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 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Is Linux really not standard?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Planet earth, for now.
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Xubuntu

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    Without meaning to be offensive, the answer to this question is a bit of a no-brainer, and therefore the thread should be moved to ...

    Thread moved to Recurring Discussions

    Get a Linux kernel, of whatever flavour, and build your own. Then call that standard ... that won't change. This has nothing to do with Ubuntu or what Canonical might decide to do. Linux is not Canonical ...

    The responses and results of the poll so far tell the story ...
    Last edited by Bucky Ball; December 26th, 2012 at 01:35 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Beans
    9

    Thumbs down Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    I think that standardization is needed but not in the same way. One should develop a linux operating system that is flexible enough to support any environment. I mean why waste this much human resource on the name of separate distro when they can develop a single, powerful OS. Linux must have many colours for the users to choose from but that should not mean a complete migration from one OS to another.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Beans
    874

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    I don't understand the question. Linux is what it is because of the open source development model and the freedom philosophy. How do you make developers to work on one or a few 'popular' distros if they have their own ideas? I think this is Linux's strength rather than weakness, the question is like "do you think democracy is too chaotic so may be dictatorship is a good idea?"

    The fragmentation of Linux is an exaggeration. If commerical software houses want to support Linux all they need to do is to release a tarball or a .bin file and chances are it will run on all Linux platforms, they don't need to package for n distros so there is already a standard(e.g Matlab). "Fragmentation" is often cited as an excuse for not supporting Linux, but it is only an excuse.
    Last edited by monkeybrain2012; December 25th, 2012 at 06:22 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Beans
    343
    Distro
    Kubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    I've bought dozens of games for linux, most of which simply have a tarball with a generic binary. I click the icon and it runs. No fuss.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 14.04 Trusty Tahr

    Re: Is Linux really not standard?

    The answer to your question "Is Linux really not standard?".. NO that is the greatest USP of LINUX..

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •