Do we ever question Linux?
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‚Äôve scared away more than half of the viewers‚Ä¶
I wish that the Linux community‚Äìthe developers and the end users‚Äìwould spend more time asking simple questions, get some interesting discussions going‚Äîand to challenge what is considered to be the hard facts in Linux‚Äêland.
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?
This might 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 There‚Äôs only one kernel and‚Äìas far as I know, only one X system (I don‚Äôt really consider rare forks, obsolete, outdated versions and such, as alternatives).
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?
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‚Äôt Users, Settings and Applications more descriptive?
So these are the kind of questions that I wish there would be more discussions about.