Slashdot Mirror
Turbolinux CEO Sees A One-Distribution Future
Scooter[AMMO] was one of the first with this report: "According to Turbolinux CEO Paul Thomas, the future will see Linux boiled down to one generic distribution. Catch the scoop here. How can this claim be made? How can a system like Debian throw away all its guidelines to create a generic distribution? I won't give up apt, and I sure don't see RH accepting it. Why should Peter let the uber-stable power user-oriented Slackware head towards the bug infested hail-the-script-kiddies Red Hat? Standards are great, but aren't the ideals of different distributions what give Linux its flavour?"
CAN'T FIND MY SLASHDOT PASSWORD - not a coward. wally@epoch.ca
I used to bash Redhat a lot; I think their distro is very buggy for UNIX software.
Way I see it, Redhat has done a LOT for the acceptance of Linux in the professional world; and for that they will always have my thanks. If it was not for Redhat, I would be running Solaris on a lot of the boxes I manage. Instead I run Debian, because in my opinion it is more stable/secure and easier to maintain [ Redhat NEEDS apt! ].
So thanks to Redhat pushing Linux, I am free to use Debian instead of Solaris.
Also, I don't think I would be listening to http://www.betalounge.com on RealPlayer running on Linux if it wasn't for the what I will call "the Redhat push" for linux acceptance in the real world.
It's called Open Source licensing.
Let's see...RPM is GPLed, as are most of the other tools used by Red Hat (or they are under another Open Source license). Also, there are other RPM based distros (Mandrake, Caldera, TurboLinux), and there are tools that allow you to convert rpms to debs and/or tgz. As for file structure/placement...well there's always symlinks (although I wish there were a decent tool that would keep track of symlinks).
Posted by polar_bear:
When a statement like this comes from a CEO of a second or third-tier company, it probably means that they're about to merge with one of the big boys...it looks like a save-face move to me. TurboLinux is not one of the distinctive distros - they don't have the name recognition of Red Hat, or the reputation of Slackware and Debian.
Turbo has done well in the Asian market (is that the correct term? I don't want to be non-PC...) but there numbers in the U.S.A. and Europe aren't worth diddly. I'd say that they're about to pull a SCO and their distro is going to be absorbed by another company.
On the topic of an Uber-distro - never happen. It's possible that the field will narrow to two or three commercial market-leaders, but Debian has a fairly solid user base that isn't going anywhere. Slackware has a fairly committed following as well. As long as there is Linux, I imagine you'll see three to five major commercial distros and the smattering of free or minor commercial variants you find now. (For instance, the KRUD distro that is based on Red Hat, but with bug fixes and such isn't going anywhere.)
The basic argument is that Red Hat's and Debian's make their money from support agreements, not selling packages.
/. today, I came across an even more ridulous related statement, that "Debian showed that Linux could be a commercial success back when people were calling RMS a Marx-wannabe" or something. Proof that the clue-level around /. has dropped even more precepitously since the last time I read the site than I had expected..)
Errrr, I'm sure Debian would be happy if you sent them money, but the Debian Project doesn't make money off it. (although I'm sure some individual developers do via consulting and similar things, which more-or-less covers the "money from support" angle you're thinking of)
(reading Debian-related articles on
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
"For a long time, Linux was dominated by hackers and somewhat of a less organized group. The result is a slowdown in innovation and a reluctance in enterprises to accept this solution," he said. "This has to grow up."
Where in the bloody fscking hell does he think Linux came from? Yes it is interesting and encouraging that many companies are now supporting Linux in various ways, but I'd call Linux a success story of innovation.
Before Linux, Unix was available to a limited audience. Add Linus, RMS, the ever expanding hardware to support Bill's digital defenestrators, the Hackers, the distro teams, and suddenly Unix is available to anyone who wants it. Geez, even Apple is putting BSD at the core of its OS.
"...a slowdown in innovation..."
I'd call it a golden age in computing.
Graham
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
What's a distribution? A collection of software that, when installed on a computer, will allow the owner of that computer to perform a set of tasks with the computer.
More precisely, a set of tools.
But there is no single tool or set of tools that will do all the jobs that need doing unless the set in question includes every tool ever made. Such a tool set would be unwieldy.
My point? A single distribution can't possibly satisfy the needs of everyone without being so large and unwieldy as to be useless to everyone. Ergo, there will always be multiple distributions, and this is a good thing.
