Slashdot Mirror
The Question Of Too Many Linux Distributions
evenprime writes "In this zdnet column, Evan Leibovitch responds to linux critics who say that Caldera and Red Hat will be the only distributions to survive. Evan points out that the diversity of available distributions, and the ability to roll your own, is a great strength." The arguement Evan makes is one that, IMHO, is correct - and people need to remember that the diversity of the distributions isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, maybe the commericial variants will move down to a couple, but I think for the overall community, diversity is a strength.
The business field will be narrowed because market just isn't there for for 500 distros (but the standards issue will play a roll). Look at the auto industry in the '20s verses the auto industry today.
end communication
The problems you describe are likely to be less of an issue for a big business. They're likely to standardize on a comparatively small number of packages- just the ones that they really need- and stick with them for a good long while. They're not going to be trying to upgrade the version of their CD-ripping software every time it comes out with a new bugfix. They're also capable of doing neat tricks like compiling their own to solve some of the dependancy problems that you mention. (Actually, the next time that sort of problem happens, you might consider downloading the source RPM and running rpm --rebuild to see if it can be compiled with the software you already have. One major flaw of compiled RPMs is that they often require much more specific versions of packages than is strictly necessary.)
Of course you can also solve this problem by using a more advanced package management system. Debian users are constantly (and correctly, IMO) bragging about the ease of using apt-get for package management; it deals with all those annoying dependency details for you. The still-under-development Ximian RedCarpet is also quite nice about resolving RPM dependencies and downloading any updated packages you may need. Both systems do depend on having a blessed source of guaranteed compatible packages, though.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
they use red hat linux at ucla? afaik a majority of the servers run NT and SEAS use Aix/Solaris... and at the installfests the lug generally installs mandrake.
Zetetic
Seeking; proceeding by inquiry.
Elench
A specious but fallacious argument; a sophism.
Friendly graphical installers like the one that comes with Red Hat, or like the one that comes with Windows? There are only 5 varieties of Windows, but their installer still confuses most 1-2year Windows admins I've seen.
Of course, most Windows desktops come pre-installed, which if that were the case for Linux, installers wouldn't really be the issue.
"No offense, but I think you must know some really stupid "windows admins" then"
;-)
Of course, these are not the most clued in people ever. I find the Linux installers to be easy to use (a little on the feature-rich side, which can be confusing), but I know folks who see "what kind of keyboard are you using" and their brains lock up. AND THESE ARE PROFESSIONALS.
We live in a world where we're damn lucky most machines come with an OS because most people who do admin for a living could not install one to save their lives. Most of the admins I know wouldn't break a sweat on a Linux, Windows or BSD install. But, then most of the admins in the world are nothing like most of the admins I know....
That said, I've been baffled by Windows installs when they get... odd. The thing most people forget is that 99% of the time, when you're installing Windows you're doing so on a system that was meant to run Windows. When you try to install Windows on a home-grown system with a blend of old and new parts, it can be a refreshing dream to install Linux on it
I wish they would specialize a little more. Mandrake uses KDE and uses aurora, Redhat uses Gnome and uses a beta gcc. Suse is like mandrake with a different default config tool. Other than that they look the same. It's like having twelve different flavors of ice cream that are all strawberry.
I would much rather have a couple great server distros, a couple great desktop distros, and a couple low-cpu requirement distros. Better than having twelve that each try to do all three.
