "starter" Linux package for the mainstream community. Not two dozen: one. Get it, install it, go from there.

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

I still don`t think you get it.

What's to "get"? The answer is in the quote of all of your messages:

"Linux assumes you know exactly what you're doing."

Now... why exactly should that be the case?

Believe me Nothing, I get it. Your quote says it all-- on both sides of the issue. That's exactly the point. ;)

[Frogs Hair]

What is counter productive, is eliminating the choices that exist among the many Linux distros. It is up to the user to research the release that best suits his/her needs.

[Hman242]

People like different things. Why should people limit themselves to one distro? Why should be even have more than one kind? We should have one OS period. Any why not have just one OEM? People like different things, and there are different products to suit their needs. I would prefer we not have a Linux monopoly, or any monopoly for that matter.

[dgw]

So...you want Ubuntu, but you want to give it a different name because Ubuntu is too...African? And then you want all the other distros to just roll over and die, ignoring how much time, effort, and money people and companies have put into some of those other distros, and ignoring how some of those other distros are intended for different purposes than Ubuntu. LINUX GLOBE with office software and other stuff for the desktop user wouldn't be appropriate for servers. How do you intend to deal with that?

What improvements would you make to Ubuntu? Getting rid of other distros doesn't improve the one remaining distro, and isn't actually realistic. Try reading the GPL and explaining how you're going to prevent people from making spinoffs of GPL-licenced software.

[handy]

I thought this was going to be one of those short lived (here these days) Creationism verses Evolution threads. ;)

[jrusso2]

Instead of limiting to one distro I would like to see a default distro created. This would use one package manager one desktop etc.
he default linux would be free to use any other distro but the default would be used for commercial applications to design for.

If you didn't use the default you may miss out on commercial applications.

[MCVenom]

UBUNTU is a good distro. It's an excellent product. BUT... the "cutesy" and unfamiliar / unrecognizable name (no offense intended) as well as the localized African theme fails in its potential to be a universal product. Something else is needed.

I disagree. Whenever you hear those 'world in harmony, everyone join together and be one with your planet and fellow man' montages in TVs and movies, guess what song is playing? An African/African-inspired song. :p

So you're saying that Ubuntu's African name (and former color scheme) means that it could never be a universal product? A name is a horrible reason not to use an operating system. I think you have managed to pick the least convincing argument for why Ubuntu won't make it mainstream. :roll:

[Directive 4]

i like cake

[MCVenom]

Instead of limiting to one distro I would like to see a default distro created. This would use one package manager one desktop etc.
he default linux would be free to use any other distro but the default would be used for commercial applications to design for.

If you didn't use the default you may miss out on commercial applications.
The way things are going, that default may very well be Ubuntu in the near future... I can honestly see a company like Adobe giving in and bringing Photoshop to Ubuntu. Not Linux, but simply Ubuntu. At least at first, anyway. :p

[DeadSuperHero]

The problem, though, is that distributions all use different ideologies (free vs. nonfree, mono vs nonmono, conventional vs. unconventional), distribution methods (Package management, for example), use cases (some are focused on servers, some are embedded, some are strictly for scientific research purposes, some are kiosks, and some are just desktops), desktop environments (From Gnome and KDE to GNUStep, E17, and things even seasoned linux users might never have heard of).

And the thing is? These developers want to continue going about doing things this way. Technically, there's no way to stop this now. Had this been 10 years ago when a few distributions were around, that'd be one thing. However, I'm convinced that the fragmentation is at a point of being unfixable.

[handy]

Hopefully the default is NOT Ubuntu, it has been heading off the rails for a while now.

& the testing before release is far too ineffective, this has caused it to loose a lot of credibility in the Linux community.

[KiwiNZ]

Hopefully the default is NOT Ubuntu, it has been heading off the rails for a while now.

& the testing before release is far too ineffective, this has caused it to loose a lot of credibility in the Linux community.

Shields at maximum Scotty :P

[Portmanteaufu]

With respect to the issue of a "one linux" movement, I think you'll find that your proposal is rather impractical. Consider this example:

I'm a huge fan of Arch Linux. Do you know what packages it comes with? A command prompt and little else. No graphics, no windows, no battery life monitor, no office suite, nothing. Why do I love that? Because I'm a computing minimalist. I like to know which processes are running on my machine. If I need something installed, I'll put it on there myself. I vastly prefer this approach (starting with nothing and adding things I need) to the approach of starting with everything and trying to strip away the unnecessary parts. However, I recognize that I'm not at all in the majority on this. Anyone else (heck, including me back when I was all about Ubuntu) would prefer to have a nice desktop with an IM client and a web browser right from the get-go!

Right now, those two approaches are equally valid and the people that fall into either camp have their own distribution to use and love. If, all of a sudden, we were forced to come to concensus on a "single linux", it would be awful. Everything would be compromised and no one would come away content.

It sounds as though you have developed a strong philosophy regarding how Linux ought to be. Great! :D Now I recommend finding a distribution that suits your approach! If you like Ubuntu but think it's "too African" (:-k), go check out Mint (http://www.linuxmint.com/) -- it's based on Ubuntu, but comes with a lot of plugins and codecs that your typical user is likely to use. If you decide that that's the one that every newbie ought to be directed to, shout it from the rooftops! Just don't ask the rest of us to give up the flexibility that brought us into the community in the first place.

(Also, you might consider reading this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58017). When doing so, know that I thought of it because of the "Well Intentioned" part of the title, and not the bit about "troll".)

Best of luck with Ubuntu! We'll be here to answer your questions.

[handy]

Shields at maximum Scotty :P

:lolflag:

Those that have never had any problems after a Ubuntu upgrade are certainly in the minority; hardware support regressions, new features that cause nothing but ongoing trouble to an incredibly large proportion of users... These things should not happen, the testing should be done by those that produce the software, not by the users.

Anyway, as a pre-emptive measure I bailed-out of this craft some time ago... & flack is just flack.
_________

On another tack, if Linux somehow turned into just one almighty distro, I know for sure that it wouldn't be the way I want it to be, so I'd be using BSD, Haiku, AROS of something else.

[KiwiNZ]

:lolflag:

Those that have never had any problems after a Ubuntu upgrade are certainly in the minority; hardware support regressions, new features that cause nothing but ongoing trouble to an incredibly large proportion of users... These things should not happen, the testing should be done by those that produce the software, not by the users.

Anyway, as a pre-emptive measure I bailed-out of this craft some time ago... & flack is just flack.

I mentioned problems a week or two back and my ship is still in Space dock for repairs.:P

[CFury]

Personally I think Linux, in any flavour chosen, works just fine.

What's all this about "unification" and a single distro? Nonsense. There have been corporate entities in the game. Ahhhh yes, I recall years ago purchasing SuSE from an electronics superstore. Got a lapel pin with it as well. Rubbish. However then the competition at the time which was Mandrake and Red Hat, to which both I've used and found SuSE to be much better at the time. All in all it's trial and error for those computer users that are either fed up with the accepted standard, too stubborn to turn away from a challenge, or actually want to be an involved party with their own personal computing. Personally I want to know what ticks and how to make it do so. Thus I use Linux. It's not for everyone and never will be.

