You have a good point though, that could be one additional use of their setup, but of course they're also using it to:
a) Push development on their platforms like.NET onto Linux, so that even Linux developers will be developing for Windows and will be in their control, and in turn have some sort of control over Linux software and the Linux ecosystem.
b) Push their "patent protection" scam. These days, you can buy any kind of insurance you want, even patent protection insurance! There's no end to the number of individuals waiting to take your money for false senses of security.
c) EVIL. But seriously I'm sure there's all kinds of reasons.
They may be also doing it to prevent companies from switching off their products entirely and migrating fully over to Linux, but I really think they're hurting themselves more than helping themselves here. I it makes it easier to switch.
"instead of having a distinct HAL in X you use the system one"
Wasn't that their point? That it's a separate system, so that if it fails, you'll still at least have the command line?
You can always make the argument that, well, if the code is good, then it should work, so what is the issue here that everyone is beating around the bush about? I think it's stability via intelligent programming. If you have the command line as a failsafe for when X fails, it gives you extra protection against bugs, which will always be there somewhere. You shouldn't just expect code to be written correctly, you should fortify yourself for when things break. If this can still be done even with kernel mode setting and such, if the kernel can switch to a failsafe if GEM or whatnot fails, then that will certainly help. Simplifying software stacks and creating APIs for performance and ease of programming = good. Removing failsafes = scary, unless they added some other failsafe somewhere else or whatnot, or maybe there's already one there.
And no, don't say reformat reinstall, that's the Windows failsafe.:P
But seriously, fully agreed, and it's fully possible to have a system that is both user friendly and powerful/stable/featureful/etc. Having GEM in the kernel as a module is fine if the kernel can deal with GEM getting itself borked, which is how everything should be, there should be fail safes galore if things are programmed intelligently from the ground up.
Which is wrong. It's open source software, and everyone should have access to it, easily, regardless of which distro they are using. If Ubuntu wants to support a software project, they're more than welcome to. If they want to make a plugin for Gnome, or have an alternative to Gnome's pop-up system, or whatever, they are more than welcome to make it, but anyone should be able to install it regardless of what distro software bundle they are running.
Stop supporting proprietary Linux development that is purposefully slanted toward specific distros. Support Linux software that's for everyone, with clear places to download, clear and cross-distro easy installation methods, clear documentation, and a clear website for it. Not some oh btw we did this thing *ahem* I think the source code is in here someplace, good luck compiling it..*ahem*...
I think you both have good points. The parent's point is that you don't need to click on a bubble, you can click on the icon or trayed program or whatever instead, your point is what's the harm and I agree. There can be multiple ways of doing different things, so why not let the user decide how they want to do them. Notifications/reminders/etc should certainly be options though.
I think the reality is, it's easier for many users just to click on a bubble, then there's even less thinking required. You don't have to search for the icon that is blinking, you just click on whatever pops up, sort of like a game show buzzer, then the desktop environment just delivers whatever it wanted to tell you about on a silver platter right to your FACE.
You just have to be careful with who you blame. Software vendors are trying to make money too, so don't just assume they're saints. ATI gave Ubuntu "exclusive drivers" at one point even, so it's possible that they could team up and make an API that Nvidia would be slower to adopt or whatnot. Plus, of course, there's inter-distro wars going on even though it's all open source, but even so there are ways of making things more proprietary, at the very least for average users who wouldn't know how to compile stuff.
Regardless though, I agree with you, Nvidia seems to be be much slower in trying to work with any kind of Linux standards, but maybe those standards need more organization, too. Careful who you blame. ^^
At the same time though, while it is theoretically possible for them both to be the same as far as quality of support and costs, one would be foolish to call them that once you factor in the real world, i.e. everything together. I believe that in the long run, open source software is more capable of having better support because:
1) More competition to support a particular software. You don't have to rely on a single company for support since any company can, so software companies become simply support and development companies that have expertise in different areas. Less lock in means lower prices.
2) You can support it yourself, or rely on community/free support, if wanted, much much more easily than any closed source software could ever offer.
Of course again, I'm not saying that CSS can't have better support, but the nature of the ecosystem may allow for, more often, better OSS support to exist. At least, in the future, right now I'm not entirely sure how well the development and support companies are doing vs. closed source. The company I work for uses it though and pays some open source companies to develop new features for them. What would be even better is if corporations and organizations could pool their money for the development of common needs, so big features could be paid for more equally. Any way, ya.:P
Much to the contrary, when you pay for a license you have more weight to throw around.