I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
Don't forget:
4. A couple of dozen "botique" distributions aimed at specialized purposes. There will long be a need for distributions that are optimized for specific applications. These might include single floppy versions for rescue disks, versions for single purpose devices like routers and firewalls, versions for embedded devices that have to boot off a ROM, CD-ROM only versions for internet appliances, etc. There might even be versions that are aimed at markets that we don't think of as being separate right now but that would take off when available. I'll bet, for instance, that blind people would appreciate a distribution that had an audio based install and included lots of packages aimed at making it more accessible. These special purpose distros may be originally based as a derivative of one of the general purpose distributions, but they'll probably wind up taking on a life of their own and being maintained separately.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
"Thake the installation procedure for instance. Sometimes it's a tarball, then an rpm, then is a
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
binary with an install script allways assuming a different configuration (read: distubution)"
This is why installing binary-only packages is a bad idea. Ultimately the nature of glibc and gcc is to lead the field forwards in their own sweet way. If "your" distro chops a basline saying "we shall use glibc-2.0.7 for OurDistro-6.0" then that's its problem for quantizing the evolution process. What's even more silly is producing binaries that will only work on a few such versions: specifically, I'm thinking SuSE-5.2 and 6.0, RH 6.0, 6.2 and 7.0; they all use different glibc2 versions, 2.0.7, 2.1.x, 2.2.2 (oh woops, that's Debian Unstable, never mind, it'll be 2.2.3 before you can blink). Any company producing a binary-only package "for SuSE" for, as is rather more frequently encountered, "for RH" is screwing their business model over badly because I just simply won't be able to install it - and around here, what I have installed here wins over what you might be able to provide.
Oh yeah. Now what was that about commercial distributions? What about the real linux distro?
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Distros do nothing but give people options..
we Linux geeks wouldn't be able to spend nearly so much time installing differents ones. Where's the fun in that? We'd even be stuck using friendly graphical installers... (shudder)
Diversity good. If mutations weren't everywhere, not as many things could survive a changing environment.
:o) has shown, while it is true that mutations are an important part of evolution and adaptativity, the most efficient tool for optimizing a population is still sexual reproduction (ie crossing-over between similar-but-different genotypes).
:o) : they get better and better by inventing new features, but also by borrowing each other's inventions and adding them their own little tweaks.
:o)
As artificial life research (read: hundreds of underpaid graduate students
We can see a brilliant example of this in the distro problem: distros evolve not only by inventing new things, but also by borrowing from each other. Imagine if Red Hat or Caldera or Debian could prevent others from using this or that package in their distro ! Same thing for Gnome/KDE (disclaimer: I use X & Blackbox, period
For the benefit of us all
Thomas Miconi
It's not difference for difference's sake, it's differences for choice's sake! We get plenty of choice to run our system the way we want, whether it's to run apt-get or rpm, use BSD printing management or CUPS, or even how many virtual desktops you want. This isn't just a distro specific thing, this is the UNIX philosophy that allows us to string together programs the way we want. The Linux distros are simply an extension of this. It's a matter of choosing the right tool for the right job.
I don't know if you actually use linux, but I've never had something really break because of some inane thing like a different window manager, screensaver, or font. The things that break things are much like those on Mac or Windows... missing dll's (lib.so's), broken programs and drivers, and misconfigured systems. These things are no different in Mac or Windows, it's just easier to mess up in linux because the user is generally trusted.
And there are higher rules to the system, but even a system that says "screw that" can still take a piece of software, rearrange it, and redistribute it so that it will run and install just fine on their system. It's choice. You can't do these things most other places. And if diversity and choice doesn't spawn innovation, then I don't know what does.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
IMHO, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols should open his eyes.
Only two distributions left?
Not even a mention of my favorite desktop distribution.
What about special distributions?
Heck, there's so many niche markets that even Redhat has almost a dozen different versions. and that list doesn't include the Cheapbytes , or Embedded versions.
Don't get me wrong, Redhat makes a great distribution, but do you really expect them to fit every market niche?
Most users never need to install drivers.
I think that, if you are comfortable with the command line, then you will not tend to explore the alternatives. That doesn't mean they are not there.
Yes it has. That has nothing to do with my argument. Windows still has a long way to go before it's easy to use as well. When I go six months without anyone asking me for help on Windows then I will concede that it's easy to use.
And if your company will hire just anyone to admin their systems then they've got real problems in their IT department.
However, there needs to be a consistent UI that can be chosen at Install that configures the machine a particular way. Users NEED consistent UIs.
How do people manage to cope with the enormous variety of private telephone systems then? There might be a case for a consistant UI within an organisation, or within a department. But that is up to the people running the system to configure appropriatly.