Cheers,
C

[handy]

I mentioned problems a week or two back and my ship is still in Space dock for repairs.:P

It is certainly easier for me to escape the attacks than you as & in your position you are far more vulnerable to the destroyers that closely guard the mother-ship (I don't think that Death Star is appropriate at this stage).

I hope your repairs include a strengthening of all your defensive panelling & a heightening of the output from your shield energiser.

[ikt]

Because although I'm a recently-retired professional corporate computer consultant with almost three decades of experience...

Your experience is extensive, but given what the industry is, do you think in a hundred million dollar+ industry someone with an equal or greater experience has not thought of this idea before?

[Jay Car]

* Freedom (ah, that ethereal and emotional word)

Well, far be it for me to put a damper on someone else's enthusiasm...

But, in my experience - and please believe me when I say that I know what it's like NOT being free - people who speak about Freedom as merely an "ethereal and emotional" word, are generally looking to squelch it.

What drew me to GNU/Linux was exactly that "chaos" you spoke of. Only I didn't see it as chaos, I saw it as a wonderfully open, exciting, creative, thriving environment. Which corporate types often have trouble understanding. They seem to think everything needs to be controlled. bleh...

I help ordinary users with migrating their systems away from Microsoft products all the time. These are people my age (give or take a decade or so), and not technically inclined in any way. But they *get* the idea of software freedoms. They also have no problems figuring out which distro they want, because I bring several Live cds along with me when we work on their computers. It's simple, after trying a few, we install the one that works best. No confusion whatsoever.

I'm just one, rather small, not too bright, little old lady. But five years ago I knew no one - friends, family, neighbors, clients - that didn't use Windows, including me. Today, I hardly know anyone that uses Windows on their home systems. I'll admit there are some Mac users amongst my friends and family, so not everyone wants to use Linux. But my point is that, out of that thing you call chaos, comes empowerment. Allowing ordinary computer users (like me) to change their world (a small change, to be sure, but still an important one).

I also have a small business. I am very proud to have made the move to Linux, whittling the Windows use down to one old, hardly used computer that dual boots. It took me several years to plan it out, relearn software and purchase the proper hardware, but I did it.

I didn't do it alone though. Nope. I had TONS of help and support, it came from this forum and forums like it. It came from that happy, crazy, feisty atmosphere of chaos that you don't like.

What you call chaos, I call freedom. What you see as counter-productive, I see as empowerment. The things you want to change I wouldn't change for the world.

Okay, have to go feed the dog now... :)

[earthpigg]

This confusion of the numerous and diverse distros is counter-productive to the Linux community. There is nothing wrong with having distros-- so long as the core system is the same in all such.

minor version number differences aside, this is already the case. kernel, gcc, gnu core utils. only difference is package managers -- but the two most popular (dep and rpm) likely constitute over 90% of the total install base (measured by individual computers running gnu/linux).

the two most popular consumer-oriented DEs also likely constitute over 90% of the total install base. once a user knows gnome/kde conventions, she knows gnome/kde conventions. i firmly believe that without both gnome and kde, both gnome and kde would suck.

The result: the Linux community is fighting a hard, up-hill battle for community acceptance.

without hard-fought battles, all software would suck. Would OS X exist without Microsoft Windows?

with software, "what doesn't kill it makes it stronger" is absolutely literal. Microsoft is developing a package manager similar to Ubuntu Software Center as we speak.

Game companies avoid supporting Linux for this reason. Professional software companies avoid supporting Linux for this reason. The concept of trying to provide a support platform for a multitude of diverse Linux distro installments is simply a tech-support nightmare.

take a look here: http://www.wolfire.com/humble

4 out of those 5 games are completely distro neutral. once they are open source, they will be packaged specifically for the various distros, but they presently work on any modern distro out there.

Observation: Unless the Linux community gets the big dog companies in its corner... Linux will never become what it needs to be and what we want it to be-- the most widely accepted operating system on the planet... one capable of dethroning existing stranglehold monopolies.

1) IBM isn't a big dog company? Intel isn't a big dog company? Red Hat, a fortune 500 corporation, isn't a Big Dog? Microsoft, working with Novell, isn't a big dog?

2a) Linux already is the most widely accepted operating system on the planet -- in certain segments. namely, servers... the most vital computers out there, if you want to have an Internet.

2b) Who said Linux has the goal of dominating the desktop market? Did Linus Torvalds ever say that?

This "centralized distro" must have a name that is neutral, universally acceptable, and that reflects the scope of the product. UBUNTU is a good distro. It's an excellent product. BUT... the "cutesy" and unfamiliar / unrecognizable name (no offense intended) as well as the localized African theme fails in its potential to be a universal product. Something else is needed.

I strongly disagree with your claims about the name "Ubuntu", but it's a matter of opinion. Should we pick a fruit? or just pick two techy-sounding pre/siffixes and string them together, like Micro-soft? How about Macrohard? or Ultrabyte? Ubuntu is fine.

Rather than presenting each of these distros as separate packages, they could be all presented under the core LINUX: GLOBE package... with EXTRAS added on as end-user need requires. Distros should be ADD-ONS, not the core product.

How about we call it "GNU/Linux", and regard distro choice as merely picking which additional stuff you want? oh, wait, we already have that.

1. Any user wanting to examine or switch to Linux would download / acquire LINUX: GLOBE. No matter where they are, what magazine they buy, what bookstore or computer store they are in, LINUX: GLOBE will be what they will look for.

No.

2. Once they have that installed, they can install any other "distro" packages included with the core product. That is where the distros and external names could come into play. This is how the computer industry has worked for decades. Again, distros should be ADD-ONS, not the core product. The core product would be LINUX: GLOBE.

ya, and the computer industry has been freaking dumb as a rock for decades.

LINUX: GLOBE would contain of course the OS, a universally-accepted word processor such as Open Office, a popular and acceptable Web Browser, and other core-function programs that are generally considered essential to common computer use.

if you grant Open Office or Firefox an automatic monopoly, they will start to suck.

LINUX: GLOBE would have a universally and widely-visible name, logo and market recognition.

I prefer Tux.

LINUX: GLOBE would unify a currently fragmented Linux community.

It will do no such thing.

Our community needs to stop being a group of separate "states" all dedicated to their own whims, agendas and goals-- and become a unified body capable of telling the computer community, "THIS is the first thing you want to install."

No. My agendas, whims, and goals are not the same as yours.





Anyways, here's the deal:

user choice matters here, but not as much as you think: the best operating system for a non-computer-nerd is almost always whatever his local nerd is willing and able to support.

if the user has multiple nerds at his disposal, than his choice matters. if all he has is Best Buy, then he has no choices at all.


If anyone here thinks that increasing GNU/Linux adoption is a good thing, they should worry about the nerd market-share.

once the worlds nerds are down with GNU/Linux, the rest will take care of itself - who here does not have several friends and family members that run GNU/Linux? We tend to be fairly good at helping our friends and family migrate, but get all fanboyish and dumb when we talk to our fellow non-Linux using nerds.

I try not to do that. currently, we are in the nerd minority. The case I make when speaking to fellow nerds isn't that "windows sucks, linux is better" or anything like that.

I make this case when speaking to fellow nerds: "it is absolutely a bit tougher to deploy, since it doesn't come pre-installed on many systems. but, it's easier to maintain in the long run, so you wont get calls from your friends and family asking for help as frequently. this will make your life easier, and maybe improve the lives of your friends and family a little bit."


