Well, there is a massive distinction from Servers to Desktop systems. In the category of binaries, on Windows you release a .exe and it will just work, probably for many releases forward. On Linux if you're really interested in supporting all distros you'd need to release one package in .deb, other in .rmp and other in a tarball. Even if you decided to just support Ubuntu you'd probably need different binaries to 12.04, 12.10, and so on.

That's the main reason not too many projects are "too good", they need hundreds of people just to unpack a program to then repackage it their way, it's like if you decided to sell hotdogs but got them in one package, and then you put them in a totally new container to re-sell it. It doesn't make any sense. Now imagine if all those people who's jobs are repackaging didn't need to do this and focus on really good projects like, say, a video editor that could compete with commercial products.
That's why a single package format would be the best option for Linux. .deb is the most popular format, so why not?

Linux is still very Libre, you could try to support your own packages of GNOME, for example, without needing systemd, but that would be impractical at long-term.
I don't hate a unified boot/system manager, I just think the decision to hop on the systemd bus was too rushed.

The idea behind systemd is good for Linux, but in reality there are lots of things that should change. For example, they shouldn't need to distribute it "as a whole", they could very well separate the boot manager dependencies from the syslog dependencies.
Also, even though systemd's idea is good (standardization is good) I don't like how it's becoming the de-facto base for a lot of Linux applications so fast. This just seems to feed the egos of it's developers (some even suggest they want to create GNOME OS), but it's nevertheless making things a lot easier for developers, and hopefully more full-time developers will come and develop things for Linux with ease.
See, let's not view things as "I'm right and they're wrong" because in doing so you could easily fall into the same pit as the ones you judge

I see the standardization as progress, it's less work for developers and means more resources put into one good thing instead of 100 different less-good things.

The Linux community is strong, specially with Linus on command. I'm sure that if systemd step outside it's limits Linus will ban it forever.

Don't need to hate I'm not sure I understand what you're feeling, but please feel free to contact me in PM, I'm very good at listening to people.

It seems as they're geniuses ._. Please have their brains tested hehehehe.

BTW, does any one of them run a *BSD as the only system?

The view from the other side of that firewall provides no great contrasts nor optimistic view these days...

Even from your side of that firewall you have excellent clear vision in this!

The conflict has always remained the same - FREEDOM vs Enslavement. The Free Software movement, such as it was, was an important aspect of that conflict, concerned quite literally with freedom of information, freedom of knowledge, freedom of thought.

But it was undermined and finally defeated by "open source", which removed FREEDOM as the driving criteria and replaced it with various irrelevant source code licensing legalisms. Freedom as the cause and object was rapidly lost.

Few can grasp the concept, much less understand its importance - I am happy to see you among the number who do!

What we are seeing now is just the final conversion of our tools, and our minds, back under the control of those who harvest us for fun and profit.

The important thing for us and ultimately for all other intelligent minds, is to survive the setback, preserve the knowledge gained and pass it to others to seed the next wave of enlightenment, should one come...

I really hope that is not true, just an expression of temporary disappointments and frustrations - it will pass.

For what it is worth, my own children have been just about the only happiness in my own life for quite some time, and I like to share that happiness and pride when possible.

On the other hand, my greatest sorrow has been to raise them into a world void of truth and justice, only to endure more of the same oppressions that I have raged against for my own time here. The only treasure I can give them is such truth and knowledge as I have found, and it is that very thing which ultimately will set them at odds with the world around them... the very definition of bitter-sweet fruit.

So don't hate, keep your perspective and hold your truth - your day will come. I have to believe that for us all.

Hopefully the programme will work, but whatever virus, spyware, etc. activated by the .exe file will not.

Because different systems use different package managing tools. A single, large Linux system would not offer much freedom would it? There would be little more flexibility to customise than with Windows and Mac. A company controlling that OS in the interest of their monetary gain would not be very interested in user freedom. Hence, systemd.

That would defeat the purpose of systemd. It is not, nor ever was, a replacement for a perfectly good initialisation process. Its purpose is to integrate all the system's processes. The people responsible for it focused debate on the init aspect, causing most people to focus their narrow attention spans on it, resulting in them believing systemd is only an init process.

Yes it is very good. A similar idea has worked very well for Microsoft.

Read what Torvalds has said about systemd and Red Hat and you will soon change your opinion.

I wasn't talking about unknown publishers, but official developers, the people who are serious and committed to deliver good quality products.

Which doesn't make much sense. It's almost the same ego that drivers the systemd developers. Imagine if I, tomorrow, started a new project creating a new package format. WHY would I do that? There's no point besides "cause I want to and because I can". Sure it's fun, but that would just create extra work if people would want to support it, and that's usually not how things evolve. That's how they stay the same, just as our gaming developers support on Linux :P

And what have that freedom provided so far? Only one, maybe two big developers coming to Linux after almost 30 years of Windows gaming?