It's not as if people even get a consistant UI with Microsoft. every version of Windows and every version of MS Office changes the UI. Even before you start using corporate customisations. (Or as MS calls them "Resource Kits".)
I think the biggest issue comes down to convenient packaging, software installation, and a single consistent interface. If people want Linux to keep growing on the desktop, these three issues are extremely important. The variety offered by different distributions is a great thing, but it can also result in a lot of headaches. Any time you have a lack of standards or competing standards it causes confusion for the end users. That said, I think the Linux community is doing a good job of developing and incorporating standards on what is an extremely fast growing platform.
Actually, if Suzie the secretary is working in a typical business environment, she won't be doing the install, anyway. Instead, the system will be installed and configured by professional sysadmins who will set up /home/suzie so that she'll have access to all of the programs she needs from her GNOME/KDE desktop. I know the admins at my workplace would be right pissed if our secretaries tried doing any serious adminstrative tasks for their own computers.
As an aside, I actually wonder why people view secretaries as the perfect example of computer incompetents. My experience has been that they're using their computers for most of the day and eventually become quite adept at doing all of the computer related tasks that are required as part of their everyday job- much more so than the rest of the people around who only use computers occasionally. In fact, I suspect that they're exactly the kind of people who might appreciate the customizability and flexibility of Linux the most. All of the secretaries at my workplace have their desktops customized on Windows (while just about nobody else does), and I strongly suspect that they'd be the people who would have the most fun fiddling with getting just the right window manager and theme.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Still sounds easier than Windows to me... (shrug)
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
People often base their perceptions about computing based on what they understand. What they understand is overwhelmingly MS Windows. In this world virtually anything that isn't Microsoft is incompatible. They extend this reasoning and assume that multiple distributions means multiple incompatibilities.
It is part of the *nix advocates job to point out that all Unices are functionally compatible with each other. Exchange of information between the different platforms is easy because of the very simple text file standard. Legacy binary compatibility is a non-issue due to source code distribution. When a new architecture arrives the *nix world just recompiles.
The number of distros doesn't matter. Underlying architecture doesn't matter. Users matter.
I'm a crusty old greenscreener who lived through the Unix fragmentation of the 80's and I fear this is happening all over again with Linux. Ask any ISV (independent software vendor) how much of a nightmare their porting center is if they support more than a couple flavors of Unix.
The key to widespread Linux acceptance is ISV support. That's right, commercial, closed source products people have been using for years, whether or not there's an open-source "equivalent" (e.g., Photoshop vs. Gimp).
The big applications have to run on Linux for Linux to penetrate anywhere other than, well, here. And as the whole FrameMaker thing showed us, that's not a foregone conclusion even for applications with Unix origins, much less things that come from the M$ world (e.g., convincing Intuit to port Quicken to Linux).
ISV support on Linux, over the long term, will be inversely proportional to how difficult it is to develop a distribution-independent application.
[And I won't even get into whether or not an open-source product can ever avail itself of "closed" resources like the Pantone color database Photoshop uses or Avery's office stationery specs that M$ Office knows about.]
And even so, with all these "Windows distributions", there is one vendor, and one place to go for tech support.
If Linux didn't have so many different distros with different configuration files, different GUI libraries, different window managers.. it would make the job of developing and installing programs on all platforms much easier. How many times do you have to download and install a bunch of extra libraries before you can install the main program you wanted to use? This is one of the things that makes MS-Windows so easy to use to install applications. All the basic libraries applications need are already on the system. Linux on the other hand has so many different libraries competeing with each other that no distro can fit every single one on the same distro and so users have to go around downloading all these libraries just to install a simple program.
This brings up another point. With Open Source, libraries shouldn't be fighting against each other. All developers have access to the libraries code so they should work together and make one very good library. If they go off and make their own library then we end up with a bunch of poor libraries that are pretty much the same. Open Source means people should be working together, yet for most applications this isn't true.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
My school made it's own Linux distribution. It's little more than a slightly altered Redhat 6.1. But, for a Linux newbie such as myself, it was great to be able to install a distro with working AFS/Kerberos that was designed to be interoperable with UofM's other systems.
