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."
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?
/., 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...
A few percent desktop marketshare is what Macintosh has. Seems to me that the "fractured" Linux desktop is doing pretty well already.