Slashdot Mirror
Time for a Linux Consolidation?
An anonymous reader writes "Are there too many Linux distributions currently available? Can there be too many? This article explores the effect of the large number of distros out right now and suggests that progress could possibly be made through a consolidation. The article is more focused on Linux on the desktop but the ideas presented would impact the entire community, especially as it is seen as a rival to Windows." From the article: "One of the less widely recognized reasons why Linux has not yet toppled Windows, despite it many advantages, is how divided the resources available to Linux are. With dozen of different distributions the Linux community is so diffuse that the power or significance of any specific entity is severally limited."
... the success called "United Linux"??
Meh.
FTW
headshot.
Are we sure consolidation is what we want? Isn't diversity better? And are we even sure that the problems that make Linux not widely used on the desktop are solvable by unifying distros? How would that attack MS's monopoly? How would that make Linux more appealing to the unwashed masses? And, WHY SHOULD WE CARE that the masses use it?
I wonder.
Global warming is a cube.
Even though open source code promotes a homogeneous enviornment. The companies that are behind the major distros are just that, companies. They happen to be fine with the F/OSS mindset, but they still want to maintain a name. Don't cluster the beads of water that have spilled everywhere, let the small ones evaporate and the rest of them pool on their own.
I don't get it.
We should form a committee to consolidate and leverage synergy for our information technology solutions in the marketplace!
THIS IS A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY FOR BUREAUCRACY!!1
Linux is never going to reduce the number of available distributions, even if it's what's good for Linux, because the people making these distributions aren't doing it for the benefit of "Linux". They're doing it for the benefit of themselves.
It's all very well and good to be some kind of columnist, standing outside of Linux and going "well, Linux would be better if Slackware and Gentoo would combine". That's easy to say. But this doesn't help you much if you're a Slackware user; it might be better for Linux if that happened but it wouldn't be better for Slackware and to the Slackware developer, what's better for Slackware is what matters because Slackware is what they want to use. If it wasn't, they'd be using Gentoo instead in the first place.
Linux development, as an open source process, is fueled by self-interest. This is its greatest strength. That it indirectly produces weaknesses is unavoidable.
How long have you been waiting for the right article to post those?
Solution:
...
1. Autopackage: autopackage.org becomes more popular and supports integrating natively with major package managers. Binaries are distributed as autopackages.
2. Have additional levels of optional LSB and make them popular.
3.
4. Profit
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
I am a windows apologist - look at my history and you will see I entirely willing to point out the failings of Linux to the Zealots as the next guy.
But even I can see that the diversity of Linux is one of its strengths, as well as its weakness right now. Thanks to the sheer variety of work done in exploring slightly different approaches to the same task, we get to experiment with a multitude of approaches and ideas.
While that may not be a truly better product now, it can only lead to an excellent one in the future.
I am in no hurry for Linux to take over - I am not even sure that the operating system that does take over will be called Linux. Windows will have to sink a lot lower before its abandoned by the masses.
I am entirely certain that the work done in Linux over the past 10 years will shape the next generation operating system that finally does defeat windows though.
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
I think there are too many distros, but moreover, I think there are too many competing technologies: QT vs. GTK, dpkg vs. rpm vs. ebuild vs. tgz, etc. If we could work out some good standards -- that everybody followed -- we could have all the distros anyone wanted and it wouldn't be a problem.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
> With dozen of different distributions the Linux community is so diffuse that the power or significance of any specific entity is severally limited.
The author clearly missed the point of Open-Source. *The power or significance of any specific entity is severally[sic] limited* so the users have control. That is *why* people want to use Open-Source. Indeed there are few reasons apart from that one.
I wrote that while this was in 'the mysterious future'.
Any suggestions on which to choose? The reason there's so many is there were groups of people who decided it didn't quite meet their needs so they release a new version.
What would be nice would be the ability to download linux binaries that are distro independant (although that again leads to the question of which to choose). But that's the beauty in Linux for me - it's so open and flexible, it's definitely a system designed for the developer first.
Are there too many Linux distributions currently available? Can there be too many?
/lib, /bin, /usr/bin, ...), they all more or less agree on what should go where, etc... Minor differences between distros are easily resolved, as distros where .deb and .rpm coexist prove.
As long as there are "professional" distros out there (Redhat^H^H^H^H^H^HFedora, Debian, and the other big names), how can there be too many distros? If you don't like a distro, chose another one.
The argument would be different if there was no good distro, but a multitude of not-so-good ones, but it isn't the case, so more doesn't hurt.
As for unifying Linux, this is an old issue that resolved a long time ago: all distros use one or another variant of the BSD init, they all more or less follow the standard way of putting things on the filesystem (/usr,
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I think Ubuntu is doing a great job of consolidation, current updates and ease of use. I really wouldn't be surprised if it became the linux distro for the non-techie.
Brilliant LOL, spot -on!
DEs are freely interchangeable between distros, and even package manager GUIs are fairly universal - There may be hundreds of distros, but how many are there that don't use RPMs, apt-get or source code?
The amount of community time spent on distro-specific stuff is miniscule compared to the time spent on projects that can be used on a wide variety of distros. The number of distros is therefore largely irrelevant, rather than some community-draining problem like TFA says.
After all, that's the whole point of Open Source, isn't it. . ? Sharing code amongst projects. . ?
So.. it has come to this
There may be a problem with end users being unable to understand what is different about the various distributions. That suggests that the Linux people should spend less time saying "Its Linux, Stupid!" and more time saying "We offer more X and better Y" (or maybe "less X" as the case may be).
What do I care, I am a dead *BSD user
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Hey, I've got an idea, why don't Microsoft, Apple, Sun and all the Linux distros merge? Please. Show me one example of massive centralization that ever made something better.*
* if your idea of better is to be able to sit atop that massive organization, control it, and wield the power, then don't bother to reply; that's the only reason someone would suggest it, anyway.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I'd say a compelling argument for it would be that it seems to have worked for OSS on the desktop. Want to rip videos? AutoGK. Once you're comfortable with how those types of programs work switch over to something more complex (normal GK) and start twiddling.
My Math.floor(e) cents.
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
"free sofware" was unclear to the author?
Microsoft has been trying hard to kill Linux using every underhanded tactic they can think of... but nothing has worked yet. Articles like this are ridiculous. When you're being hunted by the enemy, you don't all lump together! That way you become an easy target. You stay spread far apart and keep making small inroads. War of attrition. Eventually, with the continueing efforts of the open source community and never-ending new distro's, new battle methods, etc..., Microsoft will have to give up and die.
Meh.
First, the hyperlinks in the articles are actually advertisement links. Second, you cannot consolidate distributions when I can start my own distribution tomorrow.
Dear editors, can we please mod articles? Recently there have been numerous articles that are just thinly disguised advertisements and click-through magnets. Slashdot as a community deserves better.
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
Competition is good. Ubuntu is a latecomer that just came out September of 2004 and it's one of the best distros for newbies. And most popular.
Knoppix is good and for a different audience/purpose. Imagine if either weren't out there.
A little known distro LFS (Linux From Scratch) is great for learning linux deep down inside and for ultimate configuration, but serves neither market the above two do.
The people who make distros, especially the ones not in the top 20, are people who are doing it for fun. You will not be able to funnel their effort without them feeling forced and ultimately quiting.
I would also like to have more cooperation in the *nix world, but this would have to do purely with standards and how drivers work, etcetera so that there is a reduction on overlap on projects few people want to work on (to get things working right).
But Linux's strength comes from diversity, otherwise it wouldn't have come so far. Just look at the Window Managers - specifically KDE and Gnome - without the one, the other wouldn't have been pushed to be better or as good as it is today.
We don't want to be Windows. A one-size-fits all approach wouldn't have let linux run on servers, as well as PCs, as well as in PDA's and other embedded applications as well as it does.
Has Windows really improved since 95 that much in any significant way? Is their one-size-fits-all solution what we want?
What linux really needs i something a bit like the Milk marketig board here in the UK. All the companies and individuals should pool together to fund marketing into why linux is so much better. Maybe we can have linux tv adverts rather than those shit abstract M$ ones we get.
A Leason in marketing
There once was a leading brand of soap powder than had about 80% of the market the brand owners decided they didnt need to market it anymore so they stoped. Within a year their market share was down to 20%! proof human beings are sheep!
Rob http://scullyshouse.tblog.com
So, a consumer walks into a computer store to buy a computer, and they're overwhelmed by too many choices of Linux.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
The problem is that, with few exceptions, you can't buy a machine at retail with *any* Linux on it. The only way Linux ends up on machines now is when a consumer decides to get rid of the OS they got for "free" on the machine.
Consolidating Linux distros doesn't do anything about getting it into the hands of users and onto machines - an effective sales and marketing organization does that.
One of the things that has bothered me about many linux pundits is that they claim that choice between different distros, desktop managers and toolkits (particularly QT and GTK) is a good thing. While this may make a small number of computer users happier, many users see that as a significant shortfall to the overall usability.
.deb and a .rpm?
Is there a choice in kernel? NO you build it to suit your needs from a common source tree, even though there are multiple X servers they all do the same thing and some (x.org and xfree) had the same code base, only a license change created the push for x.org, so why have so many desktop managers? I can understand a couple (1 for eye candy, 1 for speed) but only if they are using the same toolkit. Package management is another significant hurdle, there are many great managers out there, but why should a dev be expected to make a
Linux doesn't need to be consolidated, it needs to be better. This crap about diverting resources is bunk when you're talking about GPL'd stuff. Anybody can borrow from anyone else. The one major exception I can think of for this is package management. There should be one package management system and it should be flawless. It should really be like MacOS X's bundle thing where there's one "file" that has the entire application inside it. Installing software on a Linux system is a pain in the ass compared to Windows, regardless of package management anyway. On windows, you download install.exe to your desktop, double click, answer some prompts that have common defaults, and the program is installed. If Linux is to compete with Windows (which I don't think any company even has a vested interest in anymore at this point, with RedHat getting out of the commercial desktop OS business) then it needs to be trivial to install programs and run them.
I use FC3 as my desktop PC at work and for the most part I think it's nice, but it's also way too easy to fuck things up for the average user. Deleting stuff from the panel, adding new panels, etc... Most lusers would be lost as soon as they accidentally deleted their panel.
Anyway, as I said above, I don't think the question of "why hasn't Linux hurt Microsoft" is even reasonable to ask. Apple hasn't hurt Microsoft and they have arguably the best desktop OS on the market today. There's very little corporate backing behind making Linux into a viable competitor to Windows now that RedHat has pretty much exited the market. Novell is doing good stuff with Evolution and all that, but there's still a long way to go.
rooooar
They often have no interest in "rivaling" MS.
The larger distros like SuSE, RH, Mandriva, etc. are companies, they are going to keep trying to make a profit.
Then you have distros like Gentoo and Debian that are firmly established and will keep producing their fine distros because they have such enthusiastic communities.
Over time leading distros will emerge and fade away. Some people will see the benefits of consolidating their efforts and others will continue to pursue their goals on their own.
It's just the way it is; writing one more article about why all the distros (or GNOME and KDE) should "join forces to bring down MS" is not going to change that.
If I improperly categorized the article I didn't read, I'm sorry, but I still think it's a waste of time to try and "unite the troops".
SEO Firefox Extension
is how much wasted effort is spent on "packaging" (which is a concept that doesn't really exist on other operating systems). For any given piece of software there are probably 30 people who all do the same work (more or less) putting it into some quasi proprietary format. That's where consolidation is needed.
