Mindless tripe
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| montezuma May 05, 2008 6:31 AM EDT |
The point about open source is that standardization in the sense moronically suggested here is impossible. As soon as some people are dissatisfied with the "monolithic" standard they fork the source code. Not going to happen so why even discuss it? These arguments are dated. They belong to a proprietary world. |
| Bob_Robertson May 05, 2008 6:46 AM EDT |
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990301 Dated, indeed. Here's a favorite date. |
| bigg May 05, 2008 6:50 AM EDT |
I do agree with getting rid of the foolish duplication of software packaging efforts. I can only imagine how many thousands of hours are wasted packaging the same software for dozens (hundreds?) of distros. But that can be fixed without standardizing on a single distro. |
| Bob_Robertson May 05, 2008 7:12 AM EDT |
> But that can be fixed without standardizing on a single distro. Linux Standard Base. For example, the VirtualBox.Linux.i386.1.6.0.run installs just fine. No distribution issues. |
| zenarcher May 05, 2008 7:30 AM EDT |
It doesn't take much imagination to figure out that if there was a single distro, it would probably be Ubuntu, considering the popularity. It would follow, in that case that the single desktop would be GNOME. I'm pretty thankful this isn't the case. Ubuntu has never worked for me and I'm not a GNOME fan, either. I moved from Windows to Linux, because I like the choices I have....both distros and desktops. If I were restricted to a single distro and desktop, I'd be leaving Linux and looking for something else, where I could once again have choices. I agree, there are different and better ways to resolve the duplicated packaging efforts, which would have merit. But, a single Linux distro? Not for me!!! |
| bigg May 05, 2008 7:39 AM EDT |
Another approach that I've played around with before, but gets no publicity, is a rootless Gobolinux installation. You just run a script and it sets up directories in your home directory for installing and/or compiling Gobolinux software. You can then install any Gobolinux package or use their compiling recipes. There are two advantages to this. First, it makes packages portable - you can install the same binary package on any distro without modification. Second, the Gobolinux approach allows you to install two versions of the same package with no issues. I installed two versions of OOo trivially using the rootless installation. Mind you, nobody's ever heard of Gobolinux, but if their work would get attention from more developers it would solve some of the obstacles to Linux adoption. This is also done independently of the distros themselves, which is not true of LSB. |
| azerthoth May 05, 2008 8:28 AM EDT |
Quoting:I do agree with getting rid of the foolish duplication of software packaging efforts. I can only imagine how many thousands of hours are wasted packaging the same software for dozens (hundreds?) of distros. There is already a single point of installation for software that is cross platform, source. The main focus of package management is so people dont freak out at CLI and dependency resolution, with dependency resolution the motivating factor. I used to swear by apt until I truly got my feet wet with source installs, now I cant imagine any other way as being superior with the fine grained control I have doing source installs. Also for those who didn't notice, the article was actually against a unified single Linux. |
| thenixedreport May 05, 2008 10:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:Mind you, nobody's ever heard of Gobolinux, but if their work would get attention from more developers it would solve some of the obstacles to Linux adoption. This is also done independently of the distros themselves, which is not true of LSB. Oh, I have heard of them. I even visited their website. I believe it was during Tux500 in which I was trying to solicit every distro listed in the top 100 on DistroWatch. lol |
| montezuma May 05, 2008 11:58 AM EDT |
> Also for those who didn't notice, the article was actually against a unified single Linux. I did. So standardization is just a silly strawman to knock down. |
| rijelkentaurus May 05, 2008 1:25 PM EDT |
Quoting: It doesn't take much imagination to figure out that if there was a single distro, it would probably be Ubuntu, considering the popularity. I think the billions of $$ at Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva and Oracle would have something much different to say about that. Quoting: It would follow, in that case that the single desktop would be GNOME. No, because GNOME sucks. There. I said it. Okay? ;^P Flame on!! |
| Bob_Robertson May 05, 2008 1:31 PM EDT |
> because GNOME sucks. You're expecting an argument? "That's not an argument, it's just contradiction!" |
| zenarcher May 05, 2008 2:22 PM EDT |
I'm neither a GNOME user nor an Ubuntu user....I made the comment because if I recall correctly, GNOME is the default desktop with Ubuntu, while KDE is the default with Kubuntu. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected. I also believe I've read that Ubuntu is more GNOME oriented. Since I've never had a satisfactory install, I couldn't say from experience. Likewise, I'm sure other major distros would have something to say about a single distro. My own personal preference is Mandriva, although I've used others. |
| jdixon May 05, 2008 2:40 PM EDT |
> GNOME is the default desktop with Ubuntu...If I'm wrong... No. You are correct. |
| Bob_Robertson May 05, 2008 3:10 PM EDT |
Well, GNOME is the default for Debian, so it makes sense. The Debian install CD#1 doesn't _say_ GNOME, but it installs GNOME if you just tell it "desktop". There are KDE and XFCE specific CD#1s as well, which specify KDE and XFCE. |
| bigg May 05, 2008 3:57 PM EDT |
@azerthoth: > There is already a single point of installation for software that is cross platform, source. The main focus of package management is so people dont freak out at CLI and dependency resolution, with dependency resolution the motivating factor. Actually Gobolinux is primarily a source distro at this point. It doesn't matter if you prefer source or binary, Gobolinux works either way. They originally started a port of Portage but then put together Compile, which is a "poor man's Portage" because it doesn't have all the features. Aside from the time it takes to compile (particularly with a dozen dependencies), compiling can be a whole lot of work. You still have to figure out how to compile your software on each individual distro. The advantage of the rootless Gobo install I discussed above is that you could have a portage-type system on Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, PCLinuxOS, or any distro you choose. Compile recipes are exactly the same and binary packages are exactly the same. The system is currently not perfect (due to lack of developers), but the important thing is that it is distro-neutral. |
| azerthoth May 05, 2008 5:19 PM EDT |
bigg I'll take a look at that, rootless looks very interesting indeed. I was looking for something to play with this weekend anyway. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!