Slashdot Mirror
Linux to Fragment?
King_B writes "news.com has an article in which Sun's COO Ed Zander addresses the competition. One point to note is his prophecy concerning the eventual fragmentation of linux into non-compatible vendor-specific linuces. " Doesn't really say anything new, but nothing else seems to be happening today *grin*. People have been preaching about fragmenting Linux for years but it hasn't happened. And even if it did, I somehow doubt it would matter all that much. But it still gives COOs something to talk about I guess.
A while ago, I would have replied to this with the standard "It's open source yadda yadda yadda choice is good". However, after seeing Redhat's latest hijinxs with gcc, I'm starting to worry if this sort of thing will become a trend. So first it's gcc that's incompatible. Then what? Xfree86? glibc?
More work needs to be done to adhere to standards and distros not doing their own thing just for the hell of it. I'd really hate for Microsoft's 'mutant' ads to ring true.
Exactly!
.. Bzzzt.. Wrong. Not happening. Why? .. Because someone else will just do things THEIR way and in the end its the user that decides what they put on their machine, and if there's better alternatives then we use them. That's why a lot of us are using Linux anyway in the first place.
It's the freedom of choice of the whole thing that makes it all work.. With 'an entity' in charge of 'all things Linux', of course it can get perverted. Deals are made. Things are made to work a particular way without any alternative. In Linux land that is different and there will always BE alternatives. I think the same was said about RedHat a while ago 'Oh!.. what if RedHat try to take over Linux!?!?'
--
Delphis
Yea, that's like saying "Don't elect Dick Cheny as VP as his heart might explode if you sneeze loudly" .. it's possible but ..
Umm... yea..
Hmm.
--
Delphis
I think it's a miracle that Sun even exists today. Perhaps this goes to show how valuable a good brand name is. I mean, Sun hardware is expensive and delivers less bang for the buck than other hardware solutions -- yet they survive.
If you are going to listen to the generation of business people who did their best to run UNIX into the ground, to make it marginal, to make it expensive, to make it exclusive, you should have your head examined. These people were not responsible for the great UNIX surge of late. It wasn't because they did something great. They were just lucky to still be in business.
So when Ed Zander or Bill Joy talk about UNIX, or Linux or open source or even Java I can't really say I get very excited because I don't think they have much important to say.
So what if Linux fragments. It has fragmented already. There are many different Linux kernel projects and if people fail to see that this is beneficial to the Linux kernel development they need to get off the drugs they are on.
If Zander is trying to get attention by Metcalfing then so be it, but people should be able to recognize it for what it is.
As a *nix developer and system specialist, I already have to know the difference between HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, Linux, et. al. While each are similar, coding an application for each requires knowing the caveats of each and using tons of #ifdef statements. Why should the idea of Linux fragmentation be any scarier?
- Sig this!
Did Linux fork?
no
Are distributions different?
yes.
Ultimately, whether corportations create their own versions of Linux and purposefully make them incompatible with the main, doesn't matter at all. Whatever version they create is GPL'd. If it's worth it, compatibility gets added to the mainstream, if not, no one will be using their crap-ass distro anyway! Think about it; how many distro's out there are just gathering dust in some dark corner? That's just because they suck, immagine if they broke compatibility with EVERYTHING else out there! There is VERY strong pressure to keep things compatible and no need for Quote: "strong cohesive force to keep Linux...on track."
I can see it now! you get a brand new sparc machine that kicks ass, Oh but it came with Sun-Linux which is incompatible with Linus-Linux. Abracadabra! fdisk ; apt-get Debian! :O)
I try to get them to try NetBSD, which has one (series of) kernel, one core SW install distribution, one package system (which beats Red Hat's all to hell, but could take a couple of lessons from Debian's if what I've read is accurate), runs on almost anything, is supposed to be able to run Linux binaries (I've never tried), and other Good Things (TM). It's far less overwhelming/daunting for a newbie than the Linux menagerie. I think that the one major technical point holding it back is the install; it's not pretty from any angle...
Yeah, that's what I said above, only a little better :) Someone mod this up.
Partly... but more because it bore a name that carried big weight in the business sector, which had more money "laying around" for trying expensive new toys, introducing them at work to people who otherwise would never have considered a computer, etc.
And don't forget that IBM didn't open the entire machine; the BIOS had to be reverse engineered; and very carefully, to avoid legal hassles.
Anybody who wants to can become a PC vendor, just like anybody who wants to can become a linux vendor. Same difference. It's not a cause of fragmentation, the little guys have to be MORE standard because they don't have the clout to push for changes in the standard base. Only by BEING standard can they get anybody to pay attention to them.
If Seagate made an incompatable hard drive that didn't conform to the ATA spec, Dell, Gateway and Compaq wouldn't use them. They'd fold. If Dell put out a computer that wasn't compatable with gateway and compaq's, they'd get bad PR and loose customers. The PC HAS fragmented before, and the offshoots died because the main base simply outgrew them and rendered them obsolete.
It's the exact same thing with linux. Compatability is evaluated by consumers and enforced by consumers who decide what they want to use. It's that simple. Tandy didn't make compatable stuff, they lost out. -IBM- stopped making compatable stuff (PS/2, PC Jr.), they lost out.
Any enhancement that can spread and be adopted by other vendors becomes a new standard. Any that can't diffuse in this way is eventually ostracized (even initially successful stuff like US Robotics HST modems: if it's single vendor proprietary it is DOOMED to inevitablly fall by the wayside. The commodity stuff out-evolves it over time. Guaranteed.)
We've got decades of history here, the trend's not hard to spot. Even for guys in suits.
Rob
I don't think a completely study of linux binaries on FreeBSD has been done, so unless you have some facts to back up your statement I'd suggest you blow me.
Ranessin
Unfortunately, his quote, removed of context, implies that it doesn't. In the context of the original article he wrote, he was pointing out that he could get an IRIX system working quicker than he could get Linux working (aside: is his time really worth the cost of an SGI box? Did he really find Linux that hard?); that's a fair point.
However the quote, which is what I'm referring to, is typically used, out of context, to imply that other options are somehow bree of time costs.
We're already seeing incompatible, irreconcilable differences between linuces and linuxes.
--
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
JWZ's quote is snappy, but absurd, since it assumes that everything except Linux requires no time. The reality is that it takes time to get any system running correctly.
The only real threat to linux is the Linux community itself. If the community starts worry about religious wars instead of looking at them as options and different way of thinking then we will be ok. There is alot of room for different opinions
He's just ticked off because older unix variations could not keep it together. Maybe he just doesn't want to stick a "fork" in Solaris yet, but he knows it's in his future.