There could never be too many distros although I agree this confuses people new to the 'Linux genre'
One reason that so many distrubutions exist is that Linux allows you to customize and select packages and different processes that you want to run.
I believe that all developers of Linux distros should follow LSB and Filesystem Hierarchy Standards to make the filesystem uniform across the board.
I hate how some applications install in different
directories for different distros (Red Hat based vs. Debian based)
This topic has been discussed alot along with Linux is not ready for the desktop. I also think that the Linux community wastes alot of resources.
If I had Mark Shuttleworths money, I would just have a think tank sit down and come up with all of the desktop related applications and functions that Linux needs to get rid of the need for CLI for some purposes. I would make it very, very easy for the non-technical people.
The true reason that many distros exist is this:
When someone thinks that they can do something better than the next guy, they start a new project. Bottom line. I guess I would probably do the same. When I was in the military, I didnt like the way my division worked so I forked out and made a new division and took my men with me.
With dozen of different distributions the Linux community is so diffuse that the power or significance of any specific entity is severally limited.
I think the author is talking from average user perspective. If that is the case, yes I think we need to consolidate Linux on aspects like
1. User Interface
2. Packaging standpoint etc.
From a business standpoint this diversifictaion is what making Linux so success from servers to settop boxes.
Here comes the flood of lusers saying how their preferred distro is the king and everyone should get eaten up by it.
I've used 3 distros (only glanced at the rest...and it's been too long since I've used Slackware): Gentoo, Debian, Redhat.
Gentoo stands out on its own because it does something the others don't. Debian and Redhat are very similar. They have a canned installer, you grab precompiled packages, and viola.
Grouping according to similarity rather than announcing your distro is the best would get us somewhere.
Call me crazy.. But I want more distros!! More Choice!!
Yes it is intimidating to new linux users.. But I like having specialized distributions.
I like having varying filesystem heirarchies and all that shizzle.
It produces more robust code. Applications get tested on everything from XBoxes to Tea Kettles.
It allows for more specialization. If there was one distro targetting n00bs... Then what would happen to the 1337 people?
I think variety is awesome! Find a bug in one distro that is taking time to fix? Switch to another one.
Also, there is only so much development that can happen under one management. There is only one vision with one managing group. With the current system there are many visions for tomorrow, each one bold and new!!
Also, multiple distros mean competition!! Which we all know is great!
Well, no, we don't really want this. What we need, more compatibility between different distros, not a single distro
..., for one. And then, even if we'd use the same packaging format, we'd have lots of troubles anyway: The "package namespace" is different in each distro, xorg can be split up in 50 different packages called "lib$FOO" in debian xand in fedora 25 called "xorg-lib-$FOO", or some shit.
.deb or .rpm. Sight....
DEB vs RPM vs ebuilds vs
That's the biggest problem for inter-distro compatibility IMO . And the one way that it can be fixed is by moving the "packagin work" to developers (ie: let the developers write the spec files / debianize them, don't redo all the packaging work yourself as ALL distros currently do). But then, the one packaging format that encourages developers that is autopackage, which nobody is going to use because it's not
I'm now struggling with a MythTV, HD-3000, FC4 installation, and I absolutely believe it would be easier if more people used a common platform to get this kind of thing working. I look at MythTV documentation and it says stuff like this information is only valid if you have compiled from source. So I can't even rely on the documentation because I use smart to grab the rpms from ATRPMS? Do they think detailed information exists for each distro? This kind of problem simply does not happen under Windows or MacOS and as much as I'd prefer to use Linux, I have a much easier time getting most things to work under Windows (I'll experiment with MacOS this fall when I have access to a new iMac). I won't give up, but this issue is definitely holding Linux back, not that I have any idea what can be done about it.
Dara
Consolidation of marketing efforts. I mean educating consumers and letting them know that alternatives to Windows and Mac OS X exist out there. I saw a comericial last night for the movie "March of the Penguin." I was thinking that it would be great if someone used this to advertise Linux to the masses.
Personally, what I would like to see is a "standard source library", where versions of packages known to work together are collected together. That would simplify the work of binary package maintainers and provide a level of unification on the baseline WITHOUT imposing unification in the installation or the experience.
I would ALSO like to see package maintainers work together a bit better. I use a number of the RPM distros that make up the RPMForge collaboration, yet I do run into lots of incompatibility issues. This is not necessary and definitely not desirable.
(Also, they could be a little more, ummm, communicative? I'm on the RPMForge mailing lists and to say they are quiet is an understatement. I also notice there have been suggestions and submissions to RPMForge with no response given. I may be being a little unfair here, but it does give the impression of being less than an open group.)
I think diversity for Linux is essential, but a software version of the Great Library of Alexandria would definitely help with not only maintaining those distributions efficiently but also make it easier for distros to be much more compatiable with each other.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Let Linux remain the chaotic, rag-tag, fragmented testing grounds. I'll stick to FreeBSD.
Most distros use some variation of sysv init, claiming that "all distros" use a BSD init system is completely absurd.
And you seriously over-estimate how consistant filesystem layouts are from disto to distro, its still a huge mess.
Look at the distros that there are. I bet the majority of distros (taking into consideration the small ones too) are based on debian. Large organizations like Red Hat and Mandrake will continue in their own direction for a long time but I suspect everyone else will tend in the direction of debian. (I just took one of my boxen off Mandrake 10.0 because installing software is a pita. It keeps asking for disks and not believing that you put the right disk in.)
Consider office tools. Koffice is losing steam and the majority of people are going to OpenOffice.
Evolution and natural selection will continue and in a few years, 'linux' will be nicely consolodated.
I quit there.
Why? knock it if you must, but the author genuinely believes people choose Microsoft Windows XP(tm) over other alternatives, because it is actually superior as a desktop operating system.
Not mentioned at all is that XP is included "free of charge" with virtually all OEM computers, and that the operating system will never be replaced by the vast majority of users out there.
The question is: What makes XP so great? The fact that so many people use it, or the fact that so many people don't really care enough to actually look into other options?
Maybe that "reason" is "less widely recognized" is because it's wrong. Part of the Linux community model is its decentralization. I think that Windows users are taking a risk by depending on Microsoft. Because if Microsoft is forced to do something by a court, or by a competitor, MS users are forced to go along for the ride. But even if Linux users depend on a big, centralized company for their products and service, like Red Hat or Novell, they can much more easily switch to another distro, if RH or Novell change to a company on which they'd rather not depend. The rest of the Linux industry is similarly flexible. This allows it to adapt to quickly changing market conditions: The Linux species is better fit to any environment that changes. Which is why it is a better bet in the long run than, say, Windows. And why Microsoft must leverage its monopoly to compete however it can.
--
make install -not war
I personally love the idea of countless groups building their idea of the eprfect distribution. It's a perfect example of combining freedom and competition.
While it can be said that consolidation allows for a meeting of the minds, and often faster and more effective development, it also inherently takes people's choices away.
Just like breweries, I prefer diversity, freedom, and competition. It tastes a lot better.
it comes on many types of paper. linux is unlike lsd in the fact that it sucks and is very stupid.
I think it should be obvious to any one remotely interested in linux on the desktop that some consolidation is required for things to go further. I think this is probably also obvious to the developers. The trouble is, in the absense of a marketting/direction body telling them what to do (as in a commercial environment), most development is geared towards what it the "best" "technical" solution.
There are disagreements about what the best solutions are. Each solution is conflicting and would require compromise in order to resolve. Now being a stubborn opinionated (software developing) bastard myself, it is quite obvious that such compromise is the number one reason linux is not consolidating.
I don't really see solutions like AutoPackage being particularly helpful. All they do is add another layer to the problem -- a meta-distribution almost. The problem of consolidation needs to be approached from the bottom up and not the top down.
There is another scenario where linux consolidates, and that is where one distro is so superior to the rest that it gains momentum such that the other distros become smaller and smaller until they effectively vanish. This seems unlikely to happen though, since each distro is simultaneously fed by upstream software developers and as such they will all tend to move lockstep.
Having said that, of the distros out there I believe Ubuntu is currently best placed for this.
Who is the target audience for Linux? The average user who surfs the internet and plays solitaire? Or your typical computer savvy /. reader? One gets easily confused by chaos and will eventually seek One Big OS (ie Windows) while the other will prefer to be a sort of OS connoisseur.
#define CLUE 0
No and heres why:
Any kind of fork, distribution, customisation etc of any project must happen for a good reason. If it does happen then it should follow the structure of the system in such a way that lower level updates and improvements can filter into the forks. For example using libraries in a project means you're not re-inventing the wheel and any improvements to those libraries can filter through into your project. The same is true with distributions, using the same package manager and window manager for example. There might be two or three commonly used window managers because they all have different goals, some are better suited to PDA's, some to novice users etc.
When forking or distributing re-invent the wheel or serve no purpose then its clear that the developers didn't have the fore-thought to properly justify or plan the project, these developers need the experience of screwing up like this before they are ready to work on the 'main' forks or distributions. In short, if you make a stupid distribution for no reason you are just not good enough yet so its not like people are missing out on your skills, but it will certainly teach you a lesson and probably give you an insight into how the theory of the system that you developed works.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
If Firefox had a dozen different versions, each with different web locations/features/visuals/interfaces, it would not be as popular as it is today. This should be obvious.
The same goes for Linux, one (of many) reasons that people won't switch (or recommend their friends to switch) is that LINUX DOES NOT EXIST, merely several similar OSes that build on the same base.
I'm a Windows/MacOSX C/C++ programmer that might be interested by dual-booting into Linux one day, but that will never happen because I don't know which 'distro' to install. If a computer-savy person like me won't even bother, how can you ever expect a casual computer user to??
Linux is open source, everyone can make their own distro if they so desire. I am against any talk of there being one single distro. Diversity is the strength of open source.
If there are competing technologys, GOOD! The best will rise to the top, but there is always room for the inevitable niche. So called analysts always say diversity hurts Linux, but it is probably the one thing that will keep exploits, viruses, and worms from causing as much problems on Linux as it does on Windows. Innovation follows diversity and freedom.
There will probably only be a few Linux distros that have blanket support by the commercial software industry, but people like me will always be able to enjoy having the freedom to be different. There are several distros out there that no normal person would ever use (Gentoo, Slack, etc.), but those who do use it, love it! That's the beauty of open source, and it is a huge strength.
--dingletec--
A dominant distribution could emerge, but if so it will be through competition, not 'consolidation'. The emergence of such a distribution could be facilitated by the nature of open source itself. I just escaped the clutches of the evil Mandriva (sorry, something about the new name just invites space opera imagery) to Fedora, and there are a few things I'd like to see Fedora take (turn about being fair play, Mandrake started by taking from Red Hat) from Mandriva. They probably won't, sadly, but point is, they could. It is possible, at least in theory, for a distro to 'consolidate' the best features of other distributions.
Loose lips lose spit.
I'm really tired of having to think about tar files vs. rpms, and gtk vs. qt; I just want the software to install and work so that I can get on with using it to do something else.
Welcome to 2005. We, the Windows users, have been able to do this for a good 10 years now. You should try Windows 2000. You'll save yourself a lot of time, money, and frustration.
Linux is not dependent on traditional market forces to survive. It gets wide support because it is good, not because it is cheap, or flashy, or easy to use, or whatever the reason is why the masses buy computers. Consequently Linux market share is an indication of the health of the project, but world domination is neither a goal, nor necessary. However, Linux allows knowledgeable people to get a big leg-up on the competition. The old Army Maxim applies to MS users: If you are shit, then you shall suffer...
