Unified Linux Thread

[jan]

Hi,

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

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

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

Jan

[Xian]

Isn't is different folks developing parallely exactly the same things? This greatly decreases the productivity of the whole community.
But it could also greatly increase an environment of creativity. If people had just thrown in the towel a year ago and said, "That's enough distros. No more", then there would be no Ubuntu. That's the great thing about open source. Options, choice, and a world to survey.

[Yukonjack]

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 .

[DJ_Max]

There aren't that many distro's around. Besides, its freely available to use, and everyone has different ideas. So what if they use the same source, one may be more user-friendly, or better support for something. Ubuntu is a good example, it may be built on Debian, but Ubuntu releases more often, and has a nice community.

[rapala61]

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

[KiwiNZ]

Jan

Its called choice , the one thing that is lacking in the non Linux World .
I believe all the Distros are great.
Are you promoting that we have Distro say Microlinux ?

[TravisNewman]

If we merged forces, as you put it, then what happens when the developers of that one linux decide to make it completely corporate, so the only way you can have it legally without paying for it is to compile the source yourself? Then that will create another distribution (similar to Red Hat going corporate and CentOS forking), and then you aren't unified anymore.

But to the person that said "There aren't that many" have you been to distrowatch lately? There are hundreds. There aren't THAT many that are used often, but they're there.

I don't think that having a universal distro solves any problems-- it creates them. Then you have another Windows which is inflexible. Different distributions accomplish different things. I don't see a point in reinventing the wheel, which some distributions have done, but the freedom to choose what works best for you is a big part of the boons to Linux.

[rapala61]

If we merged forces, as you put it, then what happens when the developers of that one linux decide to make it completely corporate, so the only way you can have it legally without paying for it is to compile the source yourself? Then that will create another distribution (similar to Red Hat going corporate and CentOS forking), and then you aren't unified anymore.

But to the person that said "There aren't that many" have you been to distrowatch lately? There are hundreds. There aren't THAT many that are used often, but they're there.

I don't think that having a universal distro solves any problems-- it creates them. Then you have another Windows which is inflexible. Different distributions accomplish different things. I don't see a point in reinventing the wheel, which some distributions have done, but the freedom to choose what works best for you is a big part of the boons to Linux.

good point.... although having 100+ distros does harm linux too..

[Lynx]

Having a universal distro would kill so many good things happening. apt is an awesome technology and arguably it would not be around today if a creative person had not branched off and developed their own distro to implement it. Portage, though right now not quite ready for a normal user also has a great future in it and had nobody started developing Gentoo it wouldn't be around... why? Because when people work for themselves and other people who are united around their cause, creative and amazing things happen. When people work for a large, universal company, they work on what the company says to work on and creativity is stifled. Bottom line. RPM, .deb and portage people are never going to see eye to eye on the way software should be distributed... and so you have multiple distros, all developing unique things to be used and borrowed by other distributions (thanks to open source) so now you have things like an apt-get for RPM coming out and so on. Choice, it's what windows does not offer. If you would rather just have one option... windows is the OS for you... linux doesn't need to become that... it is against the entire philosophy of the operating system.

[KiwiNZ]

good point.... although having 100+ distros does harm linux too..

How can having 50 , 100 , 1000 distros harm Linux ?

You also made this comment "but with every distro creating their own solution it just makes linux develop slower "

I don't see how this is so , as developments are fed into the community as a whole.

The old saying Many hands make light work

[zenwhen]

The idea is rubbish that flies in the face of everything Linux is supposed to be. If we can't compete by our rules, we don't compete at all. My computer runs Linux fine no matter how many copies of Windows get sold a year.

[Yukonjack]

good point.... although having 100+ distros does harm linux too..

I don't think it harms linux, it as been around and will be around, linux will keep growing no matter what some folks say, it always done that. Remember MS is an empire and all empires eventualy fall. History as shown this time and time again. Just because in the last few years folks are getting tired of the MS crap and coming over to try linux and suggest that if linux wants to grow it as to be like windows well that is fubar. Anyone that as been with gnu/linux instead of ms knows this. You have to remember that a lot of those distro's are for specific need and some are just school project and hobbies.

[rapala61]

How can having 50 , 100 , 1000 distros harm Linux ?

You also made this comment "but with every distro creating their own solution it just makes linux develop slower "

I don't see how this is so , as developments are fed into the community as a whole.

The old saying Many hands make light work

well.. i dunno but is there a universal repository of bug fixes???.. i mean, like a place that gathers every bug fix and put it availabe to every other distro to merge it on their releases/updates?? if thats the case well, u can trash my comment... i just dunno if theres such org.

[jdodson]

*sigh* ok here goes. we are all used to windows. we all grew up on it, we all used it forever, we all liked what we are used to. well you might have grown up on a mac or whatever, it doesnt change the truth of my words.

we are all used to ONE os, ONE main vendor and ONE hardware platform. ok now here comes gnu/linux available on x86, AMD 64, PPC, ARM, SPARC, mips, etc. that does something to binary compatibility. also add to the fact that one can take all the GNU software and make a "distro." we all have choice, and choice is not bad. is it bad that there are 1,000,000 gnu/linux distros? no. because we can choose to go with something else when we don't like the "king" distro, redhat, mandrake, suse, etc.

if there was only one distro, what distro would that be? suse? redhat? debian? choosing any of those would "lock in" a corporation and the choices of said corporation. is there more to gnu/linux than RPM or DEB? yep. is there more to a look and feel than bluecurve or more to a default desktop than just KDE? yep. there is NO "one distro to rule them all." and honestly, i hope it stays that way.

there are many competing voices in the choir of gnu/linux. some people are scared off by choice because we are used to ONE OS, ONE vendor and ONE platform. welcome to the world of multi-platform and choice computing.

[KiwiNZ]

well.. i dunno but is there a universal repository of bug fixes???.. i mean, like a place that gathers every bug fix and put it availabe to every other distro to merge it on their releases/updates?? if thats the case well, u can trash my comment... i just dunno if theres such org.

For linux , the heart of the beast the Kernel . Yes there is a central control point,
As for bug fixes for each Distro , no there isnt as such.

[miho]

*sigh* ok here goes. we are all used to windows. we all grew up on it, we all used it forever, we all liked what we are used to. well you might have grown up on a mac or whatever, it doesnt change the truth of my words.

we are all used to ONE os, ONE main vendor and ONE hardware platform. ok now here comes gnu/linux available on x86, AMD 64, PPC, ARM, SPARC, mips, etc. that does something to binary compatibility. also add to the fact that one can take all the GNU software and make a "distro." we all have choice, and choice is not bad. is it bad that there are 1,000,000 gnu/linux distros? no. because we can choose to go with something else when we don't like the "king" distro, redhat, mandrake, suse, etc.

if there was only one distro, what distro would that be? suse? redhat? debian? choosing any of those would "lock in" a corporation and the choices of said corporation. is there more to gnu/linux than RPM or DEB? yep. is there more to a look and feel than bluecurve or more to a default desktop than just KDE? yep. there is NO "one distro to rule them all." and honestly, i hope it stays that way.

there are many competing voices in the choir of gnu/linux. some people are scared off by choice because we are used to ONE OS, ONE vendor and ONE platform. welcome to the world of multi-platform and choice computing.
Thinking can be a painful process.

[jan]

To reply all that was answered so far,

don't you think folks linux is pretty much about the kernel? There should be kernel being much further developed than loosing time doing tenths of distributions... The better the kernel is, the more HW can run linux! Is that what we want?

Jan

[KiwiNZ]

To reply all that was answered so far,

don't you think folks linux is pretty much about the kernel? There should be kernel being much further developed than loosing time doing tenths of distributions... The better the kernel is, the more HW can run linux! Is that what we want?

Jan

The Linux Kernel is under constant development with the Linus Torvalds leading the control group.

[Yukonjack]

To reply all that was answered so far,
don't you think folks linux is pretty much about the kernel? There should be kernel being much further developed than loosing time doing tenths of distributions... The better the kernel is, the more HW can run linux! Is that what we want?
Jan

Linux kernel moves a lot faster then MS team ever did check it out, it will show you. The kernel team have nothing to do with distro just kernel.

The Linux Kernel (http://www.kernel.org/)

[az]

Linux is the kernel, GNU is the OS.

You can run GNU on other kernels (like BSD)


Poll questions should be moderated for approval before being visible. The people making up these polls should have to include a three hundred word justification (or explanation) of their question. This is obviously not a poll question. People fly off half-cocked when they read absurd polls like this and I do not think this serves the public in any useful way.

It is like looking at an accident on the highway.

This thread would have been three posts long, and a heck of a lot more accurate if it were not in poll form.

[Dylanby]

When people complain that such & such a feature is not in such & such distro, app, etc. they're told to roll up their sleeves & contribute.

When people work on what they want to work on they're told their wasting their effort & should be working on something else instead.

You're argument about wasted effort can only apply to those who're paid to work on Linux. You can't apply it to the work people volunteer to do.

Even then, as long as there's private ownership people are going to form competeing companies. Having Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, yadda, yadda, yadda...in the end the consumer (end user) is better off.

Linux & free software are about choice. Not just for the users, but for the developers too.

[adbak]

Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

I understand what you're saying about so many Linux distros harming the development rate of Linux as a whole. However, a lot of these distros are not created by corporations -- they're developed and programmed by a handful of people. Even further, some distros are created in people's free time.

Not everyone sees eye-to-eye about the ethics and philosophies behind each distro (FOSS and proprietary software) so naturally there will be many distros. Not to mention because of the GPL any major innovations in Linux can and will be spread throughout each or most of the distros. Survival of the fittest.

Taken from http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major . A list of the major distributions of which there are many offshoots are as follows (and in no particular order):
MandrakeLinux
Debian
Red Hat/Fedora
SuSE
Ubuntu (BeatrIX, Gnoppix, to name a few)
Gentoo
Slackware
Knoppix
Mepis
Xandros
FreeBSD

[BWF89]

I think having one distro is pure non-sence. Different distros for different people. Plus the fact that 50% of those 150 distros you named aren't used by that many people. Theres about a dozen distros that people actually use.

I think what Linux needs is a unified package system. It's pure non-sence to have packages for Debian distros to be incompatible with packages for Redhat distros. We need a unified package system so that if someone wants to download a Linux package (other than .tar) they will rest assured that it will work on their box no matter which distro they are useing. The unified package would either have to be Debian or Redhat Package Management.

[KiwiNZ]

I think having one distro is pure non-sence. Different distros for different people. Plus the fact that 50% of those 150 distros you named aren't used by that many people. Theres about a dozen distros that people actually use.

I think what Linux needs is a unified package system. It's pure non-sence to have packages for Debian distros to be incompatible with packages for Redhat distros. We need a unified package system so that if someone wants to download a Linux package (other than .tar) they will rest assured that it will work on their box no matter which distro they are useing. The unified package would either have to be Debian or Redhat Package Management.

Now that does make sense . Problem is it will a fantastic feat of diplomacy tomake a final choice as to what was used. But I think the community does need to look at this seriously. It really is one of the show stoppers to mainstreaming

[Xian]

People fly off half-cocked when they read absurd polls like this and I do not think this serves the public in any useful way.
Serves the public? That is highly subjective and would get a thousand different definitions.
No doubt but that not everyone would want to take only yours.

But I think the community does need to look at this seriously. It really is one of the show stoppers to mainstreaming
The very best thing about the linux community IS the variety and creativity. I just cringe every time I hear someone advocating universal packaging or the like. The best ideas will always rise to the top and that is how it should be. Others will tend to gravitate to such events when they occur and that is how things are best accomplished. Please save me from some massive cherry picking developer convention. The moment we start down that road then it becomes predominately a matter of control, and how to obtain more of it, so that someone can push what they feel is the "public interest" more aggressively.

A horrible idea.

[poofyhairguy]

Why is there 150 linux distros around?


Well...many of them are Distros that exist just to focus on a single language. Plus, Linux is very flexible and it needs many distros to focus on a specific thing. A distro that tries to do all things will not do one thing well.

Some people need servers, some people need desktops (Ubuntu kicks here), some people need clusters, some people need workstations. No one Linux could have the resources to do all of these things. Red Hat tried once. So its better if they divide.

Plus, the more distros there are the greater the chance that one Just Works on your computer. Sometimes distros make decisions that will make something run bad for you, so its good that there are options.

[m.musashi]

I'm relatively new to Linux so please excuse me if this has been discussed before, but I'm wondering if there is any talk of trying to present a standard distro. There are several Linux distros that seem quite good, but with each group reinventing the wheel, so to speak, it seems like it will be difficult to get one really good distribution. Ubuntu, Suse, Mepis, FC, etc. seem to get mentioned quite a lot. I don't know about all, but some are backed by corporate funding. If those funds and efforts were pooled, don't you think you would have a better chance of developing a really stellar OS?

Don't get me wrong, I think the choice aspect of Linux is quite great. But at the same time, a flagship distribution would be great. I think several are very close to accomplishing this on their own. It just seems like some collaboration would really help things along. After all, one of the first rules of battle is to divide and conquer. I don't think Linux needs to conquer anyone, but being naturally divided doesn't help.

I know backers of each would probably want their contributions to be the main ones and hence keep their name, and some companies may be banking on support options as a road to profit. Still, it would be nice to see several really good communities rally together and make something really special.

Anyway, any chance of anything like this?

[aysiu]

My thoughts:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux.php

[Andrew Shaw Care]

Choice makes sense in the business world, as it promotes competition between business entities. In this sense competition acts as a motivator to produce results.

Choice also makes sense when used to express individuality. Lifestyle, personality, fashion... these all contribute to individuality and could not be possible without choice.

However, choice can be less beneficial in certain environments. Such is the case when choice is introduced in linux.

I think it would be fair to say that all open-source linux distributions have a common goal; to provide a free operating system that is at on par with, or better than a commercial equivalent.

The problem I see, however, is that linux stands united and divided at the same time. That common goal is agreed upon, but the devil appears to be in the details. Some might say that having thousands of free programs is beneficial to linux, but to me this is the very bane of it's existence.

If we're all on the same team, why can't we all just get along? What's with the code forks? Why do we have two main desktop environments, when much more could be acheived with just one? Would it be so bad to have one media player to rule them all, provided it was open-source and did everything that was required?

In the interests of development, extendability, ease of use, and extendability, why can we not just settle for one application per function and possibly one distribution altogether?

:-k

[Stormy Eyes]

Oh, jeez, not this again. I refuse to choose between choice and quality. As far as I'm concerned, current events show that it is possible to have both, and that the competition offered by multiple projects with the same goal spurs quality.

If you want one OS to rule them all, one media player to find them, one office suite to bring them all and in the shadows bind them, then go to Microsoft.

[dermotti]

no

[dermotti]

Ubuntu......my precious

[jazzmuzik]

In a way Ubuntu is the flagship Linux due to its popularity, and its popularity is based on how well it has been packaged.

Note the rankings on right of this page: http://distrowatch.com/

I ran Red Hat for years, then all the Fedoras. Then I installed the recent Fedora Core 5 distro. After having so much trouble trying to get things to work (noteedit, lilypond, xmms, and lots of others) I gave up in disgust. It's too hard and Red Hat doesn't seem to care about Fedora any more. (Is any of this deliberate I ask myself?) On a lark I decided to try Ubuntu a few weeks ago and never looked back.

Now, back to your question. What if there were only one Linux distro? Where would I go? I'd be in the same camp as a Windows user: stuck in a crappy situation.

[IYY]

It could be nice, but it's not going to happen any time soon. GNU/Linux is not a company. It's not even a community (not one single community). It's just a technology (the kernel) and a philosophy (the GNU) that can be used to create something.

If a distro wants to become a "standard" distro, it just needs to become really good so that everybody switches to it.

[Virogenesis]

just visit those links
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2152115662.html http://www.dccalliance.org
http://www.linuxbase.org/

[Stormy Eyes]

I know backers of each would probably want their contributions to be the main ones and hence keep their name, and some companies may be banking on support options as a road to profit. Still, it would be nice to see several really good communities rally together and make something really special.

Actually, this already exists. (http://www.linuxbase.org/)

[m.musashi]

Wow, that was a fast response. Okay, I see your point(s) and agree that this is apparently nothing new. I can also see how the open source nature of Linux means that even if developers don't seem to be working together they really are. I can also see how the idea of a standard seems quite unlikely. However, just a couple counter points.

First, I'm not suggesting the abandonment of all the distros or that there are too many. I'm also not making a Linux vs. Windows argument. I don't think Linux needs to be Windows-like. And I'm not saying that developers are wasting time - on the contrary they are putting out great stuff.

Because each distro is different, I can also see how it will be hard to somehow put them together. But despite the inaccuracies in saying it, Linux is a branded name - like Kleenex. Non users don't know there are 200 some odd Linux based operating systems (or more). To them, Linux is Linux. If they happen to have seen one or heard about one then they've seen them all. There are many different types of hammers and some people have very specific needs. However, I only have two - a "standard" hammer for nearly everything and a sledge hammer when I really need to hit something.

I really like the philosophy of open source and I sincerely hope it becomes a mainstay. I asked the question because it seemed like having a LINUX distro of Linux would give the average person something to grasp hold of.

Finally, it seems like it could be a while before computer makers decide to offer pre-installed Linux boxes. One of the outs for them is the “which one do we choose?” argument. Some distros seem good enough that vendors could start to choose them and most people probably wouldn’t care which one they choose. But selling Ubuntu boxes, or Suse boxes, or FC boxes will only confuse the general public. I guess you could still market it as a Linux box.

Anyway, I was just curious about the state of things. Thanks aysiu for the link. I hope I didn’t tick anyone off. I’m being positive here.

[aysiu]

Your thread appears five minutes after this thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=159468)? Weird.

When there was essentially one web browser, it stunk. Now that Firefox is moving up in the world, all of a sudden Microsoft comes out with IE7...

Choice and competition are good in the software world, too.

[m.musashi]

If a distro wants to become a "standard" distro, it just needs to become really good so that everybody switches to it.
Good point. I think a few are really rising to the top. It may not be long before people begin to associate one or two distros with the broader Linux term.

[Andrew Shaw Care]

My thoughts:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux.php
What you describe as benefits of a dispersed linux are the benefits that could be acheived at a much greater volume if a unified distribution were to be created.

In order of points made:

The goal wouldn't be to create a new distribution. The goal would be to combine distributions (X / X = 1).

The examples you've given define co-operative relationships. Debian and Ubuntu help each other. Linspire and open-source distributions help each other. This does not describe a dispersed linux at all, and supports the notion of a unified linux. Imagine the ability to assist of all distributions were co-operating on a singular project!