I have experience coding for Windows 98, NT, and 2000, and I can tell from personal experience that there are many ways these OSes are incompatible. For example writing some simple 16 bit assembly programs I had numerous places where my program on NT or 2000 would just work, no bugs. But put it on 98 and the program hangs or generates an exception. The same binary will work on NT 4, and 2000 but will not execute under dos or Windows 98.
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
This only would happen if there is only _one_ good Linux tree. But what if there were two, the first one supported by five companies and the second one supported by five other companies, both with a large number of users? What if these two trees became incompatible? The Linux user base would be split...
> Somehow I think something was lost in the comparison :/
:)
maybe the mileage after which they change the grease?
--
-Omar
But he never said that it doesn't take time to get any other system running. Nor does his quote assume that other things are free even if they take time. He's just pointing out that time is valuable and that anything that times time has an inherent cost to it.
Ranessin
And you've run every linux binary to test this theory of yours? Didn't think so. End of fucking story.
Ranessin
Actually, most of the changes in the RH7 file system were made to bring it closer to the FHS2.1 standard. There is, in fact, an agreed upon standard for where things are supposed to go, and AFAIK RedHat is as close to conformant as anybody. They even added a bunch of symlinks to their rc.d directory structure so that programs from other distributions would find inits where they thought they should be.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
> However, having it all in one tree still seems to make some sense: It will all be the same kernel, but if I compile for my pentium I won't have to include stuff for alphas, handhelds, or supercomputers
Sure, but it'll be a huge tarball (which is not a big deal). What is worse is that it will _always_ be broken.
Let's see the different level of modificaitons possible:
1/ A change that is good for everyone. No problem, it goes into the mainstream kernel.
This is what your original post was about
2/ A addition ("include stuff") that is good for some people, but useless for other people. No problem, you wrap it into a CONFIG option.
This is what you are talking about now.
3/ A change that is good for people but that would harm others (even if not enabled. It would populate the kernel with hundreds of #ifdef). Here, I am talking about big changes, like real time. Those are maintained off-line, in patches.
But, such changes are harder and harder to maintain. At one point, it will be more work to tweak the code so the patch still work, than it would be to re-implement (cut'n'paste) the kernel new features. And the patches would be in so many parts of the kernel that they would confict with other patches out there (ie: if, when you apply the handhelds patch, you can't apply most of the other patches out there, it means that the result is hardly linux)
This would be the the 4th kind of kernel modifications:
4/ Modifications that are so invasive that the result cannot be called linux anymore. Those deserve forks. And in that case it would be a good thing (note that you can bet that the fork would stay compatible with the model used for drivers, filesystem, and won't be a total alien)
(And there is always the classical ego-fork. Linux is probably safe from this because Linus is incontested. But, if he was hit by a bus...)
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Even if fragmentation occurs, it's all GPL'd so it will still be possible to make the various distributions/kernels compatible.
"God prevent we should ever be twenty years without a revolution." -- Thomas Jefferson
Actually, because it implied a falsehood through illogic, but that wouldn't fit on the subject line.
The post in question boils down to:
A. Any one can submit patches for linux.
D. Only the BSD inner circle can put patches into releases.
E. Therefore BSD has better quality code.
It left out the following clauses:
B. Only Linus or Alan can put patches into Linux releases.
C. Anyone can submit patches for BSD.
When you add the missing clauses, the conclusion E. is obviously not a logical results of the premises. Since the post is attacking Linux in a Linux subject with false statements, it counts as a troll.
Oh and there will be a major havoc on January 1st 2000, they predict, too.
--
Does anyone know what is happening with the linux standard base? Are the main distrobutions embarcing it? I havn't heard anything on websites. If not, why not or when?
Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
Do they mean "fragment" in the same way that Windows already has, under the direction of but one company.
No two versions of windows are completely binary compatible due to dll version differences.
Most people haven't upgraded to WinME so right now most home users are split amongst Win95/98/ME and even NT in some cases.
I know businesses that run NT 3.51 and 4.0 and 2000 in the same freaking room. Don't even begin to tell me they are compatible...
And to a lesser extent what about the crap Microsoft pulled with shipping 2000 itself in 30 different versions (Professional, Server, Advanced Server, Super Dooper Advanced Server).
Anyway, just trying to draw a parallel... As long as linux stays with a common C library (glibc) and keeps with one windowing system (X) and Gnome/KDE don't let themselves become incompatible than things can only become so fragmented. Although, a uniform configuration/filesystem standard(s) may be a good idea.
Justin Dubs
There has been talk of forking the kernel for ages. This hasn't happened yet, and I can't see it happening anytime soon. All the major Linux vendors seem to believe Linus will make the best (right?) choices for what should and should-not be in it. So far he has done a great job, by most peoples reckoning....
Unless there is a Microsoft distribution.....
Maybe they'll be able to back their claim that they invented an open source revolution if this happens
I am !amused.
*sigh*
The bible NOWHERE says the Earth is 6000 years old.
Gen 1:2 describes the RE-CREATION of the earth. The word 'was' really should be translated "became"
http://www.custance.org/hidden/6ch1.html
And here is one possible explaination for the "missing history" between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2
http://www.homeworship101.com/recreation_of_the_e
Yahweh Bless
I have found more information regarding perveted practices and terms of the 'Open Sauce' community
see here!!!!
This document details a new disgusting prastice called grope which is short for GNU rope!!!!
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
You're right, but saying "Don't bother with Linux because it might fragment one day" is like saying, "Don't elect Al Gore, he might die in office!" -- it's possible, but unforseeable.
Actually, if you look at the 'Zero Curse' numbers, whoever is elected has a good chance of dying if office.
For those who don't know, the 'Zero Curse' is that every U.S. President, starting with Lincoln, elected in a year ending with a zero has died in office. The only exception was Reagan, and not for a lack of trying.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
...that most people would be smart enough not to fork the kernel. Even if they did, they would have to release the code and anything good would eventually make it back into the main tree anyway, so why not just put it there in the first place? Although, I guess that might a problem with a monolithic kernel: all changes have to go through one person basically, and that can take some time...
Posted from the wireless couch.
How could you possibly say that? CNN is reporting that helicopters are tailing the ballot-toting Ryder truck in Florida at this very moment! This is better than O.J.!
Who knows, maybe the helicopters are following the worng truck and some guy moving to a new apartment is fearing for his life as these helicopters chase him.
For years I heard people saying that a monopoly like Microsoft is eventually bad for the market, because of a lack of competition. And now, when there are rumours about Linux forking, it is suddenly bad to more have more competitors on the same marketplace. Does this make any sense?
How to make a sig
without having an idea
I guess that quote is true if your talking about the "free as in beer" cost of linux. But that's not what makes the OS attractive, it's the "free as in speech" aspect. And that makes linux free no matter how long you spend with it or how much you pay for a copy of it.
