Slashdot Mirror
Linux Distributors Work Towards Desktop Standards
WebHostingGuy wrote to mention an MSNBC article discussing a move by several Linux distributors to standardize on a set of components for desktop versions of the operating system. From the article: "The standard created by the Free Standards Group should make it easier for developers to write applications that will work on Linux versions from different distributors. Linux has a firm foothold as an operating system for servers -- it's popular for hosting Web sites, for instance -- but has only a few percent of the desktop market."
After the talk there will be 2 Major Faction. While one may win. The Second one will go Screw you and make their own design in-spite of the the talks. That is the problem with Ego Driven Software vs. Profit driven. While they both have their advantages and disadvantage. Ego Driven Software while the Code my be better quality but have a much harder time agreeing with other people. But Profit driven Software tends to be more consistent but software quality tends to be a little lower.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc. etc. STILL package Windows with every new PC that leaves the shop. I have seen no indication that they plan on changing that any time soon. Sure...Dell might say he likes Ubuntu, but I'll believe it when the first Dell ships with Ubuntu and a Ubuntu sticker on the front where the Windows sticker used to be...you know "This PC specifically designed for Ubuntu Linux."
I don't know too many people that are going to go out and buy a while-box PC (other than geeks) and load Linux, when for about $400.00 you can get a fully rigged-out Dell with Windows and all the goodies.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
It is an issue of consistency. If I am running Gnome I know when I am running a KDE app because it looks a feels slightly off. The same if I am using a straight X11 App. Linux for the desktop is not about Window Managers. It is about giving Developers tools to make their Apps Desktop Friendly, And ability to make sure Linux Apps look good no matter what WM you are using.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
We've had standards bodies for a long time. LSB, Freedesktop, etc - none of will help increase market share. Sure, they make like easier for developers, ie a gnome icon theme will soon work on a kde desktop. But the single major problem on linux is dependancy hell. I have nightmares about this.
Repository based installation is NOT the way to go. Autopackage is just a pretty frontend around the same problem. Until we can install and remove applications as easily as OSX users can, we don't stand a chance.
If you were a new user to unix, what would you prefer:
A) open synaptic, search the thousands of packages, hope you find what you're after, install it.
B) download an app folder, drag it to your appliactions folder. go.
Without this ease of use, there's no chance. I still laugh at people who say linux is ready, whilst at the same time they can't install the latest firefox on their box because it depends on the latest gtk which depends on the latest glib, which depends on....
i wish i was but oh well
i wouldn't start my kde if it would look and behave like gnome ;)
...), and therefor make all the stuff more the same.
...). i chose linux many years ago because i wanted it to behave like i want it to and to look like i want it to. i don't want my desktop to look'n'feel like it suits a redhat salesman.
now about the `issue` itself, redhat is dragging along a bunch of people to push some kind of one-standard-for-all (cough-cough-bs-cough-cough-profite-cough). they want to unify some things (the article didn't really elaborate what
i don't know about you, but if i'd want everything to look the same, i could aswell choose osx or winblows (nah, not really win, it's not
i understand that this will help to push linux into the streets blabla, but is this really what we all want ? or is this the beginning of the end of linux as we know it ?
we have seen many items out on the `market` that were supposed to unify and standardize linux (various package managers etc.), none of them have succeeded. for the broadband, i hope it succeeds, for my own's sake, i hope they fail terribly and give it up.
I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
Having 921034 options to choose from is sometimes a good thing, but sometimes you have the feeling: why don't they just work all on 1 fantastic piece of software?
Because the worlds open source developers are not a giant slave pool designed to do your bidding.
Open source will always be chaotic and involve a great deal of duplication because that's that nature of the beast. The gain you get from that cost is much more open software that's developed rapidly and tends to work as a free market for ideas: the better ideas eventually win out (though that may take some time). If you want something different then you want Apple or Micrsoft with their rigid top down control structure which ensures that everyone is working toward a single unified goal (as much as is possible), and all the work is directed. The upside is consistency and a unified vision, but the downside is that the whole thing is more locked up, an often slower development cycle, and a tendency to get hit with the same stupid mistakes release after release after release just because it appeals to the guy at the top.
It's a choice and you can pick the software ecology that suits your needs. Just don't go expecting one to behave like the other on your whim - there are deep fundamental philosophical divisions about how to develop software (to let it evolve from the bottom up, or direct it from the top down) that are largely irreconcilable.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
why don't they just work all on 1 fantastic piece of software?
Because there is no one answer to what makes a piece of software fantastic.
When intelligent people can reasonably disagree on it, don't be surprised - or dismayed - when the end result is several divergent designs. That is truly a case where any one of the designs are good, and importantly, better than a compromise between them.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Unfortunately, those added software libraries differ among Linux distributors, making it hard to know if an application like a word processor will function on a particular Linux computer.
What a load of rubbish...
When I read a comment like this, I have to question a) the qualifications of the article author; and/or b) their motives. Any assertions made in the article need to be critically examined and their validity questioned after such false hoohah.
The whole "as long as the runtime libraries are there" catch is what it's all about. It's not reasonable to expect people to deal with dependencies.
why don't they just work all on 1 fantastic piece of software?