Your next point is the advantage and disadvantage of linux. The disadvantage is that most people confuse differing opinions with the conclusion that they need to "fork". Also, they focus too heavily one single aspect of the operating system (security, usability, education, etc.) that they detract from all other elements. This is why linux has a great opportunity if unified; instead of separation, efforts can be modularized and contributed. One linux means amazing secuirty alongside usability while also being well-suited to any other need that might come up. A base can be built on. This is truly where choice is the great advantage of linux. It can be a Jack of All Trades, without compromise.

So viruses would be a problem to linux. It would just make linux better as it adapts. If you ask an evolutionist, they could tell you about Darwin's theory of natural selection as well.

Your choice argument lends to the modularity component of the operating system. A unified linux doesn't necessarily mean one use. You would still have options, they would just work better together and be easier to "cook up".

It's not that people aren't used to choice. It's that there's choice in the wrong places. The choices that should be eliminated are the functional contrasts. If you're a construction worker, you don't want twenty hammers, all that accomplish the same objective but with inherent flaws and strengths. If someone could design one hammer that combines all past efforts, that would be much more beneficial to the worker.

Imagine how easy it would be to get commercial support with a unified linux. Hardware and technical support would be offered up much easier, no? Less headaches for the developers pulling double-duty as software engineers and documentation/forum administrators. Profits for the companies providing the support, which just keeps improving linux in the process.

[aysiu]

Finally, it seems like it could be a while before computer makers decide to offer pre-installed Linux boxes. One of the outs for them is the “which one do we choose?” argument. Some distros seem good enough that vendors could start to choose them and most people probably wouldn’t care which one they choose. But selling Ubuntu boxes, or Suse boxes, or FC boxes will only confuse the general public. I guess you could still market it as a Linux box. That's just Dell's poor excuse.

If they chose any distribution to support, everyone (except some crazies on Slashdot) would be jumping for joy, and I (along with others) would have no problem buying a Mandriva-preloaded computer and just installing Ubuntu right over it.

[Stormy Eyes]

I really like the philosophy of open source and I sincerely hope it becomes a mainstay. I asked the question because it seemed like having a LINUX distro of Linux would give the average person something to grasp hold of.

Well, every Linux has the GNU tool suite, and quite a few of them conform to the Linux Standards Base. Having used Linux since 1999, I've found that once you get past whatever GUI tools the distributor might have "helpfully" provided, there isn't much difference between one distro and another. Sure, they might have different installers, they tend to use different package managers, and they all seem to add their own tweaks to GNOME or KDE, but really, the distributions aren't all that different. They just try to look different.


But selling Ubuntu boxes, or Suse boxes, or FC boxes will only confuse the general public. I guess you could still market it as a Linux box.

Personally, I don't see how it would matter. Just pick one, and mention it in the owner's manual. If the user really gives a ****, he'll find out exactly what kind of Linux he's using.

[Virogenesis]

Choice equals quality without choice you's get something like IE 6.......a a 6 year ofld browser full of security bugs crap css support and total lack of innovation . or just as bad a os like windows like bad networking support, horrid (babyish) colour scheme with lack of security.

[m.musashi]

just visit those links
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2152115662.html http://www.dccalliance.org
http://www.linuxbase.org/
These seem to suggest something similar to the idea of a standard so maybe it's not that impossible of a concept. Perhaps IYY Is right and sooner or later one will just naturally become the main Linux with lots of specialized versions and fan projects.

[Andrew Shaw Care]

There are many different types of hammers and some people have very specific needs. However, I only have two - a "standard" hammer for nearly everything and a sledge hammer when I really need to hit something.
Funny that you used a hammer analogy as well. ;)

[m.musashi]

Funny that you used a hammer analogy as well. ;)
Yeah, I was just reading your post. We seem to have been writing at the same time and thinking similarly.

[Virogenesis]

Most users who use linux in the work plavce if you asked them if they used kde or gnome they would reply with the name of the distro such as suse.
A distro will become pretty much over time due to marketing they will try to push their distro through the gui and artwork .
Some users will pick a kde distro over a gnome distro its going to be interesting I'm sure we'll see a flag ship distro just like how we see flagship distros in the server market.

[Andrew Shaw Care]

In interests of proving my point, all new thoughts should be posted to this thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=159468). :cool:

[m.musashi]

Personally, I don't see how it would matter. Just pick one, and mention it in the owner's manual. If the user really gives a ****, he'll find out exactly what kind of Linux he's using.
I agree, it won't matter. I just figured if you didn't call it plain ol' Linux the average compuer user would be confused. Since they are confused anyway I guess it doens't matter.

[m.musashi]

That's just Dell's poor excuse.

If they chose any distribution to support, everyone (except some crazies on Slashdot) would be jumping for joy, and I (along with others) would have no problem buying a Mandriva-preloaded computer and just installing Ubuntu right over it.
Yep. But it would be nice to take away their excuse.

[aysiu]

The goal wouldn't be to create a new distribution. The goal would be to combine distributions (X / X = 1). Many people who've made this "unified Linux" argument have proposed a new distro. I think, by definition, any "unified distro" would have to be new, unless one already-existing distro "took over" all the other ones. Think about it.



The examples you've given define co-operative relationships. Debian and Ubuntu help each other. Linspire and open-source distributions help each other. This does not describe a dispersed linux at all, and supports the notion of a unified linux. Imagine the ability to assist of all distributions were co-operating on a singular project! Yes, it would be a nightmare. What's worse than two people deciding where to eat dinner? Four people deciding where to eat dinner. Or ten people trying to decide where to eat dinner. The two people will be in and out of the restaurant in two hours. The ten people will probably not eat until midnight.



Your next point is the advantage and disadvantage of linux. The disadvantage is that most people confuse differing opinions with the conclusion that they need to "fork". They're not "confusing" it--they decide to fork. If people can resolve conflicts, they do. If they can't, they fork. This happens in churches, schools, non-profit organizations. Why can't it happen in software?
Also, they focus too heavily one single aspect of the operating system (security, usability, education, etc.) that they detract from all other elements. No, they don't. They often have extremely different approaches and philosophies. Mark Shuttleworth and Kevin Carmony may talk. They may be friends. But their philosophical approaches to Ubuntu and Linspire, respectively, are vastly different and aren't just security and usability. Ubuntu is dedicated to free software. Linspire is dedicated to wooing ex-Windows users.
This is why linux has a great opportunity if unified; instead of separation, efforts can be modularized and contributed. One linux means amazing secuirty How is one Linux more secure than many Linuxes? Please explain.
alongside usability while also being well-suited to any other need that might come up. A base can be built on. This is truly where choice is the great advantage of linux. It can be a Jack of All Trades, without compromise. "A base can be built on." That's already what's happening. The base is the Linux kernel. And even most distributions are just based on other distributions (Mepis will be based on Ubuntu, which is based on Debian).



So viruses would be a problem to linux. It would just make linux better as it adapts. If you ask an evolutionist, they could tell you about Darwin's theory of natural selection as well. Yes, and the theory generally postulates that greater diversity leads to a greater chance of survival.



Your choice argument lends to the modularity component of the operating system. A unified linux doesn't necessarily mean one use. You would still have options, they would just work better together and be easier to "cook up". I don't understand your point here.



It's not that people aren't used to choice. Actually, it is. Most computer users think Windows is a computer. They don't think pizza is food. They realize pizza is one type of food.
It's that there's choice in the wrong places. For instance?
The choices that should be eliminated are the functional contrasts. If you're a construction worker, you don't want twenty hammers, all that accomplish the same objective but with inherent flaws and strengths. If someone could design one hammer that combines all past efforts, that would be much more beneficial to the worker. Actually, most construction workers have several tools. There are, in fact, different hammers for different purposes and different screwdrivers for different purposes.



Imagine how easy it would be to get commercial support with a unified linux. Hardware and technical support would be offered up much easier, no? Less headaches for the developers pulling double-duty as software engineers and documentation/forum administrators. Profits for the companies providing the support, which just keeps improving linux in the process. Commercial support is lacking for Linux because of Linux desktop's small marketshare. It has very little to do with a lack of a unified distro.

You missed the most important part of my essay: a unified distro cannot be forced to happen. Even if I buy your arguments (which I don't) that it should happen, you can't force people to make it happen.

The only way it will happen is by one distro (possibly Ubuntu) becoming so popular that it, in essence becomes the Linux distro people have to reckon with.

[Andrew Shaw Care]

I agree, it won't matter. I just figured if you didn't call it plain ol' Linux the average compuer user would be confused. Since they are confused anyway I guess it doens't matter.
It matters. The hardware company sells the hardware, and have a hard enough time supporting that. A good selling point for a distribution would be it's exisiting support structure.

[aysiu]

Yep. But it would be nice to take away their excuse. And that wouldn't matter, really, because they'd just cook up another excuse.

The bottom line is that they can't preinstall Linux on top-of-the-line computer prominently displayed on their webpage because they'd lose their cushy contracts with Microsoft. Even their "Linux" computers right now are just FreeDOS computers, not Linux at all.

If there's a hidden reason, they'll always find a way to come up with an excuse.

[m.musashi]

And that wouldn't matter, really, because they'd just cook up another excuse.

The bottom line is that they can't preinstall Linux on top-of-the-line computer prominently displayed on their webpage because they'd lose their cushy contracts with Microsoft. Even their "Linux" computers right now are just FreeDOS computers, not Linux at all.

If there's a hidden reason, they'll always find a way to come up with an excuse.
As usual, you have really good insight. I'm just trying to be a little optimistic. I have no crystal ball but my intuition tells me that Linux' future is something more than single digit market share. As you have pointed out many times, the key is name brand computers with pre-installed Linux. I was just looking/hoping for a way to help make that a reality.

[aysiu]

As usual, you have really good insight. I'm just trying to be a little optimistic. I have no crystal ball but my intuition tells me that Linux' future is something more than single digit market share. As you have pointed out many times, the key is name brand computers with pre-installed Linux. I was just looking/hoping for a way to help make that a reality. Don't get me wrong. If Dell would preinstall Linux if it were a single distribution, I'd be more than happy... well, if a single distribution ever happened.

The way I see it, there are several roads to Linux on more desktops:

1. Continue as is. Gradual growth. Most people on this forum seem to agree we're gaining more Ubuntu users than we're losing (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=125636).

2. Some amazing breakthrough happens where Linux starts being used in schools and/or the workplace, and it gets major news coverage. I'm not just talking about some pilot program in Indiana that Linspire has. I'm talking about something major that makes the cover of Newsweek or Time.

3. Dell gets some guts and takes a chance on a particular distribution--something popular like Ubuntu.

[Andrew Shaw Care]

Many people who've made this "unified Linux" argument have proposed a new distro. I think, by definition, any "unified distro" would have to be new, unless one already-existing distro "took over" all the other ones. Think about it.

You're thinking warfare, here. Why would any one have to "take over"? They can simply decide to co-operate together. My math was too simple; for one brief second there is one new distribution (which doesn't necessarily have to be led by any previous distribution). It would go like this: (X + 1) ... (X + 1) - X = 1


Yes, it would be a nightmare. What's worse than two people deciding where to eat dinner? Four people deciding where to eat dinner. Or ten people trying to decide where to eat dinner. The two people will be in and out of the restaurant in two hours. The ten people will probably not eat until midnight.

Is this ten children eating dinner? And who are the people in this situation? The end user trying to decide what media player to use, or the developer trying to decide what display manager to support?


They're not "confusing" it--they decide to fork. If people can resolve conflicts, they do. If they can't, they fork. This happens in churches, schools, non-profit organizations. Why can't it happen in software?

It can, but for the right reasons. If you think linux should be about security while someone else thinks it should be about usability, then work on your own respective element of the operating system to make it better. Don't make a new distribution and call it "Security Linux!" where your efforts are wasted because people who want security AND usability can't get what they need.


No, they don't. They often have extremely different approaches and philosophies. Mark Shuttleworth and Kevin Carmony may talk. They may be friends. But their philosophical approaches to Ubuntu and Linspire, respectively, are vastly different and aren't just security and usability. Ubuntu is dedicated to free software. Linspire is dedicated to wooing ex-Windows users.

So woo ex-Windows users by making a great operating system based on free software.


How is one Linux more secure than many Linuxes? Please explain. "A base can be built on." That's already what's happening. The base is the Linux kernel. And even most distributions are just based on other distributions (Mepis will be based on Ubuntu, which is based on Debian).

So then the distributions slowly evolve using the technology of others... slowly.


Yes, and the theory generally postulates that greater diversity leads to a greater chance of survival.

Diversity doesn't mean you have to make a new human being every time a new disease comes out.


I don't understand your point here.

Your pizza argument. You state that people like choice, provided they know what their choices are. So make a unified linux where they can find all of their choices in one place. Things like ingredients on pizza is more synonymous to things like desktop backgrounds and window themes, however. Pepperoni might taste different, just like cheese and certain mushrooms, etc. Those choices aren't functional and depend solely on taste.


Actually, it is. Most computer users think Windows is a computer. They don't think pizza is food. They realize pizza is one type of food.

...and if you grew up eating pizza all your life you might think pizza is food. You can only treat ignorance with education, which I think we agree on. Regardless of whether or not linux becomes unified, it has to be talked about.


For instance?

More than five media players that have to be read about when someone new to linux just wants to play a video their friend sent them in an email.


Actually, most construction workers have several tools. There are, in fact, different hammers for different purposes and different screwdrivers for different purposes.

But with a linux hammer you have to debug your hammer if you're about to hit a steel nail as opposed to the iron nail the hammer was meant for.


Commercial support is lacking for Linux because of Linux desktop's small marketshare. It has very little to do with a lack of a unified distro.

Give me a disadvantage to a unified linux in this sense instead of telling me it has very little to do with it.


You missed the most important part of my essay: a unified distro cannot be forced to happen. Even if I buy your arguments (which I don't) that it should happen, you can't force people to make it happen.

The only way it will happen is by one distro (possibly Ubuntu) becoming so popular that it, in essence becomes the Linux distro people have to reckon with.

That's a possible option if all the distributions are "at war". Even if some realize that they agree on core values and learn to compromise, we can get closer to a unified linux.

[zapcojake]

I like the idea of many splintered Linux distro's. I think it empowers the end users to truly own their computer. Times are changing, gone are the days when a computer was a luxury. Now it is like any other household appliance. Just as you can buy a blue couch or a red one so should your computer be exactly what you want it to be. Also the many distros make it impossible for malicous code (DRM and the like) to ever infultrate and compromise the integrity and quality of Linux as a whole. Computers are first and foremost used to exchange information and I prefer to get my info from a multitude of sources as opposed to having it spoon fed to me from just one.

[Andrew Shaw Care]

I like the idea of many splintered Linux distro's. I think it empowers the end users to truly own their computer. Times are changing, gone are the days when a computer was a luxury. Now it is like any other household appliance. Just as you can buy a blue couch or a red one so should your computer be exactly what you want it to be. Also the many distros make it impossible for malicous code (DRM and the like) to ever infultrate and compromise the integrity and quality of Linux as a whole. Computers are first and foremost used to exchange information and I prefer to get my info from a multitude of sources as opposed to having it spoon fed to me from just one.
So then change your wallpaper. People are getting aesthetic choice mixed up with the "mixed functionality" choice we have now.

You have the luxury of going to a furniture store and buying either a red or blue couch knowing that they'll both "operate" exactly as you'd expect a couch to. You don't have to worry that the red couch will throw a guest off mid-sit or anything crazy like that.

I'm all for aesthetic choice. I don't buy seven white t-shirts and seven brown pairs of pants. But I want those pants and shirts to last and not rip apart in the dryer, or my friends dryer if I sleep over.

[aysiu]

You're thinking warfare, here. Why would any one have to "take over"? They can simply decide to co-operate together. My math was too simple; for one brief second there is one new distribution (which doesn't necessarily have to be led by any previous distribution). It would go like this: (X + 1) ... (X + 1) - X = 1 And when they cooperate together, it makes a new distro.


Is this ten children eating dinner? No. Adults. I've seen it happen.
And who are the people in this situation? The end user trying to decide what media player to use, or the developer trying to decide what display manager to support? Developers making decisions.



It can, but for the right reasons. If you think linux should be about security while someone else thinks it should be about usability, then work on your own respective element of the operating system to make it better. Don't make a new distribution and call it "Security Linux!" where your efforts are wasted because people who want security AND usability can't get what they need. This is a false dichotomy. Just because a Linux distro emphasizes usability doesn't mean it is insecure; likewise, just because a distribution emphasizes security doesn't mean it's unusable.



So woo ex-Windows users by making a great operating system based on free software. Good luck. One of the major complaints about Ubuntu (as opposed to Linspire, Mepis, or PCLinuxOS) is its lack of proprietary codecs.



Diversity doesn't mean you have to make a new human being every time a new disease comes out. That's not the point. The point is that one vulnerability doesn't wipe out everybody. Take, for example, Breezy's bug where the sudo password is stored in plain text. If there were only one Linux distro, that would affect all Linux users. Thankfully, that's not the case, so only Ubuntu Breezy users were affected.



Your pizza argument. You state that people like choice, provided they know what their choices are. So make a unified linux where they can find all of their choices in one place. Things like ingredients on pizza is more synonymous to things like desktop backgrounds and window themes, however. Pepperoni might taste different, just like cheese and certain mushrooms, etc. Those choices aren't functional and depend solely on taste. And make only one restaurant where people can have whatever pizza toppings they want? Forget it. I like my different pizza restaurants. This one-size-fits-all mentality doesn't appeal to me in software or food.

I don't need a Wal-Mart Linux.



More than five media players that have to be read about when someone new to linux just wants to play a video their friend sent them in an email. So Ubuntu has one application per task. So you start with the default ones. If you're dissatisfied with them, you can choose others.



Give me a disadvantage to a unified linux in this sense instead of telling me it has very little to do with it. Since every developer has to agree on a decision before it gets made, the decision will take a long time to be made and may induce a lot more bitterness. The more people who have to agree on something, the more of a chance that it'll be half-heartedly done, done slowly, or not done at all.

Besides, you're still missing the point--it won't happen. Even if right here, today, you and I agree, "It's a wonderful idea! One Linux distro!" it's not going to happen. How would we make it happen? We wouldn't.

Edit: At this point, I refuse to argue further about whether this is desirable or not. Please, make the case first that it would be feasible to merge all the Linux distros. Outline the exact steps you would take to getting all these distros to merge together. If you can make a convincing case that it can be done and that the participants in this thread could orchestrate the merger, then we can talk about whether it's a desirable outcome.

Otherwise, it's about as practical as arguing whether we should grow wings and fly.

