Linux.com

Do we ever question Linux?

Link to this post 15 May 09

vtel57 wrote:

GNU/Linux will experience a bit of Darwin's natural selection. The strong will survive. The weak will lose community support and fall by the wayside.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Let people experiment, and natural selection will do its work.

Link to this post 15 May 09

Alexander wrote:

Instead of getting to “the right answer” or a conclution right now, let’s rather discuss the pros and cons about for instance having one software package format. Should the Linux Standard Base/The Linux Foundation standardize one?

afaik they already have, rpm. While one package system does have pros , their are also downsides to this.

This [i]might[/i] seem scary, but remember that you’re already used to having one choice of certain components in Linux. There’s only one kernel and–as far as I know, only one X system (I don’t really consider rare forks, obsolete, outdated versions and such, as alternatives).

As far as one choice goes this is not entirely true. Linux is the Kernel , everything else built on top of that are/is "software", "applications", or "daemons". The derivation of thisis left to the distributions , they roll out their version on how they want to "package" it

do you mean subsystem or desktops that build on top of that.?
xorg, XFree86, gnome, kde could all be considered X systems.

Another question, is the command line mode needed in 2009? Can the powerful grep, pipe, less‐stuff be replaced by a snappy file manager with some filtered views? And why can’t Linux have a nice and smooth startup screen like Windows and OS X?

Maybe plugins/extensions for the different file managers could be implementated but in the end dont take the cli away , why alienate? The cli is powerful , and much needed. Also many different kinds of shells out their. Bash is just the most widely implementated. Startup screens are just eye candy in my opinion, their are programs out their that do exactly this. In the end though every distro basically does their own thing.

Why are there folders named [i]usr[/i], [i]dev[/i] and [i]etc[/i] in the file system? usr sounds like user, but it means [i]Unix System Resources[/i]. dev could for a newcomer be mistaken for [i]developer[/i], etc sounds more like [i]et cetera[/i] than settings etc. Aren’t [i]Users[/i], [i]Settings[/i] and [i]Applications[/i] more descriptive?

lsb standardized this a long time ago. Although certain distros use different ways of installing their packages . /usr/bin /usr/local/bin (as an example)

While these are some very good questions and critic , dont forget linux is about choice. I agree some things could make the "Desktop" better (because I will leave servers, appliances, and embedded stuff out of this) Even if lsb came with new set of standards the key distros would all have to follow it and want to work together (Ill just talk about packaging efforts here). I dont even want to know the time it would take to totally redo portage to rpm , or have canonical change to rpm. (isnt their already some kind of system for this though deb to rpm ? ) It just boils down to getting all the big dogs at one table and putting aside differences doing it, instead of having them all think that there way is best I guess, time will tell. Also lets please not try to make linux more like windows , they are 2 different OS's. I agree as far as functions go , should work across the whole spectrum , but if I like certain features of one OS more than another then I use that OS be it linux, unix, mac, windows whatever.

Link to this post 15 May 09

[quote]Another question, is the command line mode needed in 2009? Can the powerful grep, pipe, less‐stuff be replaced by a snappy file manager with some filtered views? And why can’t Linux have a nice and smooth startup screen like Windows and OS X?

Maybe plugins/extensions for the different file managers could be implementated but in the end dont take the cli away , why alienate? The cli is powerful , and much needed. Also many different kinds of shells out their. Bash is just the most widely implementated. Startup screens are just eye candy in my opinion, their are programs out their that do exactly this. In the end though every distro basically does their own thing.[/quote]

You are so not going to take my cli away. I do not need the eye-candy. The only thing eye-candy is useful for me is showing my friends how cool a desktop can be when you are free. I prefer going small and learning cli tools. Why would I need a fancy graphical interface for music player? Irc?

Link to this post 15 May 09

"like windows...."
well, the menu bar is unavoidably so, else we risk alienating linux from new users.
but that's where it ends for me.

command line?
unavoidable. in any os. any power user knows
it is too powerful of an asset.

standards <> exact sameness
nvidia and ati both implement radically differently in linux, but each is capable of stunning video performance
fluxbox, kde, gnome - get to the same point, sorta, but also are quite different in look, feel, and to a point, functionality
live cd - many distros, one goal - try before you, er, buy
so... standardization does not mean exact sameness

Link to this post 16 May 09

As an end user the fragmentation can be overwhelming, but I don't think that the entire answer is to try to standardize everything. The cli is still a very powerful tool to interface with the system and isn't something that should be done away with. In fact in Win7 M$ is adding more functionality to try to bring the windows shell up to par with the Linux cli. I think more attn needs to be focused on getting more user friendly interfaces for basic things like audio etc. (Especially audio considering how basic it is to a desktop experience and how horribly broken it can be) before we try to standardize everything

Link to this post 16 May 09

Wow. Thanks for all the responses! You rock! B)

I do like the Darwin comparison. The web also comes to mind.

While it’s fragmented, there are some websites that are more popular than others; and some are first choices for many of us for searching (Google), communicating (Facebook, Twitter), general knownledge (Wikipedia) and videos (YouTube).

While we love these sites, we wouldn’t feel comfortable about someone above deciding that Google should be the standard search engine of the Internet. While it wouldn’t prevent other search engines from existing, it doesn’t encourage competition, which hurts innovation.

Let’s go back to the package manager and the discussion about standardizing. I don’t know all there is to know about them, but at least I know that there’s a difference between a package manager and its package format–or an application and its data, to use more general terms.

It seems to me that package managers share the same goal; to manage packages–or–to manage software. Installation, removal and updating of software. Just like web browsers are different, I think it’s cool that package mangers do the implementation a bit different—but wouldn’t it make life in Linux‐land five hundred percent easier if we all agreed upon a single package format?

Maintainers wouldn’t have to exist, and time could be better spent figuring out how to distribute packages in more effective ways, such as BitTorrent. What do you think?

Who we are ?

The Linux Foundation is a non-profit consortium dedicated to the growth of Linux.

More About the foundation...

Frequent Questions

Join / Linux Training / Board