Open Ballot: is Graham Morrison wrong?

Gifts in the box

PenguinPoop (not verified) - October 4, 2010 @ 4:30pm

Yes, Graham Morrison wrote something childishly simplistic and got his pants flamed, for the reason that his comments detract from the quality of available Linux offerings.

His main example, Shotwell, is like the figurine in the cereal box - nice to have, if you like that kind of thing, but not why you choose that brand of cereal. The alternative - whatever of the wealth of photography applications happens to be his chosen alternative - is still a mouse-click or a single command away in the package manager. There are very, very few applications removed from circulation - if you used it within the last twenty years, then it is probably still available.

The fact of increasing choice need never detract from choosing, installing and using the most appropriate package, or the package to which you are most attached. Most distributions of Linux ship in a pretty good functional state, and simple to configure to your own needs.

... Assuming you know your own needs, which is my guess of why Mr Morrison is suffering from such confusion.

Choice is a two-edged sword

BobTheLinuxHacker (not verified) - October 4, 2010 @ 4:48pm

Hmm, my summary of this would go "A choice of a single app to do something is restrictive, 5 apps is good, but 50+ is just plain stupid". And at the moment, the progress that Linux could be making is being held back more by the spread of distros than that of apps. (imho of course)

Yes, there is a lot of wasted effort duplicating features in a spate of NIHishness for example - echoing Graham's favourite hobby horse - why the heck do we need any package format other than RPM or DEB? The next person to invent yet-another-package-toolset needs a damn hard slap!! On the other hand, the package nirvana of a single toolset/format is NEVER going to happen - heck, even Windows can't manage it (MSI v's InstallShield v's etc).

And I've got another example to go along with Graham's Fedora/Shotwell/FSpot one. Ubuntu replaced gqview with geegie - why? The latter takes more resources; does the same job; but crashes more often than the former. It's provably a worse app, but you've got to be quite sneaky to get "good old" gqview back.

Personally I think we need a software meritocracy - apps regarded globally as "good" survive and thrive, whereas the geegie of this world die.

Actually no, on second thoughts, the "big name" distro's should do this (yes, I'm talking about you Ubuntu and Fedora), but I've no problems with the Arch, Gentoo, etc putting any kind of app in there - because the folks they're targetted at are going to be the ones that'll quite happily patch and/or download the bleeding edge build from SVN.

I remember saying this once already

timon37 (not verified) - October 4, 2010 @ 5:15pm

The package manager is irrelevant, a distro is created by the packages themselves, the way they are configured, and the versions used. You can install any package in any distro and it can sometimes work or it can fail miserably since it was compiled against different versions of other software, or differently configured. So what you're asking for is not a single package manager, it's a goddamn single distro. And for the most part you already have that, just use ubuntu and stfu;p I like my gentoo and debian, both serve me very well and just because you want a single distro that has one perfect application for each task (just for you since different people have different needs) doesn't mean everyone else should stop developing for their needs.

Graham is...

Huw - October 4, 2010 @ 5:56pm

...a beautiful specimen of Humanity and cannot possibly be wrong about anything.

Poorly made, but a good point is a good point

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 4, 2010 @ 5:58pm

Here we have a person who is willing to stick his neck on the line and tell us what he thinks. The fact that we are prepared to give him a hard time for doing so is despicable.

On the point itself, I believe that the Linux Foundation and the Linux Standards base should do a lot more to standarise the key parts of the OS. Yes, let's keep our myriad of choice for those who want it, but surely it would be better for those of use who want to get things done to have a unified face for Linux. So yes, I do agree with Graham Morrison

Yes... always

Eponymous Penguin (not verified) - October 4, 2010 @ 6:29pm

...but Mike is never wrong!

Everyone is wrong

bobthebob1234 (not verified) - October 4, 2010 @ 6:48pm

and everyone is right

'Are you intimidated by the breakfast cereal aisle in his supermarket' - no, however when all the breakfast cereals are hidden all over the place and require you to have different bowls, then yes.