Anyone should be free to create whatever they want, but that's not practical if there's 3000 distros and 20 different packages format. No developer, free or commercial, can do much. Of course there are open-source projects that are just awesome, like Gimp or Ardour, but imagine if all developers who are committed just to repackage things got their hands full time on these projects. We would have much better software than Photoshop. But no, developer ego seems to just separate projects, like the Cinnamon guys, they could put little of their effort into GNOME 3 to make it look like Cinnamon, but no, they created a whole new project which is 98% GNOME3. This slow things so much, no wonder Linux in 2012 had less audio and video editing tools and quality than Windows had in 1995. Developers need to unite for the most part, not go their own ways. Either that or stick to KDEnlive for video editing and Audacity for audio. There's ardour which is FANTASTIC but guess what, there's a hand-full of developers working on it (like 1 or 2) and they only get around 2000 dollars worth of donations per year. It's lame, these guys should have a whole team of developers working on Ardour, but I can assure some will go away and create his new project, which will be almost identical as the original with the addition of another developer's ego (just like the Cinnamon/Gnome thing) and maybe a new set of icons. Nothing walks forward if everybody decides to put their freedoms in place every time "just for the sake of it", they're just a bunch of crabs walking sideways.

You're not actually talking about the packages, then. You can customize Linux all you want, but if you have one package format it makes things a lot easier for developers and this enables them to work on greater and better projects.

That's not entirely true, at least not after years of it's development. It's not like the Debian guys didn't analyze it, systemd has been on Arch for over two years.

I like systemd, from a user perspective, it does almost everything perfectly and seems to do most of it's thing with evolution in mind. What I'm afraid of is the fact that it's becoming the base of the system. I don't know if it's because it's too good at what it does, but that has some negative implications on freedom of choice, per say. What if we don't want systemd but want GNOME? Can't, it depends on systemd. What if I want another init system? Can't, unless I'm willing to devout time and resources maintaining something that will eventually die. This makes me think that, while we're having some of our freedoms taken, we're probably opening doors for Linux to compete at a desktop market. And it's not like we had much freedom before, I mean, I don't see anyone complaining how they're not free to develop a new Kernel for their system because it depends on the Linux Kernel. Anyone is free to do so, but almost nobody has the time and resources to, and the ones who actually have the money do it the smart way: contribute to what's already there and IMPROVE IT instead of creating a whole new project. This makes things to have FOCUS, time, and therefore quality.

You're comparing apples with oranges. Microsoft is a company that develops their own OS and it's completely closed, while Linux is Freely-available to anyone and anyone can make a change on their system, even with systemd in place.

I would love if you added a source for me to read from

Who cares? If games are the primary criterion for judging the quality of an OS, then the correct choice is Windows. I want a system that works. If it can also play good games, that is a bonus. This is how the corporate takeover has steam-rolled along. Replace the terminal with GUIs; add proprietary software so people can use shit like Skype; make everything point-and-click; Wine and Steam so people can play Windows games. Result 1; Windows users switching to freely distributed Windows clones (It's free, yahoo!). Result 2; most users do not know enough about their systems to understand the danger of systemd. In fact, they approve of anything that will make their systems more Windows-like.

Only one set of packages avaiable for an OS that does not allow any modification of the core will definitely allow a wide range of customisation. And yes; one set of packages. When the corporate interests have what you want, a single Linux system, they will not bother to keep multiple projects alive. It will be much easier for them to do exactly what you suggest; provide a small number of heavily developed applications. And no. Being allowed to change the screen background and colour scheme is not freedom to customise.

Not only were the lessons not learned, but implementation was rushed. What does that tell you about the conspiracy, sorry, I mean politics, behind the decision?

And just where do you think Linux is going? Corporate-controlled open source can serve the same purpose as corporate-controlled closed source. Look at how systemd was foisted on the hapless users.

I did not keep any. You will need to search for Torvalds interviews. There are also copies of several of his interviews on various fora.

1 members found this post helpful.

People that, despite wanting to use only Libre applications, can't because the Linux fragmentation doesn't allow them to. Then they need to either dual-boot with the evil closed source software or run Windows on Virtualbox.

I wasn't talking only about games, that was just one example. You can see the lack of good products on *any* Linux Desktop, be it video game developers, driver developers that make good support to older hardware, audio editing, video editing, image editing.... shall I continue? I don't think so.

The problem with this kind of sentence is it imposes that you want a system that works *for you*. A system that just works for me might not work for other people, because guess what? No one cares for making development easier, they just want to fragment themselves and create more work, which just makes migration to Linux a pain for most of the people.

You're mostly wrong, let me show you why.

If you want something to be adopted by the masses you must attend their needs, and FOSS can do that but it's not there yet. The regular user (i.g. my grandmother or father) will never want to use a system via Terminal only, they want to have their job done and also be able to enjoy the system without hassle. GUI's aren't evil, they're there to help people use their software, they're there because guess what? People are free to do so. People should be free to chose either via Termainal or GUI. Trying to force them to use Terminal only just removes the freedom you've been talking about all along. I really don't care if they use GUI or Terminal, whatever works for them, as long as everybody is happy.