[Andrew Shaw Care]

Besides, you're still missing the point--it won't happen. Even if right here, today, you and I agree, "It's a wonderful idea! One Linux distro!" it's not going to happen. How would we make it happen? We wouldn't.
aysiu, my glass is half-full. ;)

This conversation might not change the universe, but it's something.

[zapcojake]

3. Dell gets some guts and takes a chance on a particular distribution--something popular like Ubuntu.

I don't see why it has to be Dell, I think anybody withe the time, dedication, know how, and a little financial backing could do well. Dapper's release has been delayed in part if I read the articles right because Mark Shuttleworth feels they are close to a mainstream Joe User type os that anybody can use. That is a solid foundation to build on. Quality componets and a solid customer service program to go with all else I mentioned and even grandma could be using Linux pretty quick. My five year old daughter is using Edubuntu every day. She sends email and surfs the net with a little help on the spelling. It is possible and I would much rather see an upstart company teaming with Linux enthusiasts do it than make Dell any richer.

[aysiu]

I don't see why it has to be Dell, I think anybody withe the time, dedication, know how, and a little financial backing could do well. It doesn't have to be Dell, but right now a whole lot of computer consumers out there buy from Dell. How many do you know who shop at http://www.system76.com ?

Even the largest minority of Ubuntu users on these forums prefers to build their own computers rather than buying Linux-preloaded ones (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=152433).

[zapcojake]

So then change your wallpaper. People are getting aesthetic choice mixed up with the "mixed functionality" choice we have now.

You have the luxury of going to a furniture store and buying either a red or blue couch knowing that they'll both "operate" exactly as you'd expect a couch to. You don't have to worry that the red couch will throw a guest off mid-sit or anything crazy like that.

I'm all for aesthetic choice. I don't buy seven white t-shirts and seven brown pairs of pants. But I want those pants and shirts to last and not rip apart in the dryer, or my friends dryer if I sleep over.

I think you misunderstand my analogy between the furniture and computers. AS far as my wallpaper is concerned it is the default, I care nothing for eye candy or aesthetics. However, the software on this computer is something I have spent many hours making it what I wanted it to be, which is the spirit that Linux was founded on and it remains the backbone of what Linux is today.
I am all for ease of use but that is possible to achieve without placing limits on the vast and limitless. If automakers had thought that way a hundred years ago we would all be driving steel gray cookie cutter cars or what if Edison was content with candle light? Even Bill Gates with all his faults puts a certain amount of imagination into his work. I think a shake and bake approach to anything stifles inovation. By the way, if my couch tossed my guests in the floor or if the dryer at my trousers I might be inspired to build a better one and would probably learn alot along the way.

[zapcojake]

It doesn't have to be Dell, but right now a whole lot of computer consumers out there buy from Dell. How many do you know who shop at http://www.system76.com ?

Even the largest minority of Ubuntu users on these forums prefers to build their own computers rather than buying Linux-preloaded ones (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=152433).

That is a good point I suppose a large part of the financial backing would have to go towards getting the name out there. I build all my own computers because I enjoy it but I still firmly believe that Ubuntu is ready for the the mainstream public. The public still needs convincing of course but it IS possible to demonstrate to the average consumer that a preconfigured Ubuntu computer can do all the things required of it. Its not something that will happen overnight but it can and will happen. All that is required is the right people at the right time.

[Virogenesis]

Andrew Shaw Care what you forget is that different distros will be abled t to do different deals.
Different distros means lower support costs as they are all in trying to get a piece of the pie.
Mephis uses the ubuntu base now... ubuntu could well become the debian desktop standard.
Now ubuntu can be preinstalled onto low end machines s and suppoort could be dealt with by Canonical or what can get a custom distro made up.
People will be able to select
their distro like they do with their car and its colour.
Bad support go to another distro.... don't like kde use gnome e.
Personaly the business model that linux distros use is fantastic its going to mean they will need to product a better distro each time.
Why should you have only one car company what happens if you do not like the sales team that looked down on your what if you wanted something different.

[Andrew Shaw Care]

By the way, if my couch tossed my guests in the floor or if the dryer at my trousers I might be inspired to build a better one and would probably learn alot along the way.
That would be very self-serving however, considering there's companies who already make quality couches and clothing. You would be better suited to improving couches or clothing that "work" already.

[zapcojake]

maybe its just me but I don't think you get it.

[aysiu]

The history of KDE and Gnome should shed some light on the advantages of a non-merger:

http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/KDE_v_Gnome_history

That's just a brief snippet. For more details, read The Success of Open Source (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674012925/sr=8-2/qid=1144907500/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-1726976-2199242?%5Fencoding=UTF8).

[aysiu]

That would be very self-serving however, considering there's companies who already make quality couches and clothing. You would be better suited to improving couches or clothing that "work" already. You're missing the point--this is already what happens.

Warren Woodford saw that Knoppix was great and decided to tweak it and make Mepis. Now he sees that Ubuntu's a good base, so for the next version of Mepis, he's taking Ubuntu and tweaking it.

New versions of Linux do not reinvent the wheel--that's the beauty of open source. You can take somebody else's hard work and "stand on the shoulders of giants." You can take the Linux distros that "work already" and improve upon them. That's what open source is.

[bjweeks]

Ubuntu......my precious

I just watched lord of the rings don't start that.:)

[Sushi]

In many ways we already have "one OS": Windows. And it stinks. So how exactly is it good to have just one choice?

And why does Linux have so many apps and distros? Because one size does NOT fit all. Developers scratch their own itch. They see the existing apps and they do not do what they want it to do, so they create their own alternative. What should we do about it? Hit them in the head and tell them to stop making new apps?

How about desktops? Should there be just KDE? or just GNOME? What benefit would there be? People who use KDE use it because they like it. People who use GNOME use it because they like it. If you killed one of them, you would have lots of angry users. If you tried merhing them, the end-result would not resemble either of them, and you would (again) have lots of angry users.

I think that quality follows choice. If you have several apps/distros to choose from, the good ones will survive, while bad ones are forgotten. If there is no choice, we will have stagnation and crappiness will follow. Just look at IE: When they competed with Netscape, MS improved the browser. After they had killed Netscape, IE practically stood unchanged FOR YEARS! Now that we have Firefox, MS is scrambling to improve IE.

[asimon]

Anyway, any chance of anything like this?
Sure, as soon as all humans think and act alike. Currently different humans have different needs, this leads in the end (among many other things good and bad) to different linux distros.

[Kimm]

What's with the code forks?


Whats so wrong about that? If someone feels a funktion is missing, something the original developers didnt want, or where unable to provide, why shouldnt I fork the code if I and several others in the community would benefit from it?



Why do we have two main desktop environments, when much more could be acheived with just one?


How could more be achieved with just one? Every KDE app runns in Gnome, and every Gnome app runns in KDE. Even though they might look different desktop Linux is standardized, application docking and desktop icons for example.



Would it be so bad to have one media player to rule them all, provided it was open-source and did everything that was required?


How would anyone benefit from that? Someone might need a player that runs light on system resources, one that only plays Audio, one that docks, one that doesnt... one that is skinnable or one that can buy music online.
If your computer is old and outdated, you wouldnt want a resource hog of a player, even i it does everything.

[helpme]

Sure, as soon as all humans think and act alike. Currently different humans have different needs, this leads in the end (among many other things good and bad) to different linux distros.
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for yourselves! You're ALL individuals!

The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!

Brian: You're all different!

The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!

Man in crowd: I'm not...

The Crowd: Shhhh!

[syg00]

I run (currently) 9 distros of Linux, 2 of Windows.
Choice counts.

After hearing Mark give a keynote talk at LCA a couple of months back (nice photo collage of the space training and trip), and going to a couple of spiels the devs gave, decided to try and resurrect this old laptop with Ubuntu.
Does good. Maybe a bit too close to Windows for my liking, but a good effort.

Might still be the first discarded though.
Like I said, choice counts.

[Sushi]

Would it be so bad to have one media player to rule them all, provided it was open-source and did everything that was required?

How would you do that? Someone wants a media-player that has a very clean and minimal UI and does just handful of things. Someone else wants a media-player with lots of bells and whistles. Someone wants a separate video-player and music-player, and someone else wants a single media-player that does it all. Someone wants a XMMS/WinAmp-style player, and someone else wants a Banshee/iTunes/Amarok-style player. How exactly would those users be satisfied in your utopia? You say that we should have just one app for certain tasks. And I say that that is a DUMB idea!

[tribaal]

And I say that that is a DUMB idea!

I agree.

I like diversity, and the power of choice.
If you feel like a distro should offer only one choice of everything, well that's your choice, and you can either tweak an already existing distro that offers you the choice of doing just that, or make your own (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/)! Or use DSL (http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/) instead, and burn your own liveCD with only programs/features to suit your specific needs.

No one will tell me what's best for me to use, however. Not my IM, not my desktop environment, not my media player, and certainly not my OS.

Have a lot of fun!

- trib'

[Kvark]

If each distro made their own Open Office then it would be a waste of manpower to reinvent the wheel. But now all the different distros use the same Open Office so if one distro fixes a bug in it they hopefully send the fix to Sun who hopefully adds the fix to the next version of Open Office so all distros get the fix when they update to the next version. It is the same deal with all Linux programs from the Linux kernel and GNU toolchain to the game Enigma and the webradio app Streamtuner. It is enough that one distro fixes a bug in the program and then all distros will get the fix next time they update to a new version of the program. So a unified effort to make one standard distro wouldn't reinwent the wheel all the time but many different distros of the same OS+programs don't reinvent the wheel either.

With different programs for the same purpose they do however reinvent the wheel. A new feature in KDE won't help Gnome unless Gnome actively copies the feature. But even though both are DEs they fill different roles. KDE has every feature they can add to it like a Swiss army knife while Gnome is more streamlined and has only the features that are actually needed. You can't remove the clean Gnome DE and say that everyone should use the feature rich KDE instead because not everyone wants the feature rich alternative.

[AndyCooll]

They can go together.

Choice is an important part of society, and in most cases it is choice that leads to quality. You have choice in just about everything you do, from the food you choose to eat to the clothes you wear. Motor companies produce more than one model of each car they make recognising that people have a variety of needs. A company producing even the basics such as milk also give you the choice between full-fat, half-fat and no-fat. Heck even those producers of the forthcoming hasta-la-vista are going to bring out different flavours! So choice is important.

Also choice can lead to healthy competition, spurring the rivals on to constantly improve their products. And from that you get quality.

And so it is with Linux. The beauty of Linux though is that because it is open-source, if one product makes an improvement that is worthy to be included in the rivals product then they can use it too. And even though there is rivalry, it is friendly rivalry. It is why the "quality" of Linux has improved greatly over the last few years.

:cool:

[asimon]

With different programs for the same purpose they do however reinvent the wheel.
No they do not, it's not always "reinventing the wheel". Why do you think we have around 10.000 sound players? They are not all the same. There are differences. Those differences are most of the time the reason why someone started a new one at all. We have muine because the muine developers weren't satisfied with Rhythmbox, etc. The users of amaroK have evidently other needs then users of Muine. There is no way to merge those players because they are too far away in their design, which is exactely the reason why they make their different users happy.
We need different media players, compilers, distributions, browsers, email clients, document management systems, cars, knifes, underwear, etc. to make different people happy. Thus most often it's not about reinventing the wheel, but about different wheels.

Don't always look for the software's purpose. Look at the way how it manages to fullfill it's duty. That's where many differences lie and that's why we prefer one software over an other. Most music players are able to play my music. Still I am no satisfied with most of them. Although they all fullfill their propose (i.e. play music) they don't make me a happy user. That currently only one can manage. And the one which makes one happy is not always the same for everyone.


KDE has every feature they can add to it like a Swiss army knife while Gnome is more streamlined and has only the features that are actually needed.
Actually Gnome may have every feature that you or maybe most of Gnome's userbase need, but it surely hasn't every feature I need. They don't just fullfill different roles. They are very different, they are different wheels, and make different people happy. And this is a good thing. But "Reinventing the wheel" always sounds very negative.

[fuscia]

in order to have one quality item, it would have to do everything everyone wanted. you know that's not going to happen. choice is the only hope for quality.

[mangz74]

I think they're doing this with the LSB of Ian from Debian. I haven't read anything recent about it but I do hope it gets work on.

[zapcojake]

I have Gnome anf KDE installed and use them both. I find Gnome is easier to get used to but KDE has more features at your finger tips. That is not to detract from Gnome it can be loaded with about anything you need also.

[m.musashi]

I like the idea of many splintered Linux distro's. I think it empowers the end users to truly own their computer. Times are changing, gone are the days when a computer was a luxury. Now it is like any other household appliance. Just as you can buy a blue couch or a red one so should your computer be exactly what you want it to be. Also the many distros make it impossible for malicous code (DRM and the like) to ever infultrate and compromise the integrity and quality of Linux as a whole. Computers are first and foremost used to exchange information and I prefer to get my info from a multitude of sources as opposed to having it spoon fed to me from just one.

Well, interesting discussion while I slept. However, let me clarify my point a bit. I'm not in anyway suggesting that there be only ONE Linux. I was trying to get at the idea of a united front. I guess it doesn't have to be a distro per se, but I think it would be nice to have one that was marketed as LINUX. Users and developers could continue to do what they want. There would just be one that the average Joe could put his finger on and say "ah, this is Linux". As was pointed out, that is what will probably happen as one or two distros evolve and gain enough attention to become synonymous with Linux.

Again, I'm not trying to make a case that Linux needs to take over Windows. I like Linux a lot would just like to see it become so well polished and accepted that consumers would have the choice at purchase time between Linux, Windows and Mac (and whatever else comes along). I think it would really cool if in addition to configuring what size hd you want and how much memory you could also pick an OS that is preinstalled and supported by the computer manufacture. A pipe dream? Maybe. But you usually have to dream it first.


Sure, as soon as all humans think and act alike. Currently different humans have different needs, this leads in the end (among many other things good and bad) to different linux distros.

Again, many distros is good. I hope that never changes.


I think they're doing this with the LSB of Ian from Debian. I haven't read anything recent about it but I do hope it gets work on.

Yes, this might be close to what I'm thinking. Good to see that this is happening.

[poofyhairguy]

Is there any chance of a "standard" Linux distro?

Yes, if one gets FAR more popular than all the rest the it can become THE Linux desktop distro. So its possible.

Such a situation might never happen though, as it seems the open nature of things prevents one distro from getting far ahead of the others.

What WILL NOT happen is for the top three distros to all say "lets work together to make THE distro." If we ever have an IT desktop distro it will be hte result of competition, not collaboration.

[Stormy Eyes]

It used to be the Red Hat was the Linux distro, at least as far as Oracle was concerned (if you wanted support from Oracle, you had to run the DB on Red Hat). There was also United Linux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Linux), but the SCO vs. IBM suit issued a kill -9 to that initiative.

[Kvark]

I think it would be nice to have one that was marketed as LINUX. Users and developers could continue to do what they want. There would just be one that the average Joe could put his finger on and say "ah, this is Linux".
Linux the kernel's trademark so that should be easy to do. The trademark owner (Linus Torvalds i assume?) could just make a distro, use his trademark as name for both kernel & distro and demand that other distros that use his trademark in their names don't do it in a way that can be confused with his distro.

But I am pretty sure that distro would not be aimed at the desktop market. The desktop market is just one of several small special markets for Linux and it would be madness to aim "the standard distro" to the small desktop market. It would most likely be aimed at either the server market or maybe corporate networks of both servers and workstations.

Anyway, this "there is no standard for average Joe"-issue shouldn't be a problem. You have Dell, HP, Acer and many other PC distributors yet it doesn't cause confusion. People understand that the connection is that programs that work on a Dell also work on a HP because both are PC but not on a Mac because that is a Mac. So when you have RedHat, Linspire, Ubuntu and many other Linux distributions people should be able to understand that a program that works on RedHat also works on Ubuntu (but with a different installation method) because both are Linux but not on Windows because that is Windows.

[m.musashi]

Anyway, this "there is no standard for average Joe"-issue shouldn't be a problem. You have Dell, HP, Acer and many other PC distributors yet it doesn't cause confusion. People understand that the connection is that programs that work on a Dell also work on a HP because both are PC but not on a Mac because that is a Mac. So when you have RedHat, Linspire, Ubuntu and many other Linux distributions people should be able to understand that a program that works on RedHat also works on Ubuntu (but with a different installation method) because both are Linux but not on Windows because that is Windows.
I'm not too sure about this. I've asked many a user what type of computer they had only to be told "Windows". I think a great many "average" users think that Windows is thier computer (kind of how Mac is a computer and an OS).

[linbetwin]

Bill Gates is having a hard time keeping his company together, and you think one day Novell, Red Hat, Mandriva, Canonical, Linspire, Xandros et al. will come together to make one distro to rule them all ?! Ain't never gonna happen ! Linux and free software was all about diversity from the start and that is how it will remain. The day we'll see ONE unified Linux distro is the day Microsoft will release Windows and Office under the GPL.

Even if one Linux company will buy all it's rivals or drive them to bancruptcy and even if that company's distro will supplant all existing major distros, that will only last one day, because this is OSS land and the rule is FORK, FORK, FORK !

The fact that there are many distros is not confusing to the user. I'm not confused that there are so many IM clients, I just use Yahoo! Messenger because all my friends and colleagues use it. Would it serve drivers better if we had only one car company producing one all-purpose model ?

Linux has a lot of enemies, but it also has two great allies: Broadband Internet and China. 90% of people using Linux have downloaded it from the Internet. Can you imagine downloading 14 CDs of Debian on 56kbps? The phone bill would be equivalent to one Windows+Office licence. The more people get broadband access the more users Linux is going to have. Linux was born about the time the Internet started to matter, it grew thanks to the Internet and it powers the Internet.

And then there's China (+ Brazil, + India...). You may be proud and happy that you convinced one of your friends to ditch Windows and use Linux, at least in dual-boot. But while you were doing that, Sun Wah Linux was installed on 150 000 computers in schools from the Chinese province of Jiangsu (http://news.com.com/The+business+of+Linux+in+China/2008-7344_3-6060122.html). The Chinese government has a policy of promoting the local software industry by preferring its products in acquisitions whenever possible. Of course, Microsoft can exploit that by branching out into China and employing local developers, but the cash would still flow towards Redmond. Linux can be developed locally and independently from foreign influence anywhere in the world, and the cash stays there.

Now let's see what would happen if Dell suddenly started selling and ADVERTISING top-of-the-line PCs preinstalled with Ubuntu, or any other distro. Do you really think Linux could hold it's own on the market ? I seriously and honestly doubt that. You think Linux still has bugs? Wait till the masses start messing with it ! What we would have is poor sales, bad Linux-is-not-ready-for-the-desktop reviews, RTFM jokes and... back to square 1 !

Let Linux mature, let it grow slowly and let there be competition AND collaboration among distros. Linux' time will come and neither Microsoft, nor patents will be able to stop the Penguin march.

But one thing I'm certain of: by the time it conquers the desktop, Linux will not be so free anymore - in both senses of the word. So save some cash for that DRM-laden distro that will someday dethrone Windows and enjoy your freedom while you still have it !

[ThirdWorld]

have you ever wonder why the gnome team are still working on the epiphany web browser? meanwhile millions of linux and non linux users around the world are currently using or are switching to firefox which is the best cross-platform web browser available today, and is 100% open source?

why the gnome team are still working on rhythmbox music player when most linux users prefer amarok? why they dont join forces to work with the KDE guys on the amarok project?

why the KDE project are working on koffice if there is openoffice suite who is becoming a cross platform standard on the market? why they dont join the O.office team? why they are working on digikam if f-spot is a far more superior product? why they dont join forces with the gnome team?


Have you ever wonder why on linux you need to run 8 diferent applications to accomplish what windows media player and itunes can do?

in linux you need:

amarok to load your mp3s lybraries
streamtuner to listen radio streams
(by default you need to install xmms to hear the streams)
easytag to magange your tag ids
gnomebaker to burn a cd
sound juicer to rip a cd
gnomad 2 or any other jukebox interface to transfer music to you creative jukebox or ipod?
sound converter to convert diferent audio files to .mp3 files

Most linux end users want just 1 application that can do all those things, they have stated that many times on forums, bug reports and feature requests but most devs dont listen to them.

so, what if the famous bug #1 is not windows but the linux developers themselves? what if the real issue here is that most of them dont listen to end users and what they really want or what kind of features they expect on linux applications?

what if bug#1 is that most of the linux developers are working on their own pet projects instead of focus in the major ones and what is best for the linux future? what if the real bug #1 is the lack of focus to the end user and the lack of cooperation between linux community members?

[hobbit1983]

Hello,

A major unix / linux philosophy is to write a tool to do one thing but do that "thing" well. Yes this may mean that I need a toolbag to acheive some tasks, but there's nothing new there. Under my sink I have a DIY toolbox. This has lots of tools in there that do a job well not just one "microsoft" all in one hammer that may do everything I want, but be fragile and not strong enough for the job.

Benefit of a toolkit is that if my spanner breaks then all my tools still work!!! - enough of the similie - an OS isn't a DIY toolbox!

As for customer focus. We are all volunteers. We scratch our personal itches. I'm not saying that no developers are customer focused. actually a lot of them are. A bug #1 may be the option of choice. If you want a single tool to do everything you said then feel free to start a project and start one.

sorry if this seems like a moan or a flame. It isn't meant to. I don't think of a bug #1 but of lots of choices. some better than others

[kabus]

Most linux end users want just 1 application that can do all those things


Maybe they should get off their asses and write one, then.



what if bug#1 is that most of the linux developers are working on their own pet projects

Good luck convincing them to work on your pet projects. For free.

[helpme]

Man, this is really getting old. Fast.


have you ever wonder why the gnome team are still working on the epiphany web browser? The people working on epiphany are the epiphany devs. As to why they are working on it? It's different from firefox and better integrated into Gnome, but uses the same rendering engine firefox uses, which is a very efficient way to go about it. Also, believe it or not, there are people who prefer to use it, shouldn't this in itself not be reason enough.


why the gnome team are still working on rhythmbox music player when most linux users prefer amarok? why they dont join forces to work with the KDE guys on the amarok project? Ehm, because rhythmbox is a Gnome application, whereas amarok is a KDE app? Because they are so different that many rhythmbox users would be screaming if they had to use amarok and vice versa?


why the KDE project are working on koffice if there is openoffice suite who is becoming a cross platform standard on the market? Have you ever used koffice? It integrates nicely into KDE, provides things OO doesn't provide, works differently from OO and again, there are people who prefer it.
Also, thinking that the people who work on koffice would and could work on OO is simply wrong.


why they are working on digikam if f-spot is a far more superior product? See above and the I really like f-spot, how come it is "far more superior"?????


Have you ever wonder why on linux you need to run 8 diferent applications to accomplish what windows media player and itunes can do?

in linux you need:

amarok to load your mp3s lybraries
streamtuner to listen radio streams
(by default you need to install xmms to hear the streams)
easytag to magange your tag ids
gnomebaker to burn a cd
sound juicer to rip a cd
gnomad 2 or any other jukebox interface to transfer music to you creative jukebox or ipod?
sound converter to convert diferent audio files to .mp3 files
The short answer, you don't.
amarok plays my mp3s, let's me listen to radio streams, burns music cds, let's me manager my tags, and even works fine with an ipod.
Same applies for other music players.

Really, one thing I can't understand for the life of me is why some people always presume that if there wasn't any choice about applications the world would be better. It just defies believe.](*,)


Edit:adjusted to fit better

[groggyboy]

While I can see your point, ThridWorld, I'd have to agree with hobbit1983. Choices are what make the linux world such a joy. If I don't like one program, I can always switch to another. That's why I run four different music players on my computer. Its also why I have GNOME and Xfce running in harmony. Choice. Thats what makes this libre and not Windows.

cheers,
groggyboy

[GeneralZod]

If this is indeed the "real" bug #1 (I'd put it waaay down the list, personally), then it would be harder to solve than the "official" bug #1, in my opinion - if managing kernel developers is like "herding cats", then managing desktop developers is like herding amphetamine-fuelled frogs :) About the only way to solve it is to snap up all desktop developers (including developers of all of the thousands of Linux apps), pay them a wage and write it into their contract that they can only work on $PROJECT_X.

The cure would be worse than the disease, in my opinion :)


Also, has it occurred to you that some projects simply are not comparible with each other, due to conflicting design decisions? For example, Firefox uses some bizarre hybrid of XUL and GTK to render its interface and is considered by many to be a shoddy port (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=174577&highlight=firefox+sucks), whereas Epiphany is 100% GNOME-native and its UI is written in C - Firefox will never be as fast or well-integrated into GNOME as Epiphany is, not matter how much work is done on it. And besides, perhaps the Epiphany guys don't have skills that would be benefit Firefox development - perhaps they hate/ suck at C++, for example. Also, amaroK depends on kdelibs, which many people consider simply unacceptable. Again, no amount of work on amaroK is going to fix this. People seem to look at programmers as completely interchangeable cogs - if an X developer fails, replacing him with a Listen developer! - whereas nothing could be further than the truth. This goes treble for unpaid volunteers.

Having a monolithic, one-app-does-all thing is a fairly horrible idea, in my opinion - much better to have compatible interfaces to a bunch of apps so that (say) the CD-writing component can easily be swapped out for other ones, or not used altogether.

Regarding KOffice vs OO.o, it's worth noticing that the codebase for OO.o is alledged to be truly, utterly horrible ("#define private public", anyone?), and I can easily see progress getting slower and slower and slower until it rivals Vista in its glacial pace of development. KOffice, on the other hand, has far more components, integrates wonderfully into KDE, and, though it has only, say, 70-80% of the functionality of OO, it has a code-base 1/5th the size of that of OO.o. One fifth, and about a hundred times cleaner. If I was a developer looking to work on an office suite, KOffice would be a no-brainer.

Oh, and its also worth noting that both Firefox and OO.o are developed in a heavily "Cathedral-style" manner - good luck getting a CVS account or getting any significant amount of your work accepted.

[Carrots171]

The short answer, you don't.
amarok plays my mp3s, let's me listen to radio streams, burns music cds, let's me manager my tags, and even works fine with an ipod.
Same applies for other music players.

I agree. I actually use two apps for all of my mp3's. (Banshee for playing, ripping, burning, and tag editing, and Gnomad2 for putting the music on my Creative mp3 player).

[RAV TUX]

Have you tried Gmusicbrowser? Does ITunes play ogg vorbis files? who wants the terrible sound quality of MP3's anyway?

http://squentin.free.fr/gmusicbrowser/gmusicbrowser.html

[Kindred]

I have not wondered those things at all, choice is good and can only be a positive thing as far as i'm concerned. One application is not going to serve many different needs, this is pretty obvious isn't it? I sure don't want to use amaroK.

"Most linux end users want just 1 application that can do all those things, they have stated that many times on forums, bug reports and feature requests but most devs dont listen to them."

I very much doubt this. I wouldn't go near something as bloated as iTunes, ('Make each program do one thing well' is a fantastic Unix philosophy). This is where that whole choice thing comes in. Besides, why should devs listen to users anyway? They don't have a whole lot to gain for the most part.

(I happen to think the whole bug #1 thing is dumb also, but that's another thread..)

[egon spengler]

It's seldom that you will see a person make so many bold assertions and get almost every single one of them wrong.

As far as this idea that most Linux users want one do-it-all program I really am completely shocked that you have somehow managed to completely miss the (imo asinine) trend amongst so many Linux users to instantly denounce any software that does more than one task as "bloatware". A serious question, what forums/mailing lists/user groups do you participate in that lead you to believe that most users are tired of choice and want one compendium app?

On a side note, I think we can all safely agree that bug #1 of the ubuntu forums is the never ending stream of "I know exactly what to do to make Linux take over the world" posts

[Kvark]

There isn't as much duplication of work as it looks like because the programs are open source and do use eachothers' code.

For example Epiphany and Galeon are not making their own web browsers to compete with Firefox. They are taking Firefox's render engine and wrapping it into programs that are faster and integrates better into Gnome. Since they don't make their own render engines they are only doing a fraction of the work that would be needed to make a web browser from scratch. To use gamer speak I'd say they are "Firefox mods".

Another example is that Streamtuner doesn't make it's own media player. They only make a web radio browser and hands over the rest of the work to xmms or any player of your choosing. Also I'm pretty sure even those who go through the job to make a whole media player all uses the same programs (mpg123, ogg123 and friends) to do the actual playing instead of writing their own routines for decoding files and playing sound.

BTW. Epiphany and Galeon have merged into one project now since they where both doing Gnome ports of Firefox. One step closer to solving your bug #1.

[egon spengler]

Something else I should add, Windows users who prefer to use the best apps available on their system wouldn't use WMP for all of their music management

They'd rip with EAC, burn with nero, transfer to their portable audio player with whatever (or be extra smart and get one that works as UMS) and play with foobar. True foobar can tag but then so can amarok, quod libet and (I believe) listen and gmusicbrowser

[Stormy Eyes]

By Lilith's heart-shaped ****, ThirdWorld's as annoying about this subject as I can be about taxation and government interference. Listen, ThirdWorld. When I first started with Linux in 1999, I had three choices: XMMS (which was ugly), FreeAMP (which was ugly), and the commandline tool mpg123. I chose the commandline tool. Be grateful you have the choices you do, and learn to live and let die.

[AllenGG]

Are we missing something here ???????
First, any program that is a "do-all" usually is frought with trouble, count on it !
Second : "is Windows the REAL BUG", no, just the crappy programming, see "Windows Media Player" , one do-all !!!!!
Note here, recently bought a new, inexpensive laptop, came with Win XP, mercy, mercy, no blue screens, just total freeze-ups, often. It's an ACER, difficult to migrate to Ubuntu, but maybe.....................>>>>http://www.impilinux.co.za/

(Allen G)

[Wallakoala]

in linux you need:

amarok to load your mp3s lybraries
streamtuner to listen radio streams
(by default you need to install xmms to hear the streams)
easytag to magange your tag ids
gnomebaker to burn a cd
sound juicer to rip a cd
gnomad 2 or any other jukebox interface to transfer music to you creative jukebox or ipod?
sound converter to convert diferent audio files to .mp3 files



You obviously haven't used banshee...
Banshee can do all of the things in bold. It can burn cds, rip cds, manage tags, sync with the ipod, and even convert your files to mp3 if you want.

And no....most people don't use amaroK

[Sheinar]

You could have 1000 users tell ThirdWorld that they don't want an all-in-one app, and he'd just go "shut up, you're wrong. I think I know what users want more than you do."

[eentonig]

I don't believe Windows/Microsoft is bug #1. Neither do I think the chaotic development of Linux is #1.

I don't even want Linux to be the OS #1 in the world. Why should it be? Some people like their OS to do the thinking for them. Even if it makes stupid decisions.
Yesterday, I went to install a wireless netwerk in a friends house. While I was there, he asked me to install several other apps as well. So I got him on his way and started the installers. One of the first things he asked me was "I just always click on <ok>, right?". Most people are not served with the freedom of linux. Because most people don't want to think. They just want to play/eat/brwose/burn/whatever...
I do believe most applications are easier on Windows. Hardware is easier to intall under windows. I agree that windows is buggier and needs reinstalling every x months/years. But why should they care? They just call me to reinstall everything for them. By me a few beers. And chat about the familie and friends while the programs are installing. I don't mind.

I don't. So I like to look around and choose a program for the task at hand. That's why I choose Linux. Not because the wonderfull apps. My PC boots 5 times faster then my collegues. But I had to tweak it for about two weeks to get it that way. Am I stupid, or are they? I don't care. I like tweaking, I like learning, I like freedon of choice. But that's just me.

[Stormy Eyes]

You could have 1000 users tell ThirdWorld that they don't want an all-in-one app, and he'd just go "shut up, you're wrong. I think I know what users want more than you do."

Yeah, it's the ever popular, "I'm inexperienced, so I know what other inexperienced users want" attitude. People who presume to speak for anybody but themselves should be slapped across the face.

[hizaguchi]

You could have 1000 users tell ThirdWorld that they don't want an all-in-one app, and he'd just go "shut up, you're wrong. I think I know what users want more than you do."
Very good point. Makes you wonder why Linux is growing so fast when it so obviously ignores everybody that knows what they're talking about. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I'm really glad that the people writting the code are also the ones that get to make these decisions. By the time you know enough to be able to write such awesome programs, you know alot more about how things should work than someone who just looks at the project and tries to make judgements without any deeper knowledge of why the design decisions were made.

I mean, no sane person would walk into Boeing and say, "Hey, if you wanna keep selling airplanes, you should really make the rows 50 seats wide. I mean, I know more about this stuff than you engineers, so you should really listen to me on this."

[Reshin]

I myself use mplayer for movies, xmms/aucacious for music, grip for ripping and gnomeroast/k3b for burning. I think apps dedicated to their one cause work much then those all-in-one-thingies.

Btw, most people I know don't give a crap about what player they are using as long as it plays the file they opened. Funnily my folks like WMP 'cuz of it's large buttons....easy to find...

And one other don't-know-about-funny thing about windows. Before I shut down that reporting feature, most of my apps use to crash randomly and show that send report request-dialog. After I shut it's service, I no longer get that dialog and ironically, crashings ceased....

[Christmas]

have you ever wonder why the gnome team are still working on the epiphany web browser? meanwhile millions of linux and non linux users around the world are currently using or are switching to firefox which is the best cross-platform web browser available today, and is 100% open source?

why the gnome team are still working on rhythmbox music player when most linux users prefer amarok? why they dont join forces to work with the KDE guys on the amarok project?
Well I think more applications for the same purpose it's not a bad thing. One of the articles related to this can be found at aysiu's homepage here: http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux.php which I am totally agreed with. And of course, if I'd be a programmer I'd probably want to make my own project, to "fly on my own wings", I guess that's OK.

Have you ever wonder why on linux you need to run 8 diferent applications to accomplish what windows media player and itunes can do?
In Windows you may have even more than 8 applications for the same task. There are lots of spyware scanners, at least 5-6 major office suites, at least 10-15 major audio and video players. Just think of Winamp, Windows Media Player, BSPlayer, iTunes, Media Player Classic and there is more. Not to mention that most of hardware manufacturers (say Leadtek) have their own software for video/image processing or watching TV using a TV-Tunner.

What you can do in Linux you can do in Windows too. In Windows you can choose from a variety of music players, codec packs, video players, image processing software, office tools... In Linux you can do the same and it's just better to be many tools for one thing out there than only one, if it would be just one Linux would be monopolistic like Windows is.

[Christmas]

what if bug#1 is that most of the linux developers are working on their own pet projects instead of focus in the major ones and what is best for the linux future? what if the real bug #1 is the lack of focus to the end user and the lack of cooperation between linux community members? This is impossible. There is nothing wrong if somebody wants to make its own project. He is not obligated to contribute to amaroK, or Rhythmbox or Listen or whatever. He maybe wants to make a personal project, something to suit his needs. The project gets bigger and he releases it and everything is just OK. Nobody should "focus in the major ones" just because they're free to do whatever they want. And if you didn't know, "pet projects" are the ones that brought Linux to life and even distros (Debian, Slackware - they all started as "pet projects").

You mentioned amaroK as a music player but you forget that amaroK is for KDE. Rhythmbox is GNOME and there were discussions about programs not working very well on their non-native environment.

[aysiu]

Just for the record, Bug #1 is not Windows.

According to Launchpad (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1), it is
Microsoft has a majority market share.

[DSn0wMan]

I personally enjoy the many opensource projects for media players etc. I agree with the guy who said linux is good for ppl who like tinkering with their computers. I really like mplayer, with a bit of tinkering it plays pretty much anything.

I also like to use XBMC on my XBox. I can play almost any type of multi-media file, and connect to NFS, and Samba shares. It's like having a media center PC, but its open source, and wont cost you an arm and a leg.

[ThirdWorld]

I do love most of these replies. What is funny is that all this angry folks yelling at me are the ones who later blame Microsoft and Bill Gates for everything. they go "if Linux dont go mainstream is M$ fault... yeah, resistance is futile dude, end users sucks... lets load gentoo and resize 3,000 pictures with the terminal..."

I dont see how, in 2006 Microsoft is preventing anything from happening? if you have few million potential users who are ready to switch to linux but dont do it because simple tasks are complicated to do (read it: 8 programs to do what 1 app can do on windows "Itunes").
If that 4 or 5 million users want something similar to the itunes or WMP programs, even if you hate it and you think is bloatware, why dont give it that to them? is what people is used to use and want in the first place. Costumers want 1 application that can do all those things and more, thats the reason itunes exist and they OWN 70% of the market!

So linux is like people who have a bakery, hundreds of costumers come in everyday and ask for chocolate donuts, and they reply "we dont sell donuts, you dont need them, you need sweet bread, eat it, and be thankful we bake it in the first place" and the costumer goes... "arr.. ok... maybe I should keep buying bread at the other bakery down street, thanks..." :rolleyes:

[aysiu]

So linux is like people who have a bakery, hundreds of costumers come in everyday and ask for chocolate donuts, and they reply "we dont sell donuts, you dont need them, you need sweet bread, eat it, and be thankful we bake it in the first place" and the costumer goes... "arr.. ok... maybe I should keep buying bread at the other bakery down street, thanks..." :rolleyes: As someone who loves both donuts and bakery treats, I think it's kind of silly for people who love chocolate donuts to go to a bakery demanding them. I would just go to the local donut shop.

I don't know if that analogy is appropriate anyway, though. Donuts are a different kind of pastry. They are not the same food at all.

I agree that iTunes is wonderful, so why don't you ask Apple to release a Linux port of it? They listen to their users, right? After all, they made a Windows port. It's not a Mac-only application.

It's more like a donut shop (Apple or Microsoft) that makes chocolate donuts and doesn't release their recipe. Then people like you go to the other donut shop down the street and say, "Why don't you make donuts like those guys?"

[helpme]

I do love most of these replies. What is funny is that all this angry folks yelling at me are the ones who later blame Microsoft and Bill Gates for everything. they go "if Linux dont go mainstream is M$ fault... yeah, resistance is futile dude, end users sucks... lets load gentoo and resize 3,000 pictures with the terminal..."

I dont see how, in 2006 Microsoft is preventing anything from happend? if you have few million potential users who are ready to switch to linux but dont do it because simple tasks are complicated to do (read it: 8 programs to do what 1 app can do on windows "Itunes").
If that 4 or 5 million users want something similar to the itunes or WMP programs, even if you hate it and you think is bloatware, why dont give it that to them? is what people is used to use and want in the first place. Costumers want 1 application that can do all those things and more, thats the reason itunes exist and they OWN 70% of the market!

So linux is like people who have a bakery, hundreds of costumers come in everyday and ask for chocolate donuts, and they reply "we dont sell donuts, you dont need them, you need sweet bread, eat it, and be thankful we bake it in the first place" and the costumer goes... "arr.. ok... maybe I should keep buying bread at the other bakery down street, thanks..." :rolleyes:
*claps hands*
You really did a great job at ignoring all the arguments people made.
Instead you chose to call them names.
Impressive.

[airtonix]

I like it this way......i dont appreciate having to either of these tasks with bloatware.... nor do i appreciate being forced into an enviroment where the only available software is the kind that runs on the hard ware you currently dont have.....possibly due to your non-conformist behaviour....nahhhhh.

[ThirdWorld]

*claps hands*
You really did a great job at ignoring all the arguments people made.
Instead you chose to call them names.
Impressive.

...you are late, I was missing your insults... ;)

[Kvark]

and the costumer goes... "arr.. ok... maybe I should keep buying bread at the other bakery down street, thanks..." :rolleyes:
Yeah, maybe you should do that. What else can you do if you have given Banshee, Gmusicbrowser and all the other alternatives an honest chance and none of them are acceptable to you. You could make a player that works like you want it to but that would require a lot of skill and time. You could pay someone to do it but that would require a fortune. You could whine on a forum where other ordinary users hang out but that won't help at all. So I guess you have no other alternative then to go to the other bakery down the street until someone with skills or money comes to the same conclusions as you.

[aysiu]

I'll be perfectly honest here.

No music application suits all my needs.

I like iTunes. I think it's a great application. I like AmaroK. I like Rhythmbox. I like JuK.

But applications are not developed for me. They're developed for users in general... or sometimes just for fun.

What I like in iTunes--easy tag editing and sorting. The fact that it uses a library instead of scanning means that songs load up quickly in a playlist. It also just looks pretty. I don't like how it manages my folders and song naming for me.

What I like in AmaroK--lyrics fetching, on-screen display, global keyboard shortcut support (this feature is really important to me, as I listen to music while using other applications). Scanning means I never have to worry about whether I accidentally deleted songs from my library and then didn't delete the files. It also means that if I want to "refresh" I have to wait for AmaroK to scan my files. Since I can direct AmaroK to scan my folders, though, I can have control over how I name my files and organize my music. I can use a tool like EasyTag or TagTool to rename my songs by artist, title, album, and track. I can't do that in iTunes.

JuK has a lot of the features I like in AmaroK. It has global keyboard shortcuts and on-screen display of songs. It also refreshes my folders a lot faster than AmaroK. It doesn't fetch lyrics or do smart playlists, though.

Both JuK and AmaroK in Dapper now support more fully inline tag editing, but I still use EasyTag or TagTool to do more advanced bulk operations.

Rhythmbox has easy ratings and playcounts the way iTunes does them, and I like that. That's about it.

I think it's all a matter of personal preference. iTunes is a wonderful application, but I don't bow at the feet of iTunes or think it's a far superior application to AmaroK. ThirdWorld, go ahead and bug Apple to release iTunes for Linux. See how much they care about you as an end-user.

P.S. I don't use an iPod. I have a Sandisk MP3 player, so drag-and-drop doesn't work for iTunes. In JuK, AmaroK, and Rhythmbox, I can drag songs straight from the music player window to my Sandisk player to add songs to it.

[airtonix]

no sorry your not actually using the right analogy there buddy.....

windows is to linux like bread is to an oven..... windows 98 is a beagle with blueberry jam....

lol

You fooool!!! has thou not done advertising and realised the impact brought by the lack thereof?????

Microsoft said it true, when they thought someone was asking them about modes of thought.....they replied "Standards??? We are the standard!!"....lol

So Meester Bond, i zuggesT! you return with ze tri-tanium 4-4-5.

[ThirdWorld]

Yeah, maybe you should do that. What else can you do if you have given Banshee, Gmusicbrowser and all the other alternatives an honest chance and none of them are acceptable to you. You could make a player that works like you want it to but that would require a lot of skill and time. You could pay someone to do it but that would require a fortune. You could whine on a forum where other ordinary users hang out but that won't help at all. So I guess you have no other alternative then to go to the other bakery down the street until someone with skills or money comes to the same conclusions as you.


lack of vision i think... Linux is loosing so many business oportunities. I mean, what is preventing amarok to work with manufacturers and port the application to gnome, windows and mac and be shiped with every jukebox on earth besides ipod? is free software. so its not going to cost a dime to manufacturers. Amarok can ship the cds for free and make money in an online music store, or cut a deal with amazon. like i said, lack of vision.

i think thats the future of songbird, they will do what other are not doing because they want to keep playing mp3s with their console...

[prizrak]

There are enough programs for Linux that do what you want. Totem can play audio and video w/o a problem. It can also do tagging AFAIK. One thing I want is better integration for programs. For instance right now you need an mplayer mozilla plug in for Firefox instead of just being able to install Totem-xine that will associate with FF as an embedded content player. It would also be nice if you could burn things from the program with your burner of choice. For instance in Nautilus instead of using it's own CD creator I want it to start Gnomebaker whenever I chose to burn files. Something like that is a worthy goal IMHO and a fairly realistic one. However we still have the application choice that we do now.


I do love most of these replies. What is funny is that all this angry folks yelling at me are the ones who later blame Microsoft and Bill Gates for everything. they go "if Linux dont go mainstream is M$ fault... yeah, resistance is futile dude, end users sucks... lets load gentoo and resize 3,000 pictures with the terminal..."

I dont see how, in 2006 Microsoft is preventing anything from happend? if you have few million potential users who are ready to switch to linux but dont do it because simple tasks are complicated to do (read it: 8 programs to do what 1 app can do on windows "Itunes").
If that 4 or 5 million users want something similar to the itunes or WMP programs, even if you hate it and you think is bloatware, why dont give it that to them? is what people is used to use and want in the first place. Costumers want 1 application that can do all those things and more, thats the reason itunes exist and they OWN 70% of the market!

So linux is like peple who have a bakery, hundreds of costumers come in everyday and ask for chocolate donuts, and they reply "we dont sell donuts, you dont need them, you need sweet bread, eat it, and be thankful we bake it in the first place" and the costumer goes... "arr.. ok... maybe I should keep buying bread at the other bakery down street, thanks..."

I do love how you are judging people based on a few sentences. The reason for iTunes to be so popular is not because it's a good program or users want it, it's because iPod is popular and that's what you use to sync your iPod. People who are ready to switch to Linux do switch and figure it out, it is a different OS with its own different features, it has a learning curve inevitably. People who will not use a different OS because they are used to one application and won't bother to take the time to learn another one are not ready to switch OS's they will not put the time in needed to learn the OS.

Another thing you are convenietly overlooking is a simple fact that many people who might be fed up with Windows and want to try something new will not neccesseraly have the knowledge to install their own OS on a computer. IMHO installing Ubuntu (and just about any non uber geeky Linux) is easier than Windows but not many people ever install Windows from an actual naked CD, if they reinstall it is from an OEM restore disk most likely. Why don't you do a little experiment, install Ubuntu on a computer, configure it with all the codecs and applications that would be needed by an "average" user. Hand the computer to an "average" Windows user, show them which app does what (or create descriptive enough shortcuts) and see how hard it is for them to use it, or how much they'll complain and what they complain about.

On a personal note I used multiple programs on Windows as well because there was no one application that could do everything well.
I never installed video support for Winamp because it sucks *** for video but kills just about anything for audio.
I used Media Player Classic for all my video but never audio.
I used Nero for burning since it's the best burning software I have ever seen in my entire life.
I used CDex when I needed to rip things, because WMP and iTunes are not as good, the latter only rips at 128kbps anyway.
You see where I'm going with this? One solution for everything is rarely a good thing, it is the same as human evolution, back in the dark ages everyone did everything; now we specialize because you cannot do everything well only some things. It is exactly the same with software when a team of programmers spends their entire time on a CD burning application testing it with as many burners as possible, looking for bugs, improving the UI, they can make it into a very good application their focus is on NOTHING but burning and they only have to worry about making it burn REAL well.
EDIT: Forgot another point I was going to make. iTunes may be great but it also takes up a lot of resources compared to Winamp or XMMS. The reason the latter ones don't take up much resources is because they do one thing and one thing only.

[helpme]

...you are late, I was missing your insults... ;)
What insults?
It was just an observation.
You ignored all the argument of all the people who answered to your little rant and instead chose to paint them all as some crazy linux zealots who don't want linux to improve.

Not that it is surprising though, as that's what you always do and of course, it's a rather typical troll tactic.

So, tell me, how come you repeat something others have shown you to be wrong. (The 8 applications you claim to need)?

How come you ignore what people have said about why they think you are wrong with wanting only one app for every job?

How come that you ignored the people who pointed out that it's rather naive to think that devs who stop to work on one project can and will work on one you like?

How come you ignored all the arguments people put forth to explain why for example there is a need for rhythmbox and amarok?

[ThirdWorld]

There are enough programs for Linux that do what you want. Totem can play audio and video w/o a problem. It can also do tagging AFAIK. One thing I want is better integration for programs. For instance right now you need an mplayer mozilla plug in for Firefox instead of just being able to install Totem-xine that will associate with FF as an embedded content player. It would also be nice if you could burn things from the program with your burner of choice. For instance in Nautilus instead of using it's own CD creator I want it to start Gnomebaker whenever I chose to burn files. Something like that is a worthy goal IMHO and a fairly realistic one. However we still have the application choice that we do now.



I do love how you are judging people based on a few sentences. The reason for iTunes to be so popular is not because it's a good program or users want it, it's because iPod is popular and that's what you use to sync your iPod. People who are ready to switch to Linux do switch and figure it out, it is a different OS with its own different features, it has a learning curve inevitably. People who will not use a different OS because they are used to one application and won't bother to take the time to learn another one are not ready to switch OS's they will not put the time in needed to learn the OS.

Another thing you are convenietly overlooking is a simple fact that many people who might be fed up with Windows and want to try something new will not neccesseraly have the knowledge to install their own OS on a computer. IMHO installing Ubuntu (and just about any non uber geeky Linux) is easier than Windows but not many people ever install Windows from an actual naked CD, if they reinstall it is from an OEM restore disk most likely. Why don't you do a little experiment, install Ubuntu on a computer, configure it with all the codecs and applications that would be needed by an "average" user. Hand the computer to an "average" Windows user, show them which app does what (or create descriptive enough shortcuts) and see how hard it is for them to use it, or how much they'll complain and what they complain about.

On a personal note I used multiple programs on Windows as well because there was no one application that could do everything well.
I never installed video support for Winamp because it sucks *** for video but kills just about anything for audio.
I used Media Player Classic for all my video but never audio.
I used Nero for burning since it's the best burning software I have ever seen in my entire life.
I used CDex when I needed to rip things, because WMP and iTunes are not as good, the latter only rips at 128kbps anyway.
You see where I'm going with this? One solution for everything is rarely a good thing, it is the same as human evolution, back in the dark ages everyone did everything; now we specialize because you cannot do everything well only some things. It is exactly the same with software when a team of programmers spends their entire time on a CD burning application testing it with as many burners as possible, looking for bugs, improving the UI, they can make it into a very good application their focus is on NOTHING but burning and they only have to worry about making it burn REAL well.
EDIT: Forgot another point I was going to make. iTunes may be great but it also takes up a lot of resources compared to Winamp or XMMS. The reason the latter ones don't take up much resources is because they do one thing and one thing only.

amarok use 126mb of memory, when i load amarok java_vm loads, and it takes an additional 268mb, also 5 diferent process load each one consuming around between 24 to 26mb: Kded, kio_file, kdeinit, klauncher, dcopserver so total of memory consumed is more than 500mb

[aysiu]

amarok use 126mb of memory, when i load amarok java_vm loads, and it takes an additional 268mb, also 5 diferent process load each one consuming around between 24 to 26mb: Kded, kio_file, kdeinit, klauncher, dcopserver so total of memory consumed is more than 500mb Linux doesn't like to waste memory:

http://gentoo-wiki.com/FAQ_Linux_Memory_Management

[helpme]

amarok use 126mb of memory, when i load amarok java_vm loads, and it takes an additional 268mb,

no, java_vm certainly doesn't load with amarok.



also 5 diferent process load each one consuming around between 24 to 26mb: Kded, kio_file, kdeinit, klauncher, dcopserver so total of memory consumed is more than 500mb
This is stuff that's running with every kde session anyway. Might give you an idea how integrated amarok is into kde and what a silly idea it is to think it can either replace a native gnome application, or be easily rewritten as a gnome application.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I do love most of these replies. What is funny is that all this angry folks yelling at me are the ones who later blame Microsoft and Bill Gates for everything. they go "if Linux dont go mainstream is M$ fault... yeah, resistance is futile dude, end users sucks... lets load gentoo and resize 3,000 pictures with the terminal..."

I dont see how, in 2006 Microsoft is preventing anything from happening? if you have few million potential users who are ready to switch to linux but dont do it because simple tasks are complicated to do (read it: 8 programs to do what 1 app can do on windows "Itunes").
If that 4 or 5 million users want something similar to the itunes or WMP programs, even if you hate it and you think is bloatware, why dont give it that to them? is what people is used to use and want in the first place. Costumers want 1 application that can do all those things and more, thats the reason itunes exist and they OWN 70% of the market!

So linux is like people who have a bakery, hundreds of costumers come in everyday and ask for chocolate donuts, and they reply "we dont sell donuts, you dont need them, you need sweet bread, eat it, and be thankful we bake it in the first place" and the costumer goes... "arr.. ok... maybe I should keep buying bread at the other bakery down street, thanks..." :rolleyes:

Who is saying what is in quotes at the top? Did you make that up?

Here is my attempt at satire:

It's not a choclate donut the users wants. It has to be a donut that is also a cruller. And a bear claw. It has to be cream filled. Also, it has to be hot on one end and cold on the other. It would be nice if it had ham on it. There should be 1 baked good, that tastes the same as all the other goods, but combined in one. People want just one donut that is superior to all these other donuts, cakes, pastries... Why do people make donut holes? So useless. If all those bakers making donut holes worked together, that dough could be combined into the ultimate donut.

[GeneralZod]

amarok use 126mb of memory, when i load amarok java_vm loads, and it takes an additional 268mb, also 5 diferent process load each one consuming around between 24 to 26mb: Kded, kio_file, kdeinit, klauncher, dcopserver so total of memory consumed is more than 500mb

Amarok uses 35MB here, 25MB of which are shared libraries which were probably in memory already. No java_vm here, either.

[aysiu]

There really should be one ultimate food that combines all the best ingredients and nutrients. We need one food served by one restaurant owned by one corporation that has one vision and one set of shareholders. That won't waste resources.

Seriously, though, I use basically two applications--JuK and KAudioCreator. KAudioCreator rips CDs for me (and tags them), and JuK plays them, organizes them, edits tags on them (if need be), and lets me drag and drop to my Sandisk player.

If I have more sophisticated tagging or renaming needs, I use EasyTag. If I want to burn a CD (which can be done in AmaroK, actually (http://rokymotion.pwsp.net/promowiki/index.php/Handbook/Using_Amarok), though I prefer JuK), I use K3B because I like it.

What's the big deal? If you want to do a mass renaming of songs based on their tags, how would you do that in iTunes? If you wanted to copy certain playlists from iTunes to a non-iPod MP3 player, how would you do that in iTunes? If you wanted to use global keyboard shortcuts, how would you do that in iTunes--you might need (*gasp*) a separate application for that (http://www.yellowmug.com/sk4it/content.html)? How would you fetch lyrics for a song (http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macgems/2005/09/pearlyrics/index.php)?

See, what you're really doing is using iTunes as a basis for judging the tasks you want to accomplish and saying "How can I accomplish this in Ubuntu? I think I need several apps for that" instead of using Linux applications as a basis for judging what iTunes can't do.

[GeneralZod]

V
I mean, no sane person would walk into Boeing and say, "Hey, if you wanna keep selling airplanes, you should really make the rows 50 seats wide. I mean, I know more about this stuff than you engineers, so you should really listen to me on this."

Hehe - indeed not :)


However, I personally am strongly of the opinion that Boeing should merge with the Ship and Car industries - I mean, do we really need all these different forms of transportation? Pretty much every one I've spoken to say they'd rather drive/ fly/ sail a Flying Boat-Car but, of course, Boeing, Ford etc just want to do their own thing. How on earth do they expect Transportation to become widespread with this attitude?

[Do I win the prize for Most Strained Analogy of the Thread? :D]

[prizrak]

edit: n/m it has been refuted earlier

[prizrak]

Hehe - indeed not :)


However, I personally am strongly of the opinion that Boeing should merge with the Ship and Car industries - I mean, do we really need all these different forms of transportation? Pretty much every one I've spoken to say they'd rather drive/ fly/ sail a Flying Boat-Car but, of course, Boeing, Ford etc just want to do their own thing. How on earth do they expect Transportation to become widespread with this attitude?

[Do I win the prize for Most Strained Analogy of the Thread? :D]
I agree, man I'm mofing tired of having to drive to the airport, leave my car there, go through all the security crap (they keep taking my damn rocket launcher wtf?) then get on a plane, then have to rent a car when I get there, it's just plain annoying and not user friendly. I one boat-plane-car vehicle would be much better, so what if the wings would make it impossible to driver, or that you would have to fill it up with jet fuel and get a boating and pilot license in addition to a driver's license, it would be user friendly!

[DSn0wMan]

Hehe - indeed not :)


However, I personally am strongly of the opinion that Boeing should merge with the Ship and Car industries - I mean, do we really need all these different forms of transportation? Pretty much every one I've spoken to say they'd rather drive/ fly/ sail a Flying Boat-Car but, of course, Boeing, Ford etc just want to do their own thing. How on earth do they expect Transportation to become widespread with this attitude?

[Do I win the prize for Most Strained Analogy of the Thread? :D]

You win the prize indeed.

[ThirdWorld]

amarok can't burn cds, at least i cant find that feature... it cant transfer .mp3s to my zen micro, nor to my wife's ultra cheap ilo. And it eat my system resources. but dont get me wrong, i do like amarok more than i like itunes.

[BoyOfDestiny]

amarok can't burn cds, at least i cant find that feature... it cant transfer .mp3s to my zen micro, nor to my wife's ultra cheap ilo. And it eat my system resources. but dont get me wrong, i do like amarok more than i like itunes.

Googling for 1 second.

Integrated CD Burning

amaroK makes it easy to burn CDs of your favorite tracks. Need a CD to play back in your car or home stereo? Select the tracks in the amaroK playlist, right-click and select the "burn" button. (Requires K3B)

http://amarok.kde.org/amarokwiki/index.php/What_is_amaroK%3F

[ThirdWorld]

Googling for 1 second.

Integrated CD Burning

amaroK makes it easy to burn CDs of your favorite tracks. Need a CD to play back in your car or home stereo? Select the tracks in the amaroK playlist, right-click and select the "burn" button. (Requires K3B)

http://amarok.kde.org/amarokwiki/index.php/What_is_amaroK%3F


in the name of Hecate, how intuitive... amazing!! :rolleyes:

problem is, its grey and don't work, no matter how many times you click it in the popup menu...

note: granted that my wife will be able to burn all her cds with amarok like she does with itunes...

[aysiu]

amarok can't burn cds, at least i cant find that feature... Sure it can, though it calls an external program to do it. See the attached screenshot.
it cant transfer .mp3s to my zen micro, nor to my wife's ultra cheap ilo. So AmaroK:

No Zen Micro or Ilo.
Yes, Sandisk and a bunch of other players.

iTunes:

iPod only.
No Zen Micro, Sandisk, or anything else.

Guess who wins for compatibility?
And it eat my system resources. Did you read the link to the Gentoo Wiki I posted earlier?
but dont get me wrong, i do like amarok more than i like itunes. I like them each about the same... I posted my pros and cons a few posts back.

[BoyOfDestiny]

in the name of Hecate, how intuitive... amazing!! :rolleyes:

problem is, its grey and don't work, no matter how many times you click it in the popup menu...

note: granted that my wife will be able to burn all her cds with amarok like she does with itunes...

Do you have k3b installed? Might be time to file a bug if so.

[aysiu]

in the name of Hecate, how intuitive... amazing!! :rolleyes: iTunes is not at all intuitive, believe me. When I first started using it, I thought, "Why is this so difficult to use?" In fact, I had to convince a colleague at work, who needed iTunes for his new video iPod, to stick with iTunes and try to get to know it because "it gets better." Now that I've been using it for a couple years, it's really grown on me. Intuitive, though? Hell, no.

Let's take a look at an example. In AmaroK, you right-click on the song title to edit it. In iTunes, you right-click anywhere on the song (or album, or track, or play count) to go to "Get info" and then go to the tag part of the dialogue to edit the track name. Intuitive?
problem is, its grey and don't work, no matter how many times you click it in the popup menu... It is? Not in my AmaroK.

[ThirdWorld]

Do you have k3b installed? Might be time to file a bug if so.


why do you need kde applications to burn a CD with amarok? other poster make a joke about merging Boing with Ford, i think thats exactly the problem with linux apps. They should be independent, and run natively in gnome, kde, or any other linux enviroment regardless of what other applications you have installed. Amarok never scan my system for available cd burning applications. why do i need to install other kde application for that thing to run properly? thats a major flaw...

[aysiu]

why do you need kde applications to burn a CD with amarok? other poster make a joke about merging Boing with Ford, i think thats exactly the problem with linux apps. They should be independent, and run natively in gnome, kde, or any other linux enviroment regardless of what other applications you have installed. Amarok never scan my system for available cd burning applications. why do i need to install other kde application for that thing to run properly? thats a major flaw... What's the problem? You need Quicktime to run iTunes. Why can't you need K3B for more advanced features in AmaroK?

[Stormy Eyes]

problem is, its grey and don't work, no matter how many times you click it in the popup menu...

It works for me. Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, you should have installed all of KDE if you wanted to make full use of Amarok?

[KiwiNZ]

Lets keep this calm please.Make debate points with being pesonal.

[Stormy Eyes]

What's the problem? You need Quicktime to run iTunes. Why can't you need K3B for more advanced features in AmaroK?

He thinks that Linux should be a synonym for "f---ing magic", I think.

[ThirdWorld]

He thinks that Linux should be a synonym for "f---ing magic", I think.

thats very polite, thank you very much... :rolleyes:

[aysiu]

He thinks that Linux should be a synonym for "f---ing magic", I think. Ubuntu already is f'ing magic for my computer. I plop in Breezy and it recognizes my screen resolution (Hoary didn't), my sound card, my 8-in-1 media card reader, all my USB ports, my printer, and just about anything else I plug into it (my Sandisk player, my Lacie external hard drive, my wife's iPod).

Almost everything I need is in the repositories, and I can install a whole bunch of applications with a single command. I can customize my icons how I want and change themes easily. Every upgrade is free, and they happen every six months. The support at these forums (which is also free) takes care of just about every question I have.

How is that not f'ing magic?

[KiwiNZ]

Stormyeyes and thirdworld. Enough already. Cool it or take it elsewhere:mad:

[aysiu]

i bet you dont have too much friends... :rolleyes: Do you think you're being polite?

[Stormy Eyes]

How is that not f'ing magic?

Shucks, that ain't magic. That's just damned good programming. Now, if Ubuntu read your mind and performed any conceivable task using monolithic apps that did everything short of slicing cold cuts, that'd be f---ing magic.

I should jack out; I promised my wife a nice yummy Italian dinner. All I'm going to add is that once upon a time, there was an app that did for text editing what ThirdWorld thinks should be done with multimedia playback. Its name soon became a synonym for bloat.

I'm talking about emacs (http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/).

[ThirdWorld]

What's the problem? You need Quicktime to run iTunes. Why can't you need K3B for more advanced features in AmaroK?

actually, amarok never ask me to install that application to burn cds, or the kmail. or any other app. never scan my system to figure it out if i already have those applications installed. Neither it let you choose your default cd burning application. I think its a major design flaw of KDE applications

[aysiu]

Now, if Ubuntu read your mind and performed any conceivable task using monolithic apps that did everything short of slicing cold cuts, that'd be f---ing magic. I'll check the repositories for that. Should I search for cold cuts?

[aysiu]

actually, amarok never ask me to install that application to burn cds, or the kmail. or any other app. never scan my system to figure it out if i already have those applications installed. Neither it let you choose your default cd burning application. I think its a major design flaw of KDE applications Sounds like a bug report in the making.

[Kvark]

why do you need kde applications to burn a CD with amarok? other poster make a joke about merging Boing with Ford, i think thats exactly the problem with linux apps. They should be independent, and run natively in gnome, kde, or any other linux enviroment regardless of what other applications you have installed. Amarok never scan my system for available cd burning applications. why do i need to install other kde application for that thing to run properly? thats a major flaw...
No, please not that! I do not want every single media player, file browser, archive manager, photo album viewer and so on to include their own cd burner feature. There would be dozens of primitive CD burners that all behave differently and that each have a different 10% piece of the features needed in a burner program. And users have them all installed since they would be integrated into various programs. Sure all those programs would burn CDs regardless of if you have a real burner program installed or not but they would all suck at it.

But if every media player, file browser, archive manager, photo album viewer and so on used K3B to burn CDs then I'd be ok with it. Then I'd get to use the same high quality program regardless of if I burn an Amorak playlist or a photo album or whatever. Better yet would be a setting where you can choose which program they use to burn. But they should still be dependant on that you have a real burner program installed instead of including their own crappy burn feature.

[Stormy Eyes]

I think its a major design flaw of KDE applications

OK, one last time: KDE apps are designed on the assumption that you will either run them in KDE, or have all of KDE installed.

[Stormy Eyes]

Sounds like a bug report in the making.

Yes, somebody should adjust the amarok packages to treate the relevant KDE packages as dependencies.

[aysiu]

Yes, somebody should adjust the amarok packages to treate the relevant KDE packages as dependencies. Or at least as recommendations--K3B, for example, shouldn't be a dependency but probably a recommendation.

[prizrak]

OK, one last time: KDE apps are designed on the assumption that you will either run them in KDE, or have all of KDE installed.
Signed with a passion. GNOME and KDE both are completely integrated desktop environments they both strive for what the OP is asking for they strive to provide fully integrated applications for EVERYTHING. KDE apps are great for that, every single one of them can interact with others if needed in a predictable and consistent fashion.
EDIT:
ThirdWorld,
The reason AmaroK takes up so much memory on your system is because you are running GNOME and it's a KDE app, which means that it has to load all the KDE libraries when it's running. If you were to use a GNOME app in KDE you would have the same exact problem. The flip side to that though is when you run them in their native environments all the libraries are already loaded so it only loads the small part that is unique to your particular application.

[ThirdWorld]

OK, one last time: KDE apps are designed on the assumption that you will either run them in KDE, or have all of KDE installed.

One last time: that is a BIG flaw in their design.

At the very least, KDE applications like amarok should integrate with the other enviroment's default applications, so instead of asking for konqueror in gnome, amarok should be smart enough to launch your default web browser, the default cd burner, or mail client. If it has issues with your default cd burner application it should advice you to install the kde default cd burner, better, you should be able to especified you prefered applications.

[Stormy Eyes]

One last time: that is a BIG flaw in their design.

It's a managable flaw, if you know what you're doing and are willing to use a bit of logic. If you're using a KDE app, logic dictates that its going to look for other KDE apps. You see, Linux ain't nothing like Windows. On Windows, all of the apps use the same toolkit. That ain't how it works on Linux. You're still making assumptions that are going to bring you to grief, like the assumption that you can just install Amarok and run it in GNOME without trouble. Now, I'll grant that the package maintainer should have added more KDE packages as dependencies, like kdenetwork and k3b, but that's the package maintainer's fault, not that of the Amarok dev team.


At the very least, KDE applications like amarok should integrate with the other enviroment's default applications, so instead of asking for konqueror in gnome, amarok should be smart enough to launch your default web browser, the default cd burner, or mail client. If it has issues with your default cd burner application it should advice you to install the kde default cd burner, better, you should be able to especified you prefered applications.

So, are you any good with C++? If not, then maybe, just maybe, you should subscribe to the Amarok development mailing list and complaining there.

[prizrak]

At the very least, KDE applications like amarok should integrate with the other enviroment's default applications, so instead of asking for konqueror in gnome, amarok should be smart enough to launch your default web browser, the default cd burner, or mail client. If it has issues with your default cd burner application it should advice you to install the kde default cd burner, better, you should be able to especified you prefered applications.
For the love of the game! WHY? Do you have any idea what software development is like? From what you are saying it doesn't seem that way. KDE is developed SPECIFICALLY to have FULL integration among it's components, it includes special interfaces as well as common look & feel. Yes KDE apps can run on any other WM/DE with the correct libraries but that doesn't mean KDE devs have to go out of their way to include extra interfaces. What you are talking about would take loads of time and effort, it would require KDE team to include an interface to every known burning program that can be used in Linux. Not all of them are FOSS either (Nero has a Linux port). Stormy's suggestion is the one that makes the most sense, Synaptic should advise to include other apps that could be of use but that's about it.
This is also where the choice you hate so much comes in, you can choose full integration of one particular DE or you can decide to make a custom set up, which will require thinking and logic.

[ThirdWorld]

It's a managable flaw, if you know what you're doing and are willing to use a bit of logic. If you're using a KDE app, logic dictates that its going to look for other KDE apps. You see, Linux ain't nothing like Windows. On Windows, all of the apps use the same toolkit. That ain't how it works on Linux. You're still making assumptions that are going to bring you to grief, like the assumption that you can just install Amarok and run it in GNOME without trouble. Now, I'll grant that the package maintainer should have added more KDE packages as dependencies, like kdenetwork and k3b, but that's the package maintainer's fault, not that of the Amarok dev team.



So, are you any good with C++? If not, then maybe, just maybe, you should subscribe to the Amarok development mailing list and complaining there.


"People are always asking us to support Linux on the desktop, but the question is: Which Linux are you talking about?"

Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc

i think this Dell guy have more clue about linux than you two...

[Virogenesis]

"People are always asking us to support Linux on the desktop, but the question is: Which Linux are you talking about?"

Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc

i think this Dell guy have more clue about linux than you two...
Then he must know more about linux than me and about half of the linux community.

[prizrak]

"People are always asking us to support Linux on the desktop, but the question is: Which Linux are you talking about?"

Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc

i think this Dell guy have more clue about linux than you two...
And that is relevant how? BTW Dell sells RedHat machines, just an FYI

[Carrots171]

"People are always asking us to support Linux on the desktop, but the question is: Which Linux are you talking about?"

Yeah, exactly. If people want Linux on the desktop, there are a lot of different choices like Ubuntu, MEPIS, SuSE, etc. And that's a good thing. Going back to the original topic of this thread, the reason why there are many apps that do the same thing (like multimedia, web browsing, or office) is to give people a choice, since each app has its advantages and disadvantages. You even have a choice of desktop enviornments, KDE or GNOME.

You have the same kinds of choices with stuff like cars (Ford, Toyota, Honda, General Motors), or MP3 players (iPod, Creative, Sony, iRiver), so why not have those kind of choices when it comes to software?

[prizrak]

Yeah, exactly. If people want Linux on the desktop, there are a lot of different choices like Ubuntu, MEPIS, SuSE, etc. And that's a good thing. Going back to the original topic of this thread, the reason why there are many apps that do the same thing (like multimedia, web browsing, or office) is to give people a choice, since each app has its advantages and disadvantages. You even have a choice of desktop enviornments, KDE or GNOME.

You have the same kinds of choices with stuff like cars (Ford, Toyota, Honda, General Motors), or MP3 players (iPod, Creative, Sony, iRiver), so why not have those kind of choices when it comes to software?
People who don't like to think for themselves don't like choice. This is why so many people use Windows, they are used to it to the point of not requiring any brain.

[Iandefor]

in linux you need:

amarok to load your mp3s lybraries
streamtuner to listen radio streams
(by default you need to install xmms to hear the streams)
easytag to magange your tag ids
gnomebaker to burn a cd
sound juicer to rip a cd
gnomad 2 or any other jukebox interface to transfer music to you creative jukebox or ipod?
sound converter to convert diferent audio files to .mp3 files Sounds like a good project: make an all-in-one. Want to round up some devs and get going?

Rhythmbox does the stuff in bold. Half of the list of things you claim need separate applications for. Not bad. It's the only one I have experience with, since I'm happy with it, so I can't tell you about other players.

[Reshin]

So (windows) users who don't get kicks out of trying every single app there is because they are happy what they are getting are idiots?

[Iandefor]

ThirdWorld:

Stormy has a good point about using separate toolkits and DE's, etc. It might be a good idea to start listening to him.

Just ignore him if he starts talking about taxes ;).



"People are always asking us to support Linux on the desktop, but the question is: Which Linux are you talking about?"

Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc

i think this Dell guy have more clue about linux than you two... Wait, that doesn't even make sense. Stormy writes a post about how Linux has multiple toolkits/DE's, and how that makes it a little difficult to run an app designed with one DE/toolkit in mind in a different DE, and you insult him by claiming that Michael Dell has a better understanding of Linux than him because Michael Dell had an epiphany about how there's more than one Linux distribution?

[IYY]

"People are always asking us to support Linux on the desktop, but the question is: Which Linux are you talking about?"

Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc

i think this Dell guy have more clue about linux than you two...

Here's an answer: ANY Linux. It doesn't matter. As long as you make hardware that's guaranteed to work with one distro, even if it doesn't work with the others immediately, it will be made to work by the community in a matter of weeks. The only reason he gave that answer is to shift the blame (although I believe Dell actually did make a Linux-supported PC eventually).

[briancurtin]

i read the first post, not the last 9 pages, so i could be off: but the OP doesnt get it. thats all i got out of his post.

[briancurtin]

(although I believe Dell actually did make a Linux-supported PC eventually).
they still do. check the small business area, i might be picking up one myself. they ship ready to go with Red Hat, which ill dump, but its better than MS...although id prefer no OS to come on it.

[prizrak]

So (windows) users who don't get kicks out of trying every single app there is because they are happy what they are getting are idiots?
Who ever called them idiots? First of all an idiot is a person who does not participate in political life. Second of all there is a difference between ignorance and apathy. You are happy with what you are provided? That's fine and good use it, but don't start bitching and moaning when you switch an OS and don't have the same thing to work with.

[TeeAhr1]

...lots of brilliant stuff, and with a great deal more civility than I could have mustered, including but not limited to:

...if managing kernel developers is like "herding cats", then managing desktop developers is like herding amphetamine-fuelled frogs :)

Also, has it occurred to you that some projects simply are not comparible with each other, due to conflicting design decisions? For example, Firefox uses some bizarre hybrid of XUL and GTK to render its interface and is considered by many to be a shoddy port, whereas Epiphany is 100% GNOME-native and its UI is written in C - Firefox will never be as fast or well-integrated into GNOME as Epiphany is, not matter how much work is done on it...

Regarding KOffice vs OO.o, it's worth noticing that the codebase for OO.o is alledged to be truly, utterly horrible ("#define private public", anyone?), and I can easily see progress getting slower and slower and slower until it rivals Vista in its glacial pace of development. KOffice, on the other hand, has far more components, integrates wonderfully into KDE, and, though it has only, say, 70-80% of the functionality of OO, it has a code-base 1/5th the size of that of OO.o. One fifth, and about a hundred times cleaner.
I don't really have anything to add to that. Well said.

