View Poll Results: What should Linux be ?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • Like now: Multiple distributions and versions - keep it that way, there's a Distro for anyone.

    41 82.00%
  • Focus on only one Linux version, so that single version could become better everyday.

    9 18.00%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Is Linux really not standard?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Beans
    261
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Is Linux really not standard?

    Hi,


    I've been talking about my opinion of Linux to a few people, since it's just the best operating system ever. For too many reasons; that would take too much time to list. I could do this for hours. Yes, I also encouter strange bugs on Linux that I don't have the competences to solve (I just reinstalled the system. Extremely quick to reinstall all with a script), and not having Photoshop, Illustrator and others commercial programs is a real pain for me (Virtualisation is perfect - but I want a native version of these!), since I use them everyday.
    Linux is not perfect, but it's just awesome.

    The main problem the people told me (Most of them aren't experienced with Linux at all), is that Linux is not really "standard"; I fully understand their point of view. What they mean is that there are too many different distributions, so the new user simply cannot choose.
    I personally find this true - there are many distros, and this can be seen as an advantage or disadvantage. When I first discovered Linux in October 2011, it was because of a teacher who recommended to download Ubuntu, so I could try it without affecting my PC - I was impressed.

    But what if my teacher would have not told me about Ubuntu? My first reflex would have been to google "Download Linux", and today, I probably would be using Mint (Very good first impression of this distro. I've tested it) instead of Ubuntu. Mint is the first result that show up, Ubuntu is the fifth.

    Back then, when I knew nothing about Linux, when I wanted to test it, but was affraid to damage my computer by installing it the wrong way, I thought that there was only one Linux version - just like Windows 7 or Mac OS X.

    So, would it be true to say that "Linux is not standard", since there are too many distributions? Many people say that Linux is having a hard time to succeed in the market, because there are too many Linux versions/distributions. Would it be better for Linux to focus on only one version and make that version better and better?

    Of course, that brings another problem: a positive point about Linux is that it won't lock the user to an interface or desktop environnement. If you don't like Unity (Many people do. It took a while for me to like it, but now, I find it faster and better than GNOME2), you're not obligated to use it. You can still install another distribution or another desktop. There's a Distro for everyone, and if you don't like something, you can always change it.

    What if there was only one version of Linux, and the UI.. sucked (Take Unity. For me, it doesn't suck, but some believe it does) ? Wouldn't that be a bad move, for Linux?

    I spoke about that question to an advanced Linux user - I don't know many. He told me that Linux does have a very strict standard. I get the basic idea behind this: Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, they all share some similarities, so the user wouldn't get lost, I believe.

    Well, I'm not so sure about the "standard" or "not standard" question.
    What do you guys think?
    Last edited by GameX2; December 24th, 2012 at 01:29 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    In life you cannot every thing.
    A beautiful wife, very good cook, bring home lot of money...simply doesn't exist.
    Standard and stabilization come only with the expense of freedom.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 14.04 Trusty Tahr

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    To "standardize" the Linux environments is to kill what Linux is all about. The great thing about Linux is that you can freely sample many "flavours" before deciding which one you like most.

    Personally I think the non-standardization between Linux distro developers introduces an element of competition between them which produces a better end product. Ubuntu, Fedora, and Mint (et. al.) are generally going after the same crowd of people and they each will try to make great product to draw in those people. When one developer falls behind or begins producing bad software, they will fail and another will quickly take its place with an even better distro.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Beans
    338

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    Very interesting. My opinion for what its worth. I am a sysadmin for a medium/large firm in the southern US and would like to say this: Linux is more standard than not in the core itself. We use Linux for all mission critical applications Not windows. We do use windows for some end-user apps but any and all critical apps are done solely on linux for security and stability. Yes there are many different flavors/distributions all offering many things. I feel that Linux offers more flexibility than others and you are not forced to use this email or that browser out of the box, you are more able to customize to suit you!
    I think its still true too that the vast majority of web servers are linux based, also the US military has also made the switch for mission critical apps to also use linux after some malware was found within some of its former windows networks used in the field. I know that all military drones are now flying and are controlled with Linux.
    I will give Gates credit for being a master salesman in marketing his OS to the masses and making it mainstream as it were. If you take a look under the hood of MAC youll find I think BSD at the core with a nice GUI, Iphone runs Debian and most other smart phones are andriod. Linux in general is a growing standard, Again just one of many opinions.
    Chad

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Planet earth, for now.
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Xubuntu

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Shadow Gallery
    Beans
    6,803

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadk5utc View Post
    Iphone runs Debian
    Since when ?

    iOS is based on Mac OSX which was based on FreeBSD & NetBSD/NeXT and the mach kernel

    I am not arguing but i have never heard that ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS
    iOS is derived from OS X, with which it shares the Darwin foundation, and is therefore a Unix operating system. iOS is Apple's mobile version of the OS X operating system used on Apple computers.
    Last edited by haqking; December 24th, 2012 at 03:11 AM.
    Feel Free to Bitcoin Tip: 135Rp4pwwYTHEJ4u8bxKaDQiC91N9LUoV2

    Backtrack - Giving machine guns to monkeys since 2006
    Kali-Linux - Adding a grenade launcher to the machine guns since 2013

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Beans
    338

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    Quote Originally Posted by haqking View Post
    Since when ?

    iOS is based on Mac OSX which was based on FreeBSD & NetBSD/NeXT and the mach kernel

    I am not arguing but i have never heard that ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS
    I stand corrected Darwin Kernel Version 10.4.0 my mistake was seeing *.deb files and figured

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Shadow Gallery
    Beans
    6,803

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadk5utc View Post
    I stand corrected Darwin Kernel Version 10.4.0 my mistake was seeing *.deb files and figured
    ahh no worries, I thought for a minute that something funky had happened with iOS 6 for a minute

    Peace
    Feel Free to Bitcoin Tip: 135Rp4pwwYTHEJ4u8bxKaDQiC91N9LUoV2

    Backtrack - Giving machine guns to monkeys since 2006
    Kali-Linux - Adding a grenade launcher to the machine guns since 2013

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Left Coast of the USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    Quote Originally Posted by leclerc65 View Post
    In life you cannot every thing.
    A beautiful wife, very good cook, bring home lot of money...simply doesn't exist.
    Yes she does exist, but I found her first.

    Nope. Don't "standardize" it. Otherwise there is one controlling authority that will make it just the way you'd better like it.
    Last edited by QIII; December 24th, 2012 at 05:53 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Beans
    3,415

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    There is this thing people call "Linux"; when they say it they mean more than the Linux kernel. They mean operating systems built on the Linux kernel, but not all of them because Android and ChromeOS don't seem to count. They mean some sort of stack that usually includes GNU stuff, some X11 server or another like Xorg or Xfree86, one FOSS desktop environment or another, and a collection of other assorted libraries and subsystems, all on top of the Linux kernel.

    Except when it's not on top of the Linux kernel, such as Debian/KFreeBSD or Debian/Hurd, which are otherwise just like what we call "Linux" except lacking the one component actually called "Linux".

    The point I'm getting at is that this thing people call "Linux" isn't a thing. They're totally different, individual things that just so happen to share a lot of similar upstream code. We try to make these different, unique things a thing and then say that, because we say they are now a thing, they ought to be more alike.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •