4 ms·
> I am certainly not saying that Linux needs fewer choices. However, I've said this before, and I think it could use repeating. There needs to be a standard, a
by cwyers 8y ago
> I am certainly not saying that Linux needs fewer choices. However, I've said this before, and I think it could use repeating. There needs to be a standard, a sort of "universal Linux" that companies (such as Microsoft or Adobe) can support. This is very complicated. Which distribution would serve as the "universal"? Or should a brand new distribution be created? Which desktop? Which init system? Which filesystem? Those questions continue to haunt Linux and prevent it from gaining widespread acceptance on the desktop.
[obligatory xkcd link here]
- zeta0134 8y agoI knew which XKCD you were referring to without you even needing to link it, but if you _must_ obligatorily link xkcd comics, do remember to actually post the link. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ As for Linux standards, at least in the datacenter I work in, by FAR the two most popular distributions are Ubuntu and RedHat. For home users RedHat would translate to Fedora (which is roughly RedHat's upstream), and for businesses not wanting to deal with RedHat licensing, CentOS. Everything else seems to be fringe, at least as far as servers go. If companies all agreed to target Fedora / Ubuntu, and the Gnome Desktop as our sort of casual starting point? That would work. It would have lots of room for improvement (Gnome's UI is... strongly opinionated), but I still think it might work.
- alanfranzoni 8y agoI thought about this one: https://xkcd.com/456/ https://xkcd.com/456/
- zaarn 8y agoFlatpak has been doing a good job of doing the "universal linux" since the application can simply bring their own Linux and have a common interface into the user's computer with some sandboxing thrown in.