Linux.com

Choice is good.

#

Choice is already been made, you just have to understand it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Why would any distribution maintainer wish to opt for "Install any of those, choose Linux Base, then look around." ? They wish to distinguish themselves, not blur the lines.

Why should Linux aim for Josephine and Fred Sixpack? Josephine and Fred don't install Windows. All they know how to do is get their Windows boxes online, get instantly compromised, and continually pester tech friends for help, and ignore good advice. What Josephine and Fred need are complete packages- a system that ships with some flavor of Linux installed, customized for particular types of users, and that has vendor support. We've had a few of these for years already, such as Emperor Linux and Linspire, and we're going to see more.

Why should power users, system administrators, and distribution maintainers be handcuffed by pandering to the lowest common denominator? The cool thing about Linux is that each distribution maintainer is free to customize and develop their particular distribution as they see fit. This ensures that all kinds of great advances and improvements are made. Then the marketplace decides which features and improvements become successful.

There are already several very good Linux distributions for Josephine and Fred- Linspire, Xandros, Mandrake to name but three. Yeah I know, actually expecting users to do a little homework and get some education on using a PC is probably too much to expect- but I see no good reason to emulate Windows. Windows is far behind Linux in sheer power, customizability, functionality, and security. The last thing Linux needs to do is aim lower.

#

As a guy named Fred who uses Linux from scratch I request you choose better generic names!

#

Fred Sixpack?

#

"Why should Linux aim for Josephine and Fred Sixpack?"

Well, I thought this Linux movement was about (1) 'beating' Microsoft, (2) bringing 'freedom' to the masses (3) Having linux reach the % of desktops for the tilting point and the benefits that come from it. (4) etc.

You aren't going to do any of these things unless Joe Sixpack is onside. And frankly if you decide to give up on (1), (2) and (3) then I'll be happy to have an end to the bitching about Microsoft and its evil.

"Why should power users, system administrators, and distribution maintainers be handcuffed by pandering to the lowest common denominator?"

What the hell are you talking about, I know what I'm talking about: A standardized Linux version. Bring the best from all distributions, like 'User Linux' by perrens.

"Yeah I know, actually expecting users to do a little homework "

People don't even know what a firewall is let alone a linux version, and KDE vs. Gnome. The average person whill say 'KDE, Gnome, what the hell is that, screw it I dont have the patience to learn all this shit'. So if average joe isn't the target audience then I guess Linux's job is done without doing (1), (2) and (3), and it can stay at 5-10% of the market.

#

I always thought that free software was about writing software that does what you want it to do, software that is owned and controlled by users. I don't see any reason to 'beat' Microsoft, or bringing anything to the masses (what the hell are masses, anyway?) I don't care what Microsoft does, and I don't care what the Sixpack's use, as long as I myself don't have to deal with it.

Your (3) is the only valid point. I think the whole idea od popularizing Linux and making it more "user friendly" started by something like "if Linux is more polular, companies will have to write drivers for it, we may be able to use it at work etc.

#

Right you are- more user friendly is good. Improved interfaces are always good. But expecting the entire Linux world to aim for folks who can barely operate a TV remote makes no sense. As many folks have said, there are distributions aimed at unsophisticated users. Having choices is what makes Linux so cool.

All the rhetoric about "beating Microsoft" is rather overblown, I think. There is plenty of room for everyone. It's a Microsoft attitude to think that There Can Be Only One, and all others must be crushed.

#

"Well, I thought this Linux movement was about (1) 'beating' Microsoft,"

That's where you thought wrong.

"(2) bringing 'freedom' to the masses"

The freedom is there, the masses have it available to them, the also have the choice to remain ignorant. We would be as bad as the monopolies if we started to try and force Govenment, or Joe Sixpack to use it. All we can do is make them aware that they do have alternatives.

"(3) Having linux reach the % of desktops for the tilting point and the benefits that come from it."

That will happen, just because it isn't happening as fast as some people would like doesn't mean it won't.

#

How very pathetic you are. You don't understand a shit about os's or anynthing at all.

#

"The average person will say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. screw it I don't have the patience to learn all this shit'."

Precisely.

So what YOU should be saying to them is "Hey, it's not a big issue. It really doesn't matter WHICH linux distro you choose. They are really all the same. They all come with the same stuff. They all work the same. You can mix and match you know. It's really very simple.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and, hey, if you get really unlucky, throw that one away and choose a different one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. or -here- take this one, it's good - I use it."

You know, education of this sort will help scared wanna-be-newbies.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and if THAT doesn't calm them down, then SCREW THEM! Yeah, that's right - that type are more hassle than they're worth, and the reality is they will never switch.

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. And as a final point, Linux is not about 'beating' Microsoft. If anything, Linux is about UNIX on a PC, Open Source/Free Software, choice. That way, we are building on what's good, rather than competing with what's crap.

(sig) IANOD - I am not a dog.

#

The article says (and I'm sure we all seen others), to paraphrase, that there is too much choice for the average joe, and that there needs to be standards. The first part is completely understandable, yes, there are a bajillion distros out there, all aiming for (or just out there) for a specific niche (DSL) or trying to pander to everyone (Debian, for example). There's even the handholders (Lindows).

The second part, and where the problem lies, is in the standards bit. First off, who makes them? Who is smart enough to know what everyone needs? Sure, there's stuff like FSH, but if you're DSL, sometimes you have to break the rules to fit it in. Second, how do you impose them? The GPL allows you to take the code at ANY TIME and make your own project, and if you want to break the standards, nobody can stop you. The LSB is really just a goodwill committie, I guarantee you if they try to enforce something that hurts a bottom line somewhere, vendors will jet.