Oh well, what the hell...
There's little or no code production going on in most distributions, so their consolidation would accomplish very little.
With a relatively few exceptions, Linux distributions are packaging efforts, making no contributions, original or otherwise, to the software they contain. Of those that do actually modify the software they've collected, most seem to be content with tweaking a theme or two. (The major exceptions, of course, are folks like Red Hat/Fedora, SUSE, Debian/Ubuntu.)
So, in that regard, consolidating the efforts of most distributions would result in more tweaked themes and very little actual new code. Not much benefit there.
A managed consolidation of developer talent is a different kind of thing. For example, identifying and putting the best human interface developers at work on the design of the Linux desktop mightt reap some benefits. Collecting and focusing talent is easier in the proprietary world than it is in the open source world, where developers self-identify their interests and work on whatever interests them, whether or not their skills might be better applied elsewhere.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I'm not a newbie, I've used unix for years. I don't use linux because I have yet to find a distro that I like, and suits me. I would rather see far more distros so that everyone can find a distro they like.
For what its worth, choosing a distro based on uninformed blathering from random forums is not a good idea. Who cares what is the most recommended distro by people who have no business recommending anything right this second? Use one, if you like it keep using it, if you don't then try a different one.
IMHO standards are key.
And many distro's are working towards a single standard.
Remember, because the software is free software the vendors don't feel compelled to "embrace and extend" to differentiate their products. They are less inclined to compete on a feature by feature basis. They compete more on services and other criteria.
So working towards standards is a win-win, and is inevitable.
My emachine intel extreme graphics chipset is NOT supported by UBUNTU . I go to the intel site and they only have drivers for a certain kernel for Redhat or Suse and no other distro. Get this. I read a suse messageboard and they can't even get it to work. Bahhhh.
We need to make it easier for hardware support which is another reason for people pulling their hair out with linux.
I like people that always want to manage something and be on the top of decision process without any related work done. And this 'consolidation' just seems to me as an similar attempt. Anybody capable can create unification framework, and if it's good, it will be used. But whining about variability of distros and competition against windows and macosx, althought really very popular now, is just waste of time, that could be used for the creativity and solving the problems. Maybe the article is another unfinished college midterm work for the management class, who knows...
I've tried Linux several times (with different distros) and always run into a problem with getting all of my hardware to work and connecting to the net. I think could be a key to getting people to switching from Windows to Linux.
Instead of having 17k different distributions, all based off the same base (Debian ->Ubuntu for example) just have the bases and then development and then there's a subsect of that in there.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
More FUD of the "Eine Reich, Eine Volk, Eine Fuhrer!" variety.
I'd like to think I'm only going to have to explain this once (yeah, right) so here goes my attempt to explain a few things to the Windows using world.
1. Windows sucks. NT is probably the single most technologically inferior operating system to have ever seen the light of day. In terms of usability, on the surface it might seem great, but go even a few microns below the surface and it is revealed as an absolute dog. (Keep this point in mind, kids, cos it's a very important one)
2. Microsoft have taught the computer using world to think in a number of perverted, unnatural, and generally harmful ways. One of these ways is the insistence that one size has to fit all, i.e., the concept of a monoculture. There can't be more than one operating system in existence at any one time, goes the old saw. Unfortunately what Microsoft doesn't understand (aside from virtually everything else, that is) is that diversity is actually good for computer security, rather than bad for it. If different people run different operating systems, or even different versions of a similar or same operating system, it means that the anarchic 14 year olds wanting to break into said computers will have to work harder...because they will need to write versions of a given virus for a greater number of operating systems than just one. We could even hope that faced with that much effort, they won't bother.
3. Another one of these bad ways of thinking is the insistence that every GUI on the planet be identical to Windows'. You'll normally never hear me praising Apple (takes deep breath, wonders if he can really do this) but they also came up with some great ideas for user interface design, as well. The people currently designing KDE for Linux have even managed to come up with a few.
4. Yet another of Microsoft's evil ideas is the concept that programs should be designed monolithically. This actually follows on from the "Eine Reich, Eine Volk, Eine Fuhrer!" groupthink mentioned earlier. The Linux way of doing things on the other hand tends towards making various pieces which snap together, so that whoever works on a piece only has to worry about the bugs in said piece, rather than the entire program. Because the pieces are often fairly small, they're also usually a lot easier to understand than the sort of software Microsoft writes, and it's therefore easier to figure out how they work.
5. So from these few examples, we can see how Microsoft's ideology is bad. Therefore, I humbly beg you to kindly cease and desist authoring screeds about how Linux should supposedly be more like Microsoft's monstrosities...because it really shouldn't. Microsoft should be taking pages from Linux's book, not the other way around...for many different reasons.
Debian kenel is a nightmare for hardware support.
Redhat and Suse have more support.
Whats so special about Ubuntu compared to hundreds of other distros ?
They all seem the same to me.
I don't want to start a flame war (too late ;) but is Gtk really worth it? I had to look at, improve and enhance a university project previously written in Gtk. I had 5000 lines of unreadble code to study. I rewrote everything from scratch in Qt and in 2 days I had a clean base (500 lines instead of 5000) to work with.
No, I'm not a troll but a student and I'd like to know what real coders think of Gtk. It emulates OOP but you still have to cast every struct in each function call and play with void * which can be very dangerous.
Is there (question to anyone) a linux distro now that uses all autopackages?
Are there too many flavours of ice cream available? Can there be too many?
Obviously some manufacturers of ice cream should merge or whatever. I mean how can they carry on inflicting this confusion on everybody?
...but too many doing the same things. And NONE are tackling the fundemental problems with Linux, instead people just add to the them.
I really don't understand what I'm looking at with Linux. There is an opportunity to do enormous damage to MS and make Apple look silly but no one is doing it. Everyone just wants to turn the other way and carry on as usual.
The Linux Kernel is a great asset buried under a ton of nonsense.
Part of the problem imho is a lack of design. Linux only attracts programmers, it doesn't attract people who are interested in developing a compelling, original, easy to use experience. Maybe that will change in the future. X is a another problem, it sucks and it is very old. These are tough issues, but address them and Linux could actually be a solid, fun desktop OS with a vast user base instead of a server.
As long as anyone, anywhere in the world, keeps working on a distro, that distro is alive. So there will always be hundreds of distros. I'm just talking about the top end.
I also think that the desktop environment will become the important developer target: developers won't be developing for SuSE or Ubuntu, they will be developing for KDE or GNOME. As long as the distro does a good job of packaging the desktop environment, the apps should drop in and run.
I really want to see "logo compliance" become widespread in the future. Remember what John Carmack said about releasing for Linux: it's such a pain because you have so many different config options needed to release your software on all the different distros. What we need is a standard, for example "LinuxGame Level 2" or whatever. So if you saw a piece of software that said "LinuxGame Level 2 Compatible!" that would mean it should run on your distro if your distro supports LinuxGame Level 2. And if it doesn't work, you would first file bugs against the distro, not against the software developer.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Device drivers are a kernel issue. And there is already a nice standard there: a vanilla kernel from kernal.org
So the problem isn't a lack of standards. It is a lack of people following the standards. And less choice in distros will not change that.
Do you like Japanese imports?
All the different distro is the main reason why Linux usage is not growing as fast as it could. It is extremely confusing when a newbie is trying to decide which one to use. Choosing the wrong one can turn off possible converts - especially if they do not have much total computer experience.
I know this from experience. Fortunately I belonged to a cybertechhelp forum and was led to suse to start my linux experience. However if I was led to another distro that would not worked as well as suse it would have turned me completely off to Linux.
is what's needed. Any and all distributions that offer some kind of 'enterprise edition' or are otherwise backed and funded by money should merge with a smaller but equally as promising company. Not buy out the name, but hire the developers and integrate the product.
Consider the merger between Mandrake, Lycoris, and Connectiva. The new Mandriva 10.2 distro is an amazing improvement of things over before Mandrake merged, likely due to the collective knowhow of the three teams.
The author is envisioning a utopian world where /everyone/ sets aside their differences and comes together to build something great.
;-)
It never happens that way. What typically happens is accidental successes, such as the success of Linux over Hurd. Someone comes up with a better way of working, whether intentional or not (e.g. Linus and "the bazaar"), and it wins in the marketplace of ideas.
While there's a lot of distributions out there, I'd argue that the important benefits of consolidation are being recognized. Many are derivatives of other distros, with Debian being one of the most popular starting points. Alternate distributions serve as a development ground for mainstream distributions - e.g. there's a lot of great hardware detection code from Knoppix that is getting pulled into many other distributions. The "yum" component of Fedora is pulled out of Yellow Dog.
I imagine after Linux goes mainstream, there will be one or two dominant distributions. At least one of them will probably have a very "standard" feel to it, i.e. it'll be hard to imagine that the desire for a "community" distribution will ever go away (hence the new trend toward foundations such as Fedora and Ubuntu foundations). I'm just not going to make any bets on who comes out on top, though I am writing this from a laptop with Ubuntu on it.
Rob
to bind them...
...when developers get tired of solving the same problems over and over again. RIght now there is plenty of energy out there. The developer need to get bored, tired or both. Until then the competing file layouts, package systems, and GUI desktops will continue to joust for supremacy... that's just the way of things.
There is goodness in diversity. The sheer fact is that the way someone chooses to do something (like the INANE bookmarks menu in Konqueror) might drive a user nuts. Fortunately (due to the diversity that abounds) there are enough good, competeting alternatives that I can easily find something that I find more palatable.
There are many dynamics associated with the diversity that we see...so the next distro isn't going to hit it big...so what? Think about the social aspects- it could be perfect for a small group of individuals that would like to focus on something that interests them without the politics and headaches that sometimes characterize the larger, more formalized development efforts.
Which version? I think the comment about standards is related to the fact that there is no guaranteed stability in Linux's device driver interface, and this causes problems for binary drivers.
There are of course, arguments why this is a good thing and a bad thing.
If a distro has more than 0 users than its existence serves a purpose.
I also think that the multitude of distros will encourage open standards and common technology (like an universal installer). Also it allows for testing different paths and ideas that if successful can be implemented in the rest of the distros.
As for newbies having problems to choose: download any distro in the top 10 at distrowatch and give it a spin.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Linux is evolving. Distros with reproductive advantage will flourish, while others will die out. Interbreeding, fostered by the GPL, means that advantageous features are spread among the distros while disadvantageous ones wither away.
I see no reason to believe that some sort of centralized design and control would result in more effective development.
I gave up on Linux as my main desktop operating system and keep it around on a seperate partition to play with but not soley use.
.... :-)
/compat/X so you can run older applications by linking to older libraries and shell programs. Linux does not have this. Solaris I think uses dynamic linking like Windows (correct me if I am wrong since I am not an expert with Solaris) so runtime just works.
.so's similiar to Win2k dll management, and /compat directories with older core programs to fix it.
I am a former BSD bigot too so I may be biased here
Linux distributions are not only not incompatible with each other but they are incompatible with themselves.
Case in point try running quake3, UT2003, UT2004, and other ports on Gentoo?
It wont compile or not run at all. Why?
Because api and abi changes are inevitable and newer versions of libraries are incompatible with older ones.
FreeBSD has things stored in
At least on Windows I can run a 8 year old binary on windows2k. On solaris I can run old unix apps without a sweat. Linux it changes on a monthly basis and makes it impossible for commercial software developers to support.
