"The impending release of Windows Vista with its fancy Aero Glass special effects, along with the hasty addition of the similar XGL and Compiz technologies to the latest SUSE Linux release makes me think that programmers have a warped idea of what desktop computing is about. For some reason, many GNU/Linux users are concerned about competing feature-for-feature with Vista, while Apple and Microsoft struggle to add more graphical extras to their already graphics-intensive desktop OSes. It's gotten so that you need a serious 3D video card (with proprietary drivers) and a fairly fast computer just to keep up with desktop environments. Whatever happened to being productive and having fun?"
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-11
Why do we need specialised OSes, or even distros? Why can't the Linux world just come up with a single, unified base OS, and then work on custom apps/packages to run on that? Why do I need to run a custom OS for desktop publishing? Why can't I just install a set of "desktop publishing packages" to get the same thing?
Something I'll never understand about the Linux world is this insane need to build your own custom distro just to change one little thing about an existing one.
For example, why are Edubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Ubuntu all separate distros? Why isn't there a single "Ubuntu" that gives you the option in the installer to use "KDE, GNOME, XFCE, or Edu"? Why are these marketed as separate OSes when they are all the same OS with different DEs installed?
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2006-02-15
Member since:2006-03-12
Why can't I just install a set of "desktop publishing packages" to get the same thing?
You can. The purpose of a distro specializing in that is that they can then install by default programs you might not know about without doing some research first, and they can focus on tweaking setup on the desktop and not worry as much as other distros about network services and security. All the software is floating out there, waiting to be downloaded. It's the configs that can be elusive.
Why isn't there a single "Ubuntu" that gives you the option in the installer to use "KDE, GNOME, XFCE, or Edu"?
Because an Ubuntu design goal is to stick to one CD. KDE and GNOME are enormous, and they're really not that useful in tandem. The project would much rather craft one or the other with good defaults and customized pretty so it can plop itself into place and let power users tweak from there. It's certainly more conducive to Linux adoption than giving Windows users who don't even know what they are an option between KDE and GNOME in the installer. Like it or not, adding more options for people who aren't ready for them just confuses the deal. Letting someone learn to like GNOME is more effective than saying "Well, try KDE. It's better."
@ ma_d
I'd have to say I agree with you here. Why not just have scripts once you install ubuntu to convert it? I understand that they want a simple installer, but an optional script to configure your machine as:
1.) A KDE desktop
2.) A webserver
3.) etc...
apt-get install kubuntu-desktop
apt-get install ubuntu-server (guessing on this one)
etc.
These are meta-package debs, all available graphically in Synaptic, that contain either nothing or a few config settings (haven't really investigated, but I know installing the kubuntu meta changed my statup and shutdown screens) and have dependencies to pull in all the default packages and settings for the given configuration. Ubuntu is Debian under the surface, which means absolutely enormous package repository and few to no dependency problems. In other words, they thought of that. They just didn't want to have people downloading whole DVDs for a basic install, like so many RPM distros. I, for one, very much like the specialized approach. I also like Gentoo / Debian's no assumptions approach. It's the in-betweeners that bug me.
Member since:
2006-01-31
I saw a list of Debian-based distros on Tuxmachines last night, and, after scrolling through the list, you do see a large number of specialized distros. However, most are grouped by language, but you do see some geared for specific tasks (schools for example). The problem is poor marketing.
For example, I will be a grad student at Boston University this Fall, and I just found out that they maintain their own GNU/Linux distro designed for students at BU. The problem is that I did not find out through BU, but rather Distro Watch (and is was only a sentence or two).
There is some specialization of Linux, but these distributions rarely make headlines, and they are not as specialized as the suggestions the author makes. Until large organizations (this does not mean only corporations) support or create these specialized flavors of Linux, I don't think many people will be willing to use them. At least for me, a dedicated effort to reduce security risks and longterm support are important.
Here is the article: http://www.debianhelp.co.uk/debian.htm
Edited 2006-06-28 13:36