I think it's likely that not only does the CEO of Turbolinux believe that there will eventually be only one distribution of linux, but also that said distribution will be Turbolinux. What a surprise, huh?
--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Why on earth was that comment moderated as Flamebait? Seemed like a reasonable set of proposals and well-thought-out. Moderators should not be marking something as flamebait just because they disagree with it...
Choice is good, to much choice can be overwhelming. One thing that is begining to bother me about Linux is the sheer number of distributions, especially since I need to keep up with all of them (doing weekly security digests and all). There is even a local distribution made by some guys who used to (no kidding) do tractor related hardware (like farmer stuff), but decided to make the switch. Right now barely anyone is really adhering to the Linux Standards Base, versions of GCC are all over the place, file placement is a crapshoot; /usr/man? /usr/share/man? It definetely wouldn't hurt to lose a few of the smaller players. I don't see how Linux can shrink to
What will happen is the big players will get bigger, making money through support, branding, and so forth. The little guys will get gobbled up, or fall by the wayside. And hopefully more people will adher to the Linux STandards Base.
Note to slashdot crew: you complain when journo's bash Linux/distroi's needlessly (I took a lot of flack on that Debian article, remember?) and I find the redhat bashing way lame. In response to an earlier article (RedHat has 1000's of bugs) you not only got the Bugzilla URL totally wrong, but the number of bugs as well. I was able to find less then 300 in total (open, closed, verified, you name it), and of those I'd say less then half were real problems. Slashdot seems to be getting sloppier and sloppier.
There is one operating system, which is like that - Windows. From my point of view, there is a value in having several competing dists. I am working for MandrakeSoft, and how much I want to see MandrakeSoft successfull, I don't want it to kill the competitors. One of the strengths of Free Software is that it reinsert competition in the software market. Do we really want to go back to The One True Operating System?
Disclaimer: These are my personal opinions, and may or may not comform to those of my employer.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
The point of the article is not RPM vs. APT, or this distro vs. that one.
It seems to be more about the arguement that we have all been hearing about more and more over the last year to two years. Standards, as far as where config files, binaries, libraries, etc reside.
I have read many of the arguments for both side and I still don't fully comprehend why standards cannot be implemented.
If it comes down to "this one uses a foo style, and that one uses a bar style" well why can't those styles have a standard way of doing things. If everyone that used the foo style put thier scripts in the same place it would make all our lives easier when helping each other out with problems.
If there was one Linux distro couldn't Microsoft just buy it out?
This won't happen and not for the reasons stated.
Debian will give up AptGet if they think it's good for Debian..
RedHat will give up RPM if they deside it should happen..
Slackware will pkgtool if they think they should..
But they will not clone each other.
Each Distro must compeate by targetting a diffrent group with diffrent needs. It's all Linux but diffrent forms of Linux and each behave diffrently.
Debian has AptGet becouse it's segment needs it.
RedHats users want RPM...
Slackware users demand a Linux that folows the KISS princaple.
Each folowing a diffrent market...
Linux an Os devided to be stronger... oh so very strange
I don't actually exist.
I normally don't complain about things that go on here, and I appreciate all the work put into this site, but I have noticed a lot of annoying comments made regarding Red Hat these days.
If the Slashdot team uses a different distro, they should keep in mind that some people choose different ones for different reasons, and lay off a bit on the childish remarks.
Whatever the 'future' sees.. bah.
THe only reason that it would boil down to one generic distribution is becuase it was good, stable, and what everyone wanted. And if that is what everyone wants at some point in the future.. great.
Until that's the case.. why even muse about it?
Just to keep things cool and controllable, I would propose three distros:
- Merge Red Hat and Corel Linux, Mandrake: a home-user distro, easy to use, end-user support
- Merge Debian and Slackware: a high-end server solution, rock solid, not for the faint of heart. Would require corporate support such as what red Hat offers
- Merge Caldera, TurboLinux, SuSE: The power-user's choice
This would lessen the Linux Fragmentation Effect(tm) and would also help standardise interesting issues, such as config file locations.
Who is this "Peter" fellow? I think he means Patrick.
-- iCEBaLM
Wow, I didn't read him saying any of those things. All he said was the truth; that you slam Red Hat more and more and post remarks degrading it's users.
If anything, you guys are posting flame bait and this guy is not trolling.
