To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Isn't that completely against the philosophy and point of Linux, that is, to have choice rather than be hard handed into what one organisation believes is right?
I don't really know if I would trust Ubuntu of all groups to make technical decisions that the other distributions feel they need to just accept to keep up.
There's always place for a variety but mainstream market doesn't want too much of that. One distro dominance could force other major players to play along. I'd be glad if that distribution was Ubuntu, it seems to me consolidation of Debian derivatives would be way easier than Red Hat derivatives. Suse and Mandriva forked ages ago and had their own big ambitions while Ubuntu is just a spoon (?
) of Debian.
Rise of even one alternative operating system is a good thing anyway, it will open a way for others since developers will have to take cross-platform design seriously. But this is a matter of years so I'll stop my fantasizing.
They need commonality. If every distro is doing something different (even it that something is minor) it makes it harder for developers to support it.
However, I think the Linux community is doing a good job. I don't think the lack of commonality is the reason Linux isn't just taking off like wildfire. Probably more of just an excuse for developers.
(Yes I know that's a bit of a contradiction.)
Yes, indeed. Those of us who have been using Linux for a few years have seen distros rise and fall in popularity. Whenever one gets popular many people would say, rightly so, that it would be just like the last distro du jour and fade in popularity as the next one takes it's place.
But we all assumed that as Linux got more popular it would reach a tipping point. And I suspected that whichever distro was lucky enough to be on top at that moment would be cemented at the top.
Looks like Ubuntu is it, for good or for bad.
It would somehow (!) be a bad thing.
Ubuntu lacks many important security features as some have commented on another Ubuntu news.
Imo you should be asked during installation if you want to install that additional security features there are existing.
SELinux, ExecShield, ELFDH, RKMA, Smash Stack, etc. ?
AFAIK Ubuntu has only SELinux, but you are not asked if you want to run it.
Edited 2007-05-01 08:47
I think with that with such a huge push into the desktop market, Canonical and th Ubuntu devs should push for security. We need more user friendly firewall software, we need something like selinux. We don't want to get caught with our pants down when some other distro user decides that Ubuntu is evil or something and hacks some sort of exploit. That would not only tarnish Ubuntu's image, but also the OSS community in general. It would be Ubuntu's fault though since security should always take priority, especially in Linux which prides itself on its Unix heritage.
Edited 2007-05-01 15:13
Wait, it will be available for the desktop and that too from one manufacturer. A tiny, humble step.
Red Hat and SUSE are the distros of choice for enterprise still and will be so for a good time.
Standards are the only way to solve incompatibility problems. Don't worry, they will be here sooner or later because everyone ( developers, Linux foundation) realizes where the problems are. In the mean time let's congratulate one major PC supplier for taking the bold step and refrain from criticizing them for not choosing <someone's favourite> distro. They had to make a choice.







Member since:
2007-04-13
If this is true, it will put Ubuntu in a near unassailable position of dominance in the desktop Linux arena. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it will force the industry to consolidate support for Ubuntu and perhaps focus the efforts of developers towards a major platform with the other distros having to fall in line [with Ubuntu technical decisions] in order to keep up.
Red Hat and Novell investors should be a bit worried.