Should There Be an 'Official' Version of Linux?
'Why aren't more people using Linux on the desktop? Slashdot reader technology_dude shares one solution: Jack Wallen at ZDNet says establishing an "official" version of Linux may (or may not) help Linux on the desktop increase the number of users, mostly as someplace to point new users. It makes sense to me. What does Slashdot think and what would be the challenges, other than acceptance of a particular flavor? Wallen argues this would also create a standard for hardware and software vendors to target, which "could equate to even more software and hardware being made available to Linux." (And an "official" Linux might also be more appealing to business users.) Wallen suggests it be "maintained and controlled by a collective of people from users, developers, and corporations (such as Intel and AMD) with a vested interest in the success of this project... There would also be corporate backing for things like marketing (such as TV commercials)." He also suggests basing it on Debian, and supporting both Snap and Flatpak... In comments on the original submission, long-time Slashdot reader bobbomo points instead to kernel.org, arguing "There already is an official version of Linux called mainline. Everything else is backports." And jd (Slashdot user #1,658) believes that the official Linux is the Linux Standard Base. "All distributions, more-or-less, conform to the LSB, which gives you a pseudo 'official' Linux. About the one variable is the package manager. And there are ways to work around that." Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia... The LSB standard stopped being updated in 2015 and current Linux distributions do not adhere to or offer it; however, the lsb_release command is sometimes still available.[citation needed] On February 7, 2023, a former maintainer of the LSB wrote, "The LSB project is essentially abandoned." That post (on the lsb-discuss mailing list) argues the LSB approach was "partially superseded" by Snaps and Flatpaks (for application portability and stability). And of course, long-time Slashdot user menkhaura shares the obligatory XKCD comic... It's not exactly the same thing, but days after ZDNet's article, CIQ, Oracle, and SUSE announced the Open Enterprise Linux Association, a new collaborative trade association to foster "the development of distributions compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux." So where does that leave us? Share your own thoughts in the comments. And should there be an "official" version of Linux?' -- source: https://linux.slashdot.org/story/23/08/12/1835204 Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ Mobile +64 22 190 2375 https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 08:48:35 +1200, Peter Reutemann quoted:
'Why aren't more people using Linux on the desktop? Slashdot reader technology_dude shares one solution:
Jack Wallen at ZDNet says establishing an "official" version of Linux may (or may not) help Linux on the desktop increase the number of users, mostly as someplace to point new users.'
Why aren’t more people buying cars? Even the largest car vendors only ship a few million units per year, which is peanuts compared to the PC market. Is it because there is such a bewildering variety of models? Small ones, big ones, two-seaters, four-seaters, people movers, utes -- they can’t even agree on which end should have the driving wheels! Let’s get rid of all this choice, and instead have an “official” version of car, to save people the headache of deciding!
On 14/08/2023 08.48, Peter Reutemann wrote:
'Why aren't more people using Linux on the desktop? Slashdot reader technology_dude shares one solution:
Jack Wallen at ZDNet says establishing an "official" version of Linux may (or may not) help Linux on the desktop increase the number of users, mostly as someplace to point new users. It makes sense to me. What does Slashdot think and what would be the challenges, other than acceptance of a particular flavor?
There is the issue of choosing 'which one'. Such a decision is likely to come down to 'power' or to 'compromise'. Does Linux's very existence come out of the former? The most famous example of the latter is possibly "UTC" - there were competing versions of a term (and abbreviation) to replace "GMT" or "Greenwich Mean Time". "UTC" doesn't properly-expand into either English or French words/terms - so it exists as a 'solution', but doesn't make anyone particularly happy! Do we (Linux users) compromise as readily?
the one variable is the package manager. And there are ways to work around that."
Is this the only major issue? Who is prepared to give-up his/her preferred GUI/Window Manager? (for example)
It's not exactly the same thing, but days after ZDNet's article, CIQ, Oracle, and SUSE announced the Open Enterprise Linux Association, a new collaborative trade association to foster "the development of distributions compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux."
Indeed not. Corporations prefer to set a single standard - whether they are 'selling' or 'buying', because of the ease of maintenance and support. (does this in-turn stem from the average user's disinterest in taking responsibility for his/her choices/preferences?) We see this already. RedHat haven't been selling 'Linux', they've been offering corporate-clients a standardised set of software and method of doing things. This is why Oracle used recent IBM/RedHat announcements (https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream) as an excuse to fire 'a shot across the bows' with the equally self-serving (and somewhat obfuscatory between title and content) "Keep Linux Open and Free—We Can’t Afford Not To" (https://www.oracle.com/news/announcement/blog/keep-linux-open-and-free-2023-...) - essentially written to 'the rest of us' cf to RedHat; suggesting that we move from RedHat systems, over to the Oracle stack. This added to a sense of disquiet at SuSE, leading (coincidentally?) to the idea and publicity of the aforementioned "Open Enterprise Linux Association" (https://www.oracle.com/news/announcement/ciq-oracle-and-suse-create-open-ent...). Are these the people to crusade for, and/or to lead us into the future? Does their motivation (also) include a substantial dollop of 'open-washing' and/or raw business-opportunistic self-interest? Might such leads down the path to proprietary-Linux? Perhaps also explaining Jack Wallen's jumping on their band-wagon? Accordingly, see earlier in the OP, that end-users need to be represented! Is a range of choice, one [wo]man's anarchy, but another's "freedom"? -- Regards =dn
participants (3)
-
DL Neil -
Lawrence D'Oliveiro -
Peter Reutemann