--
A mind is a terrible thing to taste.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
Red Hat is a company with a particular distribution of Linux which is well-known, well-liked and well-regarded. RH is a great distro, with perhaps the best documentation of any major distro (Mandrake's could use a lot of editing, not to say a bigger team of translators;), debian's is great for those who already know everying it says ...) and great application compatibility. Plus, they employ a lot of kernel hackers who constantly improve it.
Re: whether VA (who slashdot authors work for, albeit pretty darn indirectly -- we don't report to Fremont for anything) is a "rival for RedHat" or whether there is a "hidden agenda set by their masters?" Whaaaa?
OK, you're right. VA Linux (with whom I have close personal ties at least once every 2 hours) instructs me to disparage the variety of Linux they load on their own machines. VA owns Red Hat, I swear, but they've rubbed out anyone who's tried to make that public. Also, they tell me which floor of the book depository to wait on with the big rifle. Honest.
In short, a cheerful "pshaw!" to that particular criticism. I've used Red Hat (2nd distro I ever installed), and look forward to trying out future versions, too.
Cheers,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
You are so right.
Sitting here, surrounded by the humming noise of rackmounted Linux servers(RH 6.2), running; qmail, Apache, Squid, ipchains+NAT/Masq., BRU, Netsaint, Phorum, Samba, ssh, etc, this statement kind of hurt;
"...the bug infested hail-the-script-kiddies Red Hat?"
Especially since our site has survived a DDoS attack, a huge multiple gigabyte mailloop (well, technically it was a mail circle-jerk, caused by an ms-exchange autoresponder), without causing our RH based servers any problems (our bandwith was sucked dry of course).
I do like RH; both the company, and their distro.
I like rpm's, they make it easy to manage our 4 servers. Not that I have any problems with tarballs, but rpm's just makes things easier, while still having strict control over the systems.
I like the way RH is involved in the OSS community.
I like my bugzilla mails, and the fact that RH on the whole, is very responsive with bug-fixes.
I have no problem whatsoever, with other peoples choice of Linux distro. If someone wants to build their very own Linux distro from scratch, then I think that that is a cool thing to do; but it is not a viable option for _me_, though.
Going for another homerun in the ./ scoring system. :P
I didn't forget about the Kernel either.
But lets face it. The things that matter most in the differences between the linux distros also take up very little space. Today, its common that a linux install has a handful of kernels to choose from. Whats wrong with releasing a distro that has a kernel that functions from each distro, plus a unified kernel that is slowly evolving in the background? A Linux Distro can be designed to allow to easily switch in and out of different flavors, and to have symbolic links in enough places so that very little switching would have to be done in the end anyway. But enable the endusers to take the easy of decision making into their own hands, and same as developers. Stop leaving it in the ends of the Distros cause they aren't gonna unfragment on their own anytime soon.
We have Gigabyte hard drives today. All thats needed is a packaging system that is aware of the structure of each main distro and their differences. And for it to tell the difference between a base priority package, and all the same 3rd party crap that comes with EVERY DISTRO. Its not hard, its not rocket science. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT AND JUST DO IT.
Hell, I'll help.. and I'll put money on it. Anyone think they can pull off what I'm talking about? Contact me and I'll get the project funded, seriously.
Sincerely,
-Matthew
Technetos, Inc.
I really doubt there will ever be one distribution. However, I DO think that there will one day be a standard where it really won't matter what distribution you are using. That standard is inevitable, as business users adopt Linux, they will likely buy the same distro. Also, commercial software will only support one distro. You are already seeing the results of this with the popularity of RedHat and its RPM bretheren. Of course, RedHat will continue to be buggy, Slackware continue to be svelte, Mandrake continue to be optimized, and Debian continue to be outdated (no flames from the Debian guys please ;) but they will adopt a consistant standard so it won't matter which distro you run.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I was looking through the comments to see if anyone else caught that. The fact that Linux is dominated by hackers is why it has innovated in the ways it has, and hasn't been the way Microsoft is. Which way is better? To some degree, its a pointless discussion -- lets each do things our way, and let people decide. I'm sick of 'convincing' the world that Linux is 'better'.
... here's why. Why don't you try it?
I prefer Linux
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
If there is only one distrobution of Linux, it would completely defeat the purpose of having it. The only way i could see this happening is if they have different config packs or something. Where different configuratons depend on what you need it for, and your ability to use them.
