Sounds nice, but it can't be done
Sounds terrible and can't be done
Sounds nice, and it can be done. I'm posting my practical suggestions here.
I don't care either way
Sounds terrible but can be done.
Other (please explain)
last week at the ubuntu open week (Mark is sabdfl):
more of the chat here[16:19] <akgraner> <rrnwexec> randall in Vancouver asks: What are your thoughts on the "Linux" brand and the effect it has on the Ubuntu brand. Is it useful to try to bind the two?
[16:19] <sabdfl> linux is an awesome brand - it says powerful, freedom, evolving, energised, capable, cross-platform
[16:20] <sabdfl> for anybody who needs to hear those messages, it's the best
[16:20] <sabdfl> ubuntu says freedom, precision, reliability, collaboration
[16:20] <sabdfl> we don't say "ubuntu linux" because that would scope the message to the subset of both groups
[16:20] <sabdfl> but linux is at the heart of what we do, i don't think anybody is under any illusions about that
[16:21] <sabdfl> it grates a little when people say "ubuntu is linux", because of course the linux ecosystem is much bigger than just ubuntu
[16:21] <sabdfl> and everybody should try more of 'em: fedora, gentoo, arch, go wild
[16:21] <sabdfl> there's something for everyone
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/...kLucid/AskMark
also am not sure if you watched this vid:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1464622
the best presentation i've watched
Last edited by madjr; May 12th, 2010 at 08:54 PM.
When close to achieving you quit! If you don't try you failed. Real Winners are not afraid of losing.
ubuntu newsletter ; Report Papercuts (small annoyances/bugs) ; beginners guide and video http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tNpt5RZYI
This makes no sense. Why centralise something then let it be modified and redistributed?
My sig is intended to warn new users that linux will do what you say, weather you understand it or not. The way it was designed.
It is. It`s called Ubuntu
Like I said, I`m no geek. I have never used windows, dos or a mac. I started with linux, after the gui was fully developed and happen to find the CLI more usefull than the gui.
Why do you want linux to be a brand? Use a Mac. As I have said, this defeats the point.
This is my zone. I like it just the way it is, thankyou very much. I didn`t have a computer until my early 30`s. I know nothing of Windows. It doesn`t bother me weather windows exists, dominates the market etc/etc/etc or not. Linux does just fine regardless. Check the Guayadeque links in my sig.
Absolutely no. The fact that there are multiple distributions, and fragmentations, etc, makes linux what it is.
With respect.
NS
Last edited by nothingspecial; May 12th, 2010 at 08:58 PM.
It is impossible for there to be a unified Linux.
So talking about the pro's & con's of such is a waste of time.
Whilst ever there exists FOSS & the GNU & other licenses that it is based on there will be people who enjoy creating different ways for software & systems to work, out of which wonderful things occasionally happen that for the benefit of many people, that otherwise would not.
I think that a far more valid topic is the discussion on the amalgamation of .deb & .rpm package formats.
That would have many positive ramifications due to the immense amount of time saved for those that maintain packages one way or another.
Freed of this task to some degree such people could be involved in far more creative pursuits, which would very likely improve GNU/Linux one way or another if those newly freed are developers.
I agree, but I also think the most practical way to get to that standard is through healthy competition, as you will never get people to just willingly agree to a standard without market forces in play.
If Linux does get netbook-desktop-laptop consumer penetration the way Apple has, whatever that distro is will then set the standard. If that distro is Ubuntu or Ubuntu-based, .deb will be the de facto standard. Any third-party commercial software will have to come in .deb if it wants to support consumer Linux.
If that distro is Fedora-based or Mandriva-based, then .rpm will be the de facto standard.
Well,
A distribution is like an opinion...
Everyone has a different one...
I think we should just let it be...
well, it has been unified already.
see the distrowatch.com, all the same.
Some degree of diversity is good. It helps the community grow because you there's no way to have improvement without competition. However, I do believe that heavy levels of fragmentation can hinder development. Take for example Linux Mint. What if instead of making a new distro separate from Ubuntu, they joined the Ubuntu team and helped improve Ubuntu itself. I think if the number of distributions was lowered then a beginner to Linux or maybe even an OEM wouldn't feel overwhelmed with the options they have. I think if people want to make their own distro that is made from another, and that if ther are only making intermediate to minor changes, then they should just try to help Ubuntu with what they want instead of further fragmenting the community. If however you would like to make vast changes to a distro and call it your own you should be able to do so.
We can all argue about what are views are but the fact of the matter is, is that people can do whatever they want. You can't force someone to not make their own distro if they want to, it's their choice and right.
- Stay Gold
If Ubuntu wants to implement any of the changes Linux Mint has made, they're welcome to. They tend not to, though. So what would be the point of Linux Mint saying "Hey, we have all these improvements to Ubuntu" if Ubuntu is just going to say "Nah, we're not going to take those improvements"?
This is what the GPL kind of open source is about (as opposed to the BSD kind of open source). If you don't agree with the direction a project is heading, you can fork it and make your own project without starting from ground zero and, more importantly, if the source project likes what you're doing, they can incorporate your changes into the source project.
This is a healthy balance between competition and cooperation. You don't have to waste a lot of time and energy trying to agree on something, but you also don't waste development effort doing everything from scratch. You can use other people's work, and they can use your work.
There is a thin line that divides this area and it's hard to tell where it is. You have a very good point, and it's hard to muster an answer. Nothing is perfect because nobody is the same. Everyone has different views on how things should be done. I guess I'm trying to say that you shouldn't give up on something for being imperfect, but you should try to make it as close as perfect as you can. You have to make compromises. If you don't feel that you can make those compromises then you should go and do your own thing.
- Stay Gold
Bookmarks