Apple knows the value of nerd-cred. That's why they paid a few bribes to get OS X officially certified as Unix.

[aysiu]

There's one kind of unification I can deliver quite quickly, unifying your thread with all the other ones about the same old tired idea.

Here's some reading for you, too:
Linux Doesn’t Need a Unified Distro (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/linux-doesnt-need-a-unified-distro/)
Linux-for-the-masses narratives (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/linux-for-the-masses-narratives/)
Regarding so-called fragmentation in Linux (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/linuxfragmentation/)

[KiwiNZ]

How about we call it "GNU/Linux", and regard distro choice as merely picking which additional stuff you want? oh, wait, we already have that.



gawd heaven forbid not GNU/Linux

[KiwiNZ]

I agree with the OP to a point , I am from a Large Enterprise background as you know.Linux does suffer an "image" problem in that market when it comes to the desktop.

Server , thats a different story and a different market altogether.

[earthpigg]

gawd heaven forbid not GNU/Linux

ok, i can live with rms' "GNU plus Linuhks". :P

[utnubuuser]

Gnu Hurd

[KiwiNZ]

Gnu Hurd

I saw one the other day, simple, easily remembered and goes with anything.

Its Linux ;)

[chessnerd]

Here are my thoughts on the whole "Unified Linux" thing:

First, Linux, at least, has a unified core -- the Linux kernel. It reminds me a comment my father made when we were talking about the different units of measurment: "At least we standardized time." So we have Celcius and Farenheit. Miles and kilometers. Thank God that everyone has the 24-hour day, because that one is REALLY important. Imagine a world where there was "Standard" and "Metric" time. Imagine a world where some Linux distros used the "Torvaldian" Linux kernel and others used the "Foobar" Linux kernel.

Second, it should never, ever happen. To will a "Unified Linux" into existence is to will a monopolistic force into existence. This distro would command the market, suck up the corporate resources, and stifle competition. How can that do anything but hurt Linux?

Third, people need to understand what Linux is. I used to think that people should just have Ubuntu or some distro thrown on their computer, but what good is that? If they don't like Ubuntu or Fedora or Mandriva they won't know that there is any other option and just be mad at Linux as a whole. The idea of "multiple distros" isn't that complicated and should be understood by the general public.

Finally, it my have already happened to the desktop (in a way). According to StatOwl (http://www.statowl.com/operating_system_market_share_by_os_version_trend. php?1=1&timeframe=last_6&interval=month&chart_id=16&fltr_br=&fltr_os=&fltr_se=&fltr_cn=&limit%5B%5D=linux&chart_id=12), Ubuntu has consistently been above 50%, and, because non-repo browsers like Opera and Chrome don't give the Ubuntu name to statistics sites, the "Linux Unknown Distribution" includes Ubuntu, meaning that Ubuntu probably has close to 60% of the desktop Linux market. If it had 60% of the desktop OS market (not just Linux) people might be calling it a monopoly. This, at the very least, makes Ubuntu the standard to which all other distros must compete.

Those are just some of my thoughts on the matter.

[madjr]

You make a very good and valid point Nessus... and one with which I fully agree. However, I think we'd also agree that we don't want Linux to imitate Micro$oft, yes? : )

That's exactly the point being made here. Micro$oft fractures their own product... and causes severe confusion in the process. Why not just release one product, for one reasonable price... and let people choose what features they want to use or not use? That's what installation wizards are for.

Your list here isn't even the half of it. Add to that the "OEM" and "Builder" versions... and it becomes even more confusing. Then add to that the fact that the retail versions have some features that aren't included in the OEM versions and-- well, we can see why people need an understandable alternative to Window$.

So... what are we going to do about that? Sit back in the satisfaction that WE know how to use Linux... or help others do the same?

You are right-- Linux users do care. Even those above who disagree with the concept of the original post, do so because they care about the community and Linux itself. One of the things that helped me greatly in choosing a Linux distro was the ready and eager help of the Linux community on the forums.

But that's really the point-- the fact that I *had* to have that assistance to choose a distro. Surely there is a better way. Bottom line, that's what it comes down to: making a better way for people to acquire and install Linux for the first time. That's what this proposal is about: offering the public ONE Linux distro rather than two dozen. That's really not all that strange a concept.

Micro$oft has mucked the works up by confusing their users with multiple "distros". It's not smart, it's not helpful, and yes, it fragments their market. That's the whole point... working smarter than Micro$oft and giving people what they need-- a recognizable, easy-to-install Linux operating system that they can acquire, install, and they're running. No confusion, no "distro" issues, no giving up out of frustration. We need a Linux distro that works for everyone. What "distro" extensions they add after that is totally up to them. Surely the Linux community can organize and cooperate enough to accomplish that basic goal: a "starter" Linux package for the mainstream community. Not two dozen: one. Get it, install it, go from there.




hi,

your post is very noble and i totally understand where ou coming at

i was at your position a few years back (07), there were even more distros and confusion back then.

i have for years been looking into unification as much as you do.

You DO care about linux, i can see your passion and you know how to act profesionally.

anyway i have some relief for you
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1464622

watch this video (linux problems and what we can do)
http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/?p=1886

as a marketing psychologist, i had to learn 2 things when studying a product:

why are they doing this and what can be done (in a pragmatic and realistic way).

to know why they are doing what they're currently doing you have to look at it's history, learn from it and accept it. 2nd look at models of success today ()

you said that people dont care and that feelings don't matter? well people DO care, thats why linux is finally here.

Am sure you seen the example of the humble bundle (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1472944)? a bunch of small budget indie games

if people didn't care they wouldn't be successful, if linux users didnt care they wouldnt had donated almost twice as much as windows users

some linux users donated thousands, just for the cause and the support they have for our platform.

that's what linux is: enthusiastic creating, caring and sharing.



about windows7:

when is about their wallet, people look at a menu, they want choice

it's a common psyche marketing a selling strategy

it actually makes people "want" to learn exactly more about the product and what are they really buying/using.

so instead of looking at the competion, they have to take time to research the products from 1 company. time is key, they dont have too much time, so eventually they will end up buying from what you recommend. Yea is a nice trick.. the oldest one in the book.


but gladly this also happens in linux: interested individuals research to make a smart decision and learn tons about linux as a secondary effect.


