
PS: For example, different distros could be different themes that users can install in order to simply modify their desktop environment.
... but you think it would be better if that weren't the case? But it's still cool?FinixFighter wrote: ⤴Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:30 pmI know that different distros are designed for different uses and users (and that's cool)
I disagree. There's a saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth".JoeFootball wrote: ⤴Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:02 pmFor the uneducated (such as myself), "... se tutti gli sviluppatori lavorassero sullo stesso prodotto si accelererebbe ancora di più il miglioramento di un sistema operativo.", translates to English as something like, "... if all the developers worked on the same product, the improvement of an operating system would accelerate even more."
Joe
Yes, thanks for that! I didn't know how to explain that in english and I used google translator but I copied the wrong textJoeFootball wrote: ⤴Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:02 pmFor the uneducated (such as myself), "... se tutti gli sviluppatori lavorassero sullo stesso prodotto si accelererebbe ancora di più il miglioramento di un sistema operativo.", translates to English as something like, "... if all the developers worked on the same product, the improvement of an operating system would accelerate even more."
Joe
I could support fewer distros, just not one. Windows 10 would never have become the monstrosity it has if there was a different version, or even an option for a streamlined version, available to the masses. Once XP came out and unified their DE, the bloat (and complaints about it) has become worse and worse. The sad part it that nothing has really changed, at least not on the desktop side. End-users have become desensitized to long updates (just updated my Win7 VM yesterday - one 9 MB update turn 11 minutes!) just like commuters in LA have to the horrible traffic.Hoser Rob wrote: ⤴Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:21 amIt took me years to learn the main reason WIndows dominates. It's not because it's monolithic. It's because it's not written for end users. It's written for developers. If developers prefer to write their software for WIndows almost everyone will end up using Windows. Linux has a ridiculous set of APIs/ABIs by comparison.
So yes, I do think having fewer distros ... or at least fewer packaging systems etc and actually stable APIs. ... would be a big help.
I don't have a clue how you'd go about a grand Linux unification scheme. As the sig of one long term Debian deveoper says, managing open source projects is like herding kittens. They're always taking off to do their real jobs.
The developers don't generally make the binaries; they rely on the distros to make them from their source files. When I first worked for IBM back in '98, I found a program called OpenPKG, which solved that problem by building binary packages from source on all sorts of different platforms - Linux, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, just to name a few. Unfortunately, it wasn't well-funded and really only worked well with the GNU tools. Flatpak and Snap do that now, but are Linux-centric.mediclaser wrote: ⤴Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:15 pmIf software developers would only have to make one binary file to work on all linux machines, and all hardware (video cards, wifi cards, all printer brands/models, etc) would work without any issues, that would be a better thing for linux.
And that is the real* problem. The result will be the same no matter which one became The One - a torches and pitchforks parade will be formed, and there will be much carnage. And if you compromise and limit it to the major families (Slackware, Debian/Ubuntu, RedHat, SUSE, Arch, and Gentoo), you are back to the plethora of boutique distros.
Or if it didn't like you or your hardware?
Agreed, but is there really only one kernel? I've hopped over 15+ distros in the past year before choosing Mint and none of them were running the same version of the kernel. As new hardware specs are added and older ones dropped, how is the average supposed to keep track?
Just because there are versions, it doesn't follow that there are different kernels per se. There is only one kernel but it has many versions and various forks.ajgringo619 wrote: ⤴Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:42 pmAgreed, but is there really only one kernel? I've hopped over 15+ distros in the past year before choosing Mint and none of them were running the same version of the kernel.