Linux really needs some standardization!

[perce]

Why on earth do default GTK programs switch the YES and NO buttons??

Do you know how much unwanted software I've installed on the school computers because I expected the YES button to say NO???

Maybe to make you read before clicking?

[toupeiro]

Yes, MS doesn't follow the standarts, but at least they have one current version of OS and Apple too )

So i think there should be a major linux distro too.

Good lord, thats the last thing I want.. Hasn't the trend of the Microsoft desktop OS shown you what "A" major distribution is capable of doing .. or not doing?

If you want to talk about statistics, and you absolutely have to make a "major" classification for linux distributors out there.. Redhat, Novell, and Canonical are the big three I can think of. I'll take the option of three over the de-facto of one any friggin day!

btw.. Linux's kernel certification to classify it as stable is just as centralized as Microsoft or apple having a "current version of OS". THe difference is you have three "major" companies striving to bring you the best OS around that kernel that can be brought. I don't see that happening with NTOSKRNL processes or whatever they may have renamed it to in Vista or server 2008. I just see regurgitated bloated code, overwhelming shininess, and underwhelming productivity.

The truth is, its not about distributors, major distributions or primarily about making money, its about collaboration. Sun, Novell, Redhat, Canonical, IBM, and millions of people contribute to linux. The distributions are made possible because you have such an array of choice. Businesses will make the best choice for their business, and to transition to another distribution is not a difficult effort (I know because I've done it many times, from IRIX to Solaris to Redhat to Windows, to Ubuntu and back to Redhat again. The ease of these transitions come from the same long standing standards I mentioned before.). But linux should never be driven by one major distribution. That would be a fatal blow to the innovation linux has to offer in this mans humble opinion.

[koenn]

Well maybe it's just a windows-based habit (because you may have more than one logical partition and sometimes there's not enough place on one so you put an app to another. But sometimes it's useful to fix something in app's files so i'd rather have info about where they're stored.

Yes, it's a Windows habit.
On Linux, your file system covers all disks / partitions. In stead of C:\ D:\ E:\ ... you just have (computer);/ , no matter how many disks or partitions are below it. So you can add disks for additional space, but the paths to your files don't change. /home is still /home, /etc is still /etc, .. Very convenient.

As for 'fixing' apps : there configuration files (on Debian, ubuntu ..) are all under /etc. That's where you do the tweaking if you want do it manually.

[picpak]

Maybe to make you read before clicking?

Maybe to make you end up with hundreds of viruses, steering you clear from Windows and towards Linux?

BWAH HAHA!

[2cute4u]

Seeing as how I'm in this thread, I gotta ask:

Why on earth do default GTK programs switch the YES and NO buttons??

Do you know how much unwanted software I've installed on the school computers because I expected the YES button to say NO???

It's really frustrating.

I find the way KDE/MS has it to be frustrating. Having the Ok button on the right and the Cancel button on the left is what I grew up used to, and seems much more natural to me. I wish that people would stop looking at the MS way of doing things as the right way.