Instead of getting to ‚Äúthe right answer‚Äù or a conclution right now, let‚Äôs 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‚Äôre already used to having one choice of certain components in Linux. There‚Äôs only one kernel and‚Äìas far as I know, only one X system (I don‚Äôt really consider rare forks, obsolete, outdated versions and such, as alternatives).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‚Äêstuff be replaced by a snappy file manager with some filtered views? And why can‚Äôt 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‚Äôt [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.