Speaking strictly for myself, I want nothing to do with any such app. (Full disclosure: I am an end-user who's fairly obsessive about my music; detested WMP, tolerated Winamp. I've never used iTunes, and have no idea what all the fuss is about.) I push it ceaselessly and shall do so again here: Gmusicbrowser rocks my socks off. I have never seen a music player that does so much, so well, and at the same time not be loaded down with crap I don't want (for instance, I have two music players, one called a "discman" and one called a "computer," and Gnomebaker works delightfully well to sync the two). And at the same same time, I'm still finding features that I had no idea I needed until I found them (delete a song from the disk from within the player, friggin' genius).

But enough of my present obsession. I do have something to say about the following, which I'm surprised no one has addressed yet:

sound converter to convert diferent audio files to .mp3 files
Um. Because we don't do that sort of thing around here. See, .mp3 isn't Free (speech), nor is it particularly Good (not crappy).

Speaking of things that are neither Free nor Good, anyone else recall a mildly popular all-in-one music application suite for Windows, something like Caligula or Claudius, some Roman thing like that? I hear there's a Linux port. Gods protect me from its heinous scourge of locusts and crap.

[briancurtin]

Um. Because we don't do that sort of thing around here. See, .mp3 isn't Free (speech), nor is it particularly Good (not crappy).
thanks for telling everyone that we dont do that...

ipods need food -- their food is mp3s. ill use mp3s when i want to.

[TeeAhr1]

thanks for telling everyone that we dont do that...

ipods need food -- their food is mp3s. ill use mp3s when i want to.
Just out of curiousity, have you tried/heard of Rockbox (http://www.rockbox.org/)? It an open-source alternative to the iPod firmware that supports open formats. I don't have an iPod and don't know a thing about them, but I hear Rockbox is quite good.

[Carrots171]

Rhythmbox does the stuff in bold. Half of the list of things you claim need separate applications for.

Very true. Amarok and Banshee can do almost all of those tasks, too. In my experience, you only have to use 2-3 apps to get everything on that list done, not 8-10. And iTunes can't do everything either. To listen to ogg files I'll have to use another program, and to rip MP3's at more than 128 kbps i'll have to use another program... iTunes isn't compatible with my Creative Zen either...

[Stormy Eyes]

i think this Dell guy have more clue about linux than you two...

If he had a clue, he'd know about the Linux Standards Base and that it doesn't really matter which one he picks.

[ThirdWorld]

If he had a clue, he'd know about the Linux Standards Base and that it doesn't really matter which one he picks.

sure, thats why you need half of kde applications to run a small freaking media player application :rolleyes:

imagine that windows users running windows XP have to install half of the new vista applications just to run IE7 because the freaking program is designed to run with aero, another windows enviroment, fully "integrated" with other native aero freaking applications. I find the whole thing ridiculous.

[helpme]

sure, thats why you need half of kde applications to run a small freaking media player application :rolleyes:
They are running anyway when you run KDE, so what's your point?

[Stormy Eyes]

I find the whole thing ridiculous.

Nobody cares. Not me, not anybody else on this forum, and not the gods themselves. Do as you will: use a GNOME player, continue to use Amarok, or go back to Windows.

[Footissimo]

sure, thats why you need half of kde applications to run a small freaking media player application :rolleyes:

imagine that windows users running windows XP have to install half of the new vista applications just to run IE7 because the freaking program is designed to run with aero, another windows enviroment, fully "integrated" with other native aero freaking applications. I find the whole thing ridiculous.

Erm, one of the reasons why Windows is so bloated is because many appications will just plonk their own copies of existing libraries whether or not you already have it. At least if you install the KDE dependencies then you're getting something new and you won't have to install them again.

Personally I used to keep half a dozen media players on XP because none would do what I wanted properly (or have the right codecs). I'd much prefer having a few specific apps rather than installing a few general media players - the former takes up less space and means that applications are constantly trying to make themselves the default.

Worth remembering that it's only an operating system TW, if you find yourself whinging and whining everytime you boot up Linux, then perhaps you should try Windows - it may suit you better..it does for most :)

[ThirdWorld]

Nobody cares. Not me, not anybody else on this forum, and not the gods themselves. Do as you will: use a GNOME player, continue to use Amarok, or go back to Windows.


who said that i care that you care? did i start this post to read your replies?

Its very funny, So in few years there will be a zillion linux enviroments besides gnome and KDE, and then what? you will have to download half of any other enviroment's application just to run an small full featured application "designed" for that particular enviroment...

and then what?... guess what... bug#1

[helpme]

did i start this post to read your replies?
Apart from wanting others to answer to your post, why else would you post in a discussion forum.


So in few years there will be a zillion linux enviroments besides gnome and KDE, and then what?

No, there won't be. DE and their toolkits are much to complex and there are already two big DEs around.



you will have to download half of any other enviroment's application just to run an small full featured application "designed" for that particular enviroment...

As someone else already mentioned, you'll have to download a lot of libraries with every windows program too.

Anyway, google for project portland and the LSB. You know, this may surprise you, as according to you everyone disagreeing with your little trolling wants to propell linux back into the computing stone ages, but interoperability between gnome and kde is a very hot topic right now and there are several complimentary efforts working toward better interoperability.

[ThirdWorld]

Apart from wanting others to answer to your post, why else would you post in a discussion forum.

No, there won't be. DE and their toolkits are much to complex and there are already two big DEs around.


As someone else already mentioned, you'll have to download a lot of libraries with every windows program too.

Anyway, google for project portland and the LSB. You know, this may surprise you, as according to you everyone disagreeing with your little trolling wants to propell linux back into the computing stone ages, but interoperability between gnome and kde is a very hot topic right now and there are several complimentary efforts working toward better interoperability.


LOL i know about portland, i dont know you but i do read the news. how anyone is going to prevent other linux devs to create other enviroments, toolkits, and native fully integrated applications. its already happening. thats the whole point of this post. developers becoming the linux bug #1 not because they care about humanity, not because they care about linux, not because the care about end users, just pure EGO...

[GeneralZod]

Anyway, google for project portland and the LSB. You know, this may surprise you, as according to you everyone disagreeing with your little trolling wants to propell linux back into the computing stone ages, but interoperability between gnome and kde is a very hot topic right now and there are several complimentary efforts working toward better interoperability.

There are also more and more projects being created that are DE agnostic, but easily used by the respective DE's (gstreamer is a good example of this; utilities like NetworkManager another - these libraries/ utilities do all the "heavy-lifting", and the front-ends for GNOME and KDE are merely light, thin wrappers around them. I think libept is the same kind of deal, and may end up forming the engine for both Synaptic and Adept. I've no evidence either way yet, but I'm crossing every digit on my body [yes, even that one] that KDE's "Solid" takes the same approach and can be easily utilised by GNOME without requiring any additional KDE dependencies.).

So, in contrast to ThirdWorld's claim that the situation is going to get worse with zillion's of DE's all re-implementing massive functionality, the trend is actually towards healing the breach and providing common functionality that does not depend on either DE.


LOL i know about portland, i dont know you but i do read the news. how anyone is going to prevent other linux devs to create other enviroments, toolkits, and native fully integrated applications.

I don't think many people are going to be creating new toolkits anywhere soon - GTK and Qt are now so mature and have raised the bar so high, that no one would bother.



its already happening. thats the whole point of this post. developers becoming the linux bug #1 not because they care about humanity, not because they care about linux, not because the care about end users, just pure EGO...

Thanks for completely ignoring my post which gave technical reasons why everyone doesn't all work on the same apps and boiling it all down to "LOL ego!!!1". I'm sure that the devs who spent hours and hours of their free time performing chores for completely ungrateful people will be interested in your insights into what drives them.

This thread could have been an interesting discussion as to why this duplication of effort exists and what (if anything) could be done about it but your bizarre tendency to ignore everyone who disagrees with you and relentlessly troll your own thread has pretty much scuppered that. What a waste.

[Iandefor]

LOL i know about portland, i dont know you but i do read the news. how anyone is going to prevent other linux devs to create other enviroments, toolkits, and native fully integrated applications. its already happening. thats the whole point of this post. developers becoming the linux bug #1 not because they care about humanity, not because they care about linux, not because the care about end users, just pure EGO... Dude, you are being so rude right now. Talk to some devs. Seriously. See how egotistical they are.
Having met a few, the worst I can say about them is that they tend to be abrasive, but they're always striving to make the projects they work on better and better.

[Gustav]

LOL i know about portland, i dont know you but i do read the news. how anyone is going to prevent other linux devs to create other enviroments, toolkits, and native fully integrated applications. its already happening. thats the whole point of this post. developers becoming the linux bug #1 not because they care about humanity, not because they care about linux, not because the care about end users, just pure EGO...
Most (open source) developers develop because either they think it's fun to do so or they have a need for a program that does not exist at the moment. Then they share their programs with you so that you also may use them.

That's so egoistic, don't they have any shame.... :rolleyes:

It's one thing to ask for features you think is missing, but to ask the developers to give up their projects and start working on other projects just because you like the other projects more, that's not very nice.

[ThirdWorld]

Dude, you are being so rude right now. Talk to some devs. Seriously. See how egotistical they are.
Having met a few, the worst I can say about them is that they tend to be abrasive, but they're always striving to make the projects they work on better and better.

i dont meant to be rude. Im not talking about all devs, im talking about some devs. they do this because they want to prove they are "smart", they give a damn thing about the linux project or humanity. The point is, that the seeds of more and more projects like kde-gnome are emerging everyday, and in the near future it will harm the whole linux project.

[ThirdWorld]

Most (open source) developers develop because either they think it's fun to do so or they have a need for a program that does not exist at the moment. Then they share their programs with you so that you also may use them.

That's so egoistic, don't they have any shame.... :rolleyes:

It's one thing to ask for features you think is missing, but to ask the developers to give up their projects and start working on other projects just because you like the other projects more, that's not very nice.

its not givin up their projects, its to avoid complete chaos that can destroy the whole linux project. Linux can end up like Unix someday.

[ThirdWorld]

Apart from wanting others to answer to your post, why else would you post in a discussion forum.

in case you didnt read it, i was talking to the other guy, not the whole community... :rolleyes:

[helpme]

i dont meant to be rude.

Dude, you've insulted about every linux dev around, called the project of some fellow ubuntu users crap, totally ignored every argument anyone has written in this thread and now you have the nerve to tell us you don't mean to be rude. Seriously.



they do this because they want to prove they are "smart", they give a damn thing about the linux project or humanity.

Please point out one dev and project who does this to be "smart".
And as you still didn't get this in this little head of yours, no dev has to give a damn about anything. After all, it's free software, everyone can do as he likes.



The point is, that the seeds of more and more projects like kde-gnome are emerging everyday, and in the near future it will harm the whole linux project.
That's total and utter bs. Please, show us these seeds. I'm really looking forward to seeing prove to your claim.
As of now, the only prove people presented is of projects working towards greater interoperability. All you have offered so far is abuse.
So, surprise us and back up your claims at least for once.

[Virogenesis]

ThirdWorld, heres a solution to your problem don't use linux..... use windows or mac os if you like itunes so much use it.
As for DE's the only one I can think of that stands a chance of being quite commonly used would be enlightenment.

You use gnome with kde...why? Because you get the choice to.
If you can't understand different programs do different things some don't like having cd burning crap inside a media player.
Some like basic, some like bloat.

Some programs are written in different languages to handle memory and speed better.

Just remember that, sure some do it for ego but some also do it because they enjoy it.

I find you very insulting not to me but too others who put in the time and effort into a project to make it good and then get slagged off by someone.

Don't like what they do don't use its simple don't just abuse them, you're being rude remember that.

[aysiu]

ThirdWorld.

I don't see what the point of all this is.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that everyone participating in this thread agrees with you. Let's just say, hypothetically, you manage to convince even Stormy Eyes that Banshee, XMMS, JuK, Beep, etc. developers should all abandon their projects and work on AmaroK and make AmaroK better integrated into Gnome.

What then? How exactly would that come about? How would you and the handful of us who, in this hypothetical scenario, agree with you manage to combine these efforts?

I'm talking about step-by-step procedures, not just whining on the forums that "such and such needs to happen."

What would we do?

Or, let's suppose that you and this hypothetical handful of us on these forums did somehow (in this magical, fake world) manage to convince those developers to combine their efforts now. All of those projects (and AmaroK) are open source. What's to stop someone from splintering off from that combined effort within a few months... or even within a few weeks?

See, the beauty of open source is that people can do what they want. They can combine efforts, share code, improve on each other's code, motivate others to improve their projects. KDE would not be where it is without Gnome stepping up to the plate, and Gnome wouldn't even exist without KDE having come about.

And please don't speculate about all these desktop environments springing up left and right. Provide some solid (or even shaky) documentation. Any rumors on any of the tech news sites? Where are you getting that KDE and Gnome will be added on to daily with new desktop environments and new toolkits?

[Gustav]

How do you mean that this will be acomplished.

Should there be a centralized gnu/linux board that decides what should be developed?

[Virogenesis]

Did I mention that I don't like the itunes layout? I prefer the winamp style as do alot :)

[aysiu]

How do you mean that this will be acomplished.

Should there be a centralized gnu/linux board that decides what should be developed? Thanks, Gustav. You just summed up in two sentences what it took me several paragraphs to explain.

[aysiu]

Did I mention that I don't like the itunes layout? I prefer the winamp style as do alot :) Oh, but that wouldn't meet with the gnu/linux board's approval. ThirdWorld would have to approve of changing the layout. Sorry.

[Virogenesis]

Oh, but that wouldn't meet with the gnu/linux board's approval. ThirdWorld would have to approve of changing the layout. Sorry.
Damn you are right :(
Only one app per job if you don't like it then tough.
I forgot totally about these rules if he doesn't like something then everyone else must suffer.

[ThirdWorld]

ThirdWorld.

I don't see what the point of all this is.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that everyone participating in this thread agrees with you. Let's just say, hypothetically, you manage to convince even Stormy Eyes that Banshee, XMMS, JuK, Beep, etc. developers should all abandon their projects and work on AmaroK and make AmaroK better integrated into Gnome.

What then? How exactly would that come about? How would you and the handful of us who, in this hypothetical scenario, agree with you manage to combine these efforts?

I'm talking about step-by-step procedures, not just whining on the forums that "such and such needs to happen."

What would we do?

Or, let's suppose that you and this hypothetical handful of us on these forums did somehow (in this magical, fake world) manage to convince those developers to combine their efforts now. All of those projects (and AmaroK) are open source. What's to stop someone from splintering off from that combined effort within a few months... or even within a few weeks?

See, the beauty of open source is that people can do what they want. They can combine efforts, share code, improve on each other's code, motivate others to improve their projects. KDE would not be where it is without Gnome stepping up to the plate, and Gnome wouldn't even exist without KDE having come about.

And please don't speculate about all these desktop environments springing up left and right. Provide some solid (or even shaky) documentation. Any rumors on any of the tech news sites? Where are you getting that KDE and Gnome will be added on to daily with new desktop environments and new toolkits?

i dont want anyone to abandon anything, or any project. What i want to see is eviroment idependent aplications. application that can run, at the very least with you default gnome applications. And that instead of focus on new experimental enviroments people should focus to inprove the ones that are already deployed with commercial distributors. is that that ofensive?

[aysiu]

i dont want anyone to abandon anything, or any project. What i want to see is eviroment idependent aplications. application that can run, at the very least with you default gnome applications. And that instead of focus on new experimental enviroments people should focus to inprove the ones that are already deployed with commercial distributors. is that that ofensive? I didn't say something was offensive. I asked you how this would come about. How would you see your vision through--make it happen?

I can say I want to lower crime rates, stop world hunger, and give every woman, man, and child a university education. But who cares if I say I want that? How am I going to bring it about?

[helpme]

i dont want anyone to abandon anything, or any project. What i want to see is eviroment idependent aplications. application that can run, at the very least with you default gnome applications. And that instead of focus on new experimental enviroments people should focus to inprove the ones that are already deployed with commercial distributors. is that that ofensive?
What's the word for this?
Ehm?
Ah, now I can remember it:
backpadling

[briancurtin]

did i start this post to read your replies?
you need help.

[ThirdWorld]

I didn't say something was offensive. I asked you how this would come about. How would you see your vision through--make it happen?

I can say I want to lower crime rates, stop world hunger, and give every woman, man, and child a university education. But who cares if I say I want that? How am I going to bring it about?

well, a totally rethink about the gpl license agreement should be a start, otherwise its going to be plain chaos... the gnome and kde teams should have more control of their code, things can improve dont you think?

[aysiu]

well, a totally rethink about the gpl license agreement should be a start, otherwise its going to be plain chaos... if the gnome and kde teams should have more control of their code, things can improve dont you think? How would you get all the developers to "rethink" the GPL license agreement? You're going to get developers who are drawn to the idea of open source to go... closed source?

Please--step-by-step.

Not "in theory this is what should happen."

Yes "and then to make it happen, I'm going to do this..."

[prizrak]

i dont want anyone to abandon anything, or any project. What i want to see is eviroment idependent aplications. application that can run, at the very least with you default gnome applications. And that instead of focus on new experimental enviroments people should focus to inprove the ones that are already deployed with commercial distributors. is that that ofensive?
There are plenty of environmet independent applications, XMMS being one of my favorite. You have been asked time and time again to provide any kind of basis for saying that there are new experimental environments being worked on. If you mention Enlightenment I will beat you with a drive shaft as it's older than the GNOME project.

[GeneralZod]

well, a totally rethink about the gpl license agreement should be a start, otherwise its going to be plain chaos... the gnome and kde teams should have more control of their code, things can improve dont you think?

This seems to imply that GNOME and KDE are hamstrung by the GPL, but I honestly can't think of any way this could be true. How would revising the GPL give GNOME and KDE any "more control of their code"? Assuming there is such a way, why would this lead to any kind of improvement?

[ThirdWorld]

How would you get all the developers to "rethink" the GPL license agreement? You're going to get developers who are drawn to the idea of open source to go... closed source?

Please--step-by-step.

Not "in theory this is what should happen."

Yes "and then to make it happen, I'm going to do this..."

open source is good, i like it and support it, but you should retain at least a bit of control dont you think? not because you ant to profit over the idea, just because you dont want to create a chaotic future for the platform

[prizrak]

open source is good, i like it and support it, but you should retain at least a bit of control dont you think? not because you ant to profit over the idea, just because you dont want to create a chaotic future for the platform
Every project out there has full control over their code. If GNOME team doesn't want your code you will not be able to force them to use it. You can fork the project if you feel like it but that would be highly unlikely on something this big not to mention no one said it was gonna work.

