Cogito Distro Sum. On a philosophical note, this article discusses the severe fragmentation in the Linux desktop distribution world, the unnatural non-hierarchical development model, the clash of egos, and more. Take a look. https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/linux-fragmentation-sum-egos.html Cheers, Mrk
Having only experimented with a dozen or so distros myself, I HAVE learned enough to say this with confidence: Too many chefs (can and often do) spoil the stew. Also, I am reminded of something I read years ago: The best thing about PC standards is that there are so many of them to choose from!
I prefer linux universe as is with all it's egos and fragmentetion. If those egos did not exist debian, slackware, puppy, arch, mageia, devuan,mint..., etc. would not have existed. The last thing we need is another windows, macos, android, you-name-it where someone thinks that a specific change or direction fits for all. If those egos did not exist kde, xfce, cinnamon, lxde,etc wouldn't exist either. The various browsers and various programs (with the same function) wouldn't have existed. Since when having a choice became a bad thing? Panagiotis
I think the article begs the question, was Linux created with a purpose to provide the world with an out of the box, ready to go computer operating system or was it created for the purpose of providing the building blocks so those who wish to create an operating system to fit their needs can use it to do so if they wish. If the answer is the latter of the two then most of what is written in the article is groundless. I think it is also worth mentioning the hierarchical model is not the natural order of things at all. The natural order of things has no order, the entire universe is chaotic by nature and we can see time after time throughout human history hierarchial systems of organized control, fail. Civilization after civilization, empire after empire. Currently we have a system of control based on the profit goal model. Doomed to failure. We can see already, if we open our eyes. Instead of better and better products we have worse and worse. Products and brand names that were once good, cheapened. Quality materials replaced with cheap. Long lasting materials replaced with those with shorter and shorter lifespan. Once the brand is so run down the masses have realized not to buy it anymore, the perpetrators have already dumped their stock in that brand and moved on to another brand with a good reputation which will face the same fate. No one noticed how the size of portions get smaller and the quality of food gets worse in restaurants as the profit model demands less and less payroll, less and less food prep time so the quality of service goes down and good employees quit because they can't make any money but are expected to do what used to be two or three peoples job and fresh produce is replaced by out of a packet, out of a can throw it in the microwave cheap to produce meals but the price goes up until that restaurants customers abandon it and it goes out of business? By then, the perps have raped it for all it was worth, dumped the stock and moved onto the next victim. Hence restaurant chains all across America going out of business and it is all going the same way. Toys r Us closing down stores, K-Mart, you can say goodbye to Ruby Tuesday's, Longhorns, Outbacks, a whole bunch of them, long time established businesses all going the same way. All because the hierarchical business model allows the few to control the many.
Great article Mrk. I had high hopes for Ubuntu, and I thought Shuttleworth could be the bloke who would 'defragment' Linux, and create a practical, usable distro alternative to MS and Apple. I'm still trying to be optimistic.
I don't want to derail the thread but I'm not so sure the universe is entirely chaotic. If there were no natural systems of organisation inherent in the fabric of the cosmos itself, we wouldn't be having this bulletin board conversation, as nothing would actually exist. Secondly, I believe anatomically modern humans evolved about 315,000 years ago, exhibiting behavioural modernity around 50,000 years ago. Like many gregarious mammals, let alone as an apex predator, human beings have evolved linguistic or communication skills and complex social hierarchies as a biosurvival strategy. This is the natural order for human society, not totally unlike other social mammals, such as dogs, who are also predators and have a 'pack hierarchy' . I think Mrk has a valid point with Linux, if there are too many chiefs and not enough braves there will be a state of chaos, which is a bit evident in the state of Linux distros now. At one stage I thought Canonical and Shuttleworth would step up and rise to the challenge. I fear I was wrong.
@Daveski17 We would, it is a matter of probability that eventually if it can happen, given enough time, it will but my main point is the hierarchical system of order is a human invention plagued with problems where ever it is implemented. If you want that in an OS, get Windows. The reason Linux is so versatile is because it has not been constrained by a hierarchial business model.
The hierarchical system of order is a product of human evolution and biosurvival. Its implementation as a business model is artificial. It doesn't mean it can't be beneficial. It is when it is reduced to social Darwinism and it becomes a business model that only financially benefits those at the top of the pecking order that it becomes unjust and problematical. Linux isn't particularly versatile, and in my experience, is plagued with hardware compatibility problems. Linux needs to develop, it needs structure, it needs to work with OEM's, it needs to evolve purposefully. It needs hardware compatibility. It needs something like Canonical. Unfortunately, they've dropped the ball a bit IMO.
@Daveski17 The hierarchial pyramid system is the most evil thing in society you can see it quite clearly in the tech industry which is a disgusting cesspool of lies, deciet, spying, malware, infiltration, subversion, surveillance. A system that provides for those at the top to lie, cheat and deceive those at the bottom, making themselves wealthy at everyone else's expense. But the masses are brainwashed since children into believing that's how it is so that must be how it is meant to be and if everyone was to open their eyes they would see none of that is confined to the tech industry but I am restraining myself from going into a political rant.
Yes you could put it that way, I am most pessimistic for the consequences of the lack of free thought in the population at large and their blind acceptance of everything those at the top tell them.
I'm not saying that I entirely disagree with you, I'm just not sure how this applies to the present condition of Linux. It's not inevitable that a company like Canonical will turn into Microsoft and employ MS's dodgy business practises, and I honestly think Shuttleworth is an idealist. Ubuntu is freeware. I don't believe anything my government tells me, whether it's verifiable or not. I can't see a particularly good future for Linux at the moment the way it's going. I just hope Canonical fix the Ubuntu LTS distro when they stop supporting 14.04 and I have to upgrade.
Well it's like I touched on earlier, if you look at Linux from the perspective of a consumer acquiring a commercial retail product, when Linux is not a consumer retail product then it might be expected not to look good. If someone creates a distro and presents it as a consumer retail product, then it would be more than reasonable to criticize that distro for not living up to expectation but to criticise Linux development per se for that would be like grabbing a pile of loose bricks, building some not very good houses and have people say, they are not very good houses so we need to change the way bricks are developed.
I'm not sure what you mean. As an example Android is based on a modified version of the Linux kernel and is also open source (although includes some proprietary components). I may be wrong about this but I thought Android was essentially freeware but packaged with various commercial retail products. Now owned by Google it is quite well developed as a mobile OS. Admittedly Google have the money to develop Android and Google do data mine, but they scraped information well before they acquired Android Inc. So, no change there then. I think Mrk's point was that there are too many distros that lack real development and support. Many are based on more established distros anyway. Linux is never going to be a viable alternative to Microsoft and Apple if it is always the domain of the disorganised, the talented amateur, or worse still, the egotistical dilettante. At least a couple of distros need to organise development funding and work with original equipment manufacturers. They will probably need to collect some anonymised user data to achieve proper hardware compatibility among other things. When Canonical announced an opt out for telemetry recently there was much hand ringing, 'I told you so's', and (predictable) hysterical tinfoil hat wearing and general doom-laden paranoia. All Linux needs is a focused practical, pragmatic and mature approach to development and funding. It doesn't have to become Microsoft. That isn't an inevitability. It doesn't have to sell its soul. Whether we like it or not, the market place will dictate the economics of the situation. It doesn't necessarily automatically lead to an abandonment of ethics. It just takes organisation. Are you reading this Shuttleworth? lol
It's OK, I've had brain damage, I probably missed something. Perhaps you should have tried a car analogy? lol.
Hierarchy is often found inside specific distribution community and/or company developing distribution or upstream project. There is loose structure between distributions, not inside of them. It think it has more advantages than disadvantages.
I had a severe stroke/brain bleed four years ago, paralysing me on the right side of my body. Which confused my doctors as I'm comparatively young, fit, healthy, had given up smoking ages ago, and only drank socially. They say it hasn't affected my cognitive abilities. I'm not so sure.
I think Linux definitely needs some kind of structure, although I have a feeling nothing is going to change in the immediate future.
The current model with hundreds of distros is confusing to the average user who only wants to turn on their computer, browse a little, pay some bills, chat a little, etc... Hundreds of choices is not a problem for those with technical knowledge but for the average user it means they will look for something else not that they will study the OS to choose the right distro for them.
I think what I was trying to say, Linux never was a project designed to provide non coders with a free operating system. It was a project to allow coders to build operating systems but they then shared them with non coders to use for free if they wanted to. But now what this discussion shows, is non coders have decided that free linux distros are something they are entitled to be provided with and that the coders should pander to their wants and needs otherwise they should commandeer the coders projects and decide for them what they should do and how they should be doing it. Also by saying there are too many distros etc what you're actually saying is, people shouldn't be allowed to use Linux to develop their own OS with the features they like and then share it with others for free if they want to.