Lots of customized distros are good. Lots of generalized distros are good too.
I see several strong commercial releases that draw from the 'lower', smaller releases. In other words, a two-tiered approach. The commercial versions will appeal to the conservative businesses mindset, while the smaller distributions allow for innovation and growth. The conservative versions can introduce innovations and advancements after a Darwinian process determines the strengths and weaknesses of the innovations - which open source will then clean up as needed.
This is far better than Microsoft, which simply swallows the ideas of others and then regurgitates them in a closed (and usually badly reimplemented) form.
The problem is the incompatability and fragmentation between the distributions. I'm not talking about diffrent kernel or library versions, or even about diffrent package management. I'm talking about diffrent init levels, diffrent init scripts, diffrent paths for add on software, and totally diffrent layouts. (Maybe even diffrent packaging, but I like diffrent packages, I would only ask that they maybe consider standardizing the metadata, which is something they are quitely talking about already).
I agree with many of the artical points, but I say that he is dead wrong, and companies like Chilliware (or whatever it's called), Conectiva, and have plenty of room to create specific nitch application or language focused distributions.
The problems all stem from lack of standards (again), which make ALL distributions result in some "roll your own" needs when you start adding stuff you want (like Adobe, Oracle, or any ISV applications) and integrating diffrent systems into the same network. Time will tell, but (again, IMHO, and probably flamebait) it's just because the standards groups are more worried about finding a middle ground through the path of least resistance, rather than doing what they should and laying down a few laws based in logic and substance.
There is some truth to this, but I was at a small bank the other day an noticed they had small weak machines running windows but they used some kind of proprietary app to do everything in. This took up the whole screen and I don't think that they really even had to deal much with windows to do their work. So this could eaisly be done with Linux to save on OS costs, but then again, they couldn't usethe computers for personal stuff, so I don't know if this would be a plus or a minus.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
The "ease-of-use" claim for Windows has never made all that much sense to me. It doesn't hold water from two either of the two classes of "users" (as opposed to admins/hackers/developers/hobbyists):
User Type #1: Suzie the Secretary - she runs 5 programs total and was utterly mortified by DOS prompt back in day. She still can't install a piece of shareware if her life depends on it. I've got the perfect setup for her - a drawer in GNOME that contains StarOffice, Netscape, a mail client, XMMS, and GAIM. It's like the Win XP "common tasks" list, except StarOffice won't dissappear if I use AbiWord for a couple days.
User Type #2: Joe the Tinkerer. Joe's job may not be different than Suzie, but he's comfortable doing more things with his machine - he has a shareware program that randomly changes his desktop image every day, and he installed Napster for spare time usage He could swap a PCI card if he had to. Joe used to be somewhat handy with DOS prompt. You give Joe a DOS-to-UNIX cheat sheet, explain the fundamental structure of UNIX directories and "./configue", "make", "make install", and in a couple days he's happy.
What boggles my mind is the CTO who's willing to pay current MS prices. $199 for an Office upgrade?!?! Multiply that by x licenses (and multiply by 0.yy for volume discounts) and you've just dropped many thousands of dollars on a program with a free alternative that's 100% compatible. Ditto for the operating system. Repeat this process every two years, or until replaced with subscription-ware.
When the average corporate user needs only Windows and Office, why not use RedHat and StarOffice instead? Doesn't software cost play any factor in these decisions?
BTW, VMWare fully emulates the instability of the emulated OS, so it won't really help in the way you suggest. Win4Lin -- haven't used it, but I doubt it is more stable than running native. (Especially since running native Win2k is just as stable as running native Linux in my experience.)
------
Your views are correct! :-)
You have to remember that in larger companies or organizations, it's good to try to standardize on system configurations as much as possible. That makes it much easier to do company-wide systems management and upgrades.
What I find interesting is that many so-called roll your own distributions are actually modified versions of commercial Linux distributions, customized for the local organization's needs. A good example of this is the Linux used at UCLA, which is essentially Red Hat Linux modified to take advantage of the network infrastructure at UCLA.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
I remember the Unix fragmentation of the 80s too.