We need standards and we need dynamic and not static linking with
Until this happens and executables become smarter I will stay away from Linux except for a small number of server apps.
http://saveie6.com/
When I think of consolidation, I think of Gnome and KDE. Yes, choice is good. Yes, it's lovely that we have such a diversity of effort.
But doesn't it strike anyone else as fucking stupid that if I want to run Konqueror alongside Evolution, I have to load two cripplingly large environments into memory? That if I want to script KOffice, I can use DCOP, but of course, GNOME has its own scripting interface?
This is not like having a choice of syslog daemons. This is just fucking stupid.
So, is there any way to fix it?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
it's definatly an issue of competing free technology. if most of these people are volunteers, why bother competing? it would make more sense to consolidate teams into larger, more powerful ones. right now, there's a dozen desktop distros, a dozen server distros, a dozen small distros, etc etc, and they could do so much more if they weren't developing the same things at the same time.
Let me repeat: Monocultures are bad. Doesn't matter what the core is, say it again, monocultures are bad.
A wise person might look at the plague Microsoft has cursed us with and see the obvious truth; this fool would repeat the same curse but with a different chant.
Verily, this pundit needs to get himself a clue. Unfortunately, he's not bright enough to see the obvious one so I doubt _any_ clue would do.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
I think there are too many competing technologies: QT vs. GTK, dpkg vs. rpm vs. ebuild vs. tgz, etc. If we could work out some good standards -- that everybody followed
And how are you going to make everybody follow that one standard?
Fact is that the variety of libraries and environments out there reflects people's preferences.
But if you want to standardize, why don't we start with you. Throw out your desktop environment and switch to twm and Lesstif. Hey, what are you complaining about? It's been the standard for decades.
nuf said.
ramsinks.com
Consolidation is not necessary if there is sufficient standardization between the distros. As a system admin I want to be able to pick and choose between RH, SuSe, Debian or whatever without a huge learning curve.
Each distro can add their flair, but the core methods for installing & configuring software and system settings should be the same.
Seriously if Photoshop had a Linux version at least for me there would be no more need to be using Windows. I take a shit load of photos with my Olympus E1 and GIMP just doesnt cut it. The only other thing I use my windows 2000 for is web browsing and email.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Well, with your Konqueror example, it would be great if the user DID have choice. But they don't, because Konqueror is the only program of its type that integrates into KDE.
Now, if there were some standardized desktop architecture so that you could transparently swap in Nautilus or something, then you'd have diversity -- and it would be good.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I think this is a GREAT Idea!
Ok Every body switch to my favorite distribution and we can go march forward to victory!
Oh what, you don't want to change to mine? You want me to change to YOURS? Heck no! Your throbber doesn't frob in the right direction for Bjork's sake!
Linux is not Windows
So.. it has come to this
There no differences between multiple Linux distributions and forking your own mutant copy of your favorite project because you can't play nice with the current custodians. Making a new distro isn't as beneficial as incorporating your additional changes or features into an existing distribution. Having multiple distro's should be seen as an intermediate step for trying out major structural changes. The smaller distros should consider it their duty to the larger Linux community to try to get the features that make them special integrated into the larger, more popular distributions. Now, when those features are install and packaging related it's very hard for a single distro to support multiple variations at the same time. (But not impossible). Strengthening the LSB should make more features possible without needing to make your own distro.
I've tried a bunch of distros. Here is why I've stuck with Ubuntu (it finally got me away from Win 98, permanently):
* No guilt trips. Mandrake and Redhat are trying to make money. Ubuntu doesn't seem to be going in that direction.. or at least I haven't noticed yet if they are. I got a stack of Ubuntu CD's for free, including free shipping.
* Very simple installation. I think this isn't as strong a point as it used to be, because Redhat and Mandrake are easy to install too. I remember installing Linux in the past where there was menu after menu of cryptic stuff (/dev/hda1 means nothing to a Windows user).
* Detected my hardware. The main reason that I kept switching distros was that my sound card was not working. It worked in Ubuntu. Not only that, but everything I want: scanner, printer, 5.25" floppy, ancient digital camera, joysticks, Roland midi daughterboard. All my hardware works!
* Friendly support. There is the wiki, message board, and #ubuntu on irc.freenode.net. People there like to help, and do not have an elitist attitude.
* sudo system. I remember the pains of plain Debian, where if I wanted to configure certain parts of my system graphically, I had to close all my apps and log back in as root. Also frustrating was having to type passwords to log in and out of my system. None of that annoyance with Ubuntu.
* Easy package installation through Synaptic.. well this isn't a Ubuntu monopoly, but it is a great program. It was a major pain doing all that apt stuff my hand. Now, I have multiple Ubuntu repositories available, searchable.. with easily installed apps. Sometimes I still need to compile an app, but it is not often.
* Good graphics. I know this seems silly.. but the people making icons and graphics for Ubuntu do a good job and it gives the OS a professional appearance. IMO, it looks even more professional than Redhat.
Our diversity is one of our strengths..
For those who need security, there is a distribution(debian?).
For those who want to compile everything (for speed?) there is a distribution(gentoo),
For those who like it complicated, there is a distribution(redhat?)
For those who like it simple there is a distribution (slackware?)
For each of us there is a distribution with the strengths we care about.
Who cares how many distros there are? By definition, all these people producing them are not going to all work on one or even a dozen distros.
Is Red Hat or Novell going to hire another five hundred guys to produce a distro? Many of these guys aren't even developers in the sense the kernel maintainers are. They can put together the packages making up a distro but they don't DESIGN or code them in many cases.
Most of the distros differ only in what packages are included, and perhaps which desktops are included or how the desktops defaults are tweaked. This is totally irrelevant to which distro someone might want to use in a corporate setting although it might be confusing for a home user looking to switch.
Now, if you're talking about the fact that there are six or eight MAIN distros (RH, Novell, Mandriva, Sun, Debian, Ubuntu, Xandros, Lycoris, and Linspire, depending on how you count), what are you implying? That all these companies and organizations should unite? Even less likely to happen than that the community will unite as a whole.
For corporations, only the big three (Red Hat, Sun and Novell) are considered serious because they have (reasonably) large corporate support behind them. None of these corporations are going to unite behind one version.
The only thing preventing Linux from swamping the desktop is the number of enterprise applications available, the number of developers willing to work on enterprise-level applications, the number of VARS able to handle large-scale migrations in large corporations, and the number of VARS total able to handle the scores of thousands of small businesses. And this is only going to change slowly as more and more people pick up on Linux and get more experience.
It has NOTHING to do with installability, or usability on the desktop, or hardware support, or the number of mildly varying distros. It's strictly an economic and manpower issue which will sort itself out over the next ten years. How long did it take to get scores or hundreds of thousands of Java developers to come into existence? And that was a language controlled by one company.
If you want Linux on the desktop, hang your shingle out and start Linux consulting to the businesses in your locality or industry. This will also prove one can make money from OSS.
Where there could be some "consolidation" to assist this would be in some "consolidated marketing" that presents a more united front against the inertia of corporations (the biggest obstacle) and the FUD coming from Microsoft and its paid flacks in the "research" and trade media industry. And here the big Linux distros need to be more proactive and more vocal and visible.
We need a "Linux Press Office." Or maybe a "Linux Minister of Information." If the Big Three would pay me a half-decent wage, I humbly volunteer. Back in the late '80's, I was up for the job of spokesman for Atari on BIX, CompuServe, etc. and ran the Atari conference on the WELL. Didn't work out (just as well since Atari went down the tubes shortly after), but if I spent ten or fourteen hours a day coordinating the media response from the various Linux companies and organizations to the latest Microsoft FUD or industry nonsense, I could do some good. Somebody needs to do it. If the RIAA can have industry spokesmen like Hilary Rosen used to be, the Linux movement needs one as well. So far I can think of only a couple people doing some of it, and they're not a DAILY presence in the media. They get quoted in various articles, but the response is diffuse.
Hire me, guys. I'll ream Steve Ballmer and Rob Enderle and Laura DiDio in the ass the next time they open their mouths. (I might even enjoy it with Laura.)
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Which is why the drivers go INTO the kernel.org tarball and magically "Just work(tm)" without having to guess where $COMPANYNAME is hiding them on their website, if they're still in business, or what sort of blood oaths they want to you sign before they let you see them. That also means when people go through and do general enhancements to the kernel and driver interfaces your drivers get the help too, such as all the sysfs work in late 2.5/2.6 making the whole system more discoverable and giving more information to userspace to do smart things with.
- RustyTaco
With all of this talk about "the linux desktop" (which is pretty funny because there is no linux desktop...just desktops that happen to run on linux), nobody with clout has the balls to tackle hard political issues like a standard toolkit for one.
After programming on linux for the server for years I don't really care about "linux on the desktop" because it'll always be a niche platform for the hobbyist and some corporate workstations.
Everybody seems to love the status quo like repositories, standard unix filesystem layouts, 2 desktop environments and toolkits, etc...
I'd rather someone take the linux kernel and do something really innovate in user space instead of Yet Another Distro. Until then, I'll play around with GoboLinux, autopackage, E17 and other software that at least tries to be different.
Remember, there is no linux operating system, there is RedHat, Suse, Debian operating systems.
Actually, the post I was originally replying to mentioned distro specific (Red Hat and SuSe) kernels.
As for the lack of stability for the driver interface, I agree with you, that is potentially problematic, and one can argue for or against its usefulness.
Linux dissapointed me today. I clicked the upgrade button on my Ubuntu desktop, it did lots of stuff, and then when I restart my computer the screen doesn't work anymore, it just says there was a problem with X something, do you want to view anyway? And then there's like 4 inch text on a command line.
This X stuff is a huge problem for Linux. This has happened to me before too, and why should I have to fool with a file somewhere and know technical monitor specs just to change my resolution. This is just a showstopper.
I honestly think the entire Linux community should stop whatever they're working and get X fixed! I mean what could possibly be more important than a usable display?
I'm an end user. I have always been. I am one of the many who are supposed to buy hardware and software and services (and I did: If I had spent my money on cars, not on hardware and software, there would be a Porsche or two in my garage. This is just to say: I *do* put my money where my mouth is.).
I started with a Commodore C64 many, many years ago - I was into gaming and music, like most kids.
The C64 had great games. It was cheap. For a kid, it worked like a TV set: You switched it on, started the game, off you went into unknown territory.
Later, I switched to the Atari ST, because it was the only machine with a built-in MIDI interface. I was into music. The ST had sequencers, sound design software, a wickedly fast and customizable text editor and a pretty reliable layout software. With two friends, I was able to produce a CD, the CD booklet, cover and more on a machine with 2 MB RAM. Those were good times.
The ST worked like a TV set on steroids: You switched it on, and two minutes later, your application was there: a great sequencer, an innovative layout software. Off we went.
A few years later, I became a Mac addict. The Mac had music, graphics and productivity applications, and it was cooler than Windows. It was fun to work with. The consistency of applications was amazing: Every key combo worked in every application. Everywhere you wanted color, you had the same color selector. You didn't have to think; you just did what you wanted to do.
The Mac worked like a super-luxury TV set: You had a set of great applications, a beautiful package and beautiful software, all working smoothly together. Heaven. We produced another CD.
In 1996, I switched to Windows and never looked back, and I will definitely not sidestep to Linux.
Why?
Because I love Windows per se so much?
No. I don't.
But by that time, I had discovered so many things I wanted to do: Editing digital audio. More games (I'm still a game addict). The Internet: HTML editors, browsers, FTP clients. Text analysis. Databases.
