Linked by Perry Helion on Fri 15th Mar 2013 18:20 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Ubuntu has come under a decent amount of flack over the past few months, particularly over their decision to use the 'Dash Search' to return results from Amazon by default in their most recent release.
Thread beginning with comment 555719
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: That's life
by Alfman on Mon 18th Mar 2013 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: That's life"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

hhas,

"My point was you could cover pretty much all areas of the Linux user base with just four DEs. That is not a monoculture, nor does it rule out the creation of purely experimental DEs for long-term research purposes, but let's not confuse those with production DEs."

Topping out at four rules out indy participation, which is (very) bad. Knoppix came about as a specialized debian distro. I highlight it as an example because although debian is a great distro, it shows how someone else can remix it into something more useful in it's own specialized way. The distro specialization goes further than this but I think you get the idea; Why discourage independent distros just because an arbitrary number of four already exists?


"So drivers should be commoditized, in your opinion. You readily recognize that drivers are merely a means to an end, but then turn around and treat DEs as a special case - an end in itself. Whereas 99% users recognize that DEs are merely one more means to an end too."

That's not exactly my opinion. Technically drivers are shared because they are part of the linux kernel, which is often shared itself. Hypothetically though if a distro wanted to differentiate itself somehow with specialized drivers (I have no idea what this would be, it's hypothetical), then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Other distros could always merge their drivers if there were merit in doing so.



"I think you greatly overestimate the number of OSS developers who do the vast majority of the work on major projects (i.e. core contributors), versus the number of OSS developers who are merely users of those products."


I haven't really estimated the ideal number of developers per distro. Someone with more project management experience could chime in, however just recently there was an article about how it took two developers to build the distro used by raspberry pie. They were undoubtedly exceptional developers, but it still shows how much work can be done in small teams.




"But let's face it: as it stands the Linux community cannot even marshal their existing resources into one or two focused goals, such as winnowing down their plethora of DEs to a more application developer-, distributor- and user-friendly headcount."

The alternative is what, design by committee? Who gets to decide what's best for everyone? Realistically what do you tell others who want to do it their own way? These are things you'd have to answer.


"as a relative outsider I think these points bear making as there are certain parts of the Linux mentality which are something of a monoculture themselves."


Well, I'd like to welcome outsider ideas, and to the extent that we can work better together, we should. But alas I think you go too far in asking us to put alternative distros on the chopping block. That is a bit of a slap in the face to those who find value in them and I have to disagree with you that their existence is a huge problem.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: That's life
by hhas on Tue 19th Mar 2013 03:06 in reply to "RE[6]: That's life"
hhas Member since:
2006-11-28

Well, I'd like to welcome outsider ideas, and to the extent that we can work better together, we should. But alas I think you go too far in asking us to put alternative distros on the chopping block. That is a bit of a slap in the face to those who find value in them and I have to disagree with you that their existence is a huge problem.


The existence of many dozens of small, overlapping DEs/distros is a problem, because there is more to achieving mass adoption than merely having a nice bit of tech. The bigger the market you want, the more that other less-technical factors such as public image and user confidence matter. And it's hard to project a strong, clear public image or convince users that a platform chosen today will be vigorous and strong some years from now when all you've got to show is random rabble of many small projects, no two pulling in a common direction.

That's fine if your only ever goal is to create fun toys for yourselves to play with (for there's absolutely nothing wrong with play itself), but it does pretty much rule out ever building a stable, standard platform that can grow a large, rich, permanent ecosystem all around it. And don't tell me that none of the Linux DEs and associated distros don't secretly dream of being The One That Makes It BIG, because I won't believe you.

So maybe "slaps in the face" is exactly what the desktop Linux world needs? As any good gardener will tell you: the way to achieve big, strong, healthy plants from an original seeding is to wait till they sprout, then pull all their weaker ones with a vengeance.

Reply Parent Score: 1