Knowing that ArkLinux is the offspring of Bernhard "Bero" Rosenkraenzer (interview here), a former Red Hat employee and KDE hacker, should make it one of the more interesting and, arguably, credible new Linux distributions to hit the streets in recent seasons. With the rise of Lycoris, Lindows, and Xandros, among others, Ark Linux is certainly a far cry from a surefire success. Let's take a look.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by William Ray Barker on Tue 25th Mar 2003 10:32 UTC
Linux problem is it wants to stay a UNIX historian. If I was a company and wanted to use Linux, I would just use KDE and KDE only applications or Gnome and Gnome only applications and make a Linux out of it. Meaning I change the complete directory structre of those programs, but keep the normal file structure hidden, simular to Mac OS X. The only problem I found with Mac OS X, it might consider a problem with there structure, is everything is in one folder, that might become a problem later on.
For example on my Mac OS X my folders are, Applications, Developer, Games, Interent, Library, Multimedia, System, Users, Utilities.
Linux now is based around, if it's not on the start menu, and you don't know how to use Linux good luck finding it. Used to it would be impossible to do such a thing but since systems like RedHat, Lycrois, and so on have limited the number of packages down to just, one internet browser, one instant messenger, I feel they could pull this off. There is no reason anyone to have Mozilla in /usr/lib/mozilla and a link for mozilla in /usr/bin when thats the only web browser I'm going to use. The only reason they refuse to change it is not because they can't because they don't want to they are to obsessed with tradition. I remind you just like OS X the tradition will be there, just hidden from view of KDE or Gnome, maybe even have a function to turn it on and off like in Windows feature, hide hidden files.
This would allow a normal desktop system with the power of Linux. Thats what made BeOS great, and that is what makes Mac OS X great, the best thing about BeOS even when you had to do some complex thing like add a driver, was you could go through the file system and it made sense to any idiot.
Linux problem is it wants to stay a UNIX historian. If I was a company and wanted to use Linux, I would just use KDE and KDE only applications or Gnome and Gnome only applications and make a Linux out of it. Meaning I change the complete directory structre of those programs, but keep the normal file structure hidden, simular to Mac OS X. The only problem I found with Mac OS X, it might consider a problem with there structure, is everything is in one folder, that might become a problem later on.
For example on my Mac OS X my folders are, Applications, Developer, Games, Interent, Library, Multimedia, System, Users, Utilities.
Linux now is based around, if it's not on the start menu, and you don't know how to use Linux good luck finding it. Used to it would be impossible to do such a thing but since systems like RedHat, Lycrois, and so on have limited the number of packages down to just, one internet browser, one instant messenger, I feel they could pull this off. There is no reason anyone to have Mozilla in /usr/lib/mozilla and a link for mozilla in /usr/bin when thats the only web browser I'm going to use. The only reason they refuse to change it is not because they can't because they don't want to they are to obsessed with tradition. I remind you just like OS X the tradition will be there, just hidden from view of KDE or Gnome, maybe even have a function to turn it on and off like in Windows feature, hide hidden files.
This would allow a normal desktop system with the power of Linux. Thats what made BeOS great, and that is what makes Mac OS X great, the best thing about BeOS even when you had to do some complex thing like add a driver, was you could go through the file system and it made sense to any idiot.