I don't think Linux forking is nearly as bad. Everyone's using the same. Most kernel upgrades don't seem to break most program binaries. The most painful compatibility issue I can recall was when some distros had upgraded to glibc and others had not.
You can often use binary RPMS from one distro with another (although following the dependency tree to ensure all the necessary libraries are in place may get painful). Things will get even better as the LSB standards emerge. You shouldn't need to turn your code into a rats nest of #ifdefs like you did back in the 80s.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We would like to think Linux would overtake MS as the most used OS, but the fact remains, most of the people jumping online, and working on the "typical" PC based application solely need simple functions out of their pc, and them having to gcc -o something something.c or ./configure --with-some-new-package ; make ; make install is just not going to cut it.
Do you really have to compile your own stuff these days??? Sure, some crazy hackers (like me!) compile everything from scratch, but it's hardly nessary. Run Debian? It's by far easier to install a program on Debian then Windows:`apt-get install `. On Windows, you have to click the program, click through the license agreement written by Nazi war criminal lawyers, decide where to install it, sit there waiting for it to install (and hope it doesn't blue screen in the process), then you're done.
Then what do you do when you want to get rid of a program on Windows *shudder*. No, the little uninstall icon is not enough, as it often leaves cruft in the system (this is why it's a good idea to do a clean reinstall of Windows a lot, especialy if you install and uninstall a lot of stuff). To *really* get rid of a program on Windows, you have to go digging through the registry, and the \windows directory, and the \windows\system directory, and the \windows\system32 directory, and the \Program Files directory, and the . . . well, you get the point.
Want to get rid of that program on Debian? `apt-get remove `
------
Not a typewriter
I think this is both true and untrue. Assuming Linux is widely in adopted in some markets I think we'll end up with more distros than that for commercial use. I don't think the Linux market will look like the auto market, with a Big Three distros or something like that. The Linux market will look more like the OEM market, with a couple very large vendors, dozens of second-tier vendors, and more little shops than you can count.
Why? The cost to enter the Linux market is pretty low - you can take somebody else's GPL software, modify it a bit, and make your own distribution at relatively low cost. Then you charge less for support and try to undercut them. Like the OEM market, the Linux market is based completely on a open standard - there are no proprietary secrets needed to bust in and everything you need is readily available. The difference will be in levels of support. I have no hope that my no-name OEM will answer the phone if I call - they might even be out of business by tommorrow, but the price was right. RedHat and other first-tier distributions will offer any level of support you care to buy. Other commercial distros will limit support to a minimum and keep it cheap.
Susie the secretary will not understand *Nix vs. point and click.
Unless Susie the secretary installs a distro from '96 then she will probably never have to use the command line. Do you need to know how the Windows kernel works to use Word 2000. Also if Susie has problems with her machine she calls tech support who logon remotely and fix it for her.
As for 'which one is better', I suppose having several choices of server company is also a bad thing. How are you supposed to know who's the best.
How about anti-virus software, groupware, fault-logging software? Is the plethora of choices also a bad thing.
I'm so tired of bullshit arguments like this. Linux is no harder to use than Windows. I have to help my family out on a regular basis because Windows plays up on them, and unlike Linux there is no way for me to find out why.
If Windows is easy to use then obviously no tech support is required as well.
Linux nowadays needs as much command line intervention as Windows does, which is to say occasionally, usually when network information is required.
If you can name me a situation when command line is the only option I'll be impressed.
Please forgive me for playing the devils advocate here, and I totally agree on most your points, hell I've been using BSD's for some time now and Windows is completely banned (as I jokingly put it) from my home.
Take a quick look at the sagging markets, and truthfully ask yourself if things will continue to flourish for sysadmins who get paid well. I'm in the sys admin/security based field and get paid well, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, I often wonder is it really neccessary, when by using simple products, most people can be taught to fix things on their own leaving a sys admin in the cold.