The difference between MS homgenization and Linux fractionation is one thing, and one thing only: MS has money. Money has clout. Therefore, MS has clout, and uses it to enforce one feel, one look, and for joe average, that's worth the money they forked over for the OS. Not having to deal with idiosyncrasies every time you sit down at a new computer is good, I'll agree.

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux too, but half the time I get frustrated with the cheerleaders when they just yell "standards". If you're soo damn smart that you can see that and everyone else can't, then make some standards and try to enforce them. It basically amounts to a loss of freedom on the part of the developers. However, Darwin is at work, and eventually there will be a standard, just like the skeleton is a standard for most animals on earth - it just works. Check your local fossil record and tell me there weren't funky abortive attempts to make wierd lifeforms off that basic body plan, though.

#

...and always have been.
"So far scientists have named and classified more than 1 1/2 million animals. Over half of these are types of insects and other species are discovered each year. Scientists believe there may be from 2 million to as many as 50 million kinds of animals alive today." -"Animal." World Book Encyclopedia. 16 vols. Chicago: World Book, 2003.

#

Fine, you wanna troll, I'll bite.

Insects/crustaceans have a skeleton, it's just on the outside. It's called an EXOskeleton. Don't remember basic biology? They still have the same body plan, just that they lack vertebrae, like you. Legs? Check. Head? Check. Torso? Check. So, by extension, most animals on the planet DO have a skeleton. You, however, have the brain of a sponge.

#

>Insects/crustaceans have a skeleton, it's just on the outside. It's called an EXOskeleton. Don't remember basic biology? They still have the same body plan, just that they lack vertebrae, like you. Legs? Check. Head? Check. Torso? Check. So, by extension, most animals on the planet DO have a skeleton. You, however, have the brain of a sponge.

Your biology is still wrong. Body plan has an accepted meaning and verterbrates and insects do not have the 'same' one to any biologist.

I doubt that any biologist in the last century has attempted to homologise insect and verterbrate skeletons. They are radically differrent organisms.

Even a layman might be uncomfortable with your contention that rigid inside squishy outside is really the 'same' as squishy inside rigid outside.

Oh yes, and sponges don't have brains, or nerves of any sort.

That being said, I agree that early experimentation, later standardization is a pattern from biology that we would expect to see repeated in Linux distributions. Your analogy was apt.

In closing you perhaps should reflect on your taking a minor quibble or clarification as a direct personal insult requiring insult in return.

Someone doesn't remember basic manners, online or otherwise. I'm confident that other readers will reach the same conclusion as to who.

#

Very interesting and excellent post<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).

"If you're soo damn smart that you can see that and everyone else can't, then make some standards and try to enforce them."

That is why a standards body should be made, and I think it is (aren't they making a standards version to prevent Linux fracturization like that of Linux?) Have people port over the best of each distribution into a 'User Linux'.

People can still use their own distribution flavour, but there will be a standardized version for users.

#

I have "dabbled" with Mandrake linux for a couple of years now, but not on my main desk-top, as I rely heavily on Quick Books, which in turn is dependant on IE, OE and Excel if one wants to transfer data to spreadsheet. But I had a secondary PC solely for internet & e-mail use using Mandrake 9

Some months back we had a Compaq Presario 700 brought into the workshop. Heavily infected with viruses which had damaged the XP operating system. We tried the Compaq recovery disc, reinstalling XP from scratch, backtracked to Win2K, then to Win98. Our client then gave up and bought a new Notebook. We inherited a supposedly defunct Compaq, so we carried on experimenting. We first tried Mandrake, and when that failed, tried SuSE 9.1 - It worked<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-))

However at every boot-up I had a message that there was a problem with the powersave functions, and I couldn't get either the internal or any other external modem configured. You will realise here, if not beforehand, that I am not a Linux "Fundi", as we say here in Africa. (Fundi = Expert.)

So, a couple of weeks ago, I did a search for alternatives and found Mepis, downloaded it, installed it, registered it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)), and I'm now sending mails from the notebook!

Mepis installation was a cinch, and it is the only version of Linux that is showing me where the problem probably lies - see title. It didn't find the internal winmodem, but I have successfully installed an external modem, and Crossoveroffice, on a test basis, and Quick Books, and its dependant IE, and OE programs.

I have subsequently tried UbuntuLinux, but that couldn't see my modems either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-((

And that is why we need choice?

#

I was able to install PCLinuxOS on both that model & an old Gateway Solo 9000. Neither one was I able to use the internal modem, big deal! A little research and I found a $20 card that worked just fine. A person could get that by mowing a few lawns! I was able through researching the internet to get a $50 Linksys wirless card working. I don't need a modem $59 for a wirless router and Cable modem cost $50 from CompUSA after rebate. My broadband connection is only $10 a month more than my internet and I'm paying for cable TV anyway.
What I'm saying is there are always some excuse, but by not whining and doing something about it, I've got two old laptops working like new. And I learned something along the way. In the long run learning how to get it working was a fun challenge that didn't take too long. When that LinkSys card connected with 128 bit WEP using NDIS wrappers, I was feeling like I just cured cancer! To get my daughters HP laptop to connect using 128 bit WEP and XP Home edition was impossible to get working until service pack 2 became available. Linux took me about a week part time. XP went with 64 bit WEP for about a year, and I didn't get the same satisfaction or learn anything!

#

But where are you? In Africa, we can't just nip out to the nearest store and get the goodies?

#

Did you get this message on the Compaq? and if so what did you do about it?
Vendor "COMAPQ" System " EAGLES" Revision 0x6040000 has a known ACPI BIOS Problem > ACPI BIOS problem

#

You run a workshop and after wiping the PC you couldn't re-install any of those versions of Windows?

What sort of workshop is it, car? If it's a computer workshop then I pity your customers.

#

It is a computer workshop, and a brilliant one at that! And, may I add, respected within our community. This notebook was an extremely stubborn case, and one in which Linux has excelled<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-))

Maybe we should have flashed the BIOS?