But then, isn;t that what these different distrobutions are all about? Someone who is new would install Corel or Redhat, and experts use others like Debian, Slackware, Mandrake, etc...
I also don't really see a point to creating only one distro, it gives people more choice. And it allows people to choose what they want. Instead of you telling them what they want.
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
Indeed. I'm herining echoes of cries for story moderation here...score -1, Flamebait.
Ironically, as a committee member on my local 1200 person LUG, and someone who spends a lot of time with Linux users, the main arguments are always between Debian and Red Hat users. Again, and this is only an observation, I have met less than 10 people who use Slackware, and most others treat it as a bit of a joke, due to its lack of a packaging system.
While being a Red Hat user, those who see some semblance between Debian and Slackware would more than likely offend many [of not most] Debian users. Debian users like their distro because of its neat packaging capability. To suggest a semblance with a non-packaged Linux distribution would offend them to death. Likewise, most Linux server installations would ignore Slackware due to the idfficulty of upgrades and software maintenance tools.
The latest quarter's results are at http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ti cker=rhat&script=410& amp; amp;layout= 9&item_id=116923. From here we learn that RH made $9.25M on "subscriptions", $7.8M on services, and $1.44M on "web" in the last three months.
The treminology is a bit confusing, but I guess "subscriptions" is software related sales while "web" are sales of other items from the Red Hat Store?
The cost of revenue was $3.6M, $4.2M, and $58k, respectively, giving net profits of around $5.7M, $3.6M, and $1.5M.
So to answer your question: in profit terms software packages account for 53% compared with 33% for services.
In summary: The "basic argument" is wrong.
Hi!
>breaking the compatibility.
Compatibility?
har,har,har.
There is VERY little of this in the 'revenue driven' model of Linux. And the companies have no *REASON* to encourage compatibility.
Compatibility means customers can freely move from one platform to another. It is in the interest of the Linux Distro companies to create reasons not to move to another vendor. One way is incompatiblity.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
For trying to start an OS flame war with your "story". So, if this post is early enough, I just want to say let everyone know a couple of FACTS (just like the ones you offered).
- Gnome is better than KDE. I haven't used KDE in a year, but you know, i figure it must be the same as it was a year ago.
- RPM is cooler than apt because I know how to use RPM and don't know how to use apt and rpm sounds cooler.
- BSD sucks because its not Linux and not because I've never used it. Not to mention the mascot has too many pointy edges and could be dangerous for small children.
- Windows minesweeper is better than Gnome-mines. It just is.
If any one distro gains too much market share, what's to keep it from adding more 'features' and breaking the compatibility. When a distribution's revinue model is service oriented (as recent RedHat models are), then slight incompatibilities = higher revenue. Due to better service plans and more service calls.
I use Redhat and I'm not bashing them. I'm just saying that when it comes to business everything is driven by the 'al ighty ollar' (Simpson's reference for the Simpson's-impaired folk).
Keeping
Becaue I dared to disagree with the braintrust at Slackdot.com! There isn't a bit of this post that isn't rooted in the truth, but the loyalist don't want to hear it. Red Hat bashing is fashionable, but pointless. Too bad the community continues to fracture based on lousy journalism (using the term loosely) at place like Cnet and Slashdot (now in the same category in my book). Hurry up and moderate this down, we wouldn't want a casual reader to see the recent track record on Red Hat misreporting.
To fail is human, to blue screen MS!
When it comes to packaged distributions, it's no longer so simple. I am utterly fed up with the cluelessness of the industry and a lot of users. This may not be an original insight, but maybe the plethora of distributions is one of the qualities of Linux!
Sure, we have to deal with some incompatabilities and quirks, but the whole reason many of us choose Linux is because Linux gives us choices, not lack thereof (M$).
I believe, and this is quite sad, that no matter how supportive big industry players are of Linux, they all just want to see it become another Windows (RedHat). They want to see it get monopolized. Why (other than the fact that one platform is easier to support, but there are many consistencies that don't make software development that difficult - tens of thousands of programs written for Linux are distro independant)? Consider these examples:
Oracle for Linux, even after nearly two weeks of coaxing, will not run on anything other than RedHat.
Dell addresses Linux on its systems as "version 6.2". Go figure.