Geezus, first off, why can't everyone here admit that a particular license on software doesn't directly mean that the code under it is either good or bad. You can have shitty OSS and you can have great CSS, you can have great OSS and shitty CSS. It's possible to have any kind of quality of code. Nuff said about that.
Going back to your above quote, that's BS. Just like above, the license a particular piece of software has over it doesn't mean jack as far as problems getting fixed quickly, it completely depends on the amount of support something has. You can pay for CSS support that could be lightning quick with their responses to bug fixes or adding features, and with OSS again, the company you choose to pay for bug fixes, if any company at all, can respond very quickly, and if you know how to fix it yourself you can respond quickly as well. CSS simply makes the latter impossible, but again, their license doesn't mean you will or will not have bad or good support for software under a particular license.
What OS vs. CS software effects is a business' long-term investment and costs. OSS gives you more transparency and less lock-in in general, since you're much more in control of the code, so you can argue that you're much safer from the whims of a particular company. One thing to note is that the costs of CSS were astronomically high, and because of OSS the prices are having to come down to meet the competition. More of that money goes to the developers instead of into exec's pockets. You could say that in theory, eventually things could reach a point at which CSS was as expensive as OSS to improve and maintain, but in reality you have to realize that it being more open is in itself a feature, a feature which obviously CSS will never have, not to mention the freebie fixes and improvements that you have to add on to the paid support which is already there, something which CSS also can never have.
IMO, in the areas where there is still a gap between CSS and OSS, like games for example, will continue to close, and appropriate business models will develop for some of those things and companies will shift at least some of their model to a more open source model. Microsoft has arguably "tried" to start doing that, even though their attempt comes off a lot more as one which tries to disrupt, disorient, and convince the OSS crowd to be more CSS-ish, like developing "open source" software just for Windows, haha. Good one Microsoft, good one, a real barrel-o-laughs on that one.
Well there are several ways to make things cross-platform, Java is just one of many. APIs are another. It's funny that something you wouldn't expect to be cross-platform is to some degree (when Wine works), the Windows API. More cross-platform libraries and APIs, and you don't really need virtual machines.
The OS companies and Linux distro companies don't want this to happen, but the trend is slowly creeping toward cross-platform/distro programs, and all it does is make the OS matter less, even though of course it's an essential part of the computer. Users just want to get to their software comfortably, safely, and as quickly as possible.
"Oh, cool game/program! What operating system are you running?" "Operawhat?"
"One of the nastyiest hurdles are config files that other packages want to edit"
Then those programs need a way to play nicely. They need to work out a system to cooperate. Putting off package standardization for so long has allowed this to become even worse. Instead of fixing problems, distro packagers simply make their OWN version of everything, their OWN config files, and that is not the solution to communication and not the way to build a healthy operating system. One that is healthy will have the frameworks/APIs/communication layers, whatever you want to call them, in place so that successful communication between programs will be successful. Linux developers can't just live on islands anymore if they want their software to be used, they have to learn to play nice with others.
So, yes, standard naming conventions or a way to resolve naming collisions or issues on-the-fly, there are many ways of resolving all the issues so that programs can find all the needed files, but still allow package managers to put them where they want to. All you do is provide "dumb" software packages that provide enough metadata as necessary to allow successful installation and running, and then you can have different package managers doing whatever they want. As long as you have at least one API in place, you could also have however many package formats you want even, though maybe it's not even really necessary if the packages are really simple.
All I know is that it's not an unsolvable issue, and all the existing package managers need to make themselves compatible with the existing formats or all adopt compatibility with at least one new or revised format.
I also wanted to add that I think most/all of dependency issues could be resolved by having the package contain URL links to all the dependencies (using a GPG key or whatnot system for security, etc etc), and by having a system where any libraries and versions of libraries could be installed side-by-side. Doing that will *also* help with lagging communication problems, because for the most part if libraries used stable APIs, you should only usually need one version installed at a time, the newer versions should still be able to run programs compiled with the older versions. The "oh screw it, instead of making an API lets just compile every program with X version of this library and have only those program versions in our repository" tactic is old and outdated and doesn't solve the real problem, and of course even further promotes distro lock-in.
Forcing standards is definitely silly, everything should be driven by what is popular, just be wary of distros rebelling against the adoption of cross-distro packaging solutions though because they don't want them, their repositories is what makes them "unique". If all software is open source, why choose one distro over another? The answer should be because you should choose the one that has the most pre-installed software that you want, but you should be able to easily install any programs that the other distros have. Go to the website, click, download, install, it should be that easy.
Linux has been living in the past, it's time to catch up if it wants to see adoption take off much more quickly.
Yeah well it's responses like yours, harping on extremely needed Linux features, that downplays their importance. Allowing anyone to easily click and install software within or without of any silly repository is one very important step in helping Linux software and it's users have more freedom. Copying software is what got Windows as big as it is, if packages were standardized so they could be shared and copied easily without compilation between all distros, Linux and it's programs could spread much more rapidly which will help adoption.
No offense intended, but you're obviously very new to Linux. Depending on the software you want to run, Linux can run on anywhere from 8 MBs of RAM with no GUI, to as little as maybe, what, 64 MBs with a GUI? I dunno, I haven't tried seeing how much X plus one of the lighter GUIs require, but I'm sure it's not much. Gnome needs 256-512 to run well I think.
Oh so since there's an expensive monopoly running amuck and gobbling tax dollars left and right, we should let it continue to happen just because that's the way things have always been. Ummmmm no. Governments would save billions and billions of dollars by switching, they could take some of those savings and put it into any open source development of any remaining software needs that there aren't yet open source solutions for. The "not enough workers" argument is a very temporary issue. Sorry but for any and all improvements in technology and science, there is a market force that needs to change and adapt. If they *have* to make a gradual change because it's just not possible, which I highly doubt that'd be the case, fine, but *start it*. If it doesn't get started, how will the economy be able to respond by delivering more Linux-savvy techs? Not that it'd be needed, the basic techs would be doing the same thing, replacing hardware parts that go bad, it's just the administrators that'd be responsible for software deployment and security and such who'd have to learn a few new things, or not, depending on what software deployment system they were using for example. A lot of the software deployment systems out there are compatible with both Linux, Windows, and Mac.
Users don't always like change, but most teachers and students would not have a problem with the switch, it's very easy and usable software, and since it'd save billions of dollars globally, it needs to happen. If there's something that needs to be developed that someone needs on top of what already exists, take some of those billions in savings and pay for it's development.
But, since I don't think I can use logical and rational argument against you because I think you're just trolling, here goes: So you're saying we should keep wasting tax money on expensive proprietary shit software because the Linux desktop is too hard to use? Going to Apps > Office > Write is soooooo hard. I think I hurt my wrist doing it. *ouch*
Yeah, you definitely deserve "troll", sorry, you're either really stupid, really ignorant, or just trolling, so I really don't feel like wasting anymore time than this. Go to http://www.ubuntu.com/ and try out the Linux desktop sometime, that's the last help you're getting from me.
So no one put time into learning Windows they all just magically knew it, and somehow clicking on Apps > Office > OOo Word in Linux takes loads of learning and effort? Wow, news to me.
Does Linux need more improvements? Always, and that will never change, and those improvements are happening. Can it fulfill the needs of many computer users? Yep. Is it free and in general is OSS a good investment? Yep.
Any way, schools should be teaching and promoting OSS, not CSS, and for those areas in which there is a lack of OSS that does what they need, schools should pool their resources and save billions of dollars by paying for OSS development. That's called a long-term investment. It'd be a thousand times cheaper than continuing to pay for CSS, so not only would the parents save their tax money, but they wouldn't have to buy Sally Adobe Creative Suite 3 for $200-500 or whatever.
Amazing how that works I know. So, what part about losing money don't you understand? Or do you still disagree that free alternatives are cheaper? Again, I realize fully that if there are areas where a lot of additional software is needed, that will mean for a bigger initial investment, but a) it still could easily be much much lower than the cost every district pays for CSS, b) it's a long term investment, and c) they can keep using some CSS if needed until funds are available to swap it out.
Lets see, you swap out Windows for Linux in every school district in the U.S. or in the world, that saves you hmmm maybe a few billion dollars right then and there, then you use some of that money to pay some developers to make Reader Rabbit Open Source Edition as well as several other pieces of software if they don't exist yet, then if you still, after all those billions of dollars, have enough money to pay for the development of additional software, run those Windows legacy programs through Wine and wait another year or so until you have your next huge cash injection that you saved by switching, and finished paying for the rest of what's needed.
So, it's very simple, and I hope you now get it. Keep in mind though that regardless, right now there's a lot of money that could be saved by switching to various open source programs, but regardless, it's what needs to at the very least start happening.
It takes some wisdom and intelligence to see the long-term picture of open source software. Either they're trolling, stupid, or ignorant. Even if open source software took a greater initial payment to switch to, it is a much greater investment. Even if it did take higher initial costs, you could pull that back by sticking with a few closed pieces of software until the funds were sufficient to get them replaced.
Yeah basically I have to agree to your post's responders. You're rehashing stupid discussions that everyone else knows but you, but I'll be nice and assume you're not trolling but are serious, and give you your reply.
When I said Linux = free, I was talking about the software. You're correct that training costs money, but that's an extremely temporary issue that doesn't matter. If you stay on Windows and other proprietary software, you will continue to pay YOUR tax money to those companies, whereas if your government *invested* in a FOSS switch, it would be far far cheaper, even if not in the short term which it *would* be, it would still be cheaper in the long run. It takes a small amount of intelligence and wisdom to see that I guess.
Obviously you wouldn't have to switch to OSS in every area right away though, to make the transition less bumpy, but you may end up paying for some proprietary Linux software, but when funds get pooled enough, eventually you'll pay for OSS development for the remaining things you need.
Windows is just an OS, so is Linux. Linux happens to be free and very capable of running any programs that Windows can. Thus, moving to GNU/Linux and/or other free systems is what needs to happen.
As for your last comments, again you show extremely stupid ignorance. OSS is free. What I'm saying is that for those areas where programs are needed that aren't already available, instead of paying money to closed, proprietary solutions, if all that money was pooled together it could pay for the development of an equivalent program that is open source for far, far less. Also, the updates and newer versions would also be far cheaper, because a) you wouldn't have to purchase the software all over again and b) instead you'd be paying for incremental updates, meaning far shorter development time, because you'd already "own" the main backends of the programs since they're open source Software companies make heaps of money for their shitty educational software in particular. I know, I've worked around it and with it, I've worked for districts so I know how it all works and how many $'s are attached to it. Proprietary software companies are profiting off of your tax money simply because they refuse or aren't intelligent enough to work together. When you have cooperation, OSS particularly begins to shine.
You and I mean two completely different things by "standardization". I'm talking about cooperation, "frameworks", APIs, things that allow for interoperability and communication enough to get job done. That's what the LSB failed at doing, because instead of providing solutions, it tried forcing choice, which meant a lack thereof for those who listened. There's no reason, at all, why at least one package format can't be developed, promoted, and made cross-distro. For the last time (since I've said this so much it's tiring), it is not about forcing anyone to choose between RPM or DEB or any of the other package formats out there, it's about getting a damn API/system/whatever in place to allow the choice between formats. It's about untying the formats from the package managers. Breaking down that "software stack" so that it's modular, and you have freedom and choice. Just like BZIP, ZIP, TAR, 7Z, RAR, and all the rest, you should have the choice as to which format you want to use. As long as the format is one that is capable of being able to be dealt with intelligently by any and all package managers, the format is a good one and should be an option for anyone who wants to use it. Any packaging format which cannot easily be used in a cross-platform manner needs to be either updated, or discarded in favor of something that's actually functional as a format which will allow choice instead of breeding new distro repository prisoners which is what distro companies want.
Linux users want more freedom than that, not to mention it needs to be adopted faster and needs more features, and that's one hell of a feature for Linux. Just imagine, actual easy sharing of Linux software with your friends regardless of what distro they are running, and being able to update Firefox easily and quickly directly from the developers who helped make it through your automatic system updates if you want to, being able to install any software from anywhere even if it's not in your proprietary repository, and if you're a developer being able to release ONLY ONE PACKAGE FOR LINUX.
Right, or basically like what's been said on here many times over, they're like crack dealers, it's the same business model. It's too bad stupid boards/directors/etc in school districts don't think "hmm, I wonder why they're making a student edition to begin with...hmmmmmm..." There's quite a bit of irony in asking for intelligent school directors and boards.
Right, it's great advertising, etc etc, like you said, so M$ certainly could offer them money for agreeing to choose them over Linux. Just depends on how far M$ is willing to go and if they think it's worth it to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
AC was me at work :P
.NET onto Linux, so that even Linux developers will be developing for Windows and will be in their control, and in turn have some sort of control over Linux software and the Linux ecosystem.
You have a good point though, that could be one additional use of their setup, but of course they're also using it to:
a) Push development on their platforms like
b) Push their "patent protection" scam. These days, you can buy any kind of insurance you want, even patent protection insurance! There's no end to the number of individuals waiting to take your money for false senses of security.
c) EVIL. But seriously I'm sure there's all kinds of reasons.
They may be also doing it to prevent companies from switching off their products entirely and migrating fully over to Linux, but I really think they're hurting themselves more than helping themselves here. I it makes it easier to switch.
"instead of having a distinct HAL in X you use the system one"
:P
Wasn't that their point? That it's a separate system, so that if it fails, you'll still at least have the command line?
You can always make the argument that, well, if the code is good, then it should work, so what is the issue here that everyone is beating around the bush about? I think it's stability via intelligent programming. If you have the command line as a failsafe for when X fails, it gives you extra protection against bugs, which will always be there somewhere. You shouldn't just expect code to be written correctly, you should fortify yourself for when things break. If this can still be done even with kernel mode setting and such, if the kernel can switch to a failsafe if GEM or whatnot fails, then that will certainly help. Simplifying software stacks and creating APIs for performance and ease of programming = good. Removing failsafes = scary, unless they added some other failsafe somewhere else or whatnot, or maybe there's already one there.
And no, don't say reformat reinstall, that's the Windows failsafe.
Actually, Links2 allows you to use a mouse. :P
But seriously, fully agreed, and it's fully possible to have a system that is both user friendly and powerful/stable/featureful/etc. Having GEM in the kernel as a module is fine if the kernel can deal with GEM getting itself borked, which is how everything should be, there should be fail safes galore if things are programmed intelligently from the ground up.
"it is Ubuntu specific UI development"
Which is wrong. It's open source software, and everyone should have access to it, easily, regardless of which distro they are using. If Ubuntu wants to support a software project, they're more than welcome to. If they want to make a plugin for Gnome, or have an alternative to Gnome's pop-up system, or whatever, they are more than welcome to make it, but anyone should be able to install it regardless of what distro software bundle they are running.
Stop supporting proprietary Linux development that is purposefully slanted toward specific distros. Support Linux software that's for everyone, with clear places to download, clear and cross-distro easy installation methods, clear documentation, and a clear website for it. Not some oh btw we did this thing *ahem* I think the source code is in here someplace, good luck compiling it..*ahem*...
I think you both have good points. The parent's point is that you don't need to click on a bubble, you can click on the icon or trayed program or whatever instead, your point is what's the harm and I agree. There can be multiple ways of doing different things, so why not let the user decide how they want to do them. Notifications/reminders/etc should certainly be options though.
I think the reality is, it's easier for many users just to click on a bubble, then there's even less thinking required. You don't have to search for the icon that is blinking, you just click on whatever pops up, sort of like a game show buzzer, then the desktop environment just delivers whatever it wanted to tell you about on a silver platter right to your FACE.
You just have to be careful with who you blame. Software vendors are trying to make money too, so don't just assume they're saints. ATI gave Ubuntu "exclusive drivers" at one point even, so it's possible that they could team up and make an API that Nvidia would be slower to adopt or whatnot. Plus, of course, there's inter-distro wars going on even though it's all open source, but even so there are ways of making things more proprietary, at the very least for average users who wouldn't know how to compile stuff.
Regardless though, I agree with you, Nvidia seems to be be much slower in trying to work with any kind of Linux standards, but maybe those standards need more organization, too. Careful who you blame. ^^
OK, gotcha. ^^
:P
At the same time though, while it is theoretically possible for them both to be the same as far as quality of support and costs, one would be foolish to call them that once you factor in the real world, i.e. everything together. I believe that in the long run, open source software is more capable of having better support because:
1) More competition to support a particular software. You don't have to rely on a single company for support since any company can, so software companies become simply support and development companies that have expertise in different areas. Less lock in means lower prices.
2) You can support it yourself, or rely on community/free support, if wanted, much much more easily than any closed source software could ever offer.
Of course again, I'm not saying that CSS can't have better support, but the nature of the ecosystem may allow for, more often, better OSS support to exist. At least, in the future, right now I'm not entirely sure how well the development and support companies are doing vs. closed source. The company I work for uses it though and pays some open source companies to develop new features for them. What would be even better is if corporations and organizations could pool their money for the development of common needs, so big features could be paid for more equally. Any way, ya.
Much to the contrary, when you pay for a license you have more weight to throw around.
