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."
interesting that msn bills move as 'making the operating system compete better with windows' instead of 'making it easier for developers to write applications that work on different flavors.'
i would think the former is a result of the latter, instead of the other way around.
When you recognize love in another and realize how precious it is, everything else seems so insignificant.
This question is going to seem rude, and I apologize for this, but why didn't this happen years ago? I'm asking out of curiosity, not as a jab at the community. It seems to me that this sort of standard would have been quite valuable as soon as GUIs became prevalent with Linux.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Once Linux distributors get their act together, it won't be long before semi-disposable laptop computers will become available. The Nick Negroponte hand-cranked, third-world computer will spawn a commercial version.
Linux as the OS, Open Office, Mozilla, a few other key apps, and with no "Microsoft Tax", and no headache in installing Linux on a used Win-Tel machine, plus a few "styling options," these machines will sell like hotcakes!
Then, of course, the virus writers will shift to more fertle grounds, and all the bad that goes with the good...
What Linux needs is standardization. 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?
My photo's.
It's not an issue of bad design, but of neccessity. As long as different applications are using different libraries, you end up installing those libraries.
There is no code duplication involved, however, there is some overlap of functionality
If your computer is very limited, then you don't want to run either KDE or GNOME.
Care to elaborate on that?
Just because some random Linux distro is offering both KDE and GNOME does not imply that KDE or GNOME stops maintaining their own code.
Yeah, yeah, sure. Except when the "standards" sucks.
Besides, downloading binary code somewhere from the Internet and installing it in your system is a security nightmare and practice that should be abandoned ASAP. I find the Linux/BSD model of providing all software in distribution-provided repositories blessed by the distribution's maintainers vastly superior to OS X, with unmatched clean and safe installation, removal and upgrading of software. (How, for example, do you upgrade all your Mac OS X software with one command or click?) I use both Debian and Mac OS X and find Debian vastly superior in this respect.
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
Folks hear about downloading, and expect to download, and application developers find packaging a pain, a barrier to distribution, but once people look at it critically, it is really about what people are used to, not about what works better. Downloading random packages off the net is a bad idea on any OS. Getting supported packages from a repository that tracks your OS is the right idea. Vendors of proprietary software should (and the good news is that many are) simply provide repositories for distros that provide for this kind of automatic updating.
People who say that repositories are not uptodate are not reasonable. Most people want software that has undergone some testing, want software to update itself automatically once it is installed, want the correct version for their system to be chosen automatically (i.e. asking people to be able to answer the question "on glibc 2.1 based distributions..." is too much.) The the software provider cannot find the time to perform proper packaging, and will not arrange for updates to be easy to do when there are security issues or improvements available, then you should not install the software unless you are prepared to do that sort of support on your own. That is a choice that most people do not think about.
Making repositories easier to deal with is the thing to concentrate on. For example, A missing piece right now would be to have an XML ''download selector'' which would contain a list of repositories for various distros, that frontends for apt/yum/whatever could just download and automatically select the appropriate repository for a given distribution. ISV's would just create the XML file (and the requisite repositories behind them.) And the whole manual download/install process would disappear. That would be a big end user improvement with only a small change existing tools.
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.
History disagrees. While the Linux Standards Base and Freedesktop.org projects haven't solved all of the problems -- and probably aren't fully adhered to by any distribution -- they have already made a huge difference in the compatibility of Linux distributions, and I think efforts like this are exactly what we need to continue pushing interoperability forward.
I say this, by the way, as a developer who just finished developing a cross-platform, commercial, binary-only application for Linux. The app I was working on definitely pushed the limits of the interoperability, since it was an authentication system that replaced key system components, and in spite of that it went very smoothly. The differences between the half-dozen Linux distros I had to tweak the package for were very small. Actually, the more difficult issue was making things work in spite of customizations the admin may have made -- I just had to punt on that one, making the installer intentionally brittle in the face of unanticipated modifications to, for example, the X startup scripts, and then providing the admin with the ability to customize the installer to adapt to local changes.
After my experience of the last year, I wouldn't have any hesitation about developing more "normal" applications to run on multiple Linux platforms, and I expect initiatives like this one (which is from the same consortium that brought us LSB) will continue to reduce the platform differences that cause problems. I think we may even be able to get to the point where app developers may actually be able to target LSB (or whatever its successor is called) rather than having to tweak for individual distributions.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
At the end of TFA I found the following quote: "Installation by the user is easy..." Imagine that! An acknowledgement that linux installation is easy published in a major media outlet. Hopefully, this will encourage some folks to try linux. Installation of any OS may be beyond the "joe sixpack" crowd, but IMHO, most linux distros' installation routines now rival or exceed Windows' simplicity, and you don't have to type in a long, cryptic CD key ;-)
This isn't the sig you're looking for... Move along.
You already can: 0install.net. More easily, in fact, because Linux will automatically fetch the dependencies and check for updates. Things have moved on since the days of centralised APT repositories where you have to be root just to install something.
Take a look at the screenshots!
I love LINUX...use it...endorce it...but...
The fact of the matter is, NOT having standardized methods for things like graphical installation of software (like MS installer) is a BIG drag on desktop adoption.
Having so many linux distros is good for competition between distros and innovation, but horrible for commercial software vendors wanting to create products that will be bought by many people.
Graphical installers that pull software from repositories are still (generally) too complicated. I have to hand-hack X11 config files to get multi-monitor configurations to work. Stuff still just does not work "out of the box" as well as windoze in many important respects.
Get ready...if Apple ever decides to use the LINUX kernel (unlikely) it should put a WHOLE lot of pressure on LINUX distros to clean up their acts.
you can flame me now...I have my asbestos fire suit on