Retail stores tend to not market non-RedHat or non-Rh derivatives on storeshelves (look for yourself: SuSE, Mandrake, RedHat, Corel)
Large industry players (IBM, Dell, etc.) are pushing funds into RedHat like there's no tomorrow. Now RedHat are nearly arrogant as Microsoft (" We invented the Internet^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the Open Source movement! ").
I guess I'm starting to babble here. Maybe I just can't help the fact that I love my simple, clean, small, and fast incarnation based on Slackware. Maybe we need a Windows-like baseline for Linux to become widely accepted, maybe not. All I know is that the statement from our good friends over at Turbo is a clear indication of the dangers Linux faces from the big corporate world. Think about it! They aren't supporters of Linux! They are Microsoft advocates! Everything IBM and Dell (just two examples) do is for Microsoft, but they have their big toes dipped in our pond - and we, being so desperate for corporate attention, smile and welcome them. Oracle is of course, not in this for Microsoft. They like seeing Oracle run on Sun anyway (which is fine), but it's not hard to see that they want to force anyone with huge database needs (the big players) to install RedHat ( who seems to enjoy making people suffer with incompatabilities ).
What's the solution? Is there a solution? Should we be worried? I'm not quite sure. All I know is that as a community, I think we aughta recognize the threat and realize that RedHat and other larger corporate Linux distros are not our friends. Those at the foundation of Linux development aughta keep their eyes on this and make sure software isn't written for Linux 6.2.
The basic argument is that Red Hat's and Debian's make their money from support agreements, not selling packages. This might be true, can anybody who's checked out Red Hat's financials provide any insight?
As an end user I don't really care about the distribution I'm using. I'm currently using Red Hat, sort of, because I could buy it off the shelf when I bought my computer (two years ago). I'm still using it because I know where configuration files are not any loyalty to Red Hat. RPM isn't enough of an attraction to keep me, actually at this point it gets in my way due to the number of upgrades I've done from tar balls.
When I buy my SMP machine I might play with a different distribution (possibly Debian) but again there will be no real loyalty. In fact I'll probably just get the most current Cheap Bytes CD.
The flaw I see with his assumptions is that neither Red Hat or Debian will make a dime off of me unless they sell me a distribution. I've never had a problem I couldn't solve by RTFM or modifying source code. I'm sure there are many people at this stage of the game that are in the same boat. Possibly most users.
If I was running a company I'd insist on using a distribution with a good support system. They'd get money for that, but what is the ratio of hackers to corporate installations? I'd bet that the corporate installations are buried beneath the noise.
I think he is right, I know it will take time and I know it won't be easy but it is necessary, it is not a strenth but a weekness, imagine if all the effort put into so many different distros were focused on but one. -Mark
I think the way I misread this on my first glance is more interesting.
Not perfect english, but this is Slashdot, right?
AirSupply: go ahead, cut me off.
There are many RedHat users who are not "script kiddies" and actually know how to secure their distribution. Last time I checked, many other distros had security problems as well. Take it easy on the snide remarks. Just because you use Slackware and I use RedHat doesn't automagically make you a more knowledgeable person or the authority on Linux.
As far as it seems, they don't suggest anything about Debian or Slackware or any of the other non-commercial distros, which means we'll still have the world of choice in Linux software.
And only good can really come out of standardize the basic linux install -- that's what the article points out is that all the differences in the commercial distros can cause market confusion, ala the UNIX split, and thus will cost some points for Linux in marketplace acceptence. Standardizing the base, so that you *know* you will get the same security and services as the other commercial distro will help strength the commercial sales of Linux.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Right now Linux is used by hackers. Very few "end users" really know anything about it. What little they do know comes from the recent craze for Linux companies on Wall Street or from what their hacker friend/coworker has told them.
But as Linux, or I should say IF Linux, makes inroads into the desktop market this will change. As linux does this there will be one distribution which becomes more popular than the rest. Now at first there may be more than one attempting to enter the desktop market, but eventually one distribution will become the clear leader. As this happens more and more desktop users will come to use that distribution and they way in which it does things will become the de facto standard.
Other distributions will either have to emulate the dominant one, or be locked out of the desktop. The reason why is that end users are reluctant to learn how computers work. They'll learn enough to get by on the system they use but that is all. They're not going to learn more than one system unless forced to and no company is going to implement Linux without standardizing on a single desktop distribution. Now you will have regional favorites. The dominant distribution in Japan is unlikely to be the dominant one in the US or europe.