They are doing this by using the dreaded word "fragmentation", which is merely the negative spin for heterogeneity. "Strength through diversity" is the positive spin, and would be the appropriate dogma to respond with. 8^)
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
What he's saying here is that if you want your software to run on Solaris you only have to compile and test it for Solaris, while with Linux you have to do this for several distros. There's one teeny eensy detail he left out: Solaris is only one "fragment" of Unix. To get your software going on AIX, HP-UX, Ultrix, and SCO Unices you have to guess what: get it to compile and then test!
Then there's other issues he's conveniently left out. Getting software to run on different Linux distros is a lot easier than doing the same thing for Unix variants simply because the amount of variation between Linux distros is much smaller than Unix variants. Different Linuces have the same kernel and C library while Unices don't, among other things.
He's grumbling about the fragmentation of Linux while claiming that his own fragment of Unix is the one that will solve all your software compatibility problems. It should be obvious that if you only use one variant of Unix then you don't have to deal with any other variants. DUH!
It's the same old marketese that Micro$oft is always saying: use our stuff and all your problems will go away. You'll be able to retire at 15 to a deserted desert isle where bodacious babes will attend to your every need and want. It's also amusing to hear someone from Sun grumbling about Linux fragmentation while at the same time holding up their own fragment of Unix as the solution to the fragmentation problem!
Bag the opposition.
I don't see them bagging Linux, moreso bagging Sun's hardware and software competitors (IBM et al), suggesting they are the ones that are going to screw GNU/Linux.
BTW, a fork of Linux means forking the kernel. He never described that.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
Tecumseh's Curse (named for the Shawnee Chief defeated by Harrison) is described in detail here.
--
--
A PC without windows is like chocolate cake with no mustard.
An expectation is a requirement to use a certain library, or programming methodology to get the job done. If I am contemplating creating an open source application, what am I required to know to run under OpenBSD? FreeBSD? GNOME? KDE? Self contained environments such as LispWorks?
Two 'Operating System' are sufficiently different/fragmented if there are sufficiently different expectations and requirements to make a running applications under them. If it requires a full time job to resolve the differences, then they are fragmented as far as I am concerned.
On the other hand, with the vast number of programmers willing to tweak my brilliant program :-) to run on their favorite *nix variant, perhaps the differences aren't so great in terms of cost after all. So this is really subjective, and I do realize this.
Thus, what is 'sufficient' is deliberately left vague. Or perhaps we can define a metric - the distance between two operating systems is the amount of work required to get a program running identically on both OSes.
The verification of the Triangle Inequality is left as an exercise for the reader.
I would be the first to admit there are some problems with the above way of thinking, but as with many questions involving language, they will never really be resolved satisfactorily.
---
You were a moderator with 5 points. You should have read the moderator guidelines before you did any moderating
And you may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?
I think that today they are more compatible than two years ago. However if you look at any two distributions it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that they are binary none compatible. Differnet libraries exist in each distro. Each program can be compiled against different version of the libraries with different parameters adn settings (configure --what options you pick). That is why Linux is Open Source and you get the source. You then compile the program yourself. This then becomes a none issue. So what? So I cannot take a binary from SuSE and install in Redhat. I can still build the rpm myself or get the tar ball. It's not that difficult.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Fighting for fragmentation or against it?
Seriously, these guys never solved anything, and despite the Single UNIX Standard, they never healed any wounds. Instead, the problem dissapated when they ceeded the desktop to Microsoft and the UNIX boys just hunkered down to sell big high-profit servers. So, Zander's seen it all before, but his take come from the background that Sun is just as clueless as RedHat or anyone on how to sell multivendor unix to desktops and small servers. At least Linux has a philosophical solution ot this problem - open software.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Why the fuck do you people always say that?
Why?
arnald
Wait... let me explain.
It all depends on whether you want to talk about the user experience or the kernel. Of course the kernel isn't fragmented, much. But the user experience very much is and has been for a while.
Different distribution default to different X environs, different system tools, and most importantly, dramatically different ways to add/remove programs. This is what the user sees already.
For example: Take two distros meant to be infront of desktop users: Corel & RedHat. These things are so far apart as to be nearly incompatible. Moving an application between the two pretty much requires that you be an expert. Your typical user isn't gonna want to compile, iron out libc conflicts, work out differences in file system structure, etc. And that's if the software maker provided the source. Otherwise, good luck installing it on a distro other than what it was packaged for.
Yes, at its core and by its licensing, it'll be hard to truely fragment Linux, but by the time it reaches the user (where it counts), it's practically broken already.
--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
"concerning the eventual fragmentation of linux into non-compatible vendor-specific linuces"
Oh, lets see here... DOS (6 versions) Windows3.1, Windows 95 (3 versions), Windows NT (two versions, I won't even go into the service packs.), Windows ME, Windows 2000, Whistler.......
It seems fragmentation hasn't hurt some OS's marketability. Shure some of these versions are compatable on the same machine, but there is usualy a fair amount of screwing around that has to go on.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
I hardly see any reason for Linux fragmenting. About the only thing which might cause this is if Linus got run over by a bus tomorrow, where there might be a scrabble for control, and a divergence of opinion in which way the kernel ought to go. But I personally believe and hope the leading developers would be able to get it together enough for the kernel to go on.
:-) ....etc.
There is plenty of scope for divergence in Linux already by making a different distribution. A mahor example of this happened with the formation of the Mandrake distro, which IIRC was specifically to incorporate KDE on top of a standard RH distro when there were arguments over KDE licensing. Distributions often attempt to emphasise different things, e.g. Bastille emmphasises security, Debian tries to stay as GPL as possible, RedHat tries to be as buggy as possible
In summary, there is plenty of leeway for all sorts of Linux enthusiasts to make and get the exact type of Linux that they want or need.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Why has this post been marked as a troll?
It seems any post criticising Linux is marked troll.
Why - it's completely true. Linux is not even the best free Unix clone, never mind the best OS.
What Linux does have is:
a good name
a great publicity team
a cute penguin
Hell if FreeBSD was called Linux, it would do well too.
Why don't these morons who don't know shit about kernels or operating systems, but who just instinctively censor the anti-Linux posts keep their mod points to themselves.
The point about professionals is very true: a controlled program is the way it should be.
This isn't a troll - it's the truth - why the hell should companies like Adobe and Corel invest their money in Linux when they have three hundred different versions of Linux already - for example, Photopaint doesn't install with Mandrake 7.2.
This doesn't happen with Windows - with it, when you release a new program, you're pretty damn sure Microsoft have taken the trouble to make sure it works with all the software.
A controlled OS made by professionals is better for everyone - just try telling me that Linux is a good as Windows or OS X.