Today, if I have a particular problem, it takes me circa 10 minutes to find five great applications that will do what I want. In most areas, I can choose between freeware, shareware, exotic stuff from innovative little companies and expensive packages from the big guys.
I chose whatever I like best and what I can afford.
I still want my applications like TV sets: Of course I need to learn what all the funny buttons on the remote do, but in the end, I just want to WATCH MY FAVORITE SHOW.
Developers, please take note:
We - the end users - admire you. We love you work, your efforts, the blood, sweat and tears you put into your work.
Frankly, most of us think that most of you are magicians.
Shall I let you into a little secret?
We do not give a flying fuck about operating systems. We may buy Windows today or download Linux tomorrow. We don't care.
We have stuff to do.
We want great applications.
We want consistency (the same friggin' key shortcut for "bold" or "start sequencer" in every app).
We want stability (the TV set thing).
We do not care about what's going on underneath the surface. We know you do, and we admire you.
We want a reliable, consistent platform. Like electric power, or water, or the telephone system. Later, at the bar, we'll listen to all your stories about how you did it, and smile and buy you another beer.
But all we want to start with is something like a car that you can start like any other car.
Keys, gas, road.
And a trillion of great applications running on top of that.
That's all.
Thanks for listening.
No. I don;t think it was a reference to UnitedLinux. From the article:
"With dozen of different distributions the Linux community is so diffuse that the power or significance of any specific entity is severally limited."
Evidently, they are suggesting that centralized control over the operating system is what is required for Linux to spread. This is not like United Linux because no single entity controlled United Linux. This is instead the Microsoft model, which is why they are wrong.
Clearly there are a lot of areas that need improvement on unifying the base platform for Linux-based systems. And clearly the fragmentation has caused problems (was that Runlevle 2 or 3? Was that runlevel 3 or 5 in this distro?) but these areas are being worked on. The answer comes in many forms, from FreeDesktop.org to the LSB project.
The average Linux user should not have to worry about the holy wars regarding KDE v. GNOME. They should be able to get KDE apps and GTK apps running on the same system and integrating seamlessly without any problems. This is happening.
The average Linux admin should not have to worry about which utilities are on a system, which runlevel is which, what the device name for the serial port is, and half a dozen other annoyances that have at one time or another plagued the Linux world. These things should be standardized. And it is happening.
In short, consolidation is not the answer. Standardization is the answer. Interoperability is the answer. On top of that, each vendor should be encouraged to extend the standard as a way of trying out new things. Eventually new ideas will make their way in, just like other standards (POSIX, SQL, etc).
And just to mention this, there may be cases where the standard does not apply. I for one don't think that TiVo's need to be LSB compliant...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Progress? It has nothing to do with how many distributions there are. It just has to do with some incredibly simple things:
1) Target the home user, not the corporate decision makers. Why is no one noticing that the "major" distros have websites almost entirely tailored for the corporate world? Is it just because that's how "free software" developers earn their money? Or is there a reason I'm not seeing here for why nobody seems to give a crap about every-day consumers? Normal people don't see a computer as a working environment, stop advertising it as such.
2) Forget all the garbage about "difficulty" in installing the operating system, this is hardly an issue anymore. Instead, concentrate on the real issue of installing SOFTWARE of any kind, be that applications or hardware drivers. The only easy way to do this, right now, is to A) only install software that the distribution's built-in installation managers already know about, and/or B) only install software made by large firms that can invest in a fully functional stand-alone installer (Netscape, Opera, etc). If you want to install random Googled-for software, you're shit out of luck.
3) If your distribution does not support every single hardware component my computer has out of the box and doesn't provide for a simple (couple of mouse clicks, NOT couple of pages worth of instructions) way to fix the problem, you can GTFO and STFU. Your product is a beta. I don't care how hard it is to make this work. Until you CAN make it work, get the hell out of my sight and stop advertising yourself as a finished product.
4) Actually SPEND THE TIME developing GOOD user interfaces. Cut the minimalistic bullshit. A computer desktop is a place where people spend HOURS of their daily lives. It's like a second home. When you walk into a house, do you want to be greeted by a Soviet-style utilitarian kitchen, a functional (yet nasty) toilet and a matress? While these things may serve their purpose and allow you to get your desired task done, it's UGLY and I do NOT want to spend any time in such a cold, nasty place.
UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
I Agree That There Are To Many Linux Distros Out There, It Makes It Too Hard For First Timers To Really choose a good distro. also, has anyone ever noticed that in the open source/linux community that once something goes popular, it seem to be hated, i think that the linux community has a underdog complex.
option 1:"Just do it my way"
option 2:"Just what the PHB says"
it is just the way things always were.
We need fundamental diversities, not winme vs win2000
Aside from the fact that Windows still holds at least 80% market share, meaning that most all programs can be run on it, one of the reasons Windows keeps on selling is because you don't have 20 flavors of it. Stores generally sell one or two main versions of Windows; recently, it's WinXP and 2K, though 2K is hardly seen on department store shelves these days.
Yes, you have XP Home, Pro, and Media Center, but you don't have to label software as being "XP Home, XP Pro, XP Media Center Compatible"; you just say "Compatible with Windows XP", because it will work on all of them.
Whereas in Linux, you have many choices, something which overwhelms your regular consumer. "Lesse... Redhat? No, Fedora. Wait, those are made by the same company... SuSE? Oh, what about Mandriva? Hrm..."
While I'm not a big *nix user or fan, my understanding is that something written for one out of the box Linux distro should work for another. Maybe you just have to change a line in the code and compile it. I can state that the average user will never want to do that.
For Linux to gain more market share, there needs to be one distro that everyone supports and is pushed to the fore-front, while supporting all other distros is a secondary goal. However, just because of the nature of Linux, I don't see this happening.
http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/20011300/
EIN Volk, EIN Reich, EIN Führer.
And why do you need this to be at the kernel level and not the distribution level. What advantage to "software just install and work" do you see yourself in not having by doing something like "apt-get install xyz"?
And why do you want your installer to run in ring 0?
Sorry, but even Microsoft isn't *that* stupid. I for one don't want anything more in the kernel than is necessary. If you need something else, put it in a standard-- like LSB or something.
Also, people often forget how prevailent Linux is in embedded systems and how different your installer needs would be. Do we all need to be able to install arbitrary RPM's on our TIVO's?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Two days ago here.
When you say the word "consolidation", zealots tend to think, "My god, this guy wants to consolidate down to 5 distros.". Not even close. That is a zealots FUD talking.
First let me start by explaining that when I say "consolidate" I don't necessarily mean "pare it down to 3 distros". Not even close. I'm just saying that Debian (which my fav distro Ubuntu is a "child" of), for instance, has approx 34 child distros listed on their website.
My problem with the article is this: The main thrust of the reasoning behind the authors desire for a consolidation of Linux seems to be to gain marketshare (vs. Windows). IMO, this is _not_ a good idea. IMO, the main reason for consolidation (should it ever take place) should be to increase the speed at which Linux is improving. If that happens to help increase marketshare, so be it. It would be an added bonus.
As for how consolidation would take place and specifics of it the implementation, I'm not sure. I'm not a developer and not even one who is vastly experienced with it, nor uber-knowledgable about it. However, I do think there are certain parameters within which this should take place.
Rule 1. DO NOT add bureaucracy. - Need I even say why?
Rule 2. DO NOT add "standards". - It might make sense on a small scale, but on a large scale it would hurt. Especially where niches are concerned.
Consolidation need not mean "homogenization"!
Rule 3. DO NOT over-consolidate. - This one is obvious as well.
I used an example of Debian based distros. IMO, 34 flavors of Debian is a waste. Pare this down to, say, 25 - not 3. Developers of the 9 distros that are "displaced" can then choose to decide which distro they'd like to work on, or switch to package development instead. Either way, it would help to increase the speed at which Linux improves.
I know that zealots will say it "isn't a good idea". That it "will not improve anything". That, "the reason Linux is so great is because there are 8,000,000 distros." Don't worry about your FUD. If done by the developers themselves, for the right reasons, in the right way...consolidation would be a good thing.
If it can't or won't be done the right way, for the right reasons; then forget it. Don't bother. Linux will continue to improve at the same speed, or improvement will slow down.
Think about it. Even if consolidation took place today and was implemented the right way for the right reasons - the speed at which Linux overall improves would increase - for a time. Then we would have a re-splintering and the cycle would continue. The good case for consolidation is to increase speed of improvement. If that doesn't happen there will be a re-splintering effect anyway. I don't see how it would hurt to try. It *Just*- might - *work* TM. The point is if you consolidate - and it works, speed of improvement increases - when it stops working/increasing will be the point when new forks emerge.
First, I have advocated standardization instead of consolidation. I think that some consolidation will occur because there are many distros which are corporate-backed which may not be able to survive and may be bought up by larger players.
.tar.gz packages on my servers.
But this doesn't necessarily leave us with fewer distros as there is no reason to think that if a major shift were to occur that people wouldn't go out and build something true to the spirit of what was lost. Indeed, with more people coming out with interesting ideas, we will probably see more distros.
What we are likely to see, however, is a world where a few distros are large, powerful, and quite profitable, and a much larger number of distros out on the fringes. LSB is important in standardization and ensuring interoperability between distros. FreeDesktop.org is also important for GUI stuff. And in the end, we will likely see the transition from one distro to another be less jarring, and it will be easier to install software on many distros.
BTW, I use a combination of RPM's and
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This is absolute bullshit. Linux suffers from the same major security problems that other systems do (for example any zlib, ssh and Apache issues apply on any system). Doing forced system upgrades on Linux is a pain in the ass. And then when you upgrade, say, KDE, there's no guarantee that it (or any of the apps that depended on it) will still work (so you then upgrade them too and have a big long chain of upgrade dependencies).
Maintaining Windows: it's an endless pain in the butt (patching, running Norton, de-spyware-ing, de-virusing, renewing licenses, etc etc...)
?
First set up a hardware firewall as a first line of defense (a cheapo Linksys router will do). Then go: Bam. Securing Windows and configuring a zero maintenence environment could not be easier.
If your users still run binary attachments or visit websites they shouldn't and download trojans, this is not the fault of the OS, although installing Firefox and Thunderbird tend to help that.
There are too many articles like this - they should be consolidated. People like me are confused by so many articles. Think of the beginners! It is no wonder that people turn away from them when these article writers cannot co-operate with eachother.
One thing at a time: let's get rid of the slow, buggy distraction called *BSD by using some Linux software patents to outlaw it.
After that, yes, we will consolidate all Linux distributions into one, RedHat, using some of the same legal tactics.
1.) Most open-source developers work for immediate reasons -- other than to attract many customers. They just need to fulfill specific purposes.
2.) Why is there always someone mixing up "Linux" and open source??? And why TFH is there always someone who posts such mindless stories here on slashdot?
3.) Having dozens of distros around doesn't mean that all of them are important. Many aren't.
4.) Having dozens of distros around doesn't mean that each one is working on his own. They all share 99% and more of the same code base.
5.) Restricting ourselves to specific solutions isn't possible. We work for free. We do what we like. I do what I want. And we probably wouldn't like it that much if we were forced to consolidate.
6.) Consolidation is there. Look at X11. Look at Firefox. Look at KDE and, maybe, GNOME -- although I don't take the latter one as a serious competitor. Are there many different kernel branches around? Not one which is of any importance! And the -mm patches are always done against the mainstream kernel branch. So what?