--------

anyway i would like to give you a good example where linux IS VERY succesful: Mobile market.

it's so succesful that it has surpassed the iphoneOS and is now num.2 in the US


Android surpasses iPhone:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1479826

we need to study this success and bring it to the desktop

YES linux in the mobile world was so fragmented, there were at least 5 distros, but 3 survived: Android, hp/palm's WebOS and intel/nokia's meego

you see? companies also WANT this fragmentation

and they're collaborating:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/04/mobile-linux-collaboration-gets-a-boost-as-meego-grows.ars

distros that are NOT sucessful or needed for a porpuse will eventually die out.

so don't discard other distros right away, see it as a MENU

for example Fedora is one of the distros bringing the future to linux with system rollbacks (Btrfs) (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_13_btrfs&num=1)


so you see, the many distros also make linux development extremely fast.

but of course, this doesnt matter for mainstream, the only way to do it is to get linux preinstalled, if not linux WILL never go mainstream.

ubuntu going mainsstream?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/business/11ubuntu.html

android making linux mainstream?
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1439848

i know linux is chaning for the better, i've witness it during the years, a bit slow yeap, but is getting there :)

there is a ton of work to do, but the best thing is that i highly enjoy it

the best thing about it is that WE matter and everything is up for discussion, the big kahunas are open for all ideas, like in the "open week" and UDS (read the full transcript):
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/05/mark-shuttleworth-no-gnome-shell-in.html

sorry for the big post, there's a lot to learn, and it takes time to get used to (took me a month or more back then), but i hope i've been of help and welcome aboard :D

ps> was just waking up, so some stuff i wrote may have errors, incomplete or make little sense (i hope not) lol

[98cwitr]

Isn't the market already doing this to a degree...isn't Debian just the Unified distro for all these other variants...and isn't Ubuntu specifically taking over the Linux Desktop market? It can be done...and I think it's already happening.

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

@Madjr: To correct an apparent misunderstanding... I didn't say that Linux users don't care. Just the opposite in fact... many do care. However there is a significant number that appear to care more about the operating system than the people it should serve.

In this poll, some 42% of the respondents state that unifying Linux is a terrible idea and can't be done. Imo that is a defeatist attitude. I've seen it often among tech communities over the last 3 decades: a strong (and sometimes fanatical) resistance to change, insistence on "the way it is"... and general disregard for the needs of end customers.

One user stated, "If people don't want to research the different distros they don't need to be using Linux." I'm sorry-- that is about as unsympathetic and elitist an attitude as I've seen in a while. It's the great downfall of techs: failure to sympathize with or understand mainstream customer needs.

Fortunately, not the entire Linux community is like that. There are enough truly concerned Linux users to help support those who need it and are willing to stick with it. The downside is that most people don't have the know-how, time or desire to try to learn a new system when they can't even figure out what installation package to use in the first place. I'm a bit tenacious; I stuck with it for a few weeks (as did most of us). Most end-users won't do that. They'll hit the Linux "distro" brick wall... and give up on Linux. That's not good for them or the community.

You listed many wonderful and valid applications of Linux, and you are correct: the poor distros will tend to fade as time passes. But I am in constant wonder at the tendency of communities such as ours to do things the long, hard way, when the easier and more beneficial route is not only visible, but time-proved.

Microsoft managed to unify the computer world with Windows (I don't like how they did it, but they did it). Apple unifies its customers, not by presenting two dozen different operating systems... but by a centralized OS that works. Unification concepts work. Since Linux is not profit-motivated, we can manage such consistency of presentation without the monopolistic "do it our way" mentality of Microsoft or Apple. Unification does not mean loss of freedom or versatility-- it means working smarter and being more cooperative. It means creating customizable menus and a user-friendly GUI... one GUI, not several. Community fragmentation is a support nightmare.

Obviously from the poll-- a large number of users are going to go there kicking and screaming-- and taking years to accomplish the obvious eventuality instead of months. But there is enough of a rather significant minority stating that unification would be nice-- to clue us in to the fact that this is widely desired and a needed step.

The Linux community is currently largely comprised of "techno-geeks". The time has come (well, about the time that Vista hit)... for Linux to go mainstream. Unbuntu is trying to do that. Red Hat and Suse are trying to do that. But they are still fragmented from each other as well as the rest of the community. What the world needs at this time is a centralized name, centralized logo, and recognizable "installer" package around which all other "distros" are formed. LINUX: GLOBE-- Red Hat edition. LINUX: GLOBE-- Suse edition. LINUX: GLOBE-- Ubuntu edition. Customers need to be able to walk into a store, recognize a widely-used logo, pick up the package and install it. End of story. Having to choose from numerous "distros" is user-unfriendly and confusing.

For the mainstream customer to accept Linux, Linux is going to have to become mainstream acceptable. Currently, Linux is new-user-unfriendly. It's intimidating, confusing and has a reputation of being "techno-geek Linux snob". That's something our community is going to have to overcome if we ever hope to make Linux the #1 operating system.

Some users seem to actually resist Linux going mainstream. I've seen that psychology before too. But mainstream is where it needs to head. So while folks are looking at the 42% who are against unification-- at the same time take a look at the 34% who are for such an idea, the 7% who are neutral, and the 5% who chose "other"... and realize that despite the "kickers and screamers"... this change is very likely going to eventually come about. The question is: does it happen in a year... or a decade from now?

Linux users can drag their feet all they want, we can delay it to exasperation, but as you point out Madjr, Linux is going to change. It will have to if we ever wish to put an end to the Microsoft monopoly and what it's doing to the computer industry as a whole.

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

Isn't the market already doing this to a degree...isn't Debian just the Unified distro for all these other variants...and isn't Ubuntu specifically taking over the Linux Desktop market? It can be done...and I think it's already happening.

I think you're right to an extent 98. That's actually the reason I finally settled on Ubuntu... because it appeared to be the more centralized and unified of the Linux distros. The problem with Ubuntu is that silly name. It's unrecognized outside the Linux community, the meaning makes no sense to end users, and the African theme isn't global enough in concept to present the idea of a universal application. But you're correct, the systems you mentioned are working at unification-- even if other elements of the industry are resisting such.

[aysiu]

In this poll, some 42% of the respondents state that unifying Linux is a terrible idea and can't be done. Imo that is a defeatist attitude. You're incorrect. If 42% had stated it was a good idea but can't be done, then that would be a defeatist attitude. There is nothing defeatist about saying a terrible idea can't be done.

[madjr]

@Madjr: To correct an apparent misunderstanding... I didn't say that Linux users don't care. Just the opposite in fact... many do care. However there is a significant number that appear to care more about the operating system than the people it should serve.

In this poll, some 42% of the respondents state that unifying Linux is a terrible idea and can't be done. Imo that is a defeatist attitude. I've seen it often among tech communities over the last 3 decades: a strong (and sometimes fanatical) resistance to change, insistence on "the way it is"... and general disregard for the needs of end customers.

One user stated, "If people don't want to research the different distros they don't need to be using Linux." I'm sorry-- that is about as unsympathetic and elitist an attitude as I've seen in a while. It's the great downfall of techs: failure to sympathize with or understand mainstream customer needs.

Fortunately, not the entire Linux community is like that. There are enough truly concerned Linux users to help support those who need it and are willing to stick with it. The downside is that most people don't have the know-how, time or desire to try to learn a new system when they can't even figure out what installation package to use in the first place. I'm a bit tenacious; I stuck with it for a few weeks (as did most of us). Most end-users won't do that. They'll hit the Linux "distro" brick wall... and give up on Linux. That's not good for them or the community.

You listed many wonderful and valid applications of Linux, and you are correct: the poor distros will tend to fade as time passes. But I am in constant wonder at the tendency of communities such as ours to do things the long, hard way, when the easier and more beneficial route is not only visible, but time-proved.

Microsoft managed to unify the computer world with Windows (I don't like how they did it, but they did it). Apple unifies its customers, not by presenting two dozen different operating systems... but by a centralized OS that works. Unification concepts work. Since Linux is not profit-motivated, we can manage such consistency of presentation without the monopolistic "do it our way" mentality of Microsoft or Apple. Unification does not mean loss of freedom or versatility-- it means working smarter and being more cooperative. It means creating customizable menus and a user-friendly GUI... one GUI, not several. Community fragmentation is a support nightmare.