Do you have any other ideas?

Instead of pitying our customers, why not render some support?

#

The fallacy of "too many choices" is the assumption that each consumer has to evaluate every characteristic of every item in that class. It's just not true. People are perfectly capable of choosing a car even if they don't have any clue how one engine's performance compares to another. Mostly because it's not important to them. Most people have a very limited set of requirements in anything they buy and are only looking at those requirements when they compare.

People who don't want to do even the most basic research deserve what they end up with. They are solely responsible for their own satisfaction.

Why don't we hear that there are too many cars, houses, radio stations, TV shows, pants styles, greeting cards, etc. to choose from?

#

All it takes is a quick look at the distro's website to determine if a distro is for you. The average Joe probably won't like the fact that some versions of Linux require lots of tweaking to get going. But Fedora Core provides an easy install and comes with lots of things you will need.

Compare that with Windows. When you install Windows, you first have to spend $200 on Windows, then you get to spend more money on applicaitons they need. The average Joe probably won't use OpenOffice.org. He will probably dish out another $300 for Microsoft Office. Meanwhile, if he chose Linux, he could download Fedora Core 2, install it, and have everything he needs.

Some people don't want to make any choices for themselves. Fine. Let them spend their money on Microsoft Windows and all the software they need to buy to perform basic tasks. We don't want to hear their complaints anyways.

#

Users by a television with some vague idea what it does and what the options mean. Very few people buy a televison because they want 85dB gain on something or a 31db signal to noise ratio measured somewhere.

They buy it because its
"Got more features than their friends has" (Gentoo 8))
'The same as their friends have'
'Cheap'
'Small'
'Got a good review'
'Reliable'
'Suitable for industrial use'

and so on.

If you want to get more simplicity in Linux choices then these are then kind of questions the user must have answered not "Does emacs include the foobar extender", not even is it Gnome or KDE.

Choice is only choice if the user understands something about the choice they are making. Anything else isn't merely useless (guessing) but actually -bad- because it embarrasses the poor user who doesn't understand the funny man at the counter and feels inadequate.

Enterprise Linux
Home Office Linux
Personal Linux
Lightweight Linux

might make sense IFF vendors can agree WTF these phrases should mean.

#

I think lots of distros is a good thing but I think that they could help themselves by doing some basic consumer marketing on their websites for new users trying to make a choice or just make it plain and simple that they only cater to Linux users who already know what they are doing..

To make the leap from new user to advanced user we need more general tutorials and training material -- more "schooling", not just technical articles and advice on various arcane aspects of Linux.

Well, the extremists say you have to contribute code to be useful, I think that documentation is a great thing for us non-programmers to work on. As I transition from beginner to advanced user I hope I can make this kind of contribution.

#

Yes, I also agree (with the grandparent), and having read your thoughts about consumer marketing, I had AN IDEA (tm). Why not let an independent body do the marketing?

Instead of having a Linux standard, how about just having a Linux Distro Consumer Advice Sheet (or something). A committee could still sit and judge, it could still have 'clout' because of how it evaluates and reports, it would have expertise in Joe Wannabe and marketting and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. um<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. er<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. (new idea, not quite formed yet)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. there it is.

I think a single sheet (or short web page) with big friendly writing and short friendly words would be so helpful. It could list, summarise and compare the 'easiest' or 'safest' distros for newbies, and at the top, just list two or three 'for refugees from the dark side'. Yes it would be biased, and us geeks would hate it - but Joe Sexpic and his girlfriend Jill Sexpot might really appreciate it.

#

Users by a television with some vague idea what it does and what the options mean. Very few people buy a televison because they want 85dB gain on something or a 31db signal to noise ratio measured somewhere.

Because they don't care. And the few that do care know where to find this information. But they haven't solved the problem by reducing the number of models of televisions sold.

Choice is only choice if the user understands something about the choice they are making.

The user doesn't need to understand the choice if he doesn't care. Whether emacs comes with the foobar extension isn't important if he doesn't need the foobar extension. People don't analyze the towing capacities of pickup trucks if they aren't doing any towing.

Anything else isn't merely useless (guessing) but actually -bad- because it embarrasses the poor user who doesn't understand the funny man at the counter and feels inadequate.

The job of the salesman is to explain the different options to the customer in a way that he can understand. It's the same for people trying to encourage others to use Linux.

Explaining and evaluating the choices is the solution, not reducing them.

might make sense IFF vendors can agree WTF these phrases should mean.

Market-speak has been around for much, much longer than operating systems have. "Retsin", "Fahrvegnugen", and "Flouristat" come to mind. They are "ingredients" or "features" designed by some marketdroid to confuse the consumer, not enlighten him.

#

Why should ANY OF US care if ave.joe "groks" linux or not? He has windows, let him keep it & I'll keep my gnu/linux.

Geesz

#

Sure there are a lot of distributions. But there are only a few major, popular distributions. Most of the minor ones are for fairly restricted, specialized purposes, used mostly by those who already know what they are doing. "Beginner-Friendly" distributions, like Mandrake, Suse, Linspire, and Fedora are all good choices, and whatever small amount of confusion results form deciding on one shouldn't be a problem. If you have to, just close your eyes and pick one at random -- you'll be fine whatever your choice is.

#

You forgot Poland! Umm.. Xandros!

#

I was once a Windows user, and I've installed it on numerous machines with a myriad of different hardware setups, and I can tell you that it is never as simple as the author makes it seem.

In reality, the reason that the average joe uses Windows is because he buys a computer that has Windows preinstalled.

Anyone who has the knowledge of how to buy hardware and then install an operating system is NOT the average joe. He's an experienced user. Such a user will have no problem installing whichever flavor of Linux he prefers.

#

You are so right. Installing almost any Linux is a lot easier than installing Windows, and a lot faster. windows 2000/XP is years behind on drivers. I have to support both winderz and linux, and believe me the day I can retire all the windows boxes is the day I attain complete happiness. Not only does a windows install take twice as long, it is completely not customizable. It doesn't even scratch the surface of all the available packages that come with Linux, everything is an add-on.

I can install Linux on practically anything- the latest greatest Athlon or Intel, all the way back to a 386. (The 386 needs some careful package selection, but it works fine.) Just try that with windows- you better have some 3.1 disks hanging around.

Adding to the pain is window's insane EULA and inconsistencies between the exact same versions of windows. You better have the exact disk you installed from with each machine, or you won't be able to make repairs or add or remove optional windows components, such few as there are. If you have the misfortune of owning er licensing an OEM winduhs, you won't even have a real Windows disk, just one of those crappy "restore" disks.

Oh I won't bore you with all the other disadvantages of winblahs, you know them already. Let's just quit even trying to compare Linux with Windows, because Windows loses by a mile every time.

#

Less and less feature difference between them. Back from 6 different packing systems back to 3 tar.gz, deb and rpm.

The best live. Worst die. 2 Office programs back from 5 fighting.

Basicly time reduces number.

#

I agree. For Linux to become a mature, usable and stable enough platform, I believe that manmy of the distro communities need to join forces and have more heads working on richer, more stable, secure and usable releases.

Installation of new software is the first thing that needs to be fixed. Most users want double-click installation. Not the complex scenario that Linux currently present. That is why Linspire is probably the only distro I would recommend to non-techies as if you install from their "warehouse", it's all point and click.

I have seen some very nice distro's out there. I hope they all prosper into the above.

#

As someone who was looking at linux to try out on a P3 600 computer, I think there are too many choices. Not only among the distributions, but choices for Gnome vs. Kde.

I thought there was suppose to be come 'user linux' version that would take the best out of all the distributions. I do not see why there necessarily has to be so many, if you want to have your own version fine, but the best of each should be ported into one.

'Normal' people dont have a week to research and decide which is best for them, and unless you get to the 'average joe' you are complaining about, Linux will not ever gain more then 10% of the market. No market, no games or development by vendors.

#

Go to the Microsoft bakery to buy bread. They have white, white split top and really big white for serving lots of people. Want wheat? Nope. Want rye? Nope. Don't even think about cinammon swirl!

Go to the Microsoft building company to buy a house. There is beige or beige-a-little-bigger or big beige almost-a-hotel. Want a bungalow? Nope. Want a spanish villa? Nope. Don't even think about a mediteranian-style mansion!

The only reason why choice in a computer OS is "hard" is because people are not used to it. No one questions choice when it comes to bread or a house or a car or shirts or televisions or cell phones or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... See what I mean?

How did you find out you sometimes like rye bread? You tried it! How do you know you hate flat-roofed houses? You read about them, asked your friends about them and looked at them! How will you know if you like KDE or GNOME or Fedora or Debian better? You try it!

Don't know what to try and don't want to "waste" time installing something else? You can't go completely wrong with either KDE or GNOME and one of the more popular distros. Just try it. It only costs time.

If you were buying a camera you would spend time reading about them and handling them in the store, would you not? What if the store let you take the camera home and use it for a while. Then, just bring it back and try another if you want. Wouldn't you do that? Free Software lets you do just that! Is that so hard to wrap your brain around?

Microsoft doesn't let you try, only take what they give you and be happy because they tell you there is no other choice and they already figured it out for you. Bah!

Don't you dare eliminate my choice. If a distro wants to sell to "the people" they must earn their money educating the people that they have a choice.

#

"Microsoft..."

Not sure what having a standardized version of Linux has to do with Microsoft other than the fact that Microsoft is standardized.

Are the benefits of all this choice worth the headache for new users? I say no. However, there is solution for all: have a standardized version of Linux, and people can still continue running their own favourite distributions too.

When people goto the store to buy a battery, they want it standardized, not some unique thing that won't work with their equipment.

"Just try it. It only costs time."

Time I don't have/want to spend looking through all the distributions when the solution is easy: to have a standardized version.

As well, why is there KDE vs Gnome, someone should make a version that combines them, the best of each.

#

"However, there is solution for all: have a standardized version of Linux, and people can still continue running their own favourite distributions too."

So your proposing creating a new Linux distro?

#

"So your proposing creating a new Linux distro? "

Not new in the regular sense, but getting a coalition of people from all/most distributions to come together and make one.

Anyone can make a new one, but it is special if everyone came together to make the standard one.

#

I used Microsoft as the example because their OSes are the de-facto consumer standard. They have successfully created a culture where the public expects to be told what OS should be used and how it should look and feel.

"Are the benefits of all this choice worth the headache for new users? I say no."

Headache? Do people find it a headache to pick which camera they want? Perhaps. But nobody is running around saying there should only be one or two camera models to choose from. Choosing an OS is only "harder" than choosing a camera, for example, because MS benefits from people believing that it is hard. "Don't go looking around, it's too hard. Just use what we sell to you because we know best."

"When people goto the store to buy a battery, they want it standardized,"

Yes, but why are there so many different sizes and shapes of batteries on the rack at Walmart? Isn't that confusing? Are you saying there should only be 3 or 4, maximum, of battery sizes and shapes? And the electronic device manufacturers should design only to those few sizes? Afterall, we can't expect the consumer to know what they want. Right?

"Time I don't have/want to spend looking through all the distributions when the solution is easy: to have a standardized version."

There is a "standardized version" already. Pick one of the well known, desktop distros! That would be Fedora, SuSE or Mandrake, IMO. There is no reason to agonize. There is no disaster pending by choosing one over the other! Just pick one! No matter which one, it will just work and it will have all the standard programs to do all the normal things you want a computer for. There is no wrong choice.

"As well, why is there KDE vs Gnome, someone should make a version that combines them, the best of each."

Look at the Blue Curve theme introduced by Red Hat in their version 9 (I think)? Red Hat created a theme for GNOME and one for KDE that make the desktop look almost the same, no matter which desktop you are running. It is the default theme for Fedora even now. It has Mozilla listed as "Web Browser" in the menu along with other generic names for other applications. It is a very good attempt at the desktop unification you desire.

Fear of making the wrong choice has been instilled into people so deeply that they refuse to believe that having a choice is a good thing. Everyone wants choices in almost everything they do or buy EXECPT when it comes to a PC OS. It is an artificial fear, IMO.

#

"But nobody is running around saying there should only be one or two camera models to choose from"

And I am not saying this either, and this is a bad analogy. To use a correct camera analogy, it would be like each camera having its own version of film, flash cards, input output plug etc.

Cameras are standardized to a certain extent, thats what I want for Linux: a standard. People are free to have their own versions still, but a standard will help a lot.

"Yes, but why are there so many different sizes and shapes of batteries on the rack at Walmart?"

This analagy is bad since I look at my electronic device and it tells me what battery I need, then I buy it. With linux there there is no preinformation to that extent.

"There is no wrong choice."

Of course there is, the distributions are different enough that you'd want to pick the 'right / best one' one.

"Fear of making the wrong choice has been instilled into people so deeply that they refuse to believe that having a choice is a good thing."

Choice is ok, but what I want is some sort of standard. If I want to go try the thousand flavours later that is fine, but for now I and others want to buy one 'Linux'.

And I am pretty smart at computers, but the average person whill say 'KDE, Gnome, what the hell is that, screw it I dont have the patience to learn all this shit'. So if average joe isn't the target audience then I guess Linux's job is done, and it can stay at 5-10% of the market.

#

Cameras are not standardized. The market, after many years, has finally declared that 35mm film is the "standard." However, ask professionals what film is better and they will tell you that it depends on what you want to do. Large format film, various grades and types of film, different cameras and lenses are all out there, serving the needs they address.

Consumer cameras may follow some kind of "standard" but even they are diverse. I like Pentax. My wife will not use them because she likes Canon. "Oh, no!" you might cry, "It's a duplication of lenses and other accesories within the same family because we use differnt camera 'distributions.' What a waste. You should use the same one."

"This analagy is bad since I look at my electronic device and it tells me what battery I need, then I buy it. With linux there there is no preinformation to that extent."

Baloney! All the documentation for any Linux distro I have used is available online. That's to say nothing of web page after page that will describe the differences between distros till you are sick of reading it. Assume you want to attach a USB scanner to a computer. Would that be harder or easier with Fedora or Debian? I could find answers to that question in less than 5 minutes with a few google searches.

"the distributions are different enough that you'd want to pick the 'right / best one' one."

And how would that problem be solved by a "standardized" Linux distro? One size fits all? Not possible. What if the "standardized" one rubs me the wrong way? Eek! I will have wasted my time.

So you like the other way where I walk in the store and I get to pick Home or Professional. And one of those has to be the 'right / best one' because I have no other choice. So either one is 'right / best' by default because the best one could still stink but it is better than the only other alternative. Who wants to live like that? Oh, sorry, you want to live like that.

"Choice is ok, but what I want is some sort of standard. If I want to go try the thousand flavours later that is fine, but for now I and others want to buy one 'Linux'."

SO GO BUY ONE LINUX! You will only by one if only one is offered up as THE Linux? This is your biggest troll line yet.

"but the average person whill say 'KDE, Gnome, what the hell is that, screw it I dont have the patience to learn all this"

Learn all what?!? I use KDE as my environment because I like it. However, there are some GNOME applications that I like over functionally similar KDE applications. Guess what, I click on the GNOME app icon and IT RUNS ON MY KDE DESKTOP! Amazing isn't it! The difference is only important if you install one desktop and not the other. But all the popular distros install them both by default, you just choose which will provide the main look and feel without excluding the other applications.

There is no learning curve. Right now I have Kmail open (KDE) and gFTP open (GNOME) and Mozilla open (neither KDE nor GNOME) and I didn't have to do any configuration or wierd settings or anything else to get this. It just works. The average Joe can handle that just fine because he would never know that he is running multiple desktop libraries at the same time.

Geez, you need to shutup and go try a distro, any distro, and get rid of all your misconceptions and unfounded fear of Linux. Try Knoppix on a bootable CD. Then the only time you "waste" is booting the computer!

(I hereby dub thee "Narrow-minded, Fearful Troll" and will no longer feed you.)

#

"As well, why is there KDE vs Gnome, someone should make a version that combines them, the best of each."

And who gets to decide which feature is better in which desktop?

You? You haven't even tried either.

Me? Who am I to tell you which feature would suit *your* needs?

#

synonymous: you are commanded to immediately install the industry standard Mepis Linux. Happy computing. That will be $5

#

Synonymous, I really don't know what your problem is.

When people goto the store to buy a battery, they want it standardized, not some unique thing that won't work with their equipment.

Batteries? WTF. Does your distro go flat after a few weeks? Do you plug your distro into some kind of socket in your computer. And if you get the wrong distro it blows the fuse? Are you crazy.

Where I come from, we have many brands of batteries, each with its own selection of 'heavy duty' or 'cheap as crap', and many different shapes and voltages. I know what shape I need, I guess at the brand and I take a punt at 'heavy duty' or 'cheap as crap'. I don't argue with everyone about how there should be some "Standardised" battery. "<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. why are there AAA and D sizes? someone should just<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. "

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. why is there KDE vs Gnome, someone should<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. blah blah.

Have you ever tried Gnome or KDE? I have. Have you ever actually gotten to the point of installing (or even using) any of these millions of different distros you are talking about? I have. And you know what, on some of them KDE and Gnome even end up having the same menus and the same applications. Is that what you are talking about when you say 'someone should make a version that combines them'?

The fact is there is no real difference between any of them. And because you don't seem to realise this, it makes me think that you have never really actually used linux. Joe Shitzu was able to migrate from Windows 98 to Windows XP. So he is able to handle either Gnome or KDE or even twm, you know - if you configured it to work like MS Windows. And he can definitely handle RedHat or Fedora or Mandrake or Suse or Knoppix or Slackware (but probably not Hurd). If he asks you which one to use just pluck one out of thin air - they are all equivalent.

If you had your way, the 'Officially State Sanctioned Standard Linux for Users' would just look and feel like Windows and run the same applications. But here's a dilemma for you - Which version of Windows? 98? XP? Longhorn?
Gee, it's all too confusing for me. Think I'll stick with DOS (That's AmigaDOS)

#

[quote]I thought there was suppose to be come 'user linux' version that would take the best out of all the distributions. I do not see why there necessarily has to be so many, if you want to have your own version fine, but the best of each should be ported into one.
[/quote]
I want the best, why doesn't somebody just pack the best and sell it as "newuser friendly linux"? => best is relative!
It would be wise to read before posting what you wrote, becuase your post is contradicting itself and thus making no sense/point.

#

"best is relative!"

Its not so hard, each distribution has its bad points and good points. You take the good out of each and put it into one.

#

Define good? You expect someone to:

- Decide what is good and bad in such a way that matches your definition of good and bad, without knowing you or any input or description from you.
- Package up the good because, for some reason, they want to do all that work for you.
- Make sure you are aware of this wonderful goodness distro but eliminating all the others and somehow advertizing or getting the word out in a venue where you will see it.
- Convince you that this really is only the good stuff and none of the bad (which would be very hard since you seemingly think what is already out there will have enough "bad" in it to waste your time.)

But, hey, that's not so hard, is it!

#

"Its not so hard, each distribution has its bad points and good points. You take the good out of each and put it into one."

Wow, Synonymous, you have had an idea that no-one ever thought of before. I wonder why all those other distributions that sell hundreds of thousands of copies a year never thought of that. "Just take the good out of each and put it into one." Wow. RedHat would be much more popular if it stopped putting all that bad stuff in. And same with Suse. And come to think of it, Mandrake would be so much better if it just stuck with the good stuff. Gee, even Gentoo would be better if it was just standardised a little bit. Or Debian, now Debian would definitely benefit from losing all that crazy bad stuff - it would be so much more stable and y'know.

Well, looks like you are all set up to get a band of like-minded people together and change the world. You are lucky you are doing it in an Open Source environment, cause you would have buckley's (that means 'no hope') of doing it under MicroSoft.

PS. I appologise most sincerely if I am being a little harsh on you and your wonderul idea. It's just that this kind of thinking is ill-informed. I find it a bit hard to explain to you (see some of my other posts) but somehow you come across like someone who has a bit of knowledge but no experience. Come on Sysnonymous, stop complaining and just jump in. The water's fine.

#

Ignoring the fact that "choice" is not "freedom", there's a lot less real and significant choice in Linux than the ranters will acknowledge.

The truth of the matter is that every Linux distribution draws from the same pool of software. KDE, Gnome, emacs, vi, vim, whatever...they're all the same on every distribution.

Distributions do offer limited choices in installation routines and packaging schemes, with almost all adopting a variation of two or three popular approaches. Ditto for dependency resolvers, which are really less of a Good Thing and more of a bandage covering a glaring problem.

Unless the only thing you do with Linux is install it and download new software, then these "choices" are not important. Rational people want an OS that stays put for months and years once they intall it.

#

"Rational people want an OS that stays put for months and years once they intall it."

Why? I maintain a test network, and constantly install new distros. That makes me not rational?

On my main workstation my homedir is on a separate server, so I install and remove distros often, because I like to see what's out there, and what they have to offer. Does this make me not rational?

I have some servers that are stable, and that get only security patches and well-tested feature updates. I guess that makes me one-third rational.

#

You're response is sadly typical: projecting your behavior on the world. You test distros. So what? Do you think the rest of us use Linux just so we can test it? Some of us actually use it.

#

"Unless the only thing you do with Linux is install it and download new software"

Well, I guess I'm really glad that testing Linux distributions is my job. Whenever I see anyone suggesting that there are too many distros I cringe, because if there were fewer I'd have to go out and get a real job instead of sitting around all day telling the n00bs what distro to run.

#

Obviously, if your job, or your hobby, is testing Linux distributions, then you actually do spend all your time downloading and installing software. Are you suggesting that every computer user does the same?

Are you denying that the contents and behavior of every Linux distribution, apart from the minor features I noted, are equivalent?

#

Where do you come up with this stuff? Other people? Who is talking about other people? He said "Unless your job is installing software." Mine is. Me. That'd be who I was talking about. I'm well aware that others might have a different life, which is why my job even exists. I make it easier for them to decide.

#

"...and proceeds to do a simple installation." Just what percentage of desktop PC users actually go out and *buy* a copy of Windows from a retail store (or online Web site) ? I'd bet it's in the 1-2% range at most, making this article virtually irrelevant, because yet again, it comes down to what gets shipped with the PC when you buy it. This is the crucial question that's utterly ignored by this article - the OEM stranglehold MS still seems to have, even after all the DoJ palaver a few years back.

Until a major PC OEM dares to ship Linux pre-loaded as an option in the same config screen where you are buying the Windows XP version (i.e. not a separate model number and not buried miles away on a remote part of the OEM's web site), then users will always have to hunt down a Linux distro and take a gamble that all the hardware on their PC will work (this situation is even worse with laptops of course). Of course, $50 less for the Linux version would be nice, but I'd settle for it just being a radio button option at the same price as an XP version for a start.

Note that folks like Dell *do* do this, but only - bizarrely - on their PowerEdge server range (and you can even order a PowerEdge with no OS at all and save even more money - it would be great if I could buy a Dell desktop PC with no OS !!). Until the OEMs sort their act out on the desktop front and actually offer Linux pre-installed, it'll always be marginalised on the desktop.

#

In reading all the talkbacks I've noticed that one central aspect of choice has been neglected in the discussion:
Not all choices are the same.
Deceptively simple concept, isn't it? Some real world examples will help illustrate my point: Whether or not to take sugar in your coffee is a choice. Whether or not to undergo chemotherapy is also a choice. Clearly, these choices are not anything alike in terms of their impact on the chooser.

The problem here in the Linux world is not so much a question of choice as it is a matter of communication. I have converted a number of casual computer users over to Linux. One thing that stands out my memory is this: When then person that is new to Linux starts to get overwelmed by the range of available choices in a Linux distro, I ease their apprehension by giving them one little tip: THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHOICES IN LINUX ARE MATTERS OF TASTE.

To a new user, the presence of so much choice can be interpreted as the obligation to choose. But what basis does a new user have on which to make such choices? The answer is that they have none at all. The deeper insight is that most choices need not be made on a rational, logical foundation. Choose Gnome because you think the icons are pretty, choose Konqueror because you think the name is cute. All are good choices.

One thing to remember is that even though most people are not trained economists, they do have an economic sense in their gut. People are aware of the concept of opportunity cost (even if they don't know it by that name). In the proprietary software world, choosing a Mac means NOT choosing a Windows box. Choosing WordPerfect Office means NOT choosing Microsoft Office. Every choice that is made comes with consequences in the form of choices that can no longer be made (without incurring additional cost). Their are very, very, few analogs to this circumstance in the Free Software world.

Free Software is like a buffet, you can consume as much (or as little) in quantity and in variety as you want and when the check comes, the charges are still only $0.00.

#

" Every choice that is made comes with consequences in the form of choices that can no longer be made (without incurring additional cost). Their are very, very, few analogs to this circumstance in the Free Software world."

I like your economics talk, but this is wrong. There are opportunity costs to Free Software, and huge ones too: That of my time. If I install Debian that means I forgo learning the other 999 distributions. If I find out debian isnt good for me, then that time is flushed down the toilet.

What happened to Perren's 'User Linux' version? User Linux sounds excellent, esp. if he can get ppl from the majority of distributions to come together and bring the best of each into it.

#

"If I find out debian isnt good for me, then that time is flushed down the toilet."

From this message and your other postings in this discussion, I conclude the following about you:

1. You never try anything new because you might not like it so you don't want to risk wasting your time.

2. You cannot apply knowledge learned in one enviornment to extremely similar new environments.

3. You like to be told what to think and how to think.

4. You depend on "experts" like salesmen, marketing people, punduts and others reaching into your wallet to know what is best for you.

5. Unless all the Linux distros ignore their diversity and stop attempting do differentiate themselves to carve out their piece of Linux customers, you will not be happy.

6. Choices are bad because they actually cause you to think and even understand something about your selections. You like Henry Ford's saying that they can have a car of any color they want as long as it is black. You like it when someone provides no choices because it makes live simple.

7. You would rather pay for licences to proprietary software, supporting a monopoly and a homogenous technology infrastructure than try something new.

8. You would rather continue blathering on about how freedom of choice is bad and is holding Linux back than notice that competition and diversity is a sign of a healthy ecosystem.

9. You always buy the same color shirts.

If none of the above are true, you are, at least, a closed minded fool that refuses to live computer life on your own terms.

I am done with you. Go live in your bland, homogonized world of non-risk.

#

And from your post I conclude that you are:

1. Wrong

Why? Because very simply put, he was right. Installing Debian if you really want Fedora is a waste of time. Yes, you learn something - noone was disputing that. But at the same time, there are many people out there whose job is not to learn about Linux - it is to work. And to work, they need a working system. Thus, the install time is a waste to them.

#

So, you also purchase a new car without taking the time to test drive it? Afterall, if you don't like it, a test drive is a waste of time!

You and Synonymous complete miss the main point a flaw in your argument, which is this:

IF there was a "standardized" version of Linux (meeting your definition of "standardized") there is still absolutely no guarentee that it will match your needs. None. Nada. Zip. Therefore, it is highly possible that installing the "standardized" version would still be "a waste of time" as you put it.

A "standardized" distro does not solve the problem that you seem to think is so important. You guys want someone to guarentee that the OS you install will fit your needs. MS Windows cannot guarentee that but you want Linux to? Noone but you is qualified to know what fits your needs and expecting Red Hat or Debian or Joe's Distro or Microsoft to read your mind is an unreasonable expectation.

In short, your argument is FUD.

Let's compare 3 of the most popular desktop-centric distros: Fedora, SuSE and Mandrake.
- KDE and GNOME both included and can run at the same time.
- OpenOffice.org application suite included.
- Mozilla included.
- Various other browsers included.
- Various email clients included.
- GIMP and other drawing applications included.
- apt, yum or other easy package management either included or installable.

Any of the above would match and be very usable for just about any Joe Average. My wife and kids use Fedora with very little interaction from me, for example. This is why the your argument is FUD. Installing any one of these will result in a system that "just works" and is very easily maintainable and will not be a "waste of time."

The "standardized" version you want, that you think will match your needs and not be a "waste of time," already exists! Just install it!

#

What the bloody hell are you going on about? Standardized distro? I never mentioned anything of the sort!

For the love of God, man, its a pretty simple fact to see that installing Debian if you want Fedora is a WASTE OF TIME. I don't care what kind of argument you want to make for having a standardized distro or whatever it is you are going on about. The simple fact is that it is a waste of time for someone to install a distribution they don't need.

Also, your analogy to me not test-driving the car is complete crap. Think about it. Why would I test-drive a Honda if I was going to buy a Ford? I might as well, after all its all the same: They both have gas, brakes, gears, clutch, heat, air conditioning, etc. They must therefor be the same cars! No, wait... thats bad logic, just like you used.

#

THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHOICES IN LINUX ARE MATTERS OF TASTE

That is a gem!

I think I have just discovered the perfect sig.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHOICES IN LINUX ARE MATTERS OF TASTE

#

Yeah, choice is good, but his not disputing that. People seem to be glossing over the whole point to the article of the LSB. True, LSB has a way to go yet, but at least it's going somewhere. Personally, I lay a lot of blame on different packaging systems and look forward to the full release of autopackage, for distro-neutral packaging.

autopackage.org

#

at first I thought you were talking about linux projects, not distros. The first time user should be smart enough to see which ones are the main stream.

I'd suggest Vectorlinux, slackware, MEPIS, or suse.
I would be suggest mandrake, but its sys requirements are a lot bigger now, it has a lot of fat.

Which brings to mind something else. people who often write these articles seem to think that you can just come up to the developers of a project and say "hey I have some cool changes I can implement."
99 times out of 100, they'll laugh at you and tell you to piss off. look at xfree86, they wont even allow needed changes, they want to stay at "classic" mode. So most people are left with no other choice then to use that design and improve on it by branching off and starting a new project, same for distros, except some people dont take distros and redo them, some rebuild them from scratch.

Now, What's honestly needed for someone like Joe Sixpack, is a system that is lean, fast, and friendly, and also secure. you need something that takes 5 to 10 seconds(well, at least less than 15) to boot on the average PC after the bios boots up.

#

Let's face the fact that there is never going to be a "user-friendly" OS (or windowing system if you so desire to think about it). No matter if it is a linux-based disto or Windows or OSX people still have to learn to use it. It is the amount of learning that some has to do to be able to use the computer effectivly and efficiently that is the problem. Right now linux-based distros, no matter if you are running KDE or JDS or Gnome, have a higher learning curve for Joe Sixpack than Windows and OSX.

There are two different standards that people keep getting confused: standards on developer api and standards on the look-and-feel of the desktop programs that people use.

#

Quoting chromatic:

<< If "too many choices" of applications in the typical Linux distribution is really keeping people on Windows, why aren't there more people starving to death in the cereal aisles of grocery stores? >>

#

The natural disadvantage of having too many choices is a neccesary evil for open source. Yes, your main competition is able to just shove things down peoples' throats. You have to realize that your main advantage is that you are not like your main competition.

I've seen more then one business make the radical mistake of thinking they can be successful by acting like their larger competitor.

#

Serious flaws of logic in this one.

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...let's compare two users, Abe and Bret, who have purchased hardware and seek to install an OS. Abe buys a copy of Windows and proceeds to do a simple installation.

Which Windows? XP Home? XP Professional? 2000 Professional? Server 2000? Server 2003 (pick your flavor - Enterprise, Small Business, or Web Edition)?

When it finishes, he has a working setup, just like every other Windows user in the world. His out-of-box (OOB) experience with the OS includes the most basic tools he needs, and lets him install additional software for his specific needs. These he chooses after due research or based on peer input.

I will assume that the machine didn't hang during the install, and that the hardware Abe chose was all recognized properly. To save a few dollars, Abe went with XP Home, but when he goes off to college, finds that he can't join the campus Active Directory network. Oops. Time for another trip to the store.

Before he can begin, however, he must decide which distribution. Fedora? Debian? Mandrake? Gentoo? Xandros? Bret is, understandably, in a quandary. He spends considerable time scrounging around for information -- browsing forums, asking for opinions, visiting distro Web sites.

Interesting. Abe's activity is the sensible-sounding "due research" with "peer input," but Bret is wasting his time "scrounging around." And why should Bret be in a quandary? All of the distributions mentioned, with the possible exception of Gentoo, should be simple to install and offer the functionality he seeks. If it doesn't work out for some reason, a different distribution is only a download or a few dollars away. His first choice isn't a "'til death do us part" decision.

Unlike Windows, it is not enough just to choose Linux. One must choose which Linux. An average user, when confronted with more than a thousand distributions (or even just the 10 most popular) and asked to make a choice at the very outset will, in all probability, take the easier route and stick with Windows...

See above - you do indeed have to choose which Windows. Of course, most systems come pre-installed, so this choice is made for you. Bret can do the same thing if he buys from walmart.com, Monarch, Pogo Linux, etc. And you still haven't explained why Bret needs to select his ideal distribution match on the first try.

Vance

#

I'm all for LSB and some of the other "under the hood" standards. I don't even mind if there are lots of package types. What I want is for the package manager systems to become interchangeable. If I download and install an RPM and then a DEB it shouldn't matter to my package manager. Better yet, I should be able to run some kind of "audit" tool when I switch package managers and it provides info to the new one, even if I use a mix of package types.

#

It's evolution, the best will survive and will be made stronger by borrowing good ideas from the competition. Cutting off the race is the equivalent of someone around the dawn of time saying, "That fish with legs and lungs is good enough, we can stop there", and mankind go unborn. WE NEED MORE IDEAS AND MORE DISTROS! This is our growth process and the revolution will be blogged. The death of M$ is merely a side effect and not a goal of any kind. All we really want is our own personal UNIX on a pc and nobody but some reactionary press junkies who think a war makes good copy give a hoot if your mom wants one or not.

#