7.) To comprehend Linux, use Gentoo. Gentoo Linux is a first step into the right direction: distributing Linux without using distributions -- each package gets released using its own "schedule".
Isn't one reason for having a distro like SuSE or RedHat to have some sort of user-friendly setup? Isn't it the only reason?
/etc configuration scheme is open and easy to understand -- at least for those who care. Maybe a "consolidation" could actually be done by setting up something like a common configuration framework which "understands" each package's configuration files. That way we could have user interfaces which could be run with any package combination and which could even enforce some package combinations depending on the user's wishes for specific features.
The
I'm sure a number of distributions would be more than happy to hop on board. Be sure to call Caldera!
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
ie. whatever run on RH will run on SuSE and on Mandriva and on Debian... and on Ubuntu...
...and it should be enough to test on one of the distros...
...and I am NOT talking about OSS here... I am talking about commercial sw.
A common universal installer would be nice too... one that could use both RPM and DEB packages... just for making life easier.
...And then the question poses itself: How can Linux be strong if it is not unified? When one studies this issue, it becomes obvious. The shadowy forces of division in the OSS community have made it so. This confederation of sabouteurs and worms, with their distorted, impure vision of the one true Linux, sow dissention in the ranks. Every time one of these sinister agents forks Linux code, they delay the final victory of desktop Linux over the Microsoft opressors. So I put it to you, how can we allow this to happen?
Clearly, we as true adherents to the GNU vision must purge these Trotskyites and bourgeois fascists before they stab us in the back! We must strike now!!!!!
Incredible work. You're clearly one of the leaders in your field.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The greatness of the open source development model is that idiots like the author of this article have no way to inflict their totalitarian ideas on us. Hence they have no way to screw us! If all the idiot WINBLOWS users in existence suddenly switched to "mindless lemming-LINUX (TM)", the size of the idiot distro, would numerically dwarf all other distros. However, there would be absolutely NO compelling reason forcing any intelligent person to switch to "IDIOT-LINUX" (TM). There would be nothing to stop any geek from starting a new distro the next day! If the parasitic suits who were running "IDIOT-LINUX" started the usual user manipulating shit, in typical microsoft fashion, there would be nothing preventing "IDIOT-LINUX" users from switching! Even idiots eventually see the handwriting on the wall.
The Greatness of of LINUX is that it is OUT OF CONTROL, with no way for idiots like the author of this article to impose bright ideas like "consolidation" on it!
my emachine which is 6 months old is 'not' supported. I only get 640x resolution. No network either.
Linux standards base addresses compatiblity between distributions. I've never not been able to install software when running various distributions. The package management systems are different for several distributions, but since the source code for various free software projects is in a constant state of improving and if you want to stay on the cutting edge of best code available, it makes sense to use gentoo's portage sytsem for installing software. They tell you on http://packages.gentoo.org/
which source code is stable on various platforms. Linux doesn't need to consolidate, may the best distribution win and if not, cherry pick the best of each distriubtion and start a new one.
I keep reading this "man linux is soooooo much better than windoze why should we change what we're doing?" and I get so mad at this opinion.
I want to switch to Linux. I'm pretty good with Windows, and decide to try Linux out.
Oh gee, I have 10+ major ones to choose from, plus 100000000000000000000000000 others that are not major distros. I look for info on what distro to choose. Too vague advice. I post a forum post. Everyone says "You decide what distro is best you."
Wow, thanks a lot you twat, now I know EXACTLY what I want. Thanks for the help on distro choosing! (ya jackass...) Maybe if I knew what distro is good for me, I wouldn't have to ask you???
Can't do jack with Live CDs of any kind, and find them too slow. Tell me get a new computer? Give me the damn money then.
I'm scared of choosing the wrong distro, as is everyone I know who wants to switch. They're afraid that a certain distro is too difficult, looks ugly, or doesn't do something. Maybe consolidation isn't bad. Maybe if you STOPPED OVERWHELMING THE GODDAMN CUSTOMER they could switch?
And don't give me that crap about "that's the nature of FOSS". DO you think the average end user gives a damn about the FOSS movement? That's a NO, plain and simple, and always will be.
There have been too many distributions for sometime now. Its confusing and only breeds troubles and often causes people ( like myself, long ago went back to BSD where things 'just work' ) to go elsewhere, or get locked-in to one 'distribution'.
.. it seems like in the linux world people cant get along and play together )
While i will be laughed at I'm sure, if the idea 'common base' was ever truly adopted it would be a great boon to the linux world. ( yes, i know this has been tried a few times, and failed miserably
That way you can still have your 'distribution flavors' but they would all be compatible at their core.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Hpw many times does a story need to be recycled? What a waste of space. We have heard it all before and unfortunately will hear it all over agin in the near future.
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
If you have a computer from eMachines your problems are probably worse than that.
No network? More like a cheap unheard-of network card.
Although I must confess, Linux wireless support is nowhere near what BSD has now.
N/T
too many windows distros out there, I recently had to test my code, an automatic archival system, for a client on freaking 98se, NT 4, win 2000 pro and server, ME, XP and 2003. I mean like dang, that's over 7 distros in as many years. And once a version of windows gets popular, it seems to be hated as every script kiddie and cracker in the world targets it, I think the Windows community has an underdog complex.
I think the article was written by a fuckwit.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
cuz u deserve it.
you and her will get along jusssssst fine, i'm sure.
truly a marriage made in hell :)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
I bet this guy wants us all to eventually be eating the same flavour ice cream aswell.
Getting consolidation on Linux is going to be easy as driving them "out of business" by offering a free alternative. As I understand it, most new distros start because someone gets a bug up their panties in a twist because their favorite distro isn't 100% to their liking and so they start a new one. Others like their idea and a crowd forms around the new distro until someone else becomes malcontent-cum-innovator and starts his own distro. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The great thing about Linux is that it's wide open and free. The REALLY BAD thing about Linux is that it's wide open and free, and the egos of the distro creators are on the line. How exactly do you consolidate when those are the rules?
It's not a problem that there are multiple distros. It's a problem that there isn't one of them that is a really good desktop OS for people who odn't want to spend a lot of time tuning. As they say, if you want a slick Unix OS on your desktop, buy an Apple.
Who's a really big hardware manufacturer who isn't in hock to Microsoft? Is there anyone who'd consider putting money into a desktop Linux to stop having to pay fees to MS? Lenovo, perhaps?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Some random thoughts:
The biggest problem I see with Linux, as a complete noobie who settled on debian stable because it didn't try and provide the illusion of actually being a usable complete distro that had everything you'd ever need (suse, fedora and even ubuntu) - because no distro is going to have exactly everything you want. but was closer to Windows in the sense that it comes pretty bare bones and also that by forcing myself to install some stuff manually has taught me a bit about linux, again I'm a complete noob.... I digress...
I'm all for a desktop linux consolidation.
If linux is going to become a mainstream solution it needs a fully developed uniform "reference" system as a starting point, which of course, can remain fully open source. From that point, people can choose to customize as they wish.
There is an elitism on here that responds in a knee-jerk fashion to the word "mainstream" because there is an attitude that anything usable by the mainstream is going to suck for the expert. It doesn't have to be that way. Automate everything that can be automated, and ensure that things "just work" and then if people choose to go back and hack at that, more power to them, a lot of that hacking is in a hobby spirit anyway I think.
A lot of the hacking that has to be done to get real stuff to work is an indication of an incomplete product, which will sometimes be worth the costs of dealing with. Some of the hacking has to do with bridging technologies from different generations and platforms and getting them to work together, which is fine, because the end-user doesn't *need* that stuff to be automated or easy to get at. But even here the more automation the better because these are computers we are talking about, they should be doing all the hard work.
Also, if you believe that there are true advantages to technologies that are unincorporated in the reference, standardized distribution, and you can sell those advantages to your customers, that the benefits you propose outweigh the costs of screwing with things, then again you'll have the freedom to do that.
That's where minor distributions would still play a role. The would be derivative of the known standard.
I think all of you IT people like the idea of regaining control back from the unanointed masses. That's why you like it hard.
Additionally, again from and end-user point of view it is better that there be a system where if people are trained on they'll be able to transfer those same skills and familiarities to other organizations.
A standard free basic desktop OS for which everyone who writes desktop linux software can write for. Meaning I can go to a website and know that they will have a version of their linux software for my distro.
(Just for the record as far as world domination more often than not the software I want is simply not available (or satisfactory substitute) on linux, someday hopefully)
Hopefully he has what it takes.
Let anyone and everyone who wants to have a go at a distribution try.
Only the fittest will survive (hopefully)
When cut, let the blood run free. If a distro can't heal itself, let it perish!
At the end of the day, the consumer wins!
I'd like to see the standardization move up the stack from the common set of command line tools & libraries into the GUI. OS X has Cocoa, Windows has Win32, Linux has ???.Settle on a standard package format, standard GUI APIs, standard desktop environment, etc.
It sucks not being able to write a GUI app and know that it will run on most/all linux installations with no downloading of extra dependencies.
The distros could still differentiate based on add-on apps, much like the various WinTel vendors differentiate based on what software is bundled.
my bigest frustation with linux is that there's too many people doing the exact same things with other distros or other projects. If some of these projects or distros merged efforts Linux would gain massive ground in the OS industry. Another huge thing which would help Linux would be having more support from hardware manufactures. Some of them are waking up and releasing Linux drivers at the same time. Linux still has a long way to go if your trying to bring over more loyal M$ fans.
I don't think that there's that much wasted effort.
I doubt that most software authors spend that much time on packaging, which is really where the differences come in.
Furthermore, it's easy to consider something necessary "wasted" effort. Capitalism is more "wasteful" than coordinated communism, because all the overhead of competition can be eliminated. However, it turns out that maybe capitalism does a better job of dealing with human nature.
Maybe open source authors don't want to just write to one big project -- maybe they want the freedom to try out their own ideas and have other people that agree popularize them. Otherwise, you'd have "anything that Red Hat (for instance) doesn't like not existing". Red Hat would probably axe KDE, and SuSE GNOME, if either one could control the whole industry. Maybe that freedom is necessary to produce the fun that drives the whole open source world?
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
It's spelled "operating" system, not "topple Bill Gates and rule the world" system.
People hate Linux because it's too hard? Good, let them.
The rest of the world is Bill Gates' slave? No skin off my nose!
Linux isn't attracting a huge market share, we're not paradigming the ramifications of the impacted advanced, integrated metaphor, or whatever kind of noise you make at one of those business meeting things? Cool beans!
So we already (a) RUIN Linux by making it so retarded that we can barely find a decent distro, just so we could get Joe Sixpack to use it, and even that wasn't pandering to enough ignorance, we have to (b) now ditch all our choices, effectively eradicating everything but the stupidest possible implementation of Linux, which we then get to have as our "Linisoft".
Somebady has to say it: *climbing onto chair* "Are these people OUT of their FUCKING MINDS?????"
The author of TFA (and many others like it) still miss the point of Linux. If there is a need for somebody to make their own distro, then fine. Linux doesn't need to topple Windows. I'm not in any way saying Linux couldn't use some usability improvements, but if Linux grows and more and more "mom and dad" Windows users switch to Linux, it's not like they're going to contribute back to the community other than maybe buying commercial distros.
Well you can run Nautilus under KDE or Konqueror under Gnome. When you say, "only program of its type that integrates into KDE", I need to ask you specificly what you mean by "integrates". I'd also like to point out that KDE makes a few different file browsers. Perhaps one of those would be more to your suiting than Konqueror? Have you tried Krusader?