Obviously from the poll-- a large number of users are going to go there kicking and screaming-- and taking years to accomplish the obvious eventuality instead of months. But there is enough of a rather significant minority stating that unification would be nice-- to clue us in to the fact that this is widely desired and a needed step.

The Linux community is currently largely comprised of "techno-geeks". The time has come (well, about the time that Vista hit)... for Linux to go mainstream. Unbuntu is trying to do that. Red Hat and Suse are trying to do that. But they are still fragmented from each other as well as the rest of the community. What the world needs at this time is a centralized name, centralized logo, and recognizable "installer" package around which all other "distros" are formed. LINUX: GLOBE-- Red Hat edition. LINUX: GLOBE-- Suse edition. LINUX: GLOBE-- Ubuntu edition. Customers need to be able to walk into a store, recognize a widely-used logo, pick up the package and install it. End of story. Having to choose from numerous "distros" is user-unfriendly and confusing.

For the mainstream customer to accept Linux, Linux is going to have to become mainstream acceptable. Currently, Linux is new-user-unfriendly. It's intimidating, confusing and has a reputation of being "techno-geek Linux snob". That's something our community is going to have to overcome if we ever hope to make Linux the #1 operating system.

Some users seem to actually resist Linux going mainstream. I've seen that psychology before too. But mainstream is where it needs to head. So while folks are looking at the 42% who are against unification-- at the same time take a look at the 34% who are for such an idea, the 7% who are neutral, and the 5% who chose "other"... and realize that despite the "kickers and screamers"... this change is very likely going to eventually come about. The question is: does it happen in a year... or a decade from now?

Linux users can drag their feet all they want, we can delay it to exasperation, but as you point out Madjr, Linux is going to change. It will have to if we ever wish to put an end to the Microsoft monopoly and what it's doing to the computer industry as a whole.



i would like to clear a few misconceptions, specially about the poll


is very old (was started in 2005/06), a time where linux was never considered to become so noob friendly or go for mainstream. New users are evolving the old mindset. The new and the old, both views are needed to an extend. Gladly, Ubuntu is taking this to the next level without breaking all the great work done by the linux community or try to steal the credit!

yea ubuntu is a new comer here.


while doing my sociology research i came to the conclusion
what we need is more marketing, that's the key.

is by far easier to market/promote than try to force minds to unify in a direct manner (not only in the software world, but to almost any group of individuals)

the good thing is that the first will lead to the second as an added effect. :)

so yea, there will be a lot of change thanks to people like Mark Shuttleworth


another misconception is mainstream. What is it?

well, Mainstream = preinstalled. pure and simple

the avg. joe / mom / pop / grandma is not going to install any OS, be it windows, mac or linux.

They just want to "use the computer", thus they buy that computer. the majority doesnt know what is an OS or that windows is one...

they want to get online to facebook or youtube. they could care less about the OS

linux in this area has much to gain and Windows has much to lose.

specially with Instant ON OS (the linux trojan horse :))
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/05/ubuntu-developer-summit-maverick.html

so the more preinstalled linux (instant on or full OS, or mix), the more hardware manufacturers support us and the more drivers we have available. The more hardware, the more users, thus completing the circle.

trust me breaking a 15 yeard old windows monopoly is NOT an easy task, at least with the microsoft partners (most of them) we need to take baby steps or we'll get blown off the water.

in conclusion, the best desktop distro need to be marketed and that's ubuntu.

as for all other distros, i sure dont want them to die, but kept for the enthusiasts/developers to use and test the new technologies.

we all want to change the world, but we can't just come an impose our will, we have to learn from the community first and then work with them. I've learn this the hard way.

Mark learned this before taking this big project. He spoke with the developers first and learn what actions he should take and not take. He also learned what would be considered offensive or incompatible with the linux license the GPL

Google devs working on android are also cooperating with the kernel devs and the community. They even got into fights, but are now working back together in harmony

You will need a little time to understand this. Follow the community for a few months so we can find areas where we can work in and make this possible :)

lots of people are working now and developing new technologies to further unify the work. You should follow and talk with them on the matter too.

A forum thread at the cafe is good to gather opinions but doesnt really gets us much further, we need to go where the big boys are, let them know our views directly and see what's possible right now and what will need to be postponed

the best place to do this is at the ubuntu open week, the UDS and here:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1464622

[Frogs Hair]

freedom of choice that is what it's all about. You start dealing with it, servers, networking, multy platforms etc.. You will find something for your taste. Everyone have their own needs, you should be happy of the so many choices :d .

+1

[nothingspecial]

The whole point is that you can change it, modify it, redistribute it, do what you want with it.

Unifying linux defeats the whole object.

Do I think more people should use linux? Yes.

Do I care if they do? - No

Am I an elitist, uber-geek?

No I`m just some bloke who`s first computer happened to have linux installed on it.

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

while doing my sociology research i came to the conclusion
what we need is more marketing, that's the key. is by far easier to market/promote than try to force minds to unify in a direct manner (not only in the software world, but to almost any group of individuals) the good thing is that the first will lead to the second as an added effect. :)

another misconception is mainstream. What is it?
well, Mainstream = preinstalled. pure and simple


These are fairly valid observations, I think.

You make a very good point: at this point, any decent Linux distro that is widely marketed should do the trick. One of the major problems with Linux is being unable to go to a bookstore or computer store and finding a box of $9.95 "Linux installation" discs sitting up by the cash register. Every magazine we pick up has their own "best in the world" Linux distribution disc. Red hat is great... but not many people are going to drop a hundred to test out Linux. They need a cheap, easily-available "get your feet wet" version first.

I agree that Ubuntu is probably the "best hope" at this time for anything approaching a unified Linux install. It's just that unfortunately cutesy/hacker name that gets in the way of market recognition. There is nothing in "Ubuntu" that says Linux-- or that gets across any other recognizable thought. Poor foresight in picking a name, imo.

As far as "what is mainstream"... yes you're right, the more systems that come with Linux pre-installed, the more recognition it will get. But computer manufacturers are hesitant to pre-install Linux-- largely in part due to the fractured community and the current stranglehold of Micro$oft. For them to get on board-- Linux will already need to be widely accepted.

A more accurate definition of "mainstream" is "non-professional, non-tech end users". Mainstream defines the folks who aren't computer industry employees, aren't computer techs, who have computers and use them but don't really care all that much about how computers operate. They do care about dropping $200 to "upgrade" Windows for the sixth time (per computer), and they do care about accessing the Internet, emails and playing games. They don't mind dropping in a disc and installing a piece of software and might be willing to do so with Linux-- if they see the benefit, if it's turn-key, if it's easy to do.

They won't even mess with it if they have to choose from dozens of "distros" and if they can't figure out what Linux is to start with because-- as you point out-- the current marketing is pretty poor. New user availability and education is poor. While products like Ubuntu make it relatively easy to convert to Linux-- the "mainstream" user is totally unaware of that, totally unaware of what a "distro" is, and has no clue as to what "Ubuntu" means. They've heard of Linux... but where the blazes do they get it?

