There's been more than two. Ever used Solaris, for instance? Linux
distributions aren't unique in having their own proprietary package
management systems; by the nature of most distributions, interoperability
isn't really possible (directory layouts differing, dependancy naming
being slightly different, etc).
> rpm was never broken beyond repair
Nope, but we've got multiple incompatible versions of it. This is somehow
different than KDE vs. GNOME?
> > Why do you hate the existence of a completely different competing project?
>
> Because it hurts the "sales" of Linux as a whole.
Then, presumably, you dislike the fact that there are a large number of
competing Linux distributions (Red Hat, Debian, Slackware, SuSE, Stampede,
Yggdrasil, etc). You should, therefore, switch to a BSD camp. You'll be
happier there, with the "one size (distribution) fits all" approach.
> Again, look up on the Unix GUI wars to understand. Or just imagine yourself
> firing up the KDE control center to set up preferences for your desktop
> environment, then starting the Gnome control center to set up preferences for
> your Gnome applications, which are stored differently and in a different
> place.
And think of yourself choosing a desktop environment that comes from your
vendor. For example, your general environment of choice under Solaris is
CDE. Under SuSE, it's KDE. Under Red Hat, it'll be GNOME. Ad infinitum.
I don't think you'll be seeing vendors mixing and matching much; it'll
generally be all or nothing with one of them. And that will help set
distributions apart, enhancing competition between them.
We're talking about -completely different environments- here, not just
slightly modified spins of some common Linux ideal. Just like I would not
expect Solaris x86 to have an identical desktop to Red Hat or FreeBSD or
Windows NT, I would not expect Red Hat or Caldera SuSE or Stampede to have
the same look, feel, and functionality.
> Then think of yourself in a user help desk, answering calls from users
> where you have to explain why certain applications look different than
> others, work different than others or don't even talk to each other.
This wouldn't be happening in an organization that didn't mix and match
desktop operating systems. Just like organizations will standardize on
Windows across the board, I'd expect people to pick -one- OS distribution
and interface across the board, and support that.
> Unless you are a developer forced to support both. Then it means more work
> and less revenue.
Noone's holding a gun to your head. Pick one if you must.
> KDE started the Linux desktop.
I'll argue that. X started the Linux desktop, along with window managers
like twm and mwm. I suppose we should stick with those, since they started
off the whole Linux desktop tradition?
Someone explain to me why I'm continuing this damned thread?
-- -------------------. emarshal at logic.net .--------------------------------- Edward S. Marshall `-----------------------' http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/Linux labyrinth 2.1.108 #4 SMP Mon Jul 6 14:49:37 CDT 1998 i586 unknown 8:45pm up 8 days, 5:42, 3 users, load average: 0.08, 0.17, 0.11
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html