What if...

[user1397]

...every server, computer, and piece of hardware that currently runs a non-debian GNU/Linux distro, suddenly ditched those OS's, and decided to switch to a debian-based OS.

Would the fundamental concepts of GNU/Linux, such as freedom, choice, availability, variety, etc. be crushed just because there would only be one format for binary packages?

I, personally, think they would not, because there are many debian-based distros, so that covers the choice and variety concepts (and of course, freedom).

This would also solve the problem of having too many different formats of binary packages, and there would be increased interoperability with all computers and servers (I would think).

This is just a friendly argument, please stay on topic if you wish to reply, and don't flame.

[saulgoode]

Personally, I lean the opposite direction. I consider it flawed that Ubuntu does not distinguish its packages from Debian's by either using a different extension or, at a minimum, indicating they're for Ubuntu in the filename (the same holds true for RedHat and Slackware derivatives).

Just because software is packaged together using the same binary package format, does not insure it will work on other distros using that format. It would be better for users if they knew which distro a package was intended for just by looking at the filename.

[smartboyathome]

If this happened, though, then there would be no way to package anything for several distros at once. You would say "Goodbye" to all the commercial software being made, as there would be so many package formats that you would not be able to interchange between one another. If that ever happened, you would say "bye bye" to my usage.

[lisati]

I'm a fan of both "Keep it simple" and "freedom of choice" - trying maintain a balance does have its challenges.

[user1397]

Personally, I lean the opposite direction. I consider it flawed that Ubuntu does not distinguish its packages from Debian's by either using a different extension or, at a minimum, indicating they're for Ubuntu in the filename (the same holds true for RedHat and Slackware derivatives).

Just because software is packaged together using the same binary package format, does not insure it will work on other distros using that format. It would be better for users if they knew which distro a package was intended for just by looking at the filename.Ah, good point. I overlooked that fact for some reason...

But, at the same time, there are cases (many) where the same binary package works for many distros (please correct me if I'm wrong)

[user1397]

If this happened, though, then there would be no way to package anything for several distros at once. You would say "Goodbye" to all the commercial software being made, as there would be so many package formats that you would not be able to interchange between one another. If that ever happened, you would say "bye bye" to my usage.
Do you mean that according to what saulgoode said, if there was a different extension for binaries, according to each distro, then you will not be able to interchange among the different distros?

[smartboyathome]

Do you mean that according to what saulgoode said, if there was a different extension for binaries, according to each distro, then you will not be able to interchange among the different distros?

Yeah, but not totally unable to interchange, it would just be a pain-in-the-butt.

[tgm4883]

Personally, I lean the opposite direction. I consider it flawed that Ubuntu does not distinguish its packages from Debian's by either using a different extension or, at a minimum, indicating they're for Ubuntu in the filename (the same holds true for RedHat and Slackware derivatives).

Just because software is packaged together using the same binary package format, does not insure it will work on other distros using that format. It would be better for users if they knew which distro a package was intended for just by looking at the filename.

I thought Ubuntu does distinguish their packages in the version. the correct way for a package's version is to be "version#"ubuntu"ubuntu#"

[saulgoode]

I thought Ubuntu does distinguish their packages in the version. the correct way for a package's version is to be "version#"ubuntu"ubuntu#"

You are correct. I guess I've just seen a lot of third-party packages that haven't followed that convention (or they assume if its built for Ubuntu, it will work for Debian).

[user1397]

Everybody's gotta admit, though, that the abundance of binary linux formats is always a major subject for those windows-fanboys... (not that there's anything wrong with that, but...)