At the end of the desktop wars, the distributions left standing will be so similar to each other in terms of configuration and user interface, that they'll be virtually identical. At the very most you will have two camps with distributions within them being functionally identical. Isn't that what we've almost got right now with Redhat/Mandrake/Caldera/SuSe/TurboLinux on one side and Debian/Storm/Corel on the other? Now obviously these distributions aren't identical, but the distributions within each camp are similar and in some cases derived from one another.
Ultimately the various distribution companies may well find themselves making money from selling support for other distributions. I can easily see a day when Caldera offers support for Redhat and vice versa. If you're giving away the OS, what possible reason would you have to turn away money simply because someone is using another distribution that was also given away? As this happens the distributions will become even more consolidated to reduce the cost of supporting multiple variants. Then of course you'll see mergers and aquisitions and ultimately you'll have a handful of BIG companies doing corporate desktop linux. There may be a similar but different home user Linux version more suited to things like games. Much the same way that Win9x and NT are superficially similar but Win9x is targeted to home users and NT to business users.
Now this doesn't have much bearing on the hacker market. For us multiple distributions that are vastly different is the order of the day. There will always be a Debian or a Slackware in addition to a Caldera or a Redhat. We use and study computers for their own sake. Corporate users don't. For them the computer is a tool which enables them to do their jobs more productively. It is not an end in itself.
So when you read articles like this, understand that this is a suit talking and not a hacker. Competent suits understand business, that is what they do. They may not understand the technical issues behind Linux any more than they understand quantum physics. But they do understand how businesses work. They understand that the future money to be made from linux will come from selling support to other businesses which use linux. This is the real reason for the push to the desktop, $$$$$.
Forgive me if this post is slightly incoherent and repetitive as I'm slightly intoxicated at the moment.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
the brain trust at Slashdot found another reason to bash not only Red Hat, but Red Hat users. Let's see, how many reports on Crapdot this week were directly or indirectly aimed at attacking Red Hat? First there was the "2500 bugs" report, that turned out to be less than 100 when all of the duplicates were tallied at Bugzilla, then we had our bastion of open source reporting list an aritcle on Cnet (the pinnacle of shoddy reporting in the PC world) that Red Hat claims to have started the open source movement, later these comments are put into context and Crapdot eats more crow, then we publish the useless blame deflection of the GCC steering committee last night, omitting that 4 members of said committee are Red Hat staffers and that said committee were surely aware of what was going on, and this morning we Red Hat users get lumped in with dumb ass Winblows script kids? Way to fracture the community, you guys have turned into quite a group of assholes. I used to think that any distro that people used was good for Linux, but now (thanks to the continuously emerging agenda of Crapdot) I know that the only way I can find true Linux freedom is to use Debian, the only true geek purity test. I don't always agree with every decision that Red Hat makes, and I like a variety of distros, but I type this post from a perfectly stable Red Hat 7 machine, and this leads me to believe that there are more than a few hidden agendas at Crapdot. Again, thanks for trying to marginalize the community, we certainly wouldn't want to stay as a unified large group to drive our mutual goals forward.
To fail is human, to blue screen MS!
If there's one thing the UNIX vs. Windows struggle
.tgz's to allow them to be
.rpms and .debs, etc. would be another step). What makes
has taught over the past 20 years, it's that
when people and organizations standardize on
open standards, allowing multiple
interoperating implementations, the world ends up
a better place than when people standardize on
a given implementation.
The web would suck a lot more than it does if
instead of having HTML/HTTP they had instead said
"You must use NCSA Mosaic and CERN httpd".
Networking with TCP/IP vs. "whatever windows or
macs use at a given time"
Mail with rfc822/smtp vs. forcing everyone to
use Eudora, Exchange, etc....
Linux already HAS a common standards base, with
the LFS/LSB, a common kernel (I suppose logically
it should just be a common kernel interface, with
different people implementing kernels...mmm,
freebsd kernel under the hood...actually, an
LSB-standard which treated BSD linux emu as an
equal player would be nice!).
Major distributions should adopt that, and other
meta-standards (each of the packaging formats
is well defined, so a tool like debian's "alien"
should be able to work across them. Adding
extra data to
converted to fully functional
Debian, Red Hat, etc. worthwhile as independent
entities is not just the bits on the disk as
an end product...the distinct marketing and
support focuses, their internal priorities, etc.,
allow users to benefit.