Geezus, first off, why can't everyone here admit that a particular license on software doesn't directly mean that the code under it is either good or bad. You can have shitty OSS and you can have great CSS, you can have great OSS and shitty CSS. It's possible to have any kind of quality of code. Nuff said about that.
Going back to your above quote, that's BS. Just like above, the license a particular piece of software has over it doesn't mean jack as far as problems getting fixed quickly, it completely depends on the amount of support something has. You can pay for CSS support that could be lightning quick with their responses to bug fixes or adding features, and with OSS again, the company you choose to pay for bug fixes, if any company at all, can respond very quickly, and if you know how to fix it yourself you can respond quickly as well. CSS simply makes the latter impossible, but again, their license doesn't mean you will or will not have bad or good support for software under a particular license.
What OS vs. CS software effects is a business' long-term investment and costs. OSS gives you more transparency and less lock-in in general, since you're much more in control of the code, so you can argue that you're much safer from the whims of a particular company. One thing to note is that the costs of CSS were astronomically high, and because of OSS the prices are having to come down to meet the competition. More of that money goes to the developers instead of into exec's pockets. You could say that in theory, eventually things could reach a point at which CSS was as expensive as OSS to improve and maintain, but in reality you have to realize that it being more open is in itself a feature, a feature which obviously CSS will never have, not to mention the freebie fixes and improvements that you have to add on to the paid support which is already there, something which CSS also can never have.
IMO, in the areas where there is still a gap between CSS and OSS, like games for example, will continue to close, and appropriate business models will develop for some of those things and companies will shift at least some of their model to a more open source model. Microsoft has arguably "tried" to start doing that, even though their attempt comes off a lot more as one which tries to disrupt, disorient, and convince the OSS crowd to be more CSS-ish, like developing "open source" software just for Windows, haha. Good one Microsoft, good one, a real barrel-o-laughs on that one.
"Whenever I hear the word activist, I reach for my revolver."
:D
Tough crowd. You from China?
OK fine geez gosh. ^^
:P
But seriously, most Linux users should push for it.
Well there are several ways to make things cross-platform, Java is just one of many. APIs are another. It's funny that something you wouldn't expect to be cross-platform is to some degree (when Wine works), the Windows API. More cross-platform libraries and APIs, and you don't really need virtual machines.
The OS companies and Linux distro companies don't want this to happen, but the trend is slowly creeping toward cross-platform/distro programs, and all it does is make the OS matter less, even though of course it's an essential part of the computer. Users just want to get to their software comfortably, safely, and as quickly as possible.
"Oh, cool game/program! What operating system are you running?"
"Operawhat?"
and please excuse all my grammar mistakes and stuff, I was on a rant. ^^
"One of the nastyiest hurdles are config files that other packages want to edit"
Then those programs need a way to play nicely. They need to work out a system to cooperate. Putting off package standardization for so long has allowed this to become even worse. Instead of fixing problems, distro packagers simply make their OWN version of everything, their OWN config files, and that is not the solution to communication and not the way to build a healthy operating system. One that is healthy will have the frameworks/APIs/communication layers, whatever you want to call them, in place so that successful communication between programs will be successful. Linux developers can't just live on islands anymore if they want their software to be used, they have to learn to play nice with others.
So, yes, standard naming conventions or a way to resolve naming collisions or issues on-the-fly, there are many ways of resolving all the issues so that programs can find all the needed files, but still allow package managers to put them where they want to. All you do is provide "dumb" software packages that provide enough metadata as necessary to allow successful installation and running, and then you can have different package managers doing whatever they want. As long as you have at least one API in place, you could also have however many package formats you want even, though maybe it's not even really necessary if the packages are really simple.
All I know is that it's not an unsolvable issue, and all the existing package managers need to make themselves compatible with the existing formats or all adopt compatibility with at least one new or revised format.
I also wanted to add that I think most/all of dependency issues could be resolved by having the package contain URL links to all the dependencies (using a GPG key or whatnot system for security, etc etc), and by having a system where any libraries and versions of libraries could be installed side-by-side. Doing that will *also* help with lagging communication problems, because for the most part if libraries used stable APIs, you should only usually need one version installed at a time, the newer versions should still be able to run programs compiled with the older versions. The "oh screw it, instead of making an API lets just compile every program with X version of this library and have only those program versions in our repository" tactic is old and outdated and doesn't solve the real problem, and of course even further promotes distro lock-in.
Forcing standards is definitely silly, everything should be driven by what is popular, just be wary of distros rebelling against the adoption of cross-distro packaging solutions though because they don't want them, their repositories is what makes them "unique". If all software is open source, why choose one distro over another? The answer should be because you should choose the one that has the most pre-installed software that you want, but you should be able to easily install any programs that the other distros have. Go to the website, click, download, install, it should be that easy.
Linux has been living in the past, it's time to catch up if it wants to see adoption take off much more quickly.
Yeah well it's responses like yours, harping on extremely needed Linux features, that downplays their importance. Allowing anyone to easily click and install software within or without of any silly repository is one very important step in helping Linux software and it's users have more freedom. Copying software is what got Windows as big as it is, if packages were standardized so they could be shared and copied easily without compilation between all distros, Linux and it's programs could spread much more rapidly which will help adoption.
Right, of course these companies don't actually recommend it, it's just marketing for M$.
No offense intended, but you're obviously very new to Linux. Depending on the software you want to run, Linux can run on anywhere from 8 MBs of RAM with no GUI, to as little as maybe, what, 64 MBs with a GUI? I dunno, I haven't tried seeing how much X plus one of the lighter GUIs require, but I'm sure it's not much. Gnome needs 256-512 to run well I think.
Oh so since there's an expensive monopoly running amuck and gobbling tax dollars left and right, we should let it continue to happen just because that's the way things have always been. Ummmmm no. Governments would save billions and billions of dollars by switching, they could take some of those savings and put it into any open source development of any remaining software needs that there aren't yet open source solutions for. The "not enough workers" argument is a very temporary issue. Sorry but for any and all improvements in technology and science, there is a market force that needs to change and adapt. If they *have* to make a gradual change because it's just not possible, which I highly doubt that'd be the case, fine, but *start it*. If it doesn't get started, how will the economy be able to respond by delivering more Linux-savvy techs? Not that it'd be needed, the basic techs would be doing the same thing, replacing hardware parts that go bad, it's just the administrators that'd be responsible for software deployment and security and such who'd have to learn a few new things, or not, depending on what software deployment system they were using for example. A lot of the software deployment systems out there are compatible with both Linux, Windows, and Mac.
Users don't always like change, but most teachers and students would not have a problem with the switch, it's very easy and usable software, and since it'd save billions of dollars globally, it needs to happen. If there's something that needs to be developed that someone needs on top of what already exists, take some of those billions in savings and pay for it's development.
But, since I don't think I can use logical and rational argument against you because I think you're just trolling, here goes: So you're saying we should keep wasting tax money on expensive proprietary shit software because the Linux desktop is too hard to use? Going to Apps > Office > Write is soooooo hard. I think I hurt my wrist doing it. *ouch*
Yeah, you definitely deserve "troll", sorry, you're either really stupid, really ignorant, or just trolling, so I really don't feel like wasting anymore time than this. Go to http://www.ubuntu.com/ and try out the Linux desktop sometime, that's the last help you're getting from me.
Touché. ^^
Explaining why they're dumb takes so long sometimes though.
So no one put time into learning Windows they all just magically knew it, and somehow clicking on Apps > Office > OOo Word in Linux takes loads of learning and effort? Wow, news to me.
Does Linux need more improvements? Always, and that will never change, and those improvements are happening. Can it fulfill the needs of many computer users? Yep. Is it free and in general is OSS a good investment? Yep.
Any way, schools should be teaching and promoting OSS, not CSS, and for those areas in which there is a lack of OSS that does what they need, schools should pool their resources and save billions of dollars by paying for OSS development. That's called a long-term investment. It'd be a thousand times cheaper than continuing to pay for CSS, so not only would the parents save their tax money, but they wouldn't have to buy Sally Adobe Creative Suite 3 for $200-500 or whatever.
Amazing how that works I know. So, what part about losing money don't you understand? Or do you still disagree that free alternatives are cheaper? Again, I realize fully that if there are areas where a lot of additional software is needed, that will mean for a bigger initial investment, but a) it still could easily be much much lower than the cost every district pays for CSS, b) it's a long term investment, and c) they can keep using some CSS if needed until funds are available to swap it out.
Lets see, you swap out Windows for Linux in every school district in the U.S. or in the world, that saves you hmmm maybe a few billion dollars right then and there, then you use some of that money to pay some developers to make Reader Rabbit Open Source Edition as well as several other pieces of software if they don't exist yet, then if you still, after all those billions of dollars, have enough money to pay for the development of additional software, run those Windows legacy programs through Wine and wait another year or so until you have your next huge cash injection that you saved by switching, and finished paying for the rest of what's needed.
So, it's very simple, and I hope you now get it. Keep in mind though that regardless, right now there's a lot of money that could be saved by switching to various open source programs, but regardless, it's what needs to at the very least start happening.
It takes some wisdom and intelligence to see the long-term picture of open source software. Either they're trolling, stupid, or ignorant. Even if open source software took a greater initial payment to switch to, it is a much greater investment. Even if it did take higher initial costs, you could pull that back by sticking with a few closed pieces of software until the funds were sufficient to get them replaced.
Yeah basically I have to agree to your post's responders. You're rehashing stupid discussions that everyone else knows but you, but I'll be nice and assume you're not trolling but are serious, and give you your reply.
When I said Linux = free, I was talking about the software. You're correct that training costs money, but that's an extremely temporary issue that doesn't matter. If you stay on Windows and other proprietary software, you will continue to pay YOUR tax money to those companies, whereas if your government *invested* in a FOSS switch, it would be far far cheaper, even if not in the short term which it *would* be, it would still be cheaper in the long run. It takes a small amount of intelligence and wisdom to see that I guess.
Obviously you wouldn't have to switch to OSS in every area right away though, to make the transition less bumpy, but you may end up paying for some proprietary Linux software, but when funds get pooled enough, eventually you'll pay for OSS development for the remaining things you need.
Windows is just an OS, so is Linux. Linux happens to be free and very capable of running any programs that Windows can. Thus, moving to GNU/Linux and/or other free systems is what needs to happen.
As for your last comments, again you show extremely stupid ignorance. OSS is free. What I'm saying is that for those areas where programs are needed that aren't already available, instead of paying money to closed, proprietary solutions, if all that money was pooled together it could pay for the development of an equivalent program that is open source for far, far less. Also, the updates and newer versions would also be far cheaper, because a) you wouldn't have to purchase the software all over again and b) instead you'd be paying for incremental updates, meaning far shorter development time, because you'd already "own" the main backends of the programs since they're open source Software companies make heaps of money for their shitty educational software in particular. I know, I've worked around it and with it, I've worked for districts so I know how it all works and how many $'s are attached to it. Proprietary software companies are profiting off of your tax money simply because they refuse or aren't intelligent enough to work together. When you have cooperation, OSS particularly begins to shine.
You and I mean two completely different things by "standardization". I'm talking about cooperation, "frameworks", APIs, things that allow for interoperability and communication enough to get job done. That's what the LSB failed at doing, because instead of providing solutions, it tried forcing choice, which meant a lack thereof for those who listened. There's no reason, at all, why at least one package format can't be developed, promoted, and made cross-distro. For the last time (since I've said this so much it's tiring), it is not about forcing anyone to choose between RPM or DEB or any of the other package formats out there, it's about getting a damn API/system/whatever in place to allow the choice between formats. It's about untying the formats from the package managers. Breaking down that "software stack" so that it's modular, and you have freedom and choice. Just like BZIP, ZIP, TAR, 7Z, RAR, and all the rest, you should have the choice as to which format you want to use. As long as the format is one that is capable of being able to be dealt with intelligently by any and all package managers, the format is a good one and should be an option for anyone who wants to use it. Any packaging format which cannot easily be used in a cross-platform manner needs to be either updated, or discarded in favor of something that's actually functional as a format which will allow choice instead of breeding new distro repository prisoners which is what distro companies want.
Linux users want more freedom than that, not to mention it needs to be adopted faster and needs more features, and that's one hell of a feature for Linux. Just imagine, actual easy sharing of Linux software with your friends regardless of what distro they are running, and being able to update Firefox easily and quickly directly from the developers who helped make it through your automatic system updates if you want to, being able to install any software from anywhere even if it's not in your proprietary repository, and if you're a developer being able to release ONLY ONE PACKAGE FOR LINUX.
Right, or basically like what's been said on here many times over, they're like crack dealers, it's the same business model. It's too bad stupid boards/directors/etc in school districts don't think "hmm, I wonder why they're making a student edition to begin with...hmmmmmm..." There's quite a bit of irony in asking for intelligent school directors and boards.
Right, it's great advertising, etc etc, like you said, so M$ certainly could offer them money for agreeing to choose them over Linux. Just depends on how far M$ is willing to go and if they think it's worth it to do so.