I think there is a limit on how much standardisation I'd like to see. Text editors, for instance, should be a matter of choice - just think of the vi vs emacs debate/war. Likewise I have no problem with desktop managers and other software remaining a matter of choice.
However at some lower level system aspects, I think more standardisation would definitely improve the appeal of the open source operating systems. The two aspects that instantly spring to mind are file system layout and installation packaging.
I've run linux off and on over the last 7 or 8 years (including at least one lengthy stint where it was my primary OS) and working out what went where in the filesystem used to sh!t me to tears. That particular frustration was mainly to do with not knowing where to get good reading material about such things, but even once you've mastered that for a particular distro, the realisation that another distro may well put common things in slightly different locations is enough to drive you back to windows (ok maybe not, but you know what I'm saying).
This leads on to packaging. Firstly you've got competing methods (rpm vs deb etc). Leave that aside and check rpmfind for any well-known piece of software. There isn't much we can do about separate hardware platforms, but the need to re-package for each of the major rpm-compatible distros is a particularly poor situation to find ourselves in.
A standard file system structure and installation vector would ease the burden on software writers and distro maintainers, make it simpler for end-users to get hold of and install software they want, which in turn would increase the appeal of open-source operating systems. I'm sure there are other aspects of the OS's that could be standardised with similar benefit. I think that what we really need is for the base platform (with which end users rarely interact directly) to become common, leaving distro creators and software writers free to expend their energy on design and a single implementation (per hardware platform, I know, I know...) rather than repeating themselves over and over in the implementation phase.
It's easy to make such statements as an end user without appreciating the difficulties involved. These annoying aspects are side-effects of the bazaar approach which has yielded such amazing progress in the last 10 to 15 years, yet I think that without some standardisation, the open source OS's are going to find it difficult to broaden their appeal.
Slashdot Mirror
Some might see a back-handed compliment, others a derogatory insult.
I think there is a limit on how much standardisation I'd like to see. Text editors, for instance, should be a matter of choice - just think of the vi vs emacs debate/war. Likewise I have no problem with desktop managers and other software remaining a matter of choice.
However at some lower level system aspects, I think more standardisation would definitely improve the appeal of the open source operating systems. The two aspects that instantly spring to mind are file system layout and installation packaging.
I've run linux off and on over the last 7 or 8 years (including at least one lengthy stint where it was my primary OS) and working out what went where in the filesystem used to sh!t me to tears. That particular frustration was mainly to do with not knowing where to get good reading material about such things, but even once you've mastered that for a particular distro, the realisation that another distro may well put common things in slightly different locations is enough to drive you back to windows (ok maybe not, but you know what I'm saying).
This leads on to packaging. Firstly you've got competing methods (rpm vs deb etc). Leave that aside and check rpmfind for any well-known piece of software. There isn't much we can do about separate hardware platforms, but the need to re-package for each of the major rpm-compatible distros is a particularly poor situation to find ourselves in.
A standard file system structure and installation vector would ease the burden on software writers and distro maintainers, make it simpler for end-users to get hold of and install software they want, which in turn would increase the appeal of open-source operating systems. I'm sure there are other aspects of the OS's that could be standardised with similar benefit. I think that what we really need is for the base platform (with which end users rarely interact directly) to become common, leaving distro creators and software writers free to expend their energy on design and a single implementation (per hardware platform, I know, I know...) rather than repeating themselves over and over in the implementation phase.
It's easy to make such statements as an end user without appreciating the difficulties involved. These annoying aspects are side-effects of the bazaar approach which has yielded such amazing progress in the last 10 to 15 years, yet I think that without some standardisation, the open source OS's are going to find it difficult to broaden their appeal.