So I think you are right-- it could very well be more a matter of marketing than cooperation of the Linux community. But for a certainty-- cooperation of the community would help global mainstream marketing by leaps and bounds. Kind of hard to form a battle plan when the army is heading four different directions.

[Chronon]

What "cutesy hacker name", exactly? Ubuntu has a specific, well-defined meaning unrelated to hacking, so I'm not sure of the meaning when you use this phrase.

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

The whole point is that you can change it, modify it, redistribute it, do what you want with it. Unifying linux defeats the whole object.

Do I think more people should use linux? Yes.

Do I care if they do? - No

Am I an elitist, uber-geek?

No I`m just some bloke who`s first computer happened to have linux installed on it.

How does unifying the Linux community and creating a centralized core package in any way eliminate the freedom of the end user to change it, modify it, redistribute it or do what they want with it? Unified marketing has nothing to do with versatility or end users modifying the package for their purposes or altering the system to appeal to specific vertical markets.

You state you're not elitist super-geek, and I'll accept that statement without judgment, especially since we don't know each other. And yet, your signature states, "Linux assumes that you know exactly what you're doing"... which concept is exactly what we're talking about. Why should that be the case? Why shouldn't Linux be widely marketed in a form that is easily-recognizable, carries "brand" (logo/name) reputation, and is easy to install and use-- for the everyday Joe who knows absolutely nothing about what he's doing?

Back in the early days of DOS, there were the "geeks" who used command-line structure and coded in hexadecimal. Then there were us consultants who realized that for the everyday user to make use of their computers, that would need to be simplified. So we created key-activated user menus which allowed them to access their programs at the touch of a single key. That evolved into GUI, where they could access such at the click of a mouse. The trick to appealing to end users is to simplify. Two dozen distros is not simplifying.

The key, as Madjr pointed out, could very well be in marketing more than trying to change the collective mind of the Linux community. It could involve nothing more than someone with some real drive creating a hundred thousand Ubuntu discs, labeling them LINUX: GLOBE and marketing them to every bookstore and computer store in the nation. Perhaps all it takes will be a marketing guru going to the game companies and saying, "Look, ignore what the distro geeks are doing-- here's what we're doing to bring Linux prime time-- here's the version of Linux that is going to have market recognition for the next decade"... and getting the game companies on board.

So Madjr may be quite right. Perhaps rather than trying to convince a very tech-oriented Linux community of the needs of the mainstream community... the simpler solution is to simply employ good marketing and general market education. Seems like a lot of this is flogging a dead horse and trying to convince a community that is often unsympathetic to needs outside their zone.

Myself, I think Linux has much, much greater potential than it is being currently afforded by numerous confusing distros. My opinion: the multiple distro concept is counter-intuitive and is hurting mainstream acceptance of the product. No, that's more than my opinion, that's pretty much established fact. The "distro" concept and subsequent fragmentation of the market IS harming the general acceptance of Linux by the public in general. And while some individuals may not care about that or care whether Linux ever becomes widely accepted or not-- I think there are many of us who do, and who would like to see Linux gain far greater recognition than the current "this distro / that distro" method of marketing allows.

Again "An army divided against itself cannot stand." So I'm starting to agree more and more that this may be more of a consolidated marketing issue than a Linux community issue. It has more to do with the perception of the general public than the community itself.

[aysiu]

You make a very good point: at this point, any decent Linux distro that is widely marketed should do the trick. One of the major problems with Linux is being unable to go to a bookstore or computer store and finding a box of $9.95 "Linux installation" discs sitting up by the cash register. If you think the majority of computer users are going to install and configure their own operating systems, I can't agree with you.

People buy products, not operating systems. Their products may come with operating systems, but the only time most people buy operating systems is to upgrade a different version of the same operating system or to replace the existing operating system with the same operating system if they lost the installation discs (and even then they most likely ask their geek friends for help).

Sell a computer with Linux on it.

Don't sell Linux.

Did Google sell Android to consumers as an operating system to install on Symbian and RIM? No. It licensed Android to handset makers to sell as physical products to consumers.

We don't have to have only one distro to, for all practical purposes have one distro. If one distro is preinstalled on mass consumer devices, that will be the de facto Linux distro that will get all the third-party support and closed source binaries of commercial software. You will never get one main distro by just pleading with people to all get along with each other.

[dragos240]

I like distro hopping. Having just one distro would defeat the purpous of Linux itself. Awful Idea IMHO.

[KiwiNZ]

I like distro hopping. Having just one distro would defeat the purpous of Linux itself. Awful Idea IMHO.

Why?

Why do you Distro hop?

And why drastically reducing the number of Distro is a bad thing ?

[madjr]

last week at the ubuntu open week (Mark is sabdfl):

[16:19] <akgraner> <rrnwexec> randall in Vancouver asks: What are your thoughts on the "Linux" brand and the effect it has on the Ubuntu brand. Is it useful to try to bind the two?
[16:19] <sabdfl> linux is an awesome brand - it says powerful, freedom, evolving, energised, capable, cross-platform
[16:20] <sabdfl> for anybody who needs to hear those messages, it's the best
[16:20] <sabdfl> ubuntu says freedom, precision, reliability, collaboration
[16:20] <sabdfl> we don't say "ubuntu linux" because that would scope the message to the subset of both groups
[16:20] <sabdfl> but linux is at the heart of what we do, i don't think anybody is under any illusions about that
[16:21] <sabdfl> it grates a little when people say "ubuntu is linux", because of course the linux ecosystem is much bigger than just ubuntu
[16:21] <sabdfl> and everybody should try more of 'em: fedora, gentoo, arch, go wild
[16:21] <sabdfl> there's something for everyone

more of the chat here
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/openweekLucid/AskMark


also am not sure if you watched this vid:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1464622

the best presentation i've watched :)

[nothingspecial]

How does unifying the Linux community and creating a centralized core package in any way eliminate the freedom of the end user to change it, modify it, redistribute it or do what they want with it? Unified marketing has nothing to do with versatility or end users modifying the package for their purposes or altering the system to appeal to specific vertical markets.

This makes no sense. Why centralise something then let it be modified and redistributed?

You state you're not elitist super-geek, and I'll accept that statement without judgment, especially since we don't know each other. And yet, your signature states, "Linux assumes that you know exactly what you're doing"... which concept is exactly what we're talking about.

My sig is intended to warn new users that linux will do what you say, weather you understand it or not. The way it was designed.

Why should that be the case? Why shouldn't Linux be widely marketed in a form that is easily-recognizable, carries "brand" (logo/name) reputation, and is easy to install and use-- for the everyday Joe who knows absolutely nothing about what he's doing?

It is. It`s called Ubuntu

Back in the early days of DOS, there were the "geeks" who used command-line structure and coded in hexadecimal. Then there were us consultants who realized that for the everyday user to make use of their computers, that would need to be simplified. So we created key-activated user menus which allowed them to access their programs at the touch of a single key. That evolved into GUI, where they could access such at the click of a mouse. The trick to appealing to end users is to simplify. Two dozen distros is not simplifying. Like I said, I`m no geek. I have never used windows, dos or a mac. I started with linux, after the gui was fully developed and happen to find the CLI more usefull than the gui.

The key, as Madjr pointed out, could very well be in marketing more than trying to change the collective mind of the Linux community. It could involve nothing more than someone with some real drive creating a hundred thousand Ubuntu discs, labeling them LINUX: GLOBE and marketing them to every bookstore and computer store in the nation. Perhaps all it takes will be a marketing guru going to the game companies and saying, "Look, ignore what the distro geeks are doing-- here's what we're doing to bring Linux prime time-- here's the version of Linux that is going to have market recognition for the next decade"... and getting the game companies on board.

Why do you want linux to be a brand? Use a Mac. As I have said, this defeats the point.

So Madjr may be quite right. Perhaps rather than trying to convince a very tech-oriented Linux community of the needs of the mainstream community... the simpler solution is to simply employ good marketing and general market education. Seems like a lot of this is flogging a dead horse and trying to convince a community that is often unsympathetic to needs outside their zone.

This is my zone. I like it just the way it is, thankyou very much. I didn`t have a computer until my early 30`s. I know nothing of Windows. It doesn`t bother me weather windows exists, dominates the market etc/etc/etc or not. Linux does just fine regardless. Check the Guayadeque links in my sig.

Myself, I think Linux has much, much greater potential than it is being currently afforded by numerous confusing distros. My opinion: the multiple distro concept is counter-intuitive and is hurting mainstream acceptance of the product. No, that's more than my opinion, that's pretty much established fact. The "distro" concept and subsequent fragmentation of the market IS harming the general acceptance of Linux by the public in general. And while some individuals may not care about that or care whether Linux ever becomes widely accepted or not-- I think there are many of us who do, and who would like to see Linux gain far greater recognition than the current "this distro / that distro" method of marketing allows.

Absolutely no. The fact that there are multiple distributions, and fragmentations, etc, makes linux what it is.

With respect.

NS

[handy]

It is impossible for there to be a unified Linux.

So talking about the pro's & con's of such is a waste of time.

Whilst ever there exists FOSS & the GNU & other licenses that it is based on there will be people who enjoy creating different ways for software & systems to work, out of which wonderful things occasionally happen that for the benefit of many people, that otherwise would not.

I think that a far more valid topic is the discussion on the amalgamation of .deb & .rpm package formats.

That would have many positive ramifications due to the immense amount of time saved for those that maintain packages one way or another.

Freed of this task to some degree such people could be involved in far more creative pursuits, which would very likely improve GNU/Linux one way or another if those newly freed are developers.

[aysiu]

I think that a far more valid topic is the discussion on the amalgamation of .deb & .rpm package formats. I agree, but I also think the most practical way to get to that standard is through healthy competition, as you will never get people to just willingly agree to a standard without market forces in play.

If Linux does get netbook-desktop-laptop consumer penetration the way Apple has, whatever that distro is will then set the standard. If that distro is Ubuntu or Ubuntu-based, .deb will be the de facto standard. Any third-party commercial software will have to come in .deb if it wants to support consumer Linux.

If that distro is Fedora-based or Mandriva-based, then .rpm will be the de facto standard.

[sunk8]

Well,
A distribution is like an opinion...
Everyone has a different one...
I think we should just let it be...

[mmix]

well, it has been unified already.

see the distrowatch.com, all the same.

[Hman242]

Some degree of diversity is good. It helps the community grow because you there's no way to have improvement without competition. However, I do believe that heavy levels of fragmentation can hinder development. Take for example Linux Mint. What if instead of making a new distro separate from Ubuntu, they joined the Ubuntu team and helped improve Ubuntu itself. I think if the number of distributions was lowered then a beginner to Linux or maybe even an OEM wouldn't feel overwhelmed with the options they have. I think if people want to make their own distro that is made from another, and that if ther are only making intermediate to minor changes, then they should just try to help Ubuntu with what they want instead of further fragmenting the community. If however you would like to make vast changes to a distro and call it your own you should be able to do so.

We can all argue about what are views are but the fact of the matter is, is that people can do whatever they want. You can't force someone to not make their own distro if they want to, it's their choice and right.

[aysiu]

Take for example Linux Mint. What if instead of making a new distro separate from Ubuntu, they joined the Ubuntu team and helped improve Ubuntu itself. If Ubuntu wants to implement any of the changes Linux Mint has made, they're welcome to. They tend not to, though. So what would be the point of Linux Mint saying "Hey, we have all these improvements to Ubuntu" if Ubuntu is just going to say "Nah, we're not going to take those improvements"?

This is what the GPL kind of open source is about (as opposed to the BSD kind of open source). If you don't agree with the direction a project is heading, you can fork it and make your own project without starting from ground zero and, more importantly, if the source project likes what you're doing, they can incorporate your changes into the source project.

This is a healthy balance between competition and cooperation. You don't have to waste a lot of time and energy trying to agree on something, but you also don't waste development effort doing everything from scratch. You can use other people's work, and they can use your work.

[Hman242]

This is a healthy balance between competition and cooperation. You don't have to waste a lot of time and energy trying to agree on something, but you also don't waste development effort doing everything from scratch. You can use other people's work, and they can use your work.
There is a thin line that divides this area and it's hard to tell where it is. You have a very good point, and it's hard to muster an answer. Nothing is perfect because nobody is the same. Everyone has different views on how things should be done. I guess I'm trying to say that you shouldn't give up on something for being imperfect, but you should try to make it as close as perfect as you can. You have to make compromises. If you don't feel that you can make those compromises then you should go and do your own thing.

[aysiu]

I think there are two major issues at play here:

1. A lack of useful and easily understandable information for new users about how to differentiate among distros. Some people see this problem and their immediate instinct is to tackle it from the other direction--instead of putting out useful information to new users to help them choose, these folks want to just eliminate choice altogether.

That makes no sense.

You don't get rid of confusion about restaurants by eliminating all restaurants except one. You don't get rid of confusion about music by eliminating all bands except one. Likewise, you don't get rid of confusion about Linux distros by eliminating all distros except one.

Provide people useful information about choices, and the choices no longer become intimidating. Further reading: Making sense of an abundance of choice (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/making-sense-of-an-abundance-of-choice/)

2. Not a strong enough commitment to standards. It's okay to move a project in a different direction or to add features the source project is not interested in. Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu. Ubuntu is based on Debian. That's great. But there's no need to have .rpm and .deb. No reason at all. As I said before, unfortunately, you can't just choose one or the other and hope everyone will get on board. The only way to settle this is through competition. If a .deb-based distro breaks through to the masses through a properly marketed preinstalled product (trust me--no distro will break through to the masses by being downloaded, installed, and configured on Windows computers, no matter how "easy" you make it (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/linux-for-the-masses-narratives/)), .deb will be the standard. Otherwise, .rpm will be the standard.

[Hman242]

The main reason that I think that the large number of distros hurts Linux is because that you end up with one variant being good for one thing, but another variant that's good at another. To counter what I'm saying, all of this is open-source. If one party wanted another party's feature, since the first party shares it with everyone then the second party could implement said feature. Maybe multiple distros aren't such a bad thing. People could take their time, make one thing very good, pass it on, and eventually everyone has implemented each good thing to make something grand.

[handy]

I agree, but I also think the most practical way to get to that standard is through healthy competition, as you will never get people to just willingly agree to a standard without market forces in play.