Although the established parts of Linux are often well written (the kernel, things like mail utilities), the newer stuff, like KDE, is cobbled together by a bunch of amateurs, many of whom are writing their first programs as KDE.
PS. I'm sure that someone will mark this as troll as well, but it's not.
The fact is that Linux is a massive black hole of resources and effort - people trying to cobble layers of stuff onto decades of cruft - whereas a proper OS like Solaris, Windows or OSX is actually
managed - people say Windows sucks and Linux rules, but it's just a lie - you can't even configure the thing without using a hundred different text files, each with different formats; even projects like linuxconf have to be maintained separately because of the *massive* existing fragmentation.
Linux is already more fragmented than anything - how else can each different distribution be configured differently, therefore presenting a nightmare for developers.
Linux doesn't stand a chance while we have a hundred different, poorly tested, distributions deterring developers.
Those who say that Windows only succeeds through its publicity department are lying - the fact is that Linux has much better publicity than Windows - how else could people seriously promote it as a usable GUI when I can't even do something as simple as copying something from the best web browser, Mozilla, to the best interface, KDE, because of their using different toolkits.
I mean 'cmon people. If Windows' success is really due to MS' publicity, then Linux's publicity department must be run by an army of Goebells clones.
Free Anne Tomlinson!!
Why has this post been marked as a troll?
It seems any post criticising Linux is marked troll.
Why - it's completely true. Linux is not even the best free Unix clone, never mind the best OS.
What Linux does have is:
a good name
a great publicity team
a cute penguin
Hell if FreeBSD was called Linux, it would do well too.
Why don't these morons who don't know shit about kernels or operating systems, but who just instinctively censor the anti-Linux posts keep their mod points to themselves.
The point about professionals is very true: a controlled program is the way it should be.
This isn't a troll - it's the truth - why the hell should companies like Adobe and Corel invest their money in Linux when they have three hundred different versions of Linux already - for example, Photopaint doesn't install with Mandrake 7.2.
This doesn't happen with Windows - with it, when you release a new program, you're pretty damn sure Microsoft have taken the trouble to make sure it works with all the software.
A controlled OS made by professionals is better for everyone - just try telling me that Linux is a good as Windows or OS X.
Although the established parts of Linux are often well written (the kernel, things like mail utilities), the newer stuff, like KDE, is cobbled together by a bunch of amateurs, many of whom are writing their first programs as KDE (e.g., see proof here).
PS. I'm sure that someone will mark this as troll as well, but it's not.
The fact is that Linux is a massive black hole of resources and effort - people trying to cobble layers of stuff onto decades of cruft - whereas a proper OS like Solaris, Windows or OSX is actually
managed - people say Windows sucks and Linux rules, but it's just a lie - you can't even configure the thing without using a hundred different text files, each with different formats; even projects like linuxconf have to be maintained separately because of the *massive* existing fragmentation.
Linux is already more fragmented than anything - how else can each different distribution be configured differently, therefore presenting a nightmare for developers.
Linux doesn't stand a chance while we have a hundred different, poorly tested, distributions deterring developers.
Those who say that Windows only succeeds through its publicity department are lying - the fact is that Linux has much better publicity than Windows - how else could people seriously promote it as a usable GUI when I can't even do something as simple as copying something from the best web browser, Mozilla, to the best interface, KDE, because of their using different toolkits.
I mean 'cmon people. If Windows' success is really due to MS' publicity, then Linux's publicity department must be run by an army of Goebells clones.
Free Anne Tomlinson!!
What we need to do is set up a standards committee, a group of experienced linux users/coders who know the basic AND the advanced structures, etc. along with some basic users who can draft a set of standards along the lines of cross-distro compatibility.
NOT, I repeat NOT a governing body, but more a voluntary process by which each distro can proudly annouce "We're Linux2000 compatible" and the end user can look for the commitee's seal and know that when they purchase it, it's not going to be a waste of their money and time. They will be able to install it without great pains, and that the software they download, or the hardware they have will be compatible with ALL distributions that have passed the inspection process.
I've had this thought for a while and will put more time into it later.
If you're interested in bouncing ideas around about it, email me
Are YOU listed?
How is this not true? RedHat decides to take a certain version of the kernel, KDE, a peculiar flavor of gcc, and some other stuff, RedHat-ize it, and make a distribution out of it. Debian chooses another version of the kernel, Gnome, uses apt-get, and has a different distribution. Mandrake throws in some nice Mandrakish features. Others yet, take whatever other pieces they want and create a customized flavor of "Linux" (ok, perhaps not a customized codebase). We champion this as serving different needs. But isn't it still true that the same process has the potential for many conflicts? File system formats, hierarchy standards (file system standard and LSB notwithstanding), versions of applications, system policies, configuration tools, init scripts, custom scripts, etc. For all intents and purposes, Linux, as seen by the consumer, is fragmented. I think there should be a strong cohesive force to keep Linux, as the gestalt system, not just kernel, on track. Maybe LSB is it. Maybe not.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Someone adds something worthwhile to linux - the other distributions will simply incorporate it as allowed by the GPL.
Someone adds something which nobody uses. Yes linux has forked but who cares if nobody uses it.
The GPL ensures that while forks are allowed, and perhaps even encouraged that the best of all forks becomes common to all of them fairly quickly.
I was more concerned by his comments on java. Saying that java would become open source but that nobody would be allowed to make any changes to it that sun didn't like. That's hardly open.
Sig is taking a break!
I'm no expert, but I think it would take fairly major changes to fundamental peices of the system (like a serious kernel change, or a change in the runtime) to make two versions of linux incompatable. Considering this, is it even probable that some organization (excluding microsoft) would go through the trouble of making an incompatable version of linux?
I mean, just look at what companies like Indrema (DV Linux), Palmpalm (Tynux), and countless others have accomplished with releltively minor (if any) modifications to the base linux system.
Behold the 2 cents.
The real fragmentation in today's world of computers is the complete and utter incompatibility between UNIX and Windows.
This is of immediate concern to me (and I mean really immediate) because I'm currently working on packaging our company's software. We support UNIX (Solaris, Irix, Linux) and Windows (NT, 2000). The headaches caused by differences between the various Unices pales in comparison to the headaches caused by the differences between Windows and UNIX.
I wish Microsoft would follow Apple's lead and adopt BSD for their next OS... (heh, yeah, right.)
--
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Is the goal of Linux to make substantial inroads into the desktop market space now held by Windows? If so, I'd argue that's a target audience that thinks the OS equates to the GUI and the a "kernel" is a little piece of corn, From that perspective, if it looks different, it is different. All these different install routines, the variations in directory use and structure (why oh why do they do this??), and the games going on with startup scripts drive me nuts, and I like to pretend I sorta know what I'm doing. Expecting a newbie -- who sees this Linux thing as just another tool and is no more fascinated by the OS itself than most people are in the workings of their car's gearbox -- to somehow put in the effort to chase down all these apparently pointless differences between distirubtions is expecting too much. Take a lesson from McDonald's -- or Windows, for that matter. Wherever you buy it, it's still the same thing.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
In short, so what. This is Sun FUD. Sun is clearly afraid of Linux and this is the best response they can come up with. Pathetic. Frame the argument in their own terms, and hope that everyone takes the bait and wants to argument the point about why Linux won't end up being fragmented.
Python
Python
That's an interesting straw-man you put up there. Assuming the software you describe is truly useful, I believe that there are several reasons that the binary-only, gratis version would get used more, not the least of which is that people without a lot of disposable income would be sure to use it. However, the more orthodox proponents of Free Software would not be content with any restrictions placed on their right to use code, and so would scoff at both these versions. (I have little doubt that the binary-only, gratis version would have more takers, even if the source of the payed-for version was GPL'ed, but that is because the more orthodox proponents of Free Software are relatively few in number compared to the total number of users of Free Software).
You are simply missing the whole point when it comes to Free Software. Free as in speech is NOT just about having access to the source. It is about having the freedom to do what you want with the software once you have it, whether you paid for it or not. It's about having the freedom to see how it works, to correct it if necessary, to make copies of it for oneself or one's friends (the freedom to share), etc. To expand on Bob Young's automotive analogy to fit your scenario: Free Software advocates don't want a car with a sealed glass hood; they want a car with a hood they can open, so that they can tinker with the engine, and maybe give the battery to their friend if they feel like it. When I buy a car, I get the whole car. Not just the right to use the car, with draconian restrictions on who can be passengers, and what parts and accessories I can install in it. Why should software be so different?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
It's broken, is it?
How many other development methodologies have produced mature, stable, reliable, highly portable operating systems in under ten years? Do better, and then tell Linus his methodology is broken.
Let's face it, of course Linus listens mainly to people who've earned his trust and become his friends over a long period of years. That's human nature. He doesn't have time to listen to all the people who want to grind their own particular axe. He's a dictator. This is a good thing: there is one person who takes the final decisions, He doesn't have to get them past the technical architecture committee. He doesn't have to get them agreed by marketing. He doesn't have to get the board to buy in. He just decides. And because he decides, we get a decent platform in a reasonable time.
Like I say, if you can do better, go ahead and do it. There is nothing stopping you.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
What really happens is you get lots of people saying "free as in speech" to make themselves feel good about their motives when they really just don't want to buy software and don't mind going the warez route if need be.
It'd be an interesting experiment. Release two versions of a product. One is no cost but is only the binary. One is expensive but has the source (with a restriction not to redistribute since "free as in speech" is about having access to the source). Let's see which one gets the most copies out. Then lets see how long it takes for the source to get distributed anyway.
Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
Hey, Ed Zander lived through the BSD/Bell religious schism, the fragmentation of the vendor Unixes and the Unix International -vs- OSF standards wars. Of course he's going to worry about fragmentation: his career's been spent fighting it. That said, I think he's wrong: the older members of the Linux community also remember those years, and will "educate" the community. With a large hammer, if necessary (:-))
davecb@spamcop.net
B1ood
Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
Zander stated in the article:
:-)
/perv mode >
The thing with Linux today--I call it the bathtub.
< perv mode >
I prefer to think of it as a hottub with lots of compliant co-eds in there willing to perform my every whim!
<
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
At last! Uncontrovertable proof that Darwin is useless and we should all avoid Evolution in favour of the superior Creation.
The threat "you will have to recompile" due to OS fragmentation is pretty hollow since you have to recompile anyway if you're dealing with multiple hardware platforms. Sun should know better, it's not like I can compile something on Solaris X86 and have it run on a Sparc. No matter what happens with OS fragmentation, I think it's safe to say that the hardware will be fragmented for a long time to come.
Anyone who thinks Linux isn't already suffering badly from fragmentation needs to look at the facts:
- Most distributions use different filesystem hierarchies.
- Most distributions require you to either build from source (so as to build in a distribution-specific way) or install binaries that were precompiled specifically for that distribution.
- In the Linux world, you've got to have these ridiculous tools that actually tweak makefiles and such *before* compiling to make everything is buildable on whatever specific distribution you're running.
- It's nearly impossible (and extremely difficult) to write simple GUI tools for basic system configuration (such as hardware installation/removal, configuring a network, etc) that will work an any distribution, because so much of the low-level system guts needed by such tools are different from one distribution to the next.
- Every distribution includes different programs, different libraries, etc, with no defined set of common tools, programs, and libraries that are guaranteed to exist on all distributions.
The fact that Linux is already so fragmented is the number one reason why Linux can't come close to competing with the ease-of-use of Windows or Macintosh platforms.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
Sun believed and invested enough in Linux to buy Cobalt and to put major effort into a Java port. (Yes I know some of the original work was down by Blackdown but Sun has teams wokring on it now side by side with their Windows and Solaris teams.)
IMO there seems to be some segment of the Linux community that over-lap with the conspiracy lunatic fringe. Neither can be happy unelss they can find someway to think everyones "out to get them."
Remember, Sun doesnt make money on Solaris. they nmake money on Sparcs. They are still fundementally a hardware company.
Frankly I think Zander was just expressing some very honest concerns.
Sun thinks that Linux will be unusable because it will fragment. That's amazing, especially since they obviously didn't bother to look at their own history.
For 30 years, Unix has been the frontrunner in enterprise and network-related computing. The only real alternative is Windows, and no Windows product holds a candle to a mature Unix.
What does this have to do with the fragmentation of Linux? Quite simple, really. Take a look at Sun's own Unix product, Solaris. Solaris is not just repackaged AT&T Unix. It's a completely different product. As is BSDi, OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, SysV Unix, and many others. All of these are fragmented, mostly-incompatible Unices. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Solaris is based on SysV.
So now you see that Sun's own brainchild, perhaps their software nest egg, is a fragmented spin-off of Ritchie's original Unix from the 70s. I can't believe they would think that Linux will become unusable due to incompatibilities, when Solaris, as I'm sure they'll swear, is perfectly usable despite all the incompatibilities in the various Unices.
Don't get me wrong--Linux isn't our Saviour. We most likely won't be doing miraculous things with it, and it will probably fade into obscurity as new operating systems come into being. However, I refuse to believe that a fate which every Unix escaped is going to fall upon Linux.
I do not belong in the spam.redirect.de domain.
There isn't enough therapy ANYWHERE to deal with the author and to comfort people who read this.
