Linux.com

Alexander

Alexander

  • Guest
  • Posts: 2
  • Member Since: 14 May 09
  • Last Logged In: 14 Feb 10

Latest Posts

Posted by
Topic
Post Preview
Posted
  • Alexander
    RE: Do we ever question Linux?
    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?
    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?

  • Alexander
    Do we ever question Linux?
    An almost randomly‐chosen, wise quote: [quote]It takes a lot of courage to release the familiar and seemingly secure, to embrace the new. But there is no real security in what is no longer meaningful. There is more security in the adventurous and exciting, for in movement there is life, and in change there is power.[/quote] And now that I’ve scared away more than half of the viewers… I wish that the Linux community–the developers and the end users–would spend more time asking simple questions, get some interesting discussions going—and to challenge what is considered to be the hard facts in Linux‐land. 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? 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). 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? 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? So these are the kind of questions that I wish there would be more discussions about. Discuss!
    Link to this post 15 May 09

    An almost randomly‚Äêchosen, wise quote:

    It takes a lot of courage to release the familiar and seemingly secure, to embrace the new. But there is no real security in what is no longer meaningful. There is more security in the adventurous and exciting, for in movement there is life, and in change there is power.

    And now that I’ve scared away more than half of the viewers…

    I wish that the Linux community–the developers and the end users–would spend more time asking simple questions, get some interesting discussions going—and to challenge what is considered to be the hard facts in Linux‐land.

    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?

    This might 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).

    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?

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

    So these are the kind of questions that I wish there would be more discussions about.

    Discuss!

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