What about when X has a huge gaping security hole, or she gets an error like connection refused, or anyone with simple relative skills, should companies spend their money waiting for admins to fix these problems often having few minutes worth of unproductive downtime?
Uh yes MS' Windows NT has perms just like Unix based systems, sure people are going to want to modify their own systems since they are the ones using it. Now take a *Nix based system and by chance you get a curious user who asks whats rm do on a live machine? Well I hope the admin took the time to ensure everything was in the proper groups.
If you haven't noticed Windows has remote administration tools including ssh now. It can easily be modified remotely.
Anyways I don't want to sound at all like an MS advocate or even Linux advocate, I just wanted to point out instances which for us geeks are simple, but in a simple world difficult.
360 degrees of Karma
If I remember from a comment on a older Slashdot article, the Linux given to any interested UCLA student for some time was essentially Red Hat Linux 5.0 with a pre-canned configuration so the user can quickly log onto the UCLA computer network.
:)
Mind you, Mandrake Linux is in many ways derived from Red Hat Linux.
I think for neophyte Linux users they should be using either Mandrake 7.2 or Caldera OpenLinux 2.4.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Three reasons why multiple distributions are better then a few.
Direction
If you've ever worked on a team of equals (or close to it) you will have noticed that it is often very difficult to agree on a common direction. Half the group may want to work on X while the other half wants to work on Y. When this happens Project Leaders have to get their developers to compromise more than they collaborate. Force the issue and you'll end up with a product that fails to meets either goal.
I think this philosophy is best illustrated by the recent "fork" of the Samba project. A contingency of developers decided that they really wanted to try some new avenues. Avenues that didn't necessarily coincide with the short term vision of the main development effort. Rather than try and compromise, the project leads thought it a better idea to split their forces and hopefully meet again somewhere down the road. While its true that this decreased the number of eyes on the "core" Samba effort, it may very well lead to more quantum leaps in the future.
The same holds true for Linux because the code is open. If Mandrake sees that SuSE has made some great strides in a given area, they can incorporate those changes and vice versa. This in effect puts them in the same development community, but allows them the freedom to explore those areas that interest them.
Competition
Competition fuels innovation. Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, TurboLinux, and Caldera are all trying to make a buck on Linux. A market without a lot of bucks to go around (at least at the moment). If they want to sell more boxes they've got to demonstrate why their Linux is better than the next guys. Competition is a huge motivator and one that diminishes with fewer players.
Choice
Choice isn't really a reason all its own, in fact it greatly depends on the other two. If they don't exist then we won't have many choices at all. Limit choice, and the next thing you know a young college student is writing his own kernel for his own enjoyment and educational purposes. (which is a good thing by the way, because it reintroduces choice)
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
You're kidding, right? I can't imagine going through a day without the command line in Linux, even if I tried.
You want examples? Well, with most Linux programs, you need to use the command line to build and install them. In some cases (ok, a lot of cases) you might be lucky enough to find an RPM. Well, so what? You install the RPM, and then what? How do you start the program?
This is a problem my cousin was having. He complained that he'd try to install an RPM, and it would claim to have succeeded, but then the program wasn't installed. In fact, the program simply wasn't showing up in his start menu (or whatever you call the GNOME equivalent -- the foot menu if you will). Whe I heard him say this, I was shocked. I said, "You mean you don't know how to use the command line?" I then explained to him that you can do very little without the CLI in Linux, and I taught him how to use it.
Another example -- drivers. How do you install new drivers in Linux? Well, frankly, every freeking driver is different. My sound driver is a kernel module. My video driver is a combo kernel module / X driver. Both of these had to be installed from the command line, and in very different ways. On Windows, OTOH, you have the convenient hardware manager, which is a nice, consistent interface for any kind of driver installations and updates. I don't have to read the readme when I download a Windows driver -- I just go to the hardware manager, click the hardware I want to update, and update the driver.
I have been using Linux for two and a half years, BTW. It has been my primary OS for most of that time. I am running on a custom-compiled 2.4.2 kernel under Debian/unstable right now -- I know how Linux works. But the simple fact is that Linux is not (yet) as easy to use as Windows. I eagerly await the day when it is, but there is just so much work that needs to be done before that happens. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.