You're tired of Slashdot ads? Get junkbuster now!
>It's broken, is it?
Compared to BSD....yes. At some point Linus will have to admit the kernel needs CVS or some form of control. It will be interesting to see how Linus handles the transition.
>How many other development methodologies have produced mature, stable, reliable, highly portable operating systems in under ten years?
Lets see, what was the methodology?
1) used SYSV Unix as a model (not much DESIGN here)
2) Used other people's BSD and GPL code. (again, falls short on design)
3) Used Minix as a base (again.... design)
Methodology - Copying and using parts that already work from others. Not alot of heavy mental lifting on design when you use others code.
Stable and reliable. Sure, compared to Windows 3.1 or Windows 95, or older versions of itself. But Linux is 'reliable and stable' compared to BSD? How about Solaris? AIX? Tru-Unix? Sco? QNX? (this is subject to debate....debate away)
Mature - BSD has the WHOLE CODE HISTORY of UNIX behind it. Linux - A unix copy. BSD wins here....no argument.
Highly portable - NetBSD says they have the highest portability.
>And because he decides, we get a decent platform in a reasonable time.
The long delayed release of 2.4 kernel is an example of this?
Or, how about all the userspace programs that make the kernel useful? Mostly unix code....and nothing that can't and doesn't exist on other unix kernels (BSD/Sun/SCO/Qnx etc la)
The stuff that makes Linux useful is all userland....and nothing Linus has control over. I maintain your 'decent platform in a reasonable time' is the hard work of the 100+ linux distro companies.
>Like I say, if you can do better, go ahead and do it. There is nothing stopping you.
Looks like it has been done. It is called BSD.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
"Linux is only free if your time has no value" ... Capital error: this might only by true if free is equated to gratis. Corollary ... if this is a representative statement by Sun. Corollary? (BTW: even accessing the Internet is not gratis.)
Bad prose often goes in pair with abundant humbugs. Indeed. One out of many.
This is usually referred to as Tecumseh's curse. It actually started with Harrison who was President 20 years before Lincoln, and was created by Tecumseh, after his defeat in the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811.
Okay, you're quite right. That is probably the worst case, although the ability to support the executable format will most likely remain. The libraries will probably not change too much.
I think a more likely split will be of the distros. I could quite easily see a Redhat-Debian split, with people producing packages which work on anything based on one but not the other. Its amazing how often people assume that everyone has the same system.
I like that idea of a standardized Linux distro, maintaining some sort of consistency should brought to the forefront. The one thing about a Microsoft admin (a good one that is), is that he/she can take that knowledge to another MS environment and apply that knowledge.
PS - I am looking for a free dial-up ISP for Linux, similar to NetZero, Juno, or FreeI for the MS world. Know any?
I am not sure that I agree with that fragmentation does not really matter. Unix was one OS until it fragmented, if Linux went the same way as Unix what would there to be differeniate the two OSs. If the Linux is fragmented, then so is the development effort and thus the eventual rate of progress diminishes because there are so many factions to support.
The fact that there is no real source control mechanism used for the Linux source is a problem. There is no common place to submit changes if you aren't part of the core team. Maybe even if Linus is not using source control, maybe linuxhq should for the varios releases.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
If you're referring to Linux as the whole OS with all the good little tools, applications, etc., then it has already fragmented.
I've been using Red Hat Linux for quite a while now, and I could comfortably work in most any version of the distribution. But plop me on a Caldera machine and I start to get lost quickly. Debian uses yet another file structure and configuration scheme. I haven't even used Slackware since the days of downloading 40+ floppies, but I know they've got their own standards. And don't forget the other distributions: Mandrake, StormLinux, Corel, etc, etc. Although many of them are just modifications of other distros.
I think this will just get worse over time. Right now, it doesn't take too much time to learn how a new distro is put together. But, with the addition of all these graphical configuration tools (linuxconf, yast, etc) that are very particular to each distro, it won't be too long before you're spending an hour just to figure out to tell sshd to not allow root logins.
It just doesn't make sense for any distribution to not play well with others. Lets say my favorite distro creates the WizBang(tm) filesystem. Sure, if I'm MicroSoft now everyone has no choice (NTFS). But if I'm a Linux distro, I most likely have to release my source (depends on how you implement it, but probably). Plus, if I don't play well with others, why will anyone convert? WizBang(tm) will die a good horrible death and we'll move on to ReiserFS, etc. It's in my interest to create a distribution that works with all sorts of things, including other distributions.
I just don't see it.
Let us hope that the different projects out there that try to unify the most important things like filesystem hierarchy (Linux FHS) and the like succeed and that all vendors are smart enough to adopt them. Furthermore, the GNU project is the other essential part of the GNU/Linux OS. Because of this, both - kernel and the GNU part - would have to be split in order to generate a completely different distro. I do not think that any vendors is likely to maintain its own "port" of the GNU programs for its kernel.
If it's suspected that there might be a rift in the Linux community, then let's investigate right now. An ounce of prevention...
<bitter>
No, there's no disenfranchisement at all! People are totally happy with the slow, planless, buggy, bigoted, inner-circle-only development methodology that Linus&Co follow. And thre rest of us are looking forward to reading Linus' autobiography! I mean, Linux really is open. Everyone, from the big vendors down to individual developers, feel free to speak their mind and submit patches, knowing that Alan Cox, Alexander Viro, Linus, etc. et al, will ignore them. Nope. No rift here. Everything's just great!
</bitter>
An ounce of prevention won't get you much at this point. We need a pound or more of cure, and then several ounces, at least, of prevention. The Linux development methodology is broken. There's quite obviously an inner core of developers who do whatever they want, and then there's the public list, which is largely a decoy. Decisions are made off-list and then maybe reported after the fact on the list. Major changes are made without planning, foresight, announcement, documentation, or debate (check out Viro and the VFS). Rather than use any kind of intelligent source control (like CVS), Linus, etc, use their Accidental Patch Control System, which allows them to add things like brand new journaling filesystems "by accident" (according to Cox). Cox's idea to remedy the obviously broken release cycle (look how long it's taken 2.4 to get to 2.4.0-test-X-pre-Y-ac-Z-pooch-screw and how many problems it has) by suggesting a hokey-pokey skip-a-number, backport, and then jump ahead a number scheme. Rather than, say, doing planning to define specific attainable goals ahead of a release and avoiding feature creep during the development of that release, and doing only bug fixes during the pre-release testing of the kernel. No, that's stupid. Can't do that. And god forbid that the kernel support a debugger. That just makes programmers stupid. According to Linus "please buy my book" Torvalds.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Cardinal Biggles wrote: the GPL [...] makes irreversible forking-fests like the UNIX wars less likely with Linux I rather disagree: The GPL helps reduce the advantage of forking, but it doesn't prevent large competing camps (e.g., UI vs OSF) from growing up, each with favorite sets of components. To a limited degree, this is what happened with KDE and Gnome: that break very much reminds me of the Bell -vs- Berkeley split.
davecb@spamcop.net
Of course, Sun said it, so it must be true.</sarcasm>
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
This only would happen if there is only _one_ good Linux tree. But what if there were two, the first one supported by five companies and the second one supported by five other companies, both with a large number of users? What if these two trees became incompatible?