The "non-big-four" distributions are already basing themselves to a great degree on tools and
such provided by the "big four", customizing
marketing, implemntation, support to provide
additional value to users. (I must say I'm
slightly annoyed to see Caldera and TurboLinux
in the big-four, but not Debian...I think it's
because the original article was related to
an investor conference, and there's not yet
a major commercial Debian reseller, but
from a decision-making standpoint, the total
number of users is more important than value
of someone's stock)
Consistency, yes. Merging, no.
I've had these ideas for awhile now, and I'm sick of watching all this fragmentation happening in the market... so I give this one away for free, right here.. right now. Take notes. Contact me for further and more elebrate details.
.RPM or .DEB or .TGZ may be for... it will always find the files and library files and paths, etc it needs to find.
/etc. But in reality, there isn't a whole heck of alot to do there, and its directory is small. You could actually have many different /etc's if you wanted to... linking in the different directory strucutres for the rc.d scripts and switching distro-personalities on the fly with a simple setup.
/etc to make things standard, or at least compatible with each other.
Making a generic distro is EASY.
Why?
Because they are all based on UNIX and we have symbolic links.
Make a script file that goes thru every directory and file, taking note of them and their location.
Do that to every distro. You will then have a listing of all the files and their location within every distro. Do that for Standard, Advanced, and certain custom installations.
Do a simple "diff" with a script on those textfiles lists to filter out all the files that do have standard locations.
Have the script file account for the difference between a link and an actual file.
Fill in the gaps of difference between all distros using symbolic links. Ensuring that no matter which distro an application or
The biggest mess will be
Then all the slow and bloated and confused LSB has to do is just come to certain terms on what to do within the
What LSB and othe organziations fail to realize is that the longer distros are fragmented, the more so they will become fragmented. A work around solution like symbolic links (which is already done anyway on all distros, just not to the extreme logical conclusion they need to be done at)... is the best thing to do TODAY.
At that point, we can then take our time to figure out where the actual PHYSICAL files should be kept and the paths that should be considered STANDARD within the see of solid and symbolic links within our UNIX system.
A map of this Standards base can then be created and files and links and then be replaced and moved on the fly with a simple script.
This map can eventually be used by 3rd party developers so that while the Distro makers squabble over who's right and wrong about how things can be done... The developers in the meantime have something they can savely work with and be sure that it'll work on Redhat, Mandrake, Debian, Corel, TurboLinux, Slackware, etc.
My plans go much deeper. I have detailed a way to create a standards base for ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS with such extreme logic, that I doubt few people would complain with the new way Operating systems and their folders and how applications and data and user data and configuration files, etc can and SHOULD be stored in relation to the root directory of ANY operating system.
I definitely invite discussion to say the least.
-Matthew
Technetos, Inc.
The concept of different distributions targeted at different types of users is very commonplace in this industry, why would Linux be any different?
To look at M$, we currently have Win98, W2K, Win Millenium, NT4, and even NT 3.51 still in use in a lot of places for different sorts of users and applications. Mac is going the same way. BSD has more distros then you can shake Tiamat at. Solaris has workstation and server distributions too.
One distro is never going to be everything to everyone. So what? I've never understood distro wars myself. I think each distro offers something to a certin group of users.
----
Remove the rocks from my head to send email
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
I'm surprised nobody has commented on the statement by Thomas that: The fact that Linux has been "dominated" by hackers is, according to Thomas, a problem? That fact has slowed innovation?
Sorry, but without the hackers there would be no Linux as we know it, much less innovation. Who else was going to do it? Who else, in fact, did it? Not to denigrate the current contributions of IBM, et al., but they were late to the party, and came only when a large amount of value had already been created.
Since the domination by hackers has, to date, led to a "slowdown in innovation," let's see what Turbolinux has contributed back to the community. Let us consider EnFuzion 6.0. According to the EnFuzion(TM)Software LICENSE AGREEMENT: How about TurboCluster Server 4.0. According to section 1.16 of the TurboCluster Server 4.0 FAQ: What "innovation" has Turbolinux contributed back to the community? My question is not rhetorical. I don't know.
And what does, "[t]his has to grow up" mean? Centralized control? Linux has a benevolent dictator. Perhaps corporate control?
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)