------
Susie wouldn't be installing new software to her machine at work, either, she would expect everything that she needs to be there, and if it's not, she'd call for help to get it installed. Even in Windows, the sys admins would be doing these things, and the users could go along happily without the command-line.
How about some examples that would affect Susie?
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
What's she to do in Windows when she sets the video driver to a resolution that her monitor can't handle and all she gets is trash accross the screen (and yes, I've seen it happen).
All the Linux installations I've done lately don't require you to type startx. They set up the system so that it boots in the graphic runlevel. You never see the command line unless you open up a term (which I do, first thing).
No, Linux isn't perfect yet. ;) But it's not as far behind Windows as you emply.
--
--
Unscrample my email, win a prize.
This is why sys admins exist and why we are paid rather well. What about Linux with X up and a well configured WM is *not* point and click. My wife can do it. I have given it to many secretaries all of whom with ~1 hour of training can do it. Hell my 5 year old son can navigate E + gnome. While it is not possible to admin a Linux system without the command line it is very possible to use one without. The simple answer to too much choice which is what your other two points come down to is have a good admin test demonstarte and explain. Then make a decision based on your needs and wants and stick with it. Most arguments I have heard of this type stem from a confusion between using and system and admining a system. With M$ it has been the case that people have had to play amatuer sys admin either because there was no good way to stop them from doing it or there was no really good way to do it for them. With *nix I can use SSH to admin boxen on the other side of town and not get out of my chair. Thus we can once again have a sharp division between admins and users. And then Susie the secratary can set down at her machine and do her work instead of having to worry about doing admin duties on her machine. This is a good thing.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Given all the available distributions, I can think of only two things that are important in how the various distributions vary...package management method and Default security installation. The former is probably the biggest one, distinguishing Slackware from Redhat/Mandrake/etc from Debian, and is probably where people have the most 'religious' conviction to their preferred distro. The latter is basically a more 'personal' touch, using one's opinion on what is 'secure' to set up how the box is initially installed. Given that this can vary from person to person, there is definitely potental for an infinite number of linux distros out there; and unless apt and rpm combine into one tool, there will never be a consolidation of distros.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Just think of the many distributions of Windows out there in current use...
Windows 95
Windows 95 OSR1
Windows 95 OSR2
Windows 95 OSR3
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows ME
Windows NT 4.0
Windows NT 4.0 SP1...Windows NT 4.0 SP6
Windows NT 4.0 Server
Windows NT 4.0 Server SP1...Windows NT 4.0 Server SP6
Windows CE 1.0
Windows CE 2.0
Windows CE 3.0
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
Windows.NET
Sounds fragmented to me!
I don't think that multiple Linux distros are beneficial because instead of having everyone contribute to the same project, they are contributing to their own projects which just happen to have a kernel in common. You have said that multiple distros are in accordance with the principle of "everyone puts a piece in", but I disagree -- Everyone is contributing pieces, but to different projects
Spiffy Tiffany!
Basically I agree with everyone else here that diversity is a good thing. However, I do not see the point in difference for difference's sake. When stuff start to break just because you're using a different distribution, windows manager, screen saver or font, It Just Ain't Worth It Anymore. In such situations something is missing, and if you can't conform and agree on the current level, there should be guidelines so that everything can conform on the meta-level. Higher rules to rule different distros could be a way to take the OS to a whole new and (damnit) innovative level.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Diversity good. If mutations weren't everywhere, not as many things could survive a changing environment. If Critter A makes millions of subtly different copies of itself, while every instance of Critter B is identical, and a large disaster comes along that only rare mutations of Critters can survive, Critter A will be the only one to carry on its genes. Critter B, due to it's lack of mutations, would not live to see another day.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Commericial companies (and single developers) want their packages to be installed easily and correctly.
I doubt if anyone cares if you use debian's package format or RPM, but the installation routine must be the same regardless of distribution and it must be easy enough that anyone can do it. (Furthermore, it should uninstallable.)