Actual fragmentation is unlikely with open source. The only way you'd get such a senario would be where the two different groups had users with different requirements.
ok you want code:
[BITS 16]
extern init_scr
extern game
global array
segment code code
..start:
mov ax,data
mov ds,ax
mov ax,stack
mov ss,ax
mov sp,stacktop
call init_scr
;more code but not relevant to example
initscr.asm:
[BITS 16]
GLOBAL init_scr
SEGMENT code PUBLIC
..start:
init_scr: push bp
mov bp,sp
mov ah,0
mov al,3
int 10h
;the program crashes at int 10h under dos but works perfectly on NT 4 and Windows 2000
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
Then there will be some who will say that it has already fragmented... And point to KDE and Gnome as their proof...
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
If we get lots of different version, then some of them are going to be better than others. The bad versions will die. The good versions will merge into a "Best of" version. And I think thats a worst case scenario.
I suspect an "orthodox" person wouldn't consider a non-redistribution agreement which includes both the original and derivative works to be "free" and without that, it is automatically gratis (unlike the car). Unless you have a matter duplicator, bits and atoms are NOT the same and make for bad analogies when discussing redistribution.
...big, bad Sun has said that Linux is going to fragment!!! Well, since Sun said it, it must be true... after all, they *are* the dot in dot com.
*snicker*
This is one of the great scare tactics used by both Microsoft and Sun to get the PHBs to avoid Linux. Linux has not fragmented, and probably won't for a long, long time, if ever. Too many of the key players (Red Hat, Caldera, Mandrake, Turbolinux, et al) have too much in stake with Linux to allow it to fragment into incompatable operating systems. I think it is more likely that Microsoft will give up on their appeal than for this to happen... hehe
wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team
IMMINENT DEATH OF USENET!!! (these caps are important for the sake of the joke, it's a quote. stick this in your filter.)
The expensive source license allows you to create modifications to your copy and modify all the other copies where you've purchased the source license but to no others including copies you've only obtained under the "free as in beer" license. You may also send your changes back to the original author who can distribute your changes at whatever price they want if they choose with whatever changes they want to make. You can thus tinker all you like with the one you've paid for. Is that "free as in speech" while not "free as in beer"? Do you think it would sell?
An ounce of prevention...
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Regardless of how free you want your software, this speaks to the benefits of the GPL. First, the bad part of forking is incompatability. This is pretty obvious. The good part is competition, as you mention. However, there is CURRENTLY competetion in Linux, without a fork. It is the best of both worlds. How? Because of all the distributions, for one. Second, because of all the kernel hackers (and GNU hackers, and XFree hackers, and ...). If I have a more efficient scheduling algorithm than the one currently in the kernel, I get to put it in the kernel. Then you have a better algorithm, it gets in. Then Fred has some algorithm that kicks butt on SMP, but is slower on a uniprocessor box, so Freds gets put in and conditionally compiled. There is your competition, and it is indeed good! One just never has to worry about trying to port their application from HiQ-linux to zosima-linux, or all the other hastles of a 'real' fork.
Wow! Someone posted some constructive criticism of Linux, and didn't get modded into oblivion!
Well, actually, I did:
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Insightful=1, Total=3.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Wouldn't they like it? oooh - they'd love it. after all it would only give them more arguments to say "See - out OS is better - who do you call when everything is falling apart?"
:) Survival of the fittest!
They all seem oblivious to one thing - it is the nature of things to evolve and branch - Darwin was right!
--
Each with incompatible API's and behaviors. The problem is how fragmentation is defined.
Man you are totally missing the point, it doesnt MATTER what window manager you are using or what kind of filesystem you use.... you compile source on your system to run with your setup... its that easy.
/etc... you'd be amazed at what's in there.
As far as people saying that there are config files all over the place and how can one ever know where to look?#$ Welp, try
And the init script thing? Some people would have you believe that each distro uses their own system, well last time I checked the various distributions fall under one of 2 categories: BSD style or SYSV style. So while their may be some minor differences, the fundamentals are still the same. No it doesnt mean it's easy as pie for a newbie to jump in to a new system and start tweaking their init scripts but it DOES mean that there is method to the madness and no, the people who put together these distributions are not just pulling init styles out of their ass.
I think the problem stems from people trying to apply wintel thining to a linux issue. Only when you start insisting on pre-compiled binaries that work on every system do things start to get messy.
- Toby
This adds to my bottom line, I can charge a lot for my time. Now my client can afford a stable platform that is easily trouble-shot remotely. As opposed to say hundreds or thousands of dollars spent on the operating system that may or may not be stable. Thus I make more, and the customer pays less.
I guess the probable source of a split would be if some Linux people take training to the MS extreme. i.e. memorize a hundred questions and here's your certificate that says your an "engineer". This by it's very nature brings people into the technical world as workers that our ill equipped to deal with real world problems. They also would not be equipped at all to deal with a Linux distro they are unfamiliar with.
A failure to understand the underlying principles or be able to THINK gives us a world where techs can only deal with what they know by rote. They are slow to adapt to new things, they are unable to read manuals and glean basic understanding from them. They make the job harder for those of us that know more than "point and click". These people would drive any Linux schism. Usually these people are also the MOST vehement defender of any one distribution simply because they don't know any thing else.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Maybe you're right. Perhaps we are too late. Oh well, if Linux does split, then I hope it splits into the practical Linux and the T\/\/34K3R'5 L1NUX.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Assuming the process had the right mix of being 1) open to most voices in the community and 2) fast enough to incorporate new innovations into the standard core, it might be helpful to prevent fragmentation.
Do domain names matter?
I personally am not too scared of a kernel fork, if it is done right.
There are a whole set of features that a industrial-strength server needs that a workstation doesn't. There is also a large set of tweaks that work great on multiprocessor, large memory machines that will not work too well on the 486 that you scavenged to use as a firewall.
So a kernel fork may very well happen, with a more industrial-strength kernel being created to be shipped with higher-end servers.
But, at the same time, any kernel form will probably be GPLed. And unless the people doing the fork have the brains of a box of rocks, they will probably end up keeping compatability.
And the BSD folk have nothing to be proud of. BSD forks like rabbits fcsk.
