Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Oct 2010 21:54 UTC
Permalink for comment 445648
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-24
If people actually cared about desktop linux, we would have:
a) a departure from the cryptic UNIX FHS
b) a useful, user-configurable linux->linux network filesystem that isn't NFS3 and probably isn't NFS4.
c) filesystem ACLs by default.
d) one GUI, with one widget API, and one system services (installed components, configuration settings, device discovery) backend. Doesn't mean people can't offer different stuff on top of that, but its pointless for things to be split into such tiny bits for the desktop user.
e) a driver API which supports backwards compatibility even while new features are added
Basically, as long as Linux is a slave to 1970s POSIX standards that will never evolve, kernel developers insist that standards are meaningless for them (some of the same people that paradoxically pound POSIX like it was a bible), and the fragmentation between X.org, KDE and GNOME continues to occur at such a low level, there won't be a meaningful desktop linux.
Why would anyone want to use a 1970s-era UNIX workstation as a desktop in 2010? Linux is just that with a coat of shiny paint.