|
[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
[NMLUG] Why so many Linux distros?
On Monday 09 October 2006 06:27, Steve Browne wrote:
> The stumbling block for Linux has been the (un)availability of
> high-end professional applications for it, NOT open-source. I can
> understand that developers might have a hard time porting their
> applications to Linux if there are 300+ versions of it.
Yet--for example--a typical sourceforge-hosted software package written by a
14-year-old has no problem running on all 300+ versions plus MacOSX, Solaris,
HP/UX and AIX with no modifications. With some minor exceptions, any program
that will run on one open-source operating system will run on the rest of
them, and all the closed-source ones too.
Apparently, the problem is the "high-end"[1] "professional"[2] applications.
Out of curiosity, what missing applications do you feel are a stumbling block
for the set of users you're talking about?
[1] Whatever "high-end" is mean here. Expensive? Niche-interest?
[2] Whatever "professional" means here. Closed-source? Binary-only?
> My analogy has always been, the use of the English language (for
> example) is free. Nobody claims that there is only ONE version of the
> English language. However if there were 300+ versions of it you might
> understandably seek an alternative to work with.
I'd try this analogy which makes much more sense:
There is one English language, with X dialects with slight variations. When
you write a book, you don't have to make X different versions of it, unless
you're using some strange colloquial subset of the dialect.
This is one operating system, with Y distributions with slight variations.
When you write a program, you don't have to make Y different versions of it,
unless you're using some strange colloquial subset of the distribution.
> There are the dwindling egomaniacs who stake their claim to fame on
> legal technicalities, such as whether the operating system is Linux or
> GNU_Linux, but I expect these trivial troublemakers will disappear in
> short time.
Is this related to the above? If so, what does referring to a distribution by
the name of kernel (Linux), rather than the name of the base-system plus the
name of the kernel (GNU/Linux) have to do with there being lots of
distributions and no "high-end" "professional" software available?
As an aside, I prefer "GNU/Linux", not only because it actually makes sense,
but because when I switch my kernel to the NetBSD kernel, the Darwin kernel,
the Solaris kernel, or the Hurd (if anyone ever finishes it), I can keep
calling my system "GNU/something". But like many people, I commonly refer
colloquially to the whole idea of Free Software and Open Source all rolled
into the term "Linux" in casual conversation[3].
[3] e.g. Refering to a PDA: "Do you run Windows?" "No, I run Linux." -- Even
if a pedantic answer might be "Yes, I use X-Windows X11R7; it runs atop my
miniaturized base-system consisting of the Linux kernel, the GNU libc, a
custom SysV-compatible init system and a few supporting libraries from third
parties not related to the X consortium, the Linux kernel team, or the Free
Software Foundation." (Coincidently, a do have a PDA running the above
described software set.)
--
Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.b9.com/pipermail/nmlug/attachments/20061009/58378db3/attachment.pgp
|
|
