Slashdot Mirror
Deciding On The Future of Linux
A reader writes: The Free Standards Group has posted a request for feedback, now that they have completed LSB 1.2 and li18nux is also finished. Where should they/we go next? "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Alan Cox is illusively quoted as saying, "The community is great for getting the work done, but when it comes to making decisions about where Linux is going, that responsibility should entirely rest on the shoulders of Linus. It's his operating system, and we shouldn't be able to take that away."
I want to agree with that quote. The guys programming Linux and the kernel and so forth are all hard workers and decide to where it's going.
I can't see why the FSF is trying to become the new Linux authority. First they've tried to claim that much of Linux was written by GNU, this is not true, I put to you, they tried changing Linux to GNU/Linux. Notice that GNU is placed before the word Linux, this implies a strong bias towards the former entity.
Linux was named after Linus Torvalds and he is the monkey at the top of the pole, NOT the FSF. If anyone wants to ask where Linux should be headed, it should be him and not the FSF who are simply angling for bonus points in the petty argument.
mogorific carpentry experiments
What should they standardize next? Copy/Cut&Paste! It is one of the most important features of a modern desktop OS.
Well, I had a bunch of ideas and then I read wackybrit's comments, and, uh, I agree with those comments. So now I'm stuck wondering if I should suggest anything at all. Since I'm already here....
A common clipboard, for copy and paste, would be wonderful. If I copy text from Konq and want to paste it into Pan, that should work every time. I note SuSE appears to have done some work here -- sometimes I can copy & paste in SuSE just fine, while other distros are not so fine. Another thing that would be great: common menu system. In fact, it would be great if the menu system was actually just a directory on disk with some subdirectories in it, each populated with links to various apps. That way, if a Window Manager or desktop tool didn't want to offer a menu system, you might still be able to navigate it. If that were in common for all or even many of the WMs out there (KDE, xfce, Gnome, IceWM, and so on), that would make things far easier. Note that I'm not suggesting that Red Hat be copied and KDE apps be pulled out of the menus -- populate the menus with hundreds of apps if you wish. Just get it in a standard format. Finally, common desktop icons (again, not that there have to be specific apps that must be there, just that if I create a link to Galeon on my desktop, it'd be swell if it appeared in KDE and Gnome (and other) desktops.
These may be in LSB 1.2 -- I've got the page up now & I'm surfing through it, but you guys are slashdotting it a little, so it's slow going....
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
I know this will be modded as a troll... But how about getting all the Linux distributions to actually use it before considering the standard "finished".
Of course, there might still be a need for inter-program dependencies (for example, perl programs tend to work best when perl is installed) but in the interest of eliminating dependencies it's probably best to hide the fact from the user. The "command not found" messages that result in situations like that will undoubtedly alert the user to the fact that he or she should probably find and install the appropriate other package(s).
Duh. Apt and/or a Gentoo ports-like system are the answer to this type of problem. The security and flexibility edge goes to gentoo, for the USE variable - it allows me to not build (for example) PCRE support into Postfix if I don't want to install and depend on PCRE. Apt is easier and faster. Both are nice solutions to a common problem. As another example, Microsoft admins all seem to like the new Windows Update feature, for the exact same reasons we've all loved apt, ports, and gentoo for years - automatic updating of everything that needs updating with dependency resolution. Of course, our solutions are better because we don't force license-changing upgrades on users, but that's not a technical issue at all. For the time being, this type of solution is the best available for a problem faced by ALL computer administrators.
I always interpreted GNU/Linux as "GNU environment running over the Linux kernel". It seems that 90% of the users care for the front-end tools (such as their $EDITOR - vim or emacs or whatever, their shell - like bash, etc.) Most of this is GNU, so I think the FSF does have a point about the GNU/Linux name. I even say "GNU/Linux" myself in the context of discussions dealing with the end-user environment.
OTOH, as far as I read into the FSF docs on the "GNU/Linux" issue, they're *so* nerdy in the worse sense of the word and so much repeating themselves along the lines, that I perfectly understand the frustration of people like you who don't have the patience of hearing the rational points behind all the major rant.
VKh
This is solely designed to make things easier for third party app developers, since they know what they need to target. No distro is forced to follow the LSB, but if they want the maximum number of third party apps to run, then they will follow it, and get LSB certified.
Apart from this minimal framework, distro's are still free to do what they like. And since the FSG is not tied to any particular distro, they're not likely to favour one distribution over another.
To call that dictatorship is ridiculous, you might as well accuse the w3c of dictating all content on the internet, since they set the html standards.
Even though /usr, /var, /tmp, /etc are ridiculously cryptic, changing them would be horrible?
/etc to /settings or /config /var/log to /logs /var to /data (or something like it) /tmp to /temp (saving one character? sheesh!) /usr to /programs /bin to /system_programs
/etc may have difficulty configuring their box to be sure. But they'll have less difficulty if the directory is named /configuration or /settings won't they? The operating system shouldn't be some kind of high bar or IQ test. It should be a tool to get a job done. /etc to /settings doesn't make your life and my life appreciably harder and it makes life for newbies that much easier.
/etc less oddball than /settings? What universe do you live in? The directory name "etc" is an artifact of history, not a brilliant design plan. 1K of memory was expensive so the directory names were kept as short as possible. Now 1K is a rounding error. The reasons for "etc" no longer exist today. You might as well tell me that people should still hone their PDP-11 assembly skills before doing any programming in a high-level language.
/etc. Good for you. After the rest of the world moves on, you can make your symbolic links. The rest of the world -- this includes all of those folks who accurately regard a computer and operating system as merely tools -- is used to descriptive names. /etc ain't descriptive. It's the UNIX club's code word for /settings. They like code words. It's like a secret handshake. It maintains a feeling of superiority however obviously false that feeling may be.
Get this:
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
and then (drumroll) make symbolic links so that old scripts and programs still work. You leave that in place for a couple of years, and then you remove the symbolic links. All that's left are logical names that actually convey information. And before people complain about the amount of extra typing, please tell me that you know how to use <tab> for filename completion (se<tab> gets you settings for example).
Users who can't remember that config files live in
And how, by any stretch of the imagination, is
You're used to
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
For as long as man-pages stay, OK. I use man-pages, and where an application doesn't have a man-page, I'm first inclined to throw it out, but most often stay cool and start seaching for documentation. At least please package a man-page that points to the documentation with all software.
Documentation shouldn't be X-dependant, but should be readable in text-only 80x25 screen.
Different programs have different needs from their config files. Trying to fit one model to all isn't really a good solution, as that model would have to cater for the extremely complex configuration some software might need, while still be very simple for the programs that just need five key-value pairs.
Config files have to be human-readable and hand editable. I'm not going to use the various whiz-bang graphical configurators when I still have vi. At least regarding system config - configuring various all-graphical applications is another story, but that's not system-config.
However, requiring text-only configuration files and version control of the whole configuration hierarchy would be good. I have seen some ways to use eg. RCS for all of
Of course this also means that there would have to be a hierarchy for configuration-only files, and any non-configuration files in
Perhaps configuration file hierarchy should be such where each package would use it's own directory, and where necessary, use symlinks.
This is something we need ... yesterday. An XML (or whatever SGML they choose) office format standard. I know there is
work in progress from the Open Office Project, but I would rather have this work merged in a standard dictated by the Free Standards group. That alone would represent a HUGE step forward. Let's hope.