For a new comer to linux, who has just been introduced to linux then yes the huge choice and different ways of doing things is realllllllllly bad. Its like being buried in breakfast cereal, quite scary.

However when you have dug your way though the cereal and found the one you like, then all is good, and you often don't care how other distros do things and you stick with what you know.

However when you climb a bit more up the linux knowledge ladder and start to experiment with different distros, it can be confusing to start with, but then you get used to the annoyance and get on with things. and possibly moan a little.

So all the choice at the beginning is bad from the new users point of view, however after a while (most) will come to love the differences.

So Graham isn't wrong, and neither is Caitlyn.
Unless Mike agrees with one. Then they are wrong.
Mike is always wrong.

More choices will win out in the long run

Ed Vim (not verified) - October 4, 2010 @ 7:19pm

I can see there are valid points with that 'too many distros' argument but taking all the good and bad aspects into consideration I still think more is better than less. There's never going to be an absolute winner in this argument, both options have varying and evolving strengths and weaknesses. I tend to see diversity as being a primary factor in breeding inspiration, experimentation, innovation, and competition. Monocultural thinking is more often than not the antithesis of that. Yes there are a confusing number of Linux distros, but there's an overwhelming amount of good and bad information out there, along with a huge mix of bias and balanced opinions, plus the FUD that corporations like Microsoft seed the media with. Researching which distro that will suit someone's needs shouldn't be such a mess that it is, but that's the problem, NOT the fact that there are numerous options to choose from. Restricting the number of Linux distros may look good as a superficial fix but I can't see that as being a viable solution to the actual problem. A basic search on any topic online can turn up an overwhelming amount of information and sources, and I don't think blaming the number of Linux distros is valid -- even a new computer user thinking about either one of two choices, Windows or OS X, has to sort through an overwhelming amount of FUD by the fans of each.
So I think the assortment of Linux distributions is a great thing, providing the public with good information is a more realistic matter that needs to be addressed.

Make your first choice...

Rhakios - October 4, 2010 @ 8:02pm

... and the rest follow. Say you pick Ubuntu, that means you'll get GNOME, debs, etc. If you went for Kubuntu, it's KDE and debs. No other choices are necessary. Pick Mandriva and it's KDE and rpms. Well supported distros offer a wide variety of packages, so you'll likely find the package you want in a native format and not have to worry about using Alien with debs on Mandriva or rpms with Ubuntu.
Now, one can get a lot more sophisticated in one's choices and pick other desktop environments than the standard, but that's pretty much true of other OSes, there are alternative desktop shells for Windows and a good many installers for software, some of which won't work across all varieties of Windows.
There are alternative application menus for OSX and different package formats there too, but I don't recall OSX and Windows users complaining about choice.

What Linux could do with is a more rigid set of standards, so that those who want to make non-standard choices can do so more easily.

Choice is good

rattus (not verified) - October 4, 2010 @ 8:40pm

I wouldn't like to be stuck with Gnome or KDE desktop/window managers.

Graham is correct

Al (not verified) - October 4, 2010 @ 9:20pm

... in principle at least.

Having dabbled with Debian many years ago & decided it was not usable as a desktop operating system I have returned to Linux over the past 12 months, using Ubuntu exclusively since May for running my business plus all home use & streaming media etc...

The biggest problem I had was the vast choice of applications for any particular task with no real guidance available as to which would suit me the best. Following the links in the package manager sometimes lead to a fantastic website full of useful information. After the application was installed it would become apparent that all the effort had gone into the website & little into the application itself. The opposite was also sometimes true.

Although I welcome choice, some sort of ranking system would be helpful.

Standardising on file system locations and packages (doesn't really matter which ones although I personally prefer .deb) would also help.

And before I get flamed for using Ubuntu I use it because the computers have a job to do. I do enjoy (and am quite capable of) tinkering with the system to get it working but Ubuntu does mostly just work.

timon37, I really see no

Reverend Jack Howell (not verified) - October 4, 2010 @ 10:07pm

timon37, I really see no reason for the use of profanity in your response.

