Linux, the free operating system, has gone from an intriguing experiment to a mainstream technology in corporate data centers, helped by the backing of major technology companies like IBM, Intel, and HP, which sponsored industry consortiums to promote its adoption. Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, with the system's penguin symbol, will assist the Linux Foundation. Those same companies have decided that the time has come to consolidate their collaborative support into a new group, the Linux Foundation, which is being announced today. And the mission of the new organization is help Linux, the leading example of the open-source model of software development, to compete more effectively against Microsoft, the world's largest software company.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-11
//Software developers will be more likely to write programs for linux if they don't have to write several different versions.//
This is a bit of a misconception. The exact same source code for Linux would normally compile without change on all versions of Linux distributions. No need to re-write, and probably no need to recompile. It should normally be necessary only to re-link against the different versions of libraries, and re-package into the different package formats, in order to produce versions of your application installable on different Linux distributions.
You simply don't have to re-write applications for different Linux distributions.
If you are just a little careful, it is even possible to make a "one size fits all" binary for all Linux distributions.
Member since:2006-01-17
Exactly. The very thing that makes Linux unique (ie. NOT Windows) is all the different versions and the fact anyone can change anything and call it a new distro. As long as that mentality stays, it will never be a Windows replacement. Don't even get me started on package managers...
Member since:2005-07-02
The very thing that makes Linux unique (ie. NOT Windows) is all the different versions and the fact anyone can change anything and call it a new distro. As long as that mentality stays, it will never be a Windows replacement.
I disagree, I don't think this has actually hampered Linux adoption in the least. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be increased standardization, as the LSB and freedesktop.org have done (and will continue to do).
Don't even get me started on package managers...
Package managers are great, and they can work alongside standalone installers/statically-linked installs.
If Package Managers sucked, then why would Microsoft have adopted a form of them for Windows?
Member since:2005-08-17
Imagine Gentoo, Ubuntu and RedHat representatives sitting down and discussing software installation. I am not talking about compatability, I mean ONE SYSTEM.
That would be horrible. There is a reason their package management is different.
It's not even a problem that needs solving because each distribution manages and maintains it's own packages and the software developers don't really need to worry about it.
As for applications not being available on GNULinux, I actually fine myself annoyed at the fact that most of the applications I use aren't available on windows.
Member since:2005-07-06
Imagine Gentoo, Ubuntu and RedHat representatives sitting down and discussing software installation. I am not talking about compatability, I mean ONE SYSTEM.
IMHO this would be theorically possible and not so bad.
The startpoint and pivot of all this should be Gentoo.
Imagine something like this:
- Gentoo (source based, USE flags customizable etc.) is the base. It's hyperflexible, and it can be really anything you like. So use it as a starting point.
- Gentoo, Ubuntu and RH then figure out what kind of patches, adaptations etc. are characteristic of their packages.
- +ubuntu, +redhat useflags happens for Gentoo packages. These useflags override other useflags (and, if necessary, CFLAGS) for the given packages: they are more meta-flags.
- src-deb Ubuntu source packages and src-rpm RH source packages would now be *equal* to the Gentoo ebuild emerged with standard CFLAGS and the ubuntu/redhat USE flags
- Binary ubuntu and RH packages become just compiled versions of these gentoo-ized packages.
- In the meantime, Portage, apt-get and rpm are made working seamlessly. That is, each package manager now has access and supports transparently each other database/features. In the end, the community would probably settle to one.
- This way Ubuntu and RH releases are really no more than binary installs of a particular Gentoo disk image. Everyone could start from a Ubuntu disk, install it vanilla, but then customize it to the end by using Portage. On the other hand, someone that badly needs full RH compatibility on his gentoo install, can add +redhat to his use flags and emerge -eav system (and the kernel).
Not that A LOT of work would not be needed for this kind of thing, but it would be fun and maybe useful.
Member since:
2006-05-19
One of the ways to make linux more competetive is to come up with better standards within linux. Software developers will be more likely to write programs for linux if they don't have to write several different versions. Personally I would like to see software installation/removal modeled on OSX. As much as I would like to see this happen I just don't think it will. Imagine Gentoo, Ubuntu and RedHat representatives sitting down and discussing software installation. I am not talking about compatability, I mean ONE SYSTEM.