Now hold on there, cowboy. Linux drivers exist for just about every ethernet card ever invented on this planet. The only problem I've found is that some distros simply don't include the drivers.
For example, my wheezy old Tulip based cards which always worked fine were not recognized by Mandrake 10.something last year. I "solved" it by grabbing some 3com cards from the large stack of random ethernet cards I have, but really now the problem here is with distros not including wide enough support.
Knoppix has been astounding. It's a bit of a hobby of mine to stick Knoppix CDs into ancient machines just to see how well it does.
I can tell you why Linux doesn't break thru the boundaries, despite its inherent advantages.
:)
Interoperability. The point could be argued that software is paramount but frankly, I think software can be migrated easily to Linux but given the type of platform it is, it's not in any interest of developers to do so.
Microsoft has a suite of products for its operating system. Active directory isn't a new concept -- it was stolen from Novell and then improved upon. But what AD brings to Windows as an enterprise environment is what Linux cannot. Linux offers stability, speed and security. Windows offers easy to use products that work across an enterprise. Have to patch machines to keep them current, or deploy software? Install SMS server. Want to have groupware so your users can communicate via email or IM? Install Live Communication Server and Exchange. Want to have a portal that instantly recognizes your users with a SSO (single sign on)? Install Sharepoint Portal Server. And thru all of this, Active Directory moniters each application, watches users, and can assign rights and privledges at every level of the enterprise, on the fly. Linux may offer this, but it's separate for each application.
I honestly have nothing bad to say about Linux, and as a hardcore Windows user I welcome the day that Linux breaks thru the divide and becomes a viable choice as an enterprise OS for both a server and desktops. I don't *like* Windows -- I just find it easy to use, administer, update, and find software for. Linux has great advantages and the fact it's open source gives more credence to the fact that bugfixes can be released faster, that software can be well developed, and you also get multiple providers from which to buy, so there's no monopoly -- Red Hat, SUSE, etc... all different flavors of the same thing, and that's great as a consumer with regard to pricing.
A consolodation would go a long way to make the first steps to make a dent into Windows as a whole. If enterprise apps are developed with *LINUX* in mind, and not just SUSE, or Red Hat, then CIOs have options that show "Hey, I can make my whole enterprise Linux!"
Windows remains a necessary evil as a desktop OS. Until Linux offers what Windows does in terms of locking down users, ACROSS THE BOARD, it's not going to show the 'on the fence' CIOs and users that Linux is for them.
That said... I'm going a bit off topic to ask a question -- I'm trying to learn Linux now on my own, any helpful pointers you can link me to? The intention is to work on ENTERPRISE Linux, so if you have any help there, give me a 'baby steps' guide or links, because I'd like to get a job where I could also be a Linux admin, as well as a Windows one. I have a line into AskJeeves for a position, but it won't be available for a few months, and they are a Linux shop... I don't think I'd fare well if I wasn't able to do the work
Thanks!
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Everytime I see one of these
I see some people slamming United Linux. However, the standardization of library sets and a predictable directory structure can be a big help to developers. As a developer myself, I find it annoying when my code works find on my Linux box but fails on other distros simply because I can't count on particular libraries being included in all distros or being placed in the same place so that my program can find them.
I'm not saying that every version of Linux need have the exact same library set but at least give me a minimum set of libraries placed in known directories so that I know that the user will be able to run my programs without searching the Internet for that one library that isn't installed.
Also the maker's of these libraries should maintain backward compatibility so that applications don't break with each library upgrade. I've seen library changes that were absolutely trivial in functionality without maintaining backward compatibility with the older API. The benefit to the end user was virtually non-existent but the pain to the developers great.
So to sum it up, I don't see a need to reduce the number of versions of Linux but I think more work in the area of a standard base that developers can count on would be beneficial.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Linux will be consolidated enough when you can grab the installer for the "Linux version" of a piece of software, plop it onto your machine, and have it install properly. Package formats, dependencies, library versions, etc. cannot get in the way. We've made great strides in these areas but we're not quite there yet.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Everytime I see one of these news items it makes me wonder if /.'ers really know what linux is about.
/. who don't have access to submit or post such stories.
The linux kernel itself is not made to be different for every different distro, except that different distro's use different versions (some older and some more bleeding edge). But it's purpose is the same, that is to provide access to hardware and memory for programs that live on top of it.
In any case what we need is more choice and less consolidation. What you have with consolidation is stagnation (winxp/macosx). As long as the GPL is valid, people will have the choice to make their own tools for their (linux) operating systems. I'm sorry if all the distro's are too confusing for your stupid ass.
I agree we need a consolidation, of idiots and dumbasses who write these articles so that we can identify and cloister them into an access group on
Just do the right thing and make Linux a one 'size' fits all OS!
Force hardware vendors to 'HAVE TO' legally put it on every pc sold in the u.s.! (and abroad)
Continuealy promise the moon but to save money for the Ceo and stock holders, just deliver extremeley high-end 'vapor ware'!
Lead it by a nerdy looking-- charismatic rich bastard like Ross Perot!!
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
KnoppMyth... the main stumbling blocks were figuring out that the card doesn't show up as
I don't really hang out on the forums so if you try KnoppMyth and need help, just email me (my email is accessible through the URL link).
Good luck
-- John.
With dozen of different distributions the Linux community is so diffuse that the power or significance of any specific entity is severally limited."
Thank God!
Sorry for the mistake. I'm used to BSD, where the default kernel is actually well configured. Much unlike most Linux distributions.
When I don't use BSD I use Debian, which I've never had any problems with in terms of hardware support...
There is on way to force linux distro consolidation, because the varied distros provide sufficient value to people. For consolidation to happen, linux meta-distros need to support distro skins in an easy manner (easy livecd creation, etc.), where one could easily make gentoo-based wireless bridge distro with a single configuration file. Or a debian based HPC cluster node.
& title=how_to_fix_linux_distro_consolidation_ar_1&m ore=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
For my full comments, read my post at http://mimir.silverfir.net/blogs/index.php?blog=2
Cut to the chase. Is it topping Windows., or toppling Microsoft?
If you're trying to supplant Windows usage, there's a chance you might win. But if you think that this will cause the immediate demise of the juggernaut from Redmond, think again. All MS will do is simply put out an MS-Linux distrbution. Just imagine a Linux kernel with the easy to use Windows GUI, DirectX, no hassle installation, simple PS update and non-existent driver issues (compared to Linux). What you will have is a continuation of the status quo, all on the OSDL's dime! MS-Linux will sell in droves. All those other distributions? Irrelevant, as is the case now.
MS is here to stay. The war has been lost, accept it.
Since when is the obvious, news?
I don't think it is a problem at all. The "interface" for writing drivers is very stable and has been for quite some time. What's not stable is a specific binary-compiled version of the kernel. And it's simply dumb for any driver writer to make a binary driver that depends on a specific binary version of the kernel. This robs the user of one of the entire points of having an open source kernel which is the ability to customize his build for his own needs.
Moreover, it's absolutely unneeded to have a driver depend on a specific version of the kernel, even if it is binary-only. Several drivers use binary modules which have a wrapper that gets compiled into your specific kernel. Only the wrapper is open source and recompiled for each specific binary packaging. But because it is source code it will (theoretically) be compatible with everyone's kernel build.
So, the stable universal API for drivers exists, and it IS source code. If some driver doesn't work on any version of the kernel besides Redhat's precompiled kernel then the driver writer is negligent and responsible for the failure, not the kernel authors. The kernel has had a stable API for loadable modules for a very long time (with a few changes along the way which were announced FAR in advance).
We need a lot of distro's because of excerable implementation.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
I feel a rant with possible profanity coming on.
I can see it now. Your making a Linux distro to hone your Linux skills. Like a good person, you release the distro to the public because other people might be looking for a distro that fills some particular nitch.
Next thing you know, you get an email from the Linux police telling you to shut down your project because Redhat already has the Linux thing covered.
When will people understand what open source actually is? Its damn 2005 already. There might be 10 of the same program that does the same thing. LIVE WITH IT. Its not because people are trying to make it hard on you. Most people writing open source don't give a shit about you. They want to learn something particular and release their work under an open source license. Thats it, its not that complicated. Sometimes, a lot of people do the same thing because you can't just have 1 fucking guy making text editors or mp3 players. What if he gets hit by a bus? Then your shit outa luck.
There is a Linux standard. Its called:a kernel and ls, cat, cd, chmod, cp, echo, find, init, locate, grep, less, man, mkdir, mv, ps, pwd, rm, and rmdir. That is your standard. Everything else is optional.
The true reason for the need of consolidation is simple, and I can give you one example. ./configure or just following the instructions that was given with the program. ...
I'm using Fedora with x86-64.
I wanted to get a program I want to use with composing. Not too much to ask.
There are tens of them available for linux.
Now good question, how many of them I could install easy for my machine.
For windows user the easy is ofcourse that you click a file after you have downloaded it and it gives you either default options that just work, and perhaps asks few secondary questions each non technical in nature.
In MY case the easy is considered, tar -xvzf , make , make install. Or
Now I got ZERO of them working, that way.
And I spend some time editing the makefile, for one of them [shouldn't be necessity for installing software]
Afterwards it just crashed when it finished. hmmm.
With unified distribution the software would just work, a lot easier. Not because it magically got better but, its when the creator of the software the packager, and user has same distribution the things just work since there would be FAR less options that can go wrong in the path from developer to user of software, and far more people would share the problems if there would be problems for installing on the distribution of software and it would be fixed quicklier.
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
Shut up already. Linux has 80 distributions because nobody has yet created the one that makes the rest unnecessary. And the chance that somebody actually DOES create the perfect distro INCREASES with the number of attempts. The fact that this process takes time SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE. If you really just can't wait, um... too bad. Shut up already.
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
i very strongly agree with this... maybe not for a single "united linux" but a few major distros. Because at the moment, if there's a certain number of functions you want, they might be spread over several distros. Also, to a large extent people keep re-inventing the wheel- how many Live CD disros are there out there? And they all want to do the same thing "give you a taste of linux without installing it". What if the resources of all similar projects were united? then we could see some serious inovation and improvement, instead of people doing bug-patching on a distro that is nearly a clone of what some else has done debugged
Suddenly, one has to know how to resize his partitions and install a dual boot system for Windows and Linux. This makes it virtually impossible for Linux to be adopted by the wider community.
In that respect, live cds is one of the best thing that happened for the Linux community and people will give them a go if they know they won't have to install anything on their HD.
Personally, I would say that one of the best thing that could happen would be for a major pc seller, such as Dell, to sell their computers with *both* Windows and Linux installed and give the choice to the user about which OS to boot, each time. All you need, is maybe 20Gb of disk space allocated to Linux. Why hasn't that happened, it?
The entire phenomenon of packaging, or even the existence of distros, is odd. The developers of a piece of software do source releases, then have to cross their fingers that developers from other distros will package their work. It would be nice if the original software's developers took the next step and made binary packages, but it's impossible for them to package for every linux distro in existence. Therefore, it's expected that other people are supposed to come along and package it for their own distribution.
This system is unsustainable for a mass-market Linux world. If I want a piece of software, I should be able to go to a website run by the people who make it, and download it from there. Currently, I go to the website, learn about the software, THEN use seperate non-web tools to search my distro's own rpm/deb database to try to find if it already has a distro-sanctioned package. If that fails, I then go back to the software's website and hunt around for the best solution, falling back on a source release if necessary.
This "packagers-are-not-developers" system is especially bad in two situations.