Clean-up on aisle 4.

Awesome sounding person (not verified) - October 4, 2010 @ 11:22pm

So Caitlyn's posed this question to Mr Morrison: "are you indeed intimidated by the breakfast cereal aisle in your supermarket?"

Can you send Graham to his local Morrison's to find out? And whilst there can he pick me up a pint of milk at the latest copy of Nuts magazine? Ta.

There is too much choice because there is no standard

Rothgar (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 1:04am

The fact there there are thousands of choices for things doesn't matter if there were a standard that everyone looked at. In the Microsoft world the standard currently is Windows 7 and Microsoft Office. In the Apple world it is OS X and Microsoft Office. In Linux there is no "standard" to abide by and therefore too much choice is confusing. If Ubuntu, .deb, and Gnome were the standard then it would be fine to have other options such as LXDE, KDE, rpm, Suse etc. but the truth is they aren't standard and having this many different options only makes things difficult for someone to narrow down what they want.
I used Windows XP with GeoShell for years and there were plenty of other explorer shell replacements out there. The fact that the explorer shell was the "normal" shell made me know what to start with and then look for options from there.

I guess I'm late to the flame party

Paul S (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 7:57am

My fellow commenter is on the money I think, except of course, people who think Allman indent style is a viable option are clearly dense (or have really tall screens).

It's been pointed out already but given that there is no way of achieving your proposed unity unless you become Dictator of the World makes the point moot. You just can't stop us customising our system when we have all the sources - you'd have to take them away first. You'd have to deal with RMS first though and I heard he fights dirty.

As for the theoretical value of the proposal - would it be beneficial if it was achieved? Beneficial to whom?

See, a lot of arguments like this stem from the diverging opinions about who is "linux" written for (linux being a catch all word here). Some people think linux is for human beings, competing on the consumer market. Which happens mostly by accident. When there's money in it - someone wants consumers to use it, buntus being an example - then they make it user friendly and unified. But in fact, "linux" (again used to mean the whole userland) isn't being written for anyone in particular. Most OSS devs are mostly scratching their own itch or producing production software for and collaborating with other devs. Knowing this makes a lot of design decisions more intelligible. All the theming and unification is often done afterwards by someone else who has an interest in making it a attractive and usable to end users. You are welcome to do it but you have no way of forcing original devs to conform to your ideas - they're nobody's people. Unless you hire them :D

Sorry about the length...

Gareth Jones (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 10:07am

Both Morrison and Martin are talking complete rubbish.

Morrison because his column does not make sense as a piece, and Martin because she is exagerating a point that Morrison made rather than pointing out he is talking bollocks.

His headline is "The trouble with Linux: there's too much choice", but he doesn't show whether any problems actually arise. He claims that choice "goes hand-in-hand with redundancy and duplicated effort" but doesn't show that it does.

Morrison's example of Fedora changing the default photograph management tool shows that there are differences between the two: so in the minds of the developers at least this is not a case of duplicated effort but rather two different solutions to a similar problem.

Morrison also seems to think that the people behind Fedora should not have changed the default photo manager because the former default had more features. Surely it is for them to decide where there product is aimed and whether to use complex, simple or simplistic software as the default, and to make their own decisions about what to put on and leave off the CD?

His comments about package management do not really make sense: in essence, people do not care about the package manager, they use the software management tool that comes with the distribution and can effectively ignore whether they are installing .deb or .rpm files. Most distributions seem to have very little software "missing".

Morrison's most stupid point, though, must be "If we could all agree on what should be the default photo manager for a certain distro..." Each distribution has chosen a default, and certainly shouldn't be forced to keep that default for ever, no matter what other options come available and the focus of the distribution changes over time. It isn't as though Fedora changed the default with every release, he says that F-Spot was the "long-standing" default.

The point of the column was intended to be that package management is a mess in Linux but his solution of each distribution choosing their own is the current situation.