[Gustav]

open source is good, i like it and support it, but you should retain at least a bit of control dont you think? not because you ant to profit over the idea, just because you dont want to create a chaotic future for the platform
The gnome and kde devs decide which programs should be a part of their DE:s.

I don't understand how they could get more control (if they didn't closed sourced it)

[aysiu]

ThirdWorld, in case you're not getting it, there are three grounds on which I (and others) disagree with you:

1. The existence of a problem. You seem to think that having a lot of different (but similar) projects is a problem that's holding Linux back. Well, later on you changed that to be that projects should be more desktop environment-independent. The point is--you think something's wrong with the current model of development of Linux applications.

I'm saying (and others are too) that that's not a problem. If anything, I'm seeing Linux applications and distributions developing at a far more rapid pace than applications for Windows.

2. The method for solving "the problem." You want to go against the very thing that makes open source software open source--its variety, its openness, its ability to be splintered and improved upon. If you don't like Linux's development model, why are you using Linux? Seriously. It's like going to a Muslim mosque and saying, "Yeah, this whole worshiping Allah thing. It's so tired. We'd get so much more done for Islam if we just became atheists, don't you agree?"

3. The logistics of solving "the problem." Even if there were a problem, and even if it were "solved" by modifying the GPL and making things closed source, more focused, and more desktop environment-independent, you have yet to provide a way to get that to happen. How would you rally all these developers behind your cause?

[ThirdWorld]

Every project out there has full control over their code. If GNOME team doesn't want your code you will not be able to force them to use it. You can fork the project if you feel like it but that would be highly unlikely on something this big not to mention no one said it was gonna work.

and who is going to prevent that from happening?

[aysiu]

and who is going to prevent that from happening? Who's going to prevent me from waking my wife up by dumping cold water on her head? Just because no one can prevent something from happening doesn't mean it's going happen or is likely to happen.

You have yet to provide a shred of proof or even a rumor or indication of new desktop environment projects popping up in large numbers. As far as I know, there's KDE, Gnome, and XFCE. That's all I've seen in the last year I've been using Linux, and I don't see any indication of that changing any time soon.

[ThirdWorld]

ThirdWorld, in case you're not getting it, there are three grounds on which I (and others) disagree with you:

1. The existence of a problem. You seem to think that having a lot of different (but similar) projects is a problem that's holding Linux back. Well, later on you changed that to be that projects should be more desktop environment-independent. The point is--you think something's wrong with the current model of development of Linux applications.

I'm saying (and others are too) that that's not a problem. If anything, I'm seeing Linux applications and distributions developing at a far more rapid pace than applications for Windows.

2. The method for solving "the problem." You want to go against the very thing that makes open source software open source--its variety, its openness, its ability to be splintered and improved upon. If you don't like Linux's development model, why are you using Linux? Seriously. It's like going to a Muslim mosque and saying, "Yeah, this whole worshiping Allah thing. It's so tired. We'd get so much more done for Islam if we just became atheists, don't you agree?"

3. The logistics of solving "the problem." Even if there were a problem, and even if it were "solved" by modifying the GPL and making things closed source, more focused, and more desktop environment-independent, you have yet to provide a way to get that to happen. How would you rally all these developers behind your cause?

dude are we having a communication problem or something?? the only problem is that the two main enviroments integrate their applications at the point that is almost wotrhless to install the main application of the other enviroment, and since those are some of the best applications there is a real problem...

[GeneralZod]

and who is going to prevent that from happening?

No one needs to prevent it. Why would someone want to maintain a proper, full-fledged fork of GNOME? It would be an insane amount of work for absolutely no tangible benefit. Plus, they'd have no users as distros get their GNOME packages straight from the official GNOME site, and users usually use what their distro provides.

Edit:


dude are we having a communication problem or something??

One of you is, and personally I don't think it's the ex-English teacher :)

[ThirdWorld]

No one needs to prevent it. Why would someone want to maintain a proper, full-fledged fork of GNOME? It would be an insane amount of work for absolutely no tangible benefit. Plus, they'd have no users as distros get their GNOME packages straight from the official GNOME site, and users usually use what their distro provides.

ok but, who is going to prevent those folks to rename gnome with a new name said "evolutions" and change some of "evolutions" code, integrate other porgrams as defaults and lure people to work on that new project?

[prizrak]

and who is going to prevent that from happening?
Both DE's have existed for years. I came to Linux in about 2000 and they already had GNOME, KDE is even older than GNOME. So far the only other DE that I have come across is XFCE and it's fairly focused on being lighweight for slower machines. So who is going to prevent it? No one is, but it seems to take care of itself mostly because of the complexity of the project.

[helpme]

ok but, who is going to prevent those folks to rename gnome with a new name said "evolutions" and change some of "evolutions" code, integrate other porgrams as defaults and lure people to work on that new project?
Nobody, it's just very, very unlikely that the will succeed. Google for goneme.

And while we are at it, the ability to fork can be a great thing. Google for xorg and xfree.

[GeneralZod]

ok but, who is going to prevent those folks to rename gnome with a new name said "evolutions" and change some of "evolutions" code, integrate other porgrams as defaults and lure people to work on that new project?

No one, and for the exact reasons I just mentioned - no one would bother to do this. What would the point be? How exactly would they "lure" other people to work on that new project? What incentives could they possibly offer? Since GNOME is GPL, they'd have to provide any improvements they made back to the GNOME community, so creating an alternative to GNOME that is so persistently compelling that it becomes more than an (irrelevant) pet-project would be practically impossible.

Edit:


So far the only other DE that I have come across is XFCE and it's fairly focused on being lighweight for slower machines.

Indeed, and and note also that XFCE is GTK-based, so any re-invention of the wheel here is minimal. The kind of apps you'd run in an XFCE environment are the kind that are sufficiently cut-down that they have no dependencies on GNOME-libs, and XFCE apps, being GTK based and (at worst) depending on only the very small XFCE-libs will work perfectly in GNOME. In short, XFCE and GNOME exist in almost perfect harmony.

[prizrak]

ok but, who is going to prevent those folks to rename gnome with a new name said "evolutions" and change some of "evolutions" code, integrate other porgrams as defaults and lure people to work on that new project?
Have you ever written a more or less complex program?

[helpme]

dude are we having a communication problem or something?? the only problem is that the two main enviroments integrate their applications at the point that is almost wotrhless to install the main application of the other enviroment, and since those are some of the best applications there is a real problem...
As I already said, you're claims were a little different to put it mildly at the beginning of this thread.

As for better interoperabiltiy, as has been pointed out repeatedly to you by different posters, people are aware that there's room for improvement and are working on it.

[prizrak]

As I already said, you're claims were a little different to put it mildly at the beginning of this thread.

As for better interoperabiltiy, as has been pointed out repeatedly to you by different posters, people are aware that there's room for improvement and are working on it.
To add to that, of course the main DE's are integrated that's the whole point of the DE. Integration of applications that do different things with each other. It is damn near impossible to achieve such integration with other programs simply becuase of the issues with interfacing and such.

[aysiu]

dude are we having a communication problem or something?? Yes. You're ignoring me every time I ask you a straightforward question.
the only problem is that the two main enviroments integrate their applications at the point that is almost wotrhless to install the main application of the other enviroment, and since those are some of the best applications there is a real problem... Really? That's the only "problem"? Why don't you re-read you original post, Dr. Jekyll? I'll even put your main points in bold so you can see how you've changed your tune once you realize that people are calling you on actually backing up your point.
have you ever wonder why the gnome team are still working on the epiphany web browser? meanwhile millions of linux and non linux users around the world are currently using or are switching to firefox which is the best cross-platform web browser available today, and is 100% open source?

why the gnome team are still working on rhythmbox music player when most linux users prefer amarok? why they dont join forces to work with the KDE guys on the amarok project?

why the KDE project are working on koffice if there is openoffice suite who is becoming a cross platform standard on the market? why they dont join the O.office team? why they are working on digikam if f-spot is a far more superior product? why they dont join forces with the gnome team?


Have you ever wonder why on linux you need to run 8 diferent applications to accomplish what windows media player and itunes can do?

in linux you need:

amarok to load your mp3s lybraries
streamtuner to listen radio streams
(by default you need to install xmms to hear the streams)
easytag to magange your tag ids
gnomebaker to burn a cd
sound juicer to rip a cd
gnomad 2 or any other jukebox interface to transfer music to you creative jukebox or ipod?
sound converter to convert diferent audio files to .mp3 files

Most linux end users want just 1 application that can do all those things, they have stated that many times on forums, bug reports and feature requests but most devs dont listen to them.

so, what if the famous bug #1 is not windows but the linux developers themselves? what if the real issue here is that most of them dont listen to end users and what they really want or what kind of features they expect on linux applications?

what if bug#1 is that most of the linux developers are working on their own pet projects instead of focus in the major ones and what is best for the linux future? what if the real bug #1 is the lack of focus to the end user and the lack of cooperation between linux community members?

[Iandefor]

I say it's a lost cause to discuss this any more. Can we break out the tar and feathers now?

[briancurtin]

Who's going to prevent me from waking my wife up by dumping cold water on her head?
that would be pretty funny

[aysiu]

that would be pretty funny When ThirdWorld splinters the Gnome project to be called Evolutions, maybe I will...

[GeneralZod]

When ThirdWorld splinters the Gnome project to be called Evolutions, maybe I will...

I think I'll fork the Evolution mail client and call it "GNOMEs". Just to even things up.

[kelsey23]

Most linux end users want just 1 application that can do all those things


Most Linux users don't want that. It's the stupid Ubuntu users that don't even know why Linux is better they just use it because it is free who want that :-\"

[ThirdWorld]

Yes. You're ignoring me every time I ask you a straightforward question. Really? That's the only "problem"? Why don't you re-read you original post, Dr. Jekyll? I'll even put your main points in bold so you can see how you've changed your tune once you realize that people are calling you on actually backing up your point.

like i said, the only problem is that linux's design is flawed, it could work if only one enviroment exist, and everybody collaborate to make that enviroment great. Can you imagine that? that linux enviroment would be the most advanced enviroment on earth.

But, its not the case, linux will not work with more than one, this whole idea of a toolkit, since applications will always look and behave diferently since they need other native programs to work properly. Right now there are several enviroments on the making, dont ask me how many, just use google. a small hint, with how many Guis the ubuntu Os is realeased or is planned to be released?

That lead us to bug#1, the developers. So you can go full circle here... bug# 1 are you guys... somebody have to tell you the truth even if you like it or not, you can call me names, but this whole linux thing is going to end up like unix, and thats sad since i love my Ubuntu OS...

[BoyOfDestiny]

like i said, the only problem is that linux's design is flawed, it could work if only one enviroment exist, and everybody collaborate to make that enviroment great. Can you imagine that? that linux enviroment would be the most advanced enviroment on earth.

But, its not the case, linux will not work with more than one, this whole idea of a toolkit, since applications will always look and behave diferently since they need other native programs to work properly. Right now there are several enviroments on the making, dont ask me how many, just use google. a small hint, with how many Guis the ubuntu Os is realeased or is planned to be released?

That lead us to bug#1, the developers. So you can go full circle here... bug# 1 are you guys... somebody have to tell you the truth even if you like it or not, you can call me names, but this whole linux thing is going to end up like unix, and thats sad since i love my Ubuntu OS...

The devs are slaves to no one. The GPL ensures that. Look at what just happened with mambo. You can walk away, and your work can still be used by you and others. You don't have to start over because the company you worked for solely owns your code.

Anyway, there is no such thing as a perfect environment. I doubt there is "1" way that is perfect. There aren't any real life examples. Windows is far from perfect. If you want binary compatiblity, for the most part it can't be beat. As for the interface. "gag me with a spoon."

As for ending up like Unix (fragmented etc), LSB (Linux Standard Base) aims to prevent that aspect. If one particular DE happens to gain more traction, more apps will be written for it, and you may end up with what you want. More consistency. It will just take time. Which is fine, Linux is not a race. It is evolving. You can't just get to the "best" without trial and error. Nothing works that way. They didn't make the TV then instantly invent color and lcd/plasma. They didn't suddenly make jets after the airplane, etc.

Also, unless people start forking the Linux kernel itself, I don't think it will end up like Unix, LSB or not.

[helpme]

But, its not the case, linux will not work with more than one, this whole idea of a toolkit,

Do you even know what a toolkit is? Are you aware that you'll find different toolkits on other platforms, like, gasp, windows?



since applications will always look and behave diferently since they need other native programs to work properly.

Bull, see above.




Right now there are several enviroments on the making, dont ask me how many, just use google.

You know, if you make a claim, it's your responsibility to back it up, especially if you have been asked to do so several times now.



That lead us to bug#1, the developers. So you can go full circle here... bug# 1 are you guys... somebody have to tell you the truth even if you like it or not, you can call me names, but this whole linux thing is going to end up like unix, and thats sad since i love my Ubuntu OS...
Again, total and utter ********.
You did not provide one argument for your assertion.
And you clearly fail to see the the Unix problems were a far cry from having two different DEs, so even your meagre attempt at providing something approaching an argument falls flat on its face.

[ThirdWorld]

Again, total and utter ********.


why is that everytime i post something this guy have to show up and use this kind of words? i think im attaking his religious beliefs or something...

[helpme]

why is that everytime i post something this guy have to show up and use this kind of words? i think im attaking his religious beliefs or something...
Why is it that everytime someone asks you to back up your statements, makes arguments that show why you are wrong, calls you on changing your story yet again, you have to resort to personal attacks?

If I infuriate you so much, why don't you crush me with your reasoning and intellect for a change.

[ThirdWorld]

Why is it that everytime someone asks you to back up your statements, makes arguments that show why you are wrong, calls you on changing your story yet again, you have to resort to personal attacks?

If I infuriate you so much, why don't you crush me with your reasoning and intellect for a change.

Did have ever occur to you that im traying to just ignore you? that i dont want to aswer your replies because i dont deal with people who use that kind of language?

[BoyOfDestiny]

Did have ever occur to you that im traying to just ignore you? that i dont want to aswer your replies because i dont deal with people who use that kind of language?

*Looks at thread* You aren't trying hard enough it seems.
You seem to be doing a good job ignoring mine though. Mine are foul language free. =)

[helpme]

Did have ever occur to you that im traying to just ignore you? that i dont want to aswer your replies because i dont deal with people who use that kind of language?
Ehm, as you ignored every argumened in this thread so far, I don't see why I should have felt particularly privileged in this regard.

And what language are you talking about?
That I called what you said bull?
Frankly, it surprises me that someone who doesn't have the slightest problem to dismiss someone elses work that is provided for free as crap would be offended by this.

[aysiu]

That lead us to bug#1, the developers. So you can go full circle here... bug# 1 are you guys... "You guys"? I'm not a developer. You've still yet to outline a plan for how to change your supposed "bug #1" even if everyone here agreed with you.

[Sheinar]

helpme, I am ignoring you by responding to your posts! I do not respond to people with such foul language! I will be forced to keep ignoring you like I have so far in this thread!

[helpme]

helpme, I am ignoring you by responding to your posts! I do not respond to people with such foul language! I will be forced to keep ignoring you like I have so far in this thread!
LOL.
Yep, if anything, his consistency is impressing. :D

[prizrak]

ThirdWorld,
As said time and time again. Provide any kind of an argument that at least substantiates your claim. Somehow with different DE's and your supposed "duplication" of effort Linux based OS's have been slowly but steadily gaining in popularity as opposed to losing it. The LSB is basically ensuring binary compatibility between different Linux distros regardless of the GUI they run. Back to your Dell comment, it very much doesn't matter which Linux any large company will support even sans LSB since it's a FOSS system meaning that anything done by one distribution is likely to be duplicated by other if needed.

[ThirdWorld]

*Looks at thread* You aren't trying hard enough it seems.
You seem to be doing a good job ignoring mine though. Mine are foul language free. =)

no man, this guy have an issue with me...

[GeneralZod]

no man, this guy have an issue with me...

His "issue" with you is that you keep making claims without backing them up, then not responding to requests to do so, then not responding to criticisms of your claims, then back-peddling on your claims when they collapse under the weight of evidence and logic and then, after back-peddling and stating that you never claimed anything more than "statement X" (when the evidence that you claimed more than that is right in the first post!), coming up with a whole bunch of additional new, unsubstantiated claims.

He's not the only one with these "issues", either. Heck, I can't speak for the guy, but I think you've even managed to annoy aysiu, who normally has the patience of a thousand Yodas!

Edit:

I sure used the word "claim" a lot in this post.

[aysiu]

Heck, I can't speak for the guy, but I think you've even managed to annoy aysiu, who normally has the patience of a thousand Yodas! When 900 years old you reach look this good you will not.

Yeah, you're right, GeneralZod--I tire of this thread.

ThirdWorld, good luck convincing all the developers of Linux applications to band together in your cause. When it happens, give me a call.

[helpme]

no man, this guy have an issue with me...
First, look at GeneralZod's post. I think he sumed up what anoyed me and others about your posts pretty well.

Second, I wrote a long and polite reply to your rather brash private message you wrote me a few days ago, trying to explain that I don't have an issue with you personally, but have an issue with your posts and what those issues are.
I'm still waiting for an answer though.

[Stormy Eyes]

So in few years there will be a zillion linux enviroments besides gnome and KDE, and then what? you will have to download half of any other enviroment's application just to run an small full featured application "designed" for that particular enviroment...

I was thinking of ripping apart this malarkey of yours, but my wife is looking over my shoulder and asking me why I insist on trying to reason with the likes of you. Welcome to my ignore list, ThirdWorld.

[Iandefor]

That lead us to bug#1, the developers. So you can go full circle here... bug# 1 are you guys... somebody have to tell you the truth even if you like it or not, you can call me names, but this whole linux thing is going to end up like unix, and thats sad since i love my Ubuntu OS... I'm sorry? First you said the problem was Linux developers, then when I refuted with first-hand evidence, you claimed you only meant some developers, and now you're claiming the problem is the users? What in the name of Jehovah's screaming children are you on?!

Welcome to my ignore list, ThirdWorld Didn't know about that feature. Sweet!

[Stormy Eyes]

What in the name of Jehovah's screaming children are you on?!

Don't ask him to incriminate himself. All of the really fun drugs are illegal in the Land of the Free.

[Sheinar]

This thread has given me hours of entertainment. Thank you ThirdWorld.

[Iandefor]

Don't ask him to incriminate himself. All of the really fun drugs are illegal in the Land of the Free. But, it'll be so much fun to watch his door get beaten down by the coppers....

*Makes popcorn*

[Stormy Eyes]

But, it'll be so much fun to watch his door get beaten down by the coppers...

I don't wish the government on anybody. That's beyond the pale, even for me, and I wish people dead on a daily basis.