Gentoo Sucks
You just described the Linux Standard Base project. Now if only that spec would get finished...
Its not very scary to me:
- If an ignorant 'fuck' as you put it has an opinion that cannot be refuted, then the opinion is valid, therefore it nullifies your classification, unless the opinion itself directly scares you.
- Otherwise, the opinion can be ignored.
Now don't you feel better? You can still sleep with the lights on if that'll help, and good thing you posted anonymously, you sounded a bit ignorant yourself. (Didn't scare _me_ tho :-)
I think UNIX forked into so many slightly incompatible vendor-specific distributions (one of which is SunOS BTW) because the original Berkeley UNIX was licensed very liberally.
Linux is not so liberally licensed (namely, under the GPL) and that makes irreversible forking-fests like the UNIX wars less likely with Linux.
Proprietary (==non-free==closed-source) Linuxes can't happen because of the GPL. So if an incompatibly forked version is ever released, the itch that this creates can and will be scratched.
Submitted != Accepted
I'm sure to lose karma for this, but:
... one with less detail, one with more -- so a summary followed by details.
The only people who see a distance between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 are those who came up with some form of gap theory and needed to justify it.
1:1 looks a lot more like a chapter heading to anyone else reading it. After all, it is a book being written that didn't have the nice chapter and book headings we use now. That's the original text, and it seems the book was called "In the Beginning: God Created the Heavens and the Earth".
In verse 2, you have the beginning of the details.
note: there are two copies of the story of creation in Genesis
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Newton's experiments don't prove an old earth either. Considering modern realisations about carbon dating (its not accurate -- you need surrounding evidence to substantiate the possible dates) and the fact that we've basically created a circular argument (we must have evolved, evolution takes a long time, the earth is very old, that's time to evolve, we must have evolved ... ), the teachings of modern evolution theory really need to be revisited.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Penguins need lovin too. The Linux Pimp
--It's Pimptastic!--
PS, what's wrong with just admitting "we don't know" ???
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
What they seem to forget is that Open Source projects like Linux excell at bringing out standards. Further more, it is standards that allow the highly compatible environments (like the Internet) that we all enjoy working in. Linux developers have always tried to bring Linux in line with standards and have contributed to creating new standards. Most of what we use, HTTP, FTP, SMTP, POP3 haven't been developed by the closed source developers like Microsoft and Sun. Rather they have been hacked out by a group of distributed people working openly to produce something that is not fragmented. In contrast, it is peole like Microsoft that always try to do things against the standards and hence fragment themselves from the rest. (Front page server extensions as an example).
It therefore seems absurd to even talk about Linux fragmenting. In reality they should talk more about Linux providing a solution that will work on many different architectures and providing high interoperability with other Operating Systems like Windows and Mac (through SAMBA, Appletalk, etc) let alone other Unices. Let alone other Linux distributions!!
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
Second, too many big companies have spent too much money on Linux by now to allow this to happen, since having one stable, compatible operating system that competes with M$ is the whole reason they got involved in the first place. They are doubtless very aware that any fragmentation would defeat the whole purpose and ruin all their efforts by allowing the critics to say "Ah ha! Told you so!" and scare away a great many customers.
Third, what reason would anyone have to fragment it? Ask yourself: what could anyone add to a new version that would 1) be so amazingly good that people would abandon standard versions for it, 2) was a feature that couldn't possible be added to standard Linux, and 3) couldn't be done much more easily, cheaply, and without alienating anyone, by simply releasing the source or selling the binary commercially?
Sun COO Ed Zander pooh poohs Linux as not suitable for use over his company's proprietary version of UNIX. Says it will ``fork'' or ``fragment''. This is news?
Linux fragment? Says who? Oh! Wait a second! I moved around some code in /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/hosts.c to override the default controller detection order on one of my servers. I guess Linux has forked! Looks like he's right after all.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I feel maybe it should fragment. It would add more choices to what you want in your open-sourced kernel. Right now in light of the BSD's I feel unsafe using Linux for anything other than a desktop. Why would you use Linux for a Server when OpenBSD exists. Linux is very nice, I am far from saying it is a bad OS in any way, shape or form. I just feel that there is a big difference between using an OS for servers and desktops. Right now Linux is aiming at both markets with one kernel. What I like about OpenBSD is that it is not trying to pretend to be a desktop OS. They don't try to branch out in that direction. In doing that people don't waste their time on a OS that isn't ever going to a real desktop choice, thus those people go to Linux. A real solution from open-sourced desktops.
FreeBSD is heading the way of Linux. It starting to pull itself into too many directions using one kernel. It is far from what I believe Linux has become. Linux is aiming to please everyone. You can't do that it just doesn't work(Example : The Election). Fragmentation can be a good thing if you don't burn your bridges to do so. If they fragment, keep in a effort with the other fork to develop the best kernel you can. It is when fragmentation is done for personal reasons instend of honest professional and technical reasons that it turns sour.
Linux is and will always be better than M$, so keep the real enemy in mind.
The problem is, nobody knows what they're talking about. The beauty of the Linux kernel is that it's absolutely free. We're used to seing it on PC's, but it's being used on PDA's and web devices, as well as embedded systems more and more, because of this freedom. Obviously, running linux in an embedded system or web-device is going to be a bit, if not almost completely different then running it on a PC.
Compared to those types of systems, the difference between slackware and red hat are small issues. So there's a different package utility...companies will have to make the decision if they are going to spend more money on different package-types or restrict thier sales to one distro. Companies are already ONLY supporting rpm, and then also releasing a tar.gz format for everyone else.
Being a slackware guy, this is annoying, but I can deal with it. People will use the distro that is the most supported, and the people who like to endure pain for some slight advantages will do their own thing.
This is a good thing, windows users don't get these types of options :)
Wrong. It should read "Oh, and FreeBSD runs most Linux binaries unmodified." Please get your facts straight before posting again, thanks.
You know, the biggest argument in favor of so many linux distributions is the whole IBM PC clones vs. Apple MAC sovereignty thing. PCs dominate the world today because the spec was opened up. MACs, Suns, whatever languish as niche products (in the largest market of all, at least) because they're controlled.
(from the article)
:/
> what makes a McDonald's french fry is there is a spec and you have to conform to it
Doh... I don't get it? What makes a McDonald's french fry is some fake potato slices and a TON 'o grease.
Somehow I think something was lost in the comparison
Oh well...
Oh, and FreeBSD runs Linux binaries unmodified B-)
That should read "Oh, and FreeBSD runs some Linux binaries unmodified."
Ranessin
Saying that linux has fragmented without qualifying the statement (kernel, gui, desktop) is just such utter nonsense that I am at a loss for words.
Waiting for 2.6 ...
:wq