There are two problems to the idea of "universal binaries" in Linux (by universal I mean will work on the vast majority of systems, not necessarily all.

Firstly, the big distributions, ie Debian, Red Hat and Suse need to standardise on names, in order for dependancies to work properly.

Secondly, dpkg and rpm need to be able to read packages in the other format. There is, I believe (but I have no actual knowledge of packaging), no great obstacle to this: both package formats essentially contain the same information.

ENOUGH

supermine (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 10:10am

Enough with the stupid tick for tack arguments. This comes down to how pragmatic vs idealistic you are. You (the posters)
think that you are perfect in what you think and do in life and when it comes to Linux. In my humble opinion Caitlyn Martin just needed to keep her mouth shut.

She is as much to blame for bringing this flame war back. She adds nothing new and uses very lacking comparisons to try and prove a point that ultimately does not matter. I think that for the most part distributions do look similar and that is where the confusion can come. you think they install packages the same and they don't and so you get frustrated.

I am the first to admit I am more pragmatic when it comes to Linux. Choice is good but just like everything to much and it becomes a bad thing. Most people just want to use there computer to do a simple task and they DO NOT CARE ABOUT HOW A OS WORKS. They want to get on with life. So distributions should just pick software that they think works the best but give a few common alternatives so if someone does not like it they can easily find one that does.

I unlike most of the posters above realize my opinion means absolutely nothing to anyone but me. Graham Morrison is in every right his opinion just like I am to mine. I think He is right in his general point. The reason why these arguments come up it because nothing has changed.

I am from America. Do you think this country with all its freedoms would have been formed if someone did not take over and just come to a agreement between two sides and make middle ground and enforce it? If it was left for everyone in the country to come to a agreement we would still not have a government.

I also want to point out how many of you follow Kernel development? I bet not to many of you well do you think core Kernel changes comes to a vote? Think again Linus has to approve of it , and you want to know why that is? It is that sometimes a strong leader that controls how something is done works. a standard base would help and from there packages can fork all they want.

P.S. how many customized packages (that are changes to a main stream package or a fork) that server a small (less then or around 1000 users) could just be merged with there parent package?

Too much choice is a bad thing... for new users

Ryan (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 10:30am

Look at Windows users. How many of them know and care what Explorer is? Not many. Now imagine if Windows prompted the user to choose a desktop environment, window manager and file manager when you install it or log in. They would freak out and give up, labelling the operating system as not user-friendly and for technical users only. And that's one reason why Windows is popular. Most users are too dumb to want choice - they just want something that works.

For experienced users choice is a good thing, provided the options have different benefits and aren't all trash.

What's the boundaries of open and free software?

KimTjik (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 11:26am

Frankly I don't find Graham Morrison's article coherent enough. Selected examples don't back up his claim very well. A unified package manager wouldn't change how businesses view customer information as a useful source of making profit. Hence it in my view becomes a mish-mash of problems and causes.

I did buy Linux Format for a time but stopped because of Graham Morrison's articles. My main concern about his agenda is that it's influenced by restricting corporate ideas, probably unintentional, not respecting the nature of how free software come to be. As of now the opportunity to create whatever piece of code you like without facing judgement about whether it fits into the decided conformity, is in need or surplus, works as an incitement for creativity. Mathematics is art, and you don't tell an artist what he can and cannot do; and from mathematics the step to code isn't far. Some creations become beautiful and useful, others not, directed by users' selection.

That said I'm not sure I'm in agreement with all said by his critics.

Choice is mostly bad...

Dylan C (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 12:38pm

Sure its nice to have options but the main proplem with Linux is the lack of standards.

This is why all the hints etc are using commands because the only thing which seems to be standardized is Bash.

I think Graham is correct in his opinion and he has my support. We need standards and to stop messing about with the "choice is great attitude".

Well...

Xavier Sythe (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 1:29pm

For OEMs, choice is bad.

Example:
Dell should be offering PCs with Mint, not Ubuntu, simply because Mint is full-featured and easy-to-use out-of-the-box.