/., where the favourite probably is raw /bin/bash, which is far more powerful, but also really hard to learn.
Because there couldn't be such a thing - it's an oxymoron.
Basically, the requirements of the piece of software would be heavily contradictory - dead-easy to use, but still incredibly powerful. Few such programs exist - because they are virtually impossible to make.
Example: file managers. On the one hand, you have explorer, finder, nautilus et al, which all are at least relatively easy to use even for a newbie. Many find them far to little powerful, especially on
The same principle holds for most other software. Either you make an easily usable, or a powerful version. The powerful version will, by definition, need a lot of learning on the part of the users, and thus can't be easily usable.
When you try to unite these two conflicting requirements, the most likely outcome is one of:
1) Cluttered interface, which intimidates the newcomer
2) Clean interface, but with all powerful features hidden away from sight so the advanced user has to look for them.
3) Millions of settings in an unmanagable settings dialog, toggling the different features on and off.
Conclusion: One software normally can't be the great software - not for every single user. The shifting requirements different individuals have will without doubt make them prefer different software - and that isn't really a bad thing. If everybody ran the same software, there wouldn't be as much incitement for developing new, powerful features!
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
i understand that this will help to push linux into the streets blabla, but is this really what we all want ? or is this the beginning of the end of linux as we know it ?
No. There will always be distributions that do it their own way despite what any standards organisations say. You will always be free to use these distributions. No-one can force standards into Free software (if you try, people can fork), but you can make the standards so good that distributions (and their users) want them. If people don't want them, they won't be successful.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
A few percent desktop marketshare is what Macintosh has. Seems to me that the "fractured" Linux desktop is doing pretty well already.
It's the package maintainers job to deal with library dependencies. I a Linux distro is unwilling to do this, why should I use it in the first place since it is obiously of low quality?
I think GUI, despite being prevalent for quite some time, have been very, very low in the priority list of Linux developers. The community has focused more on the low-level, kernel and architecture areas, and the rest has suffered from it. IMO, GUIs in Linux have always been an afterthought, and that's the reason they suck so much (again, IMO).
This sheds light in a key problem with open-source software: developers will work in what they want to work, not necessaily in what needs to be done.
Yeah, mod me down, see if I care.
Favorite quote: "
You mean like in the commercial world, the Apple faction said "screw you" to the Microsoft/IBM faction and did everything their own way? Or like the MS Office group said "screw you" to both the MFC and Vista groups and keeps violating GUI guidelines on Windows? Or like Mac developers can't agree on a consistent toolkit (there are half a dozen different ones in common use), consistent look, or consistent installer?
It's good that the Linux desktop is being unified further, but it certainly has to fear no comparison with other platforms. You can start complaining again once Apple and Microsoft sit down together and decide on a consistent place for the menu bar. (KDE at least gives you a choice.)
Hang on, hang on... cut & paste? I know ctrl-v doesn't always work, but I haven't found one app in which good old middle mouse button doesn't work. Maybe I've just been lucky and not tried to use it when it doesn't work, but hell middle-mouse even works from firefox to vi. And at least for me, I prefer middle-mouse button anyway... ctrl-v also requires ctrl-c in addition to selecting the text. And as far as it being preferable due to it being a keyboard shortcut, well cut & paste is largely a GUI thing anyway (vi has it's own built-in cut & paste thing of course) so you're likely to be using the mouse and you got to use it to select text anyway.
Please correct me if middle-mouse is not universal.
The Shoes of the Fisherman's Wife Are Some Jive Ass Slippers
Kernel - Torvalds
KDE, Gnome, et cetera - splintered
Now, do you see the importance of project management? It's a concept lost on most developers. Only a select few possess the acumen to evolve as such. Most linux software chains lack direction, and more importantly, influence. Entertain fanciful and fluffy clouds of ego and profit in your wildest imaginations if you must. They are just that. Why? OSDL provides the profit already. Torvalds the ego. You provide no real "insight" here.
Dream what you wish, but having followed|used linux for 10+ years, I came to the realization long ago it will always remain just a hobbyist OS. It's a server OS now solely because of Linus' project management. Desktop marketshare? Never. Plain and simple - you need Microsoft's business model, which Linus' himself puts into practice with an iron fist.
Your honor, the defense rests.
Because unpopular software on Windows like Winamp religiously follows the Windows design guidelines . How the hell did this blatant turfing for his own, really tangental site, get modded up? People will deal with new and non-standard apps quite well for the most part. This isn't about the interface presented to the user, it's about the parts that are common to all desktops like menus and hooks to the WM.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Well, if I get to pick my preference it goes like this:
1. Make it work
2. Make it work well
3. Make it work fast
4. Make it work fancy
Besides, I don't think it's wrong to say that for many Linux has been and is only a server OS and they couldn't really care about a GUI. But somehow I get the impression that those most deeply into inner mechanics of kernels and drivers might not be the most qualified to make good GUIs either, so I'm not sure it's suffered that much. And even so, GUIs are really subjective and hard to make an authoritative source for, my impression is that OSS has focused more on flexibility than design. For example, look into some of the "photoshopifier" plugins of GIMP. They basicly redo the entire UI. So go ahead, come with your suggestion for a good UI - my bet is it'll be quite different from someone else's idea of the same.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings