L.S.D : Slightly off topic, but not that much...

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent

L.S.D : Slightly off topic, but not that much...
by Count Zero on Wednesday 11/Apr/2001, @03:08

I believe that the source of the problem lies in the fragmentation of Linux in Distributions. Not that I propose that there shouldn't be distributions: just that each should not fragment Linux creating its own little universe.

More than the LSB (Linux Standard Base) , a standard Linux distribution should be created, as is the case for FreeBSD. This should be created and managed in an open source fashion, and should become freely available via the internet. Let's refer to it as Linux Standard Distro (LSD) for the rest of my post. This distro should also have a standard package management system, with automatic dependecies dissolvement (sounds a little like Debian? Wait, there's more).

The key point is this: commercial distributions should adopt this LSD, and built on top of it their value added thingies, like fancy installers, package managers, documentation, services, support, the whole lot.

Programmers and packagers then will only have to support ONE PLATFORM: the LSD platform. The commercial distribution add-ons will not affect the programming enviroment. All distros will all have the same gcc version, the same glibc, the same package managment system etc etc.

Some Linux advocates will mumble something about 'freedom of choice', and 'variety is the spice of life' etc, and point out that a single agreed LSD is a "bad thing". This, I think, is based on a misunderstanding of the whole 'freedom of choice', 'DIY' thing.

In fact, an LSD platform would *increase* freedom of choise. For example: a user won't be tied anymore to a particular distro's packaging system for binaries, as is the case now. All LSD applications will be at his disposal whatever distrubition he chooses to run. Another example: If someone solved a problem in his LSD, the solution will be applicable to every other LSD. As is the case now, you often find that advice on how to do so and so on Mandrake, for example, doesn't apply to Debian.

And, most important of all, Distributions will be focused to provide what they ought to provide, anyway: value added services and add-ons. Nowadays, they strive with assembling packages and stuff together, and perform pourly on the added value part: I mean it took them three years to get a decent installer program for christ's sake (and many distro's still lack one).

It's not a distribution's job to decide the filesystem hierarchy, or the config files format, not even to decide what gcc version the users should be using. That should be a standard on any self-respecting O.S.This is the way FreeBSD works already, yet FreeBSD lacks distributions (there is only the FreeBSD standard distribution). I think, my proposed scheme, combines the benefits of the FreeBSD standard base, with the added value that Linux Distributions provide.

P.S Just my 0.2$.

P.S 2 The KDE 2.1.1 announcement on kde.org reads:

"On March 27th, 2001, the KDE Project released KDE 2.1.1, a powerful and easy-to-use Internet-enabled desktop for Linux."

Since KDE also runs happily on BSD, Solaris, etc, shouldn't that be "for Unix"? Let's not alienate other users.

P.S 3 Keep up the good work.

Related Links

·   Articles on KDE Official News
·   Also by Count Zero
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: L.S.D : Slightly off topic, but not that much...
by Ingo Klöcker on Thursday 12/Apr/2001, @07:07

Count Zero wrote:
All distros will all have the same gcc version, the same glibc, the same package managment system etc etc.

Unfortunately that's only true if all users are forced to upgrade their whole distribution everytime a new version of KDE is released. And I don't think that this is desirable. For example there are KDE 2.1.1 binary packages for the last four SuSE distributions (6.3, 6.4, 7.0 and 7.1). Of course these different distributions don't include the same version of glibc.
Even if there is a LSD you can never assume that all versions of the LSD include the same versions of all libraries. Some LSDs will have older libraries and some will have newer ones. Therefore it will never be possible to just make one binary package for one LSD. You will always have to make packages for LSD 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 2.0 and so on and so forth.

Regards,
Ingo

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: L.S.D : Slightly off topic, but not that much...
by Carbon on Tuesday 17/Apr/2001, @10:55

Definetly true. Almost all the problems I have seen in Linux are the result of distribution companies mucking up what the hackers got right. Mandrake, RedHat, SuSE, Slackware, and others have all done this. Fragmentation is bad, it isn't helping BSD, and it won't help linux.

P.S. $0.2 is 20 cents, not 2 cents :)

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: L.S.D : Slightly off topic, but not that much...
by Clint Anderson on Saturday 24/Nov/2001, @12:29

As much as I enjoy LSD, it does happen to be illegal.

On another note, I sort of agree with this post but then there is Slackware, which is basically a straight-out-of-the-box linux distro, as close to an 'LSD' as you can get without being a complex molecule.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"I just wanted to be certain that the code was unmaintainable." -- Charles Samuels
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.