Standards are wonderful

Marcus Tyrrell (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 1:43pm

...but who gets to make them? The Linux ecosystem isn't owned or controlled by any one person or group. If some group did try to impose standards, there would be some group of rebellious mother forkers who who would just make a new distro their way, and the chaos of the bazaar would begin again. Cathedrals are built to standards, bazaars just happen. ESR may not be as "in" as he once was, but his metaphor is still apt. Linux, by its very nature, cannot be a cathedral, no matter how useful it might be in so many ways... So, while I sympathize with Mr. Morrison, it is a pipe dream that Linux can be that way. Stop smoking the happy weed or else join a cathedral-building empire like the Church of Apple.

choice, to be or not to be

djordje (george in inglisch) ;) (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 2:58pm

choice is good, but too much choice like too much beer or too much anything else is not so good. the question is whether we have too much choice, or who is to judge that?

So...we have a choice.

lumitoro (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 3:08pm

yay. I choose to be the chosen for the formidable task of choosing which applications and standards will be used in the following releases of every linux based distribution, and, my first choice is that you have no choice.
Don't you like my choosing??? But I do so live with it :P.

I think Graham is on the

john lumby - October 5, 2010 @ 3:59pm

I think Graham is on the right lines although his generalisation-engine appears to have run over the sanity check occasionally. Are most of us really that confused? Dear oh dear.

But on his specific point, concerning Fedora and the photo imaging app switch, I agree -- and I've never used either of them.
I know Fedora is intended to be experimental, and it's fine to introduce new packages, but there should be some thought given to users who happened to be using the old one. Ms Martin responds to this by saying that
"Fedora didn't drop F-Spot. It is still in the repository."
True, but what does the user do to continue to use it? Turn to the F13 release notes of course - and they say
"Shotwell replaces Gthumb and F-Spot as default photo organizer. ... Gthumb and F-Spot ... available in the Fedora repository. They are not installed by default anymore."
I think those notes should say
"To revert to using F-Spot, do these steps ..."

Another similar one from back a while - let's call it "Rythmic-throbbing-sound" to avoid triggering more incendiaries -
Fedora 8 Release notes :
"Rythmic-throbbing-sound is now installed and enabled by default. ..."
And did they go on to say how to turn this off?

Graham is close but wrong

Not a Penguin (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 8:24pm

The real problem with Linux is that the big distros don't have the courage of their convictions

But what's the market share?

Anonymous Hamster (not verified) - October 5, 2010 @ 10:48pm

Personally, I like choice, but I suspect that many of us are just making the same choices, so that there are a few key players in each category . . . and then a load of also-rans for the adventurous, curious and just damn awkward. So, deb and rpm probably account for about 90% of software packages actually in use on Linux; *buntu, Fedora, Suse, Debian and possibly Mandriva probably account for the vast bulk of desktop Linux use; OpenOffice and Gnome Office probably account for the vast bulk of office software in use on Linux, etc. So, there's a reasonably common core and a wide, varied periphery.

worker

Sofianitz (not verified) - October 6, 2010 @ 1:15pm

Of course there's too much Linux choice. All you need is Red Hat/Fedora, which is the distribution I've been using since 1994. Pity other people can't see this, and just think and do as I do. Come to think of it, I have this problem in many other areas of my life.

Hmmm

Krister (not verified) - October 6, 2010 @ 6:21pm

Interesting as these kind of debates are - I ask myself are they relevant?
Nokia and others might have asked in the beginning if what Apple did was removing choice from the mobile phone users. Well now they are not asking but trying to catch up.
Humans are by default quite lazy - it is in our nature - we follow OSPF by default. The same comes with computers and technology - how many times do we say RTFM, however we never seem to ask why do we need to say RTFM. With Apple users say you do not need the manual as it is sooo intuitive.
I have never used Apple myself, I read manuals and I dabble with computers a bit (as I like it) however most people don't and hence what do they choose.
I hope they will choose Linux and that they will choose what suits them, just like I do. However like with all things first impressions make a lasting impression. So if the choices shown to them are confusing and not to their liking are the likely to continue or give up? History has shown that they give up and choose the OSPF method...
So Graham has some points as does Caitlyn arguing about it does not seem to get us anywhere though.
Driving FOSS forward we need to listen to users and present simplicity while allowing for choice. I could not live without the choice anymore. I am often so confused when I use windows now adays and when I realize that the things I take for granted are things I have to pay for if I am to use in Windows. I can do more at home on Linux than I now can on my office computer and I work for a large corporation. That is diversity and something to celebrate and build on not argue about.

mostly not

mrEvans (not verified) - October 7, 2010 @ 5:48am

Linux distros agree on a common kernel. It would be nice to have that expanded. It would not be unreasonable to have a standard file system format, configuration utilities, shell, package manager and desktop environment.

It is unfortunate that we are divided by some of these issues. We are not talking about a few less popular distros creating these divisions. The top five or ten distros have many differences on fundamental levels.

Distros could have their "standard" version. That wouldn't prevent them from making a few remixes (ubuntu, kubuntu, etc...)

You don't have to take away choice. Users who want to change their environments, applications, etc... could do so at will.

I do think it is important for developers to have a standard environment to target. Otherwise it will not be worth their time (in a business sense).

As much as I enjoy my custom system and open source applications and even finding creative ways to solve use cases that are trivial on other OS'es... if we are talking about growing the user base then you have to get to things that "just work".

Having the choice to use commercial applications on a standard platform would be important in that matter.

Until people can get things to just work the platform won't be taken seriously in the home user space.

Businesses are largely the same. Small business seems to be a large segment where MS is dominant. SUSE Enterprise seems to have taken a stab at it with some success. In the end I don't think they offer enough of a benefit over MS servers for MS shops to justify the change.

All this aside there seems to be another issue... for example, something like Netflix. Cases where it seems the platform is deliberately isolated puzzle me. I think the man is just trying to keep the penguin down.

Linux has advanced far enough that a great desktop (as defined by the other 98%) is a realistic goal. If the community can establish a standard toolset and some solidarity the user space is there to be had.

Solidarity!!!

p.s. I appreciate the work the Linux Format crew does. keep up the good work.

if ( grahamsArgument.isTrue() ){ "it's a matter of scope" }

jeffe (not verified) - October 7, 2010 @ 7:04am

Linux is so much bigger than this...

Graham, in a way you are correct. If the number one priority for a group of Linux distributions is to become a Windoze replacement for home desktops making use of commercial software... then standardization is important.

Many distibutions are so much more than just desktop environments for home users though. So, really your argument is... to prevent fragmentation of Linux you should create a new fragment. If a group of distributions decide to specifically target a market segment and work together to create a standard then it could be a good idea.

However, really, eventually users will just pick a distribution and suddenly there's your standardization. It's all just an abstraction.

mrEvans: some proprietary software products involve an exchange of funds for usage rights. active sync is a great example of this, silverlight may be too. a free distibution may not want to pay for the usage rights. or it could just be the man geting you down.

No but yes but no but yes

Fred Dred The Bread (not verified) - October 8, 2010 @ 12:27pm

see above

I disagree with Morrison.

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 11, 2010 @ 1:46am

I disagree with Morrison. However, I think I somewhat understand his agitation. Linux is trying to come into a world where, for over 20 years, there's really only been ONE choice.

Windows.

A lot of people think, and incorrectly, that having a lot of flavors of a particular operating system seems to make compatibility between all the choices an issue. They're COMPLETELY oblivious to the nature of POSIX and what it allows a Linux distribution to do. You *can* and you *will* consistently run the same software across multiple distributions, be it Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, SuSe, or Red Hat.

Proprietary software is not even that much of a concern even if POSIX governs binary compatibility by no means (Which is why the Linux Standard Base came about.). Yet, again, the same proprietary apps still consistently find themselves working generally the same and just as well as any other distribution.

And distributions competing amongst each other is VERY good for end users. This competition can and does spurn on a LOT of advancement and upstream contributions to individual open source projects.

Bottom line: Linux (Far more than even GNU) has done so much to bring open source to the top. Because of its popularity and attention from millions of developers worldwide, you run a useful open source project, you'll find its hard to keep up with what your users do to improve your software.

Not enough choice!

WonderGeorge (not verified) - October 12, 2010 @ 9:50am

When you visit your local PC World (Or whatever other shop) there are Windows PCs & Macs. Generally there's nothing with Linux pre-installed.

To carry on the dubious car analogy put forward in the podcast - you're basically taking your new car home and fitting a different engine that you haven't test driven and don't know will work properly in this car. (OK so probably most readers of this will have installed an operating system but this is a big deal for most people who have never needed or wanted to do this.)

Until machines with Linux pre-installed are visible and easily available on the high street I suspect the market share for Linux is unlikely to exceed 2%.

Choice for the experienced, recommendations for new users

paulx1 (not verified) - October 13, 2010 @ 5:18pm

New users want advice, not just choice.

I would suggest the best way forward would be to have a rating system for applications. In any one category, a user can select the application with the best rating. The choice is still there though.

We all benefit if linux is more popular, if only in that more hardware manufacturers will provide drivers.

Im a newbie.

Samuel (not verified) - October 14, 2010 @ 12:17am

Before a year or so I had spent a whole hour in an non dos/windows environment. But I had a pretty good idea what they entitled.

I tested Knoppix to its full extent, or rather what I believed was its full extent. When I gave up I grew more and more discontent with how windows operated. It seemed to slow and buggy. But with enough usage you learn how to make it bearable. Now seven years after I first got interested in linux i have tried two versions of K/Ubuntu, OpenSuse and Fedora. Iv never actually used it more then a week in a row. The reason for which I thought I would share here now.

When new to linux you have steep learning curve. Which of course it true if you switch every time you switch an operating system. But once you have learned the basics they are there, and the changes really are trivial enough that you don't have to get confused, etc. On linux on the other hand the basics is the same but how you do the basics differ. It ranges from everything from .deb to .rpm to tar.gz and even less technical things like how to change your settings.
I could easily learn how to do the simplest of things using the terminal in Ubuntu, trying it in OpenSuse didn't work to well and took some reading to figure out. I even got the wrong package format a few times.

While little things like this can seem kinda trivial as really it only takes a bit of reading to figure out. I really believe it to be what keeps linux out from the masses(besides the obvious lack of "professional" software and games).
I really do believe that everyone would be better of with a uniformed control panel, one package manager front and to go with that one package architecture. That way no matter which system someone uses they could get help from virtually anyone, regardless of their system of choice.
I'm not saying that taking away distortions or even killing of software projects because there is already one that does that is the solution on the other hand. I believe that to be a strength.

While I think it won't happen as there isn't one governing organ, it makes me kinda sad the fix for, to me, the biggest issue with linux would be overcome by simply working together a bit more. Even then it doesn't have to be the same program(referring to the control panel), just uniform.

The answer was in what i believe was a quiet rude fashion, that alone makes me inclined to agree with him besides the points said.

Its all about choice

msnthrp (not verified) - November 9, 2010 @ 10:45pm

6 billion people in the world, 7 billion opinions (schizophrenia, you know). Why not adopt the signature of a linuxoid friend of mine - "Linux, the lifetime learning experience." (I am a linuxoid also but not as brainy as he is.)

In the last 10 years, I have installed at least 14 different distributions, some of them in several versions. I am still looking for the perfect distribution. If every distro becomes exactly the same, it will still not be perfect and the bar to innovation would be much elevated. Bad deal.

BSD is also a very good OS but there are very few versions compared to Linux. The ones I have tried have focussed on parts of the OS that are less addressed by the Linux community. IOW, BSD'rs are a great but different community from the Linux community. Let's keep the choice.