(1) there's so much useful software out there, a distro maintainer can't keep up. This might already be the case. Distro packages are always several versions behind what you can get on upstream's website. Upstream's website does a much better job at telling users what the software is. To keep your distro up to speed, you then have to decentralize its production (e.g. thousands of Debian volunteers) and potentially introduce horrendous organizational/managerial difficulties (e.g. three years between releases.)
And, (2) commercial developers are screwed, because they have to do all the packaging themselves. This applies particularly to closed-source, but also to any software developed by a small or specialized group of people. This problem is solved now because enough Linux users are developers such that popular software gets packaged; but a higher non-dev:developer ratio implies more and more people can't get software they want.
Both (1) and (2) are terrible barriers to mass Linux adoption, because they imply limits on the 3rd party development community when most users aren't developers anymore. Linux world needs to have a unified technical system so it can have a unified social system where a software's developer can make end-user-consumable packages themselves.
UnitedLinux failed... LSB seems weak... maybe we'll only achieve this once some WalmartLinux storms the world and everyone codes for it as a de facto standard. Until then, let's watch those commons stayin' on tragic...
-Brendan
Windows RULES! Monoculture KICKS @55!!!
1) I only have to learn ONE operating system and GUI and office suite, not one for every employer I work for, or one for every project I work on at one employer. Saves me time.
2) Supports all hardware. I can buy hardware without even thinking "will my OS support this?", so I can buy on price and features alone. Saves me time and money.
3) All the software I want runs on it. Programmers can "write once, run everywhere" by writing their programs for Windows. Saves them time, and give me choices in applications, which is the choice I really care about as a user.
4) Programs are usually easy to learn because each program has a GUI and is designed by a company which only makes money if the program sells well. That is, there are a lot of programs written for Windows by developers who are strongly motivated by *your* needs, not just hobbyists who only care about themselves, and meet your needs only by accident.
Sure, monoculture encourages viruses, because viruses are software, and monoculture facilitates the development and widespread use of software. So buy an anti-virus program and HW firewall, don't click on the web links in spam, and stop whining. I have been using internet connected Windows boxes for ten years, and never gotten a single virus (at least nothing McAfee can detect...).
As for "innovations" in GUI design, forget it... once you learn a decent UI you can use it, tweaking the design doesn't make any long term difference in productivity, and is just a waste of time for experienced users who have to learn the improved UI of the new version all over again. Most people already know how to use software, the time for experimenting is mostly over. From now on let's ban all creative people from working on the user interface of any software with nontrivial utility! Every program should "look and feel" just like every other one, to the maximum extent possible, just like almost all vehicles have a steering wheel, gas pedal, and maybe a brake pedal. Frankly I wish MS would quit changing the Office and Windows UI's around with major new releases, but at least they usually give me a way to turn off the "improvements" and horrible artificial intelligence features which interrupt my work to annoy me.
I am sick to death of you clowns, everytime a linux article comes up now you hijack it with your prewritten rants *demanding* that "Lunix" take out the laundry, look after your kids and do your homework.
Seriously, GIVE IT UP.
NOBODY said Linux is a Windows clone, this idea that it is(or should be) a direct replacement for Windows is a meme perpetuated by you idiots who keep whinging that Linux isn't "Windows for free". Because that's what your childish rant equates to "WAH i want Linux to be Windows for free WAH". If you can't figure the shit out GOOD, i don't care, it works beautifully for me I DONT CARE If YOU CANT FIGURE IT OUT. I also don't care if windows is dominant for the next ten years. Because me and so many others like me aren't interested in catering to fools like you.
Oh look a zealot you say, i never *asked* you to try linux, i also never asked for you input, yeah some people have banged on about Linux being the be all and end all but they're all just like you, losers who need popularity to verify their choices, or just want shit for free.
I'm just glad that your type are onto the next "fad" OSX, although i do feel sorry for the Mac community who are going to have to put up with your bullshit as the Linux community has for the last 3 years.
>So, the stable universal API for drivers exists, and it IS source code.
Based on talk I've heard (probably on Slashdot, so I realize it is pretty dumb to take that as representing reality) I sort of assumed the problem was the API could actually change. If that isn't the case, then things are completely the fault of these third party binary driver authors.
Not to mention the fact that binary drivers are a pretty bad idea anyway.
And I even got it modded +5... too bad I didn't actually write FP in there somewhere.
Meh.
The premise of this article is about controlling other people. If a Linux distribution exists that perfectly satisfies a niche community of fifty users, it's existence in the count of "distributions available" is no concern to anyone apart from those who interests would be best served by encouraging the herd at large to migrate along the deepest ruts.
Note to such people: go away and leave me alone to make my own choices.
Within the software universe, the knee-jerk monoculture thesis has been thoroughly disproved. It often proves faster to develop a given system by prototyping it once, learning something in the process, then throwing away the code and beginning again. The driving force behind diversity is to have more prototypes in play so that we can learn more things in parallel.
The claim behind this article reduces to the notion that "life would be so much easier if we just put the entire kernel under a single giant mutex". A lot of things certainly would be easier if the complexity of the end product exceeded the complexity of the process that creates the end product.
We'd also be better off if we could somehow innoculate the community against entertaining propositions as foolish as this one. There are too many bad ideas floating around out there about what would be good for the Linux community. We'd all be much happier if we could just settle on three of the most important bad ideas to argue about.
It certainly would represent a moment of supreme personal gratification in my tedious life of small forevers to wave an improbably white wand and relegate all the whinging morons to the bathtub at the end of the universe. I'd certainly love to send out an intergalactic memo cancelling stupidity once and for all, but no, the battle against stupidly always manages to degenerate into parking cars one by one by one by one, and you think, it must be possible for the universe to work a better way, and then you look around and see that everyone who falls prey to this sentiment becomes a bathtub commander.
Ouch, I have such a pain in my diode.
Hmm. I don't like Linspire that much, but you've gotta admit that they've done some decent marketing. It's like the ONLY preinstalled Linux ditro you can buy in stores. The boxes are dirt cheap, too. $299 for a preinstalled Linux computer? Hey, it's not bad.
In Soviet Russia, Linux consolidates YOU!
The reason why your "porn, MP3s and NTFS" aren't supported without extra downloads is because of patents/lack of specifications.
I don't blame you for not knowing this because if you aren't going to go off and write this stuff yourself then it is deadly boring and tedious but it doesn't stop it being true.
MP3s are patented. The worry is if someone produces software to make or play MP3s they have pay royalties or risk being sued. This would ramp up the cost of Linux.
Porn. I have no idea what format your porn is in (I'm guessing it's video). Let's say it's some sort of MPEG4 video (this covers WMF too). MPEG4 is patented too and you need to pay royalties if you produce software that plays or makes them. This would ramp up the cost of Linux.
NTFS writing is off because it is dangerous/limited and can quite easily destroy the partition. This is mostly because NTFS has no documentation outside of MS. It may also be patented by MS. Licencing it would ramp up the cost of Linux.
By the time a company has paid for all these things and passed the cost to its customers (remember your distro can't possibly be free in either sense now) you have something more expensive than Windows which still doesn't run Windows programs. Why wouldn't you just use Windows?
The only system that could possibly win the game of being more Windows than Windows is MacOS and that comes with implicit expectation that you won't try and do things like read NTFS partitions or run Windows software outside of an emulator.
Well you should care.
It's YOU as the consumer who is the only person capable of changing the attitudes and mindset of the hardware manufacturers. If no one complains to them... or can be bothered to protest with their wallets and actively support companies who do provide Linux support, then there's no incentive for them to change their behaviour is there?
The more distros the better to some extent. The ones that suck fall into disarray and become extinct , and the ones with real substance are cloned and copied and emulated in the others. Diversity is a strength. Microsoft is like a mutual fund. You trust them completely and year after year you get a less than average (for the market as a whole) return.
I think Old Dirty said it best: "Diversify your portfolio niggah"
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
Why does every newbie out there think the purpose of Linux should be to topple Windows? Linux is a Swiss Army Knife and Windows is a spoon. Yes, more people use spoons than Swiss Army Knives but you have a lot more options when using a Swiss Army Knife. For people who only need a spoon then let them keep using a spoon. There is no reason to limit those of us who need a Swiss Army Knife.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
They don't? They're not supporting D-BUS, and GNORBA goesn't work that way? Well, shit. I wanted to use GnuCash and K3B on the same machine.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Linux was designed as an ALTERNATIVE OS. Alternative being the operative word. And they seemed to get it right, the prrof being that was have so many distros.
Aside from the Soviet argument (which btw i liked very much) there is of course the practical side of things.
What most people will see in thier minds eye when they hear "Consolidate" Linux into one distro, is a kind of SUSE/Debian/Red Hat/Mandrake hybrid, with a lot less control over your system (ie almost all X based), So we can assume that this would be aimed at home users (I dont believe a person using a linux box as a dedicated server would clamour for a Unified Linux)
The first obsticle to overcome is the MASSIVE problem of bloatware. Without very careful planning, a mix of linux distros, would end up packed to the ears with...well...lets face it: crap.
The second problem is compatabiliy, almost all distros (Certainly the older and popular ones) have slight differances in their dir structure (lib paths etc). This, in the grand scheme of things, itsnt such are big problem, but it all adds up.
So anybody who really wanted to do this correctly would take (what he/she thought was) the most popular distro with the best support, and take its dir struct as his/her own) and simpley code in what he thinks are the best aspects of linux, taking out the problems.
Hold on a tick! I think i just described another distro!
See thats one of the big problems: where does it stop being "just another distro" and become Unified Linux, ill tell ya, it doesnt, unless all of the developers are working quite literally side by side, taking orders from a group of people put in charge to decide what this new system will achieve.
Hold on a tick! I just described Microsoft.
You see people, linux is more a concept than anything else, the kernal is useless alone, as is the software without it.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
A: No. Next question.
Nathan's blog
.. "Everything You Need to Know About Writing Successfully: in Ten Minutes", so I would have taken out the bad parts of my post.
;)
;).
What I wanted to tell is that with knowledge and the will to contribute you can help with open source software. Even if you are not a software writer, even if you are not 'artsy' (KDE is attracting lots of these lately), and even if you are not a good documentation writer. As long as you know what 'usable' is, open source projects could use your thoughts.
With open source you can communicate directly with the developers, something that is rarely possible with the commercial software. Just contact a particular developer and ask if you can be his 'ordinary user'. Warn him/her that you _will_ be irritating.
Some of your ideas are maybe a bit too broad for this kind of direct interaction (you would need to communicate with lots of developers at the same time). But if you just pick one to start with, say the "easy transition" item, you could start flicking little improvement ideas into the heads of the developers.
For example, a mail to some Konqueror dev: "How difficult would it be to import Favorites from Internet Explorer if I would give the directory to read from?"
"Could you check for changes in the IE Favorites every time Konqueror starts?"
"Take a look at the Wine code to make an educated guess for where the Favorites are placed"
At the moment few applications can import data you could suggest someone to wrap it up in a migration wizard.
But I guess you get the picture. Go kick those shins
PS: I think the slight trolling tone as in your original post might even help a little, if used moderately. It pushes the person on the other end to think about the situation.
PS2: There's a new website for these kind of things at http://openusability.org/ . But I think it's more targeted at the professional usability experts. As a newby you might get bashed away (don't know if there are big ego's there, still haven't encountered them
PS3. You could also try to achieve some things by filing bugreports, but I think that won't be as effective as directly talking to the devs (bugzilla's are not for chatter).