If Linux does get netbook-desktop-laptop consumer penetration the way Apple has, whatever that distro is will then set the standard. If that distro is Ubuntu or Ubuntu-based, .deb will be the de facto standard. Any third-party commercial software will have to come in .deb if it wants to support consumer Linux.

If that distro is Fedora-based or Mandriva-based, then .rpm will be the de facto standard.

Occasionally I install a package from AUR (Arch User Repositories) & it is in .deb or .rpm format. The handling of these non-Arch type of packages prior to installation is handled very efficiently by two small tools for the job.

Using either of these package formats really presents no problem, it is the inefficiency of having all of the work duplicated & the man hours wasted in this process that is the problem.

Apparently there are more .deb packages than .rpm these days. Possibly due to the existence of Ubuntu. But as you say aysiu, it will probably take market forces to eventually bring about a long overdue unification of these two primary package formats.

[madjr]

I think that a far more valid topic is the discussion on the amalgamation of .deb & .rpm package formats.

That would have many positive ramifications due to the immense amount of time saved for those that maintain packages one way or another.

Freed of this task to some degree such people could be involved in far more creative pursuits, which would very likely improve GNU/Linux one way or another if those newly freed are developers.

my point exactly, this duplicate effort is pointless

but not only development

there's so much work to do in so many areas: documentation, support, noob guidence, testing, bug hunting, papercuts, etc..


even the ubuntu repos are quite lacking, we still need to search for lots of outside stuff: tons of ppas, ubuntu-tweak software ppas, getdeb ppas, tarballs, .run, .sh, .bin, etc...

software is scattered everywhere and in bunch of different formats

[handy]

my point exactly, this duplicate effort is pointless

but not only development

there's so much work to do in so many areas: documentation, support, noob guidence, testing, bug hunting, papercuts, etc..


even the ubuntu repos are quite lacking, we still need to search for lots of outside stuff: tons of ppas, ubuntu-tweak software ppas, getdeb ppas, tarballs, .run, .sh, .bin, etc...

software is scattered everywhere and in bunch of different formats

Sure, but there's still no way that there ever will be just one distro, thankfully.

People can talk until they are blue in the face about all of the benefits & reasons why it would be better if there were (in their not so humble opinions) just one unified distro. But it won't make such a unity happen.

Which is great.

There will always be lots of distro's due to the licensing of FOSS.

If somehow Linux was ruined by becoming one prime distro, something else would spring up to take its place & so many of us would go & use that, rather than some boring distro that does things how someone else thinks that they should be done for everybody else.

Freedom of choice does have a price, many of us think is worth it.

[sudoer541]

I think linux distros should unify cuz out of 1000,000,000,000 distros ubuntu is the only useful distro. All other distros are useless!!!
I heard a Linux hacker wanted to destroy linux by creating 10000+ distros with small modifications and different names...thats smart!!!

[98cwitr]

I think linux distros should unify cuz out of 1000,000,000,000 distros ubuntu is the only useful distro. All other distros are useless!!!
I heard a Linux hacker wanted to destroy linux by creating 10000+ distros with small modifications and different names...thats smart!!!

tell that to the millions of users of Fedora, Mint, and SUSE :roll:

[RiceMonster]

I think linux distros should unify cuz out of 1000,000,000,000 distros ubuntu is the only useful distro. All other distros are useless!!!

Useless? How exactly?

[MCVenom]

I think linux distros should unify cuz out of 1000,000,000,000 distros ubuntu is the only useful distro. All other distros are useless!!!

I beg to differ. I tend to think Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Arch and PCLinuxOS are the best, but that doesn't mean the others are useless :P

[swoll1980]

Linux can't be unified, as it's open sourced. It would be like unifying democracy. As long as there are different people, with different opinions, and an open sourced project that can be forked, it will be forked. There is no way to prevent this. Ultimately 3rd party's will determine what distro will be the standard. If a company like Adobe releases an app like Photoshop for Linux, you can bet it won't be available for less popular distros like Arch or Gentoo, and since they are proprietary, there won't be any compiling. There are always options like .run, but if they are smart they will stay away from solutions like these, as they can cause all kinds of problems for people who don't know what they are doing.

[Random_Dude]

Linux can't be unified, as it's open sourced. It would be like unifying democracy. As long as there are different people, with different opinions, and an open sourced project that can be forked, it will be forked.

^This.

I think linux distros should unify cuz out of 1000,000,000,000 distros ubuntu is the only useful distro. All other distros are useless!!!
I heard a Linux hacker wanted to destroy linux by creating 10000+ distros with small modifications and different names...thats smart!!!

LOL Wut?

How come it's the only useful distro? Ubuntu is relatively new, some distros out there are much older than Ubuntu, and if they're still used, it's for a reason.

[ridetheteapot]

its not just an impossible idea, its conjured from a complete misunderstanding of gnu.

how would this super-entity overseer of the one true linux be populated?
How would you stop forking (and why). how would you please everyone with software offerings (dont even try to pretend anyone can offer everything gnu - updated).
How would you convince philanthropists that you are the one true distro and all funding you go to you.


P.S. as linux for everyone's desktop is becoming more and more a reality, you have to at least respect the fact that these distro are total bloatware if you don't need what (often is sloppily hacked together) modded packages they come with.
Even if there was one true distro it would be more like arch or slack and not like ubuntu or suse, which would never satisfy the need for a linux installation meant for specific directed(not general desktop) usages, in which case invariably someone would come up with arch-gnome arch-kde desktop distros just to please the people who just wanted a desktop os replacement.

so
(a) how would you go about making that happen
(b) why would you attempt it
(c) how long after you kill off all other distros would it take for just as many to pop back up again; directed for specific means, or spawned through disagreement.

[aysiu]

its not just an impossible idea, its conjured from a complete misunderstanding of gnu.

how would this super-entity overseer of the one true linux be populated?
How would you stop forking (and why). how would you please everyone with software offerings (dont even try to pretend anyone can offer everything gnu - updated).
How would you convince philanthropists that you are the one true distro and all funding you go to you.


P.S. as linux for everyone's desktop is becoming more and more a reality, you have to at least respect the fact that these distro are total bloatware if you don't need what (often is sloppily hacked together) modded packages they come with.
Even if there was one true distro it would be more like arch or slack and not like ubuntu or suse, which would never satisfy the need for a linux installation meant for specific directed(not general desktop) usages, in which case invariably someone would come up with arch-gnome arch-kde desktop distros just to please the people who just wanted a desktop os replacement.

so
(a) how would you go about making that happen
(b) why would you attempt it
(c) how long after you kill off all other distros would it take for just as many to pop back up again; directed for specific means, or spawned through disagreement.
These are all good points, but the first is the most important. Even if (which is a big almost impossible if, but let's just say hypothetically) you could get everyone involved in Linux production (kernel devs, upstream devs, artwork teams) to agree to at least initially work on one unified Linux distro... how would decisions ever get made? You're just setting up a huge bureaucracy... or a dictatorship.

Know that expression about too many chefs in the kitchen? Well, right now we have a ton of chefs in different kitchens sharing their open source recipes. Imagine trying to have all those chefs in one kitchen all agreeing on one recipe? Forget it. Inefficiency city.