If I was smart, I'd suggest a database for each system that the would tell the package what to install where.
I think the people the author is responding to were suggesting the Linux field will be narrowed for business. Sure, there will always be 500 separate distibutions out there, but businesses really like standards. Two or three distributions will prevail in a big way for business, and the other 497 will still be around.
There was an article on informationweek.com about this last week. The article talks about all the different flavors of Linux, and how great it is to have something which you can make so unique to you with so little effort, but how bad this can be to business. The main point of the article is that, without standards, Linux isn't a viable platoform for businesses.
It's an interresting read, check it out.
[Note: Informationweek updates a lot, so the article may get flushed to an archive soon. I suggest someone paste it below if they find it as usefull as I did.]
---
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
Linux moves fast because it does for the OS what the IBM PC platform did for the hardware. I don't mind if the masses continue to use Windows. Windows has to improve more because of Linux, too. It's a win-win situation for the masses all around, and with Linux/KDE/GNOME/ReiserFS/etc steady improvement (and the distros making it available it whatever fashion is best for their target audience), many newbie complaints will disappear with time.
Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I think it's a fair analysis. Competition almost always helps things out.
- Tom
- Tom
"O, to grace how great a debtor daily I'm constrained to be."
Oh but learning to install service packs, how to use regedit to keep it stable, how to rescue self-corrupted office files and reinstall the whole mess when it finally dies... that's easy enough? But ./configure && make && su -c 'make install' is too hard?
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
Windows doesn't have a diversity problem at all
If I had mod points this would be +1 Funny.
Windows currently has two desktop versions (ME & W2K Pro), two embedded versions (CE & Embedded NT) and three server versions (W2K [Advanced|Datacenter] Server). As far as I know, only the server versions actually run all each others binaries.
--
#include "stdio.h"
I concur that mutations are a good thing for Linux. However, there needs to be a consistent UI that can be chosen at Install that configures the machine a particular way. Users NEED consistent UIs. What we need is a way so that on most popular distributions during install you can check a box and that will configure the machine with a commonly agreed upon GUI and windowmanager that people are familiar with. This wouldn't be necessary on all distributions but would be a great start to making the Linux GUI similar on all ends for end users that simply want a consistent interface.
Recently I was in a discussion with some older CTO type people and the arguements of Linux vs. MS came into play. Attempting to explain why (I thought) Linux can make some steps in the future to be where Microsoft is, I brought up the different distros, their functions, benefits over MS, etc.. One of the gentleman made some very sharp points though which no one can really refute, sure Linux is better at certain aspects of computing vs. other OS' but heres some of the failures which came in the picture of which I could not think up a retribution based answer.
Typical dekstop workplace environment
Susie the secretary will not understand *Nix vs. point and click.
Too many variations of Linux
Which one is really better as they all claim one or two niches over the other.
Gnome vs. KDE vs. etc.
./configure --with-some-new-package ; make ; make install is just not going to cut it.
Why so many desktop environments, sure alternatives are good, but when work needs to be done, money is burnt by time spent figuring out whats what on Linux vs. point and click MS
And this went on for hours. We would like to think Linux would overtake MS as the most used OS, but the fact remains, most of the people jumping online, and working on the "typical" PC based application solely need simple functions out of their pc, and them having to gcc -o something something.c or
The Big Breach"
360 degrees of Karma
Linux is not about consistency, linux is about choices and customization. About picking your favorite distribution, your favorite window manager, your favorite theme within that window manager.
If the skeptics are right - that linux must be a single distribution with a single interface to become the operating system of the "masses", then I hope it never happens.
Honestly, I like linux for what it is - diversity, choices and customization. After all, isn't that why we have the source code in the first place? So if we, as users, think an application or feature could be made to better fit us - then we can make that change?
If it takes sacrificing diversity to appease the masses, I don't want the masses. This is just my honest opinion. Even if the masses don't adopt linux, it will still be a success - and I will still use it.
--
Twivel
what the?
great comedy company.