And Steam titles are not Windows games. They may have been created to work on Windows first, but they're being ported to work on Linux.

And Skype? I really hate it, but what's the alternative on the FOSS world? I guess there aren't many (if any) that beat Skype's functionalities. I would assume that, again, fragmentation plays a big roll on this.

This is nonsense. Linux isn't a Windows clone and you know that. Besides, just the fact that they switched is a great start!

I don't really blame them. People who are in charge and know about things should take care of the masses.

I never said anything about one Linux system. There can be as many Linux distros as there are, but they should work together and not apart.

One project receiving 10 developers is way better than 10 projects receiving one developer.

Which the vast majority of users don't care. They won't change the source code, it's sad but it's simple.

It seems the developers tried avoiding damage at long term. If they start supporting systemd now they won't have to devout time and resources going against this huge wave.

You're correct, companies control Linux, but that's because not many people are willing to fund it and contribute to it. The same with Ardour, it's GPL and controlled by one or two guys, but as soon as a company sees a chance of making a few bucks out of it then Ardour will grow, because:

* It will have fundings;
* It will have lots of developers working on one great project.

Then it's too late to blame the companies. We need to take actions right now if we want change to happen.

I see many good applications on both Linux and BSD systems, and most of them work better than Windows counterparts.

A system that works is one that does what it is supposed to do and does it reliably. That includes reliably running available software. If the system does not have certain software one wants or needs, it is the wrong system for that person.

You refuse to recognise a simple fact. The open source movement was never, and will never be, concerned with adoption by the masses. It is supposed to be an alternative for those who want an alternative and are willing to learn how to use it. Perhaps even give up a few things that are under the sole control of proprietary software companies. Appealing to the masses requires giving them what they already have: Windows and Mac. Changing Linux to emulate them is pointless.

Then they need to choose their system wisely. See above.

That is what it is becoming.

No. That is part of the falacious belief that open source was created to attract the masses and compete with Windows.

I am not going to bother commenting further about the fragmentation nonsense. That just displays a lack of understanding of open source software. And at this point, it is best for me to withdraw from this thread. Others can continue the fun.

1 members found this post helpful.

I didn't say there aren't any good products on Linux, I said the number of good Libre products is considerably lower. Take these programs for example:

* Sony Vegas Pro;
* Adobe Premiere;
* CAD software;
* Google Earth;
* Google Maps;
* Skype;
* Steam;
* Adobe suite;
* Corel suite;
* FRAPS;
* Reaper and dozens of other audio editing software;
* Flight Simulators;

There is a huge amount of Libre software that we simply can't expect to see them becoming good, because ods are that one of the developers will say "screw this, I'm starting my own project". And there we start again, at point 0. Instead of having one single package manager, 10 developers would have to work on 3 different package formats and 3 different binary versions on each distro just because Linux is too much fragmented. No wonder things take decades before they are actually to a point where they're somewhat comparable (but almost never up to) to the quality of Focused Projects.

Which is exactly why a lot people can't switch to Linux: they can't find applications to fit their needs because, again, we're too concentrated in separating things instead of working together. While developers gain their "freedom to develop" whatever they want they're taking the freedom of the masses to switch to FOSS.

I was hoping you'd touch on that.

Perhaps this is _YOUR_ definition, maybe to you Free Software isn't actually meant to atract masses, maybe it's JUST so you can feel free at some aspect of your life. But then you get mad at people who use closed software. Maybe if it wasn't so time consuming to maintain 300 distros, maybe if developers actually cared for the final project instead of spelling all that "I'm free to do whatever I want so I'm going to screw this project" bullcrap, maybe if Linux had one package format so that I wouldn't have to explain all this over and over to you.... maybe then people could actually use 100% Free Software. But now? It's impossible for everybody to switch, reason why our desktop market share hasn't grown too much in the last decades.

Valve has stood up because no developer community did so. I bet Gabe thought:

"So, only few seem to be developing good quality games for Linux, how about we port our project to there"?

See, again: one project, many developers, lots of money = a good product that is attracting more users to Linux in the last 2 yeras than Tux was capable of doing in it's whole existance. Imagine if 100 developers would have actually done some great thing instead of each one creating their games that look like the 90's.
Valve would NEVER be succesfull if every couple of it's 200 developers started their own project just to feel free. That's, with no offense, dumb and stupid.

Like, Windows? It's not the wisest choice, but at least they're gonna get their job done. Windows software development/maintenance is way easier and less costly than on Linux.

Mind doing some elaboration?

I never seen such claim by opensource developers. And how is people coming to Linux bad? They at least have the chance to experience FOSS software, which is exactly what made me go FOSS for over 8 yeras, untill this month.
Unfortunately I didn't see the big change in Linux I was hoping, and I was exactly right about it's future: it would still be fragmented and Libre developers wouldn't make Linux rock on the Desktop. Instead, some company would do so.. because they're smart

But I never connected one to another. The fragmentation issue happens whether the software is free or not.

I respect your decision. Feel free to come back at any time, or even contact me via PM so we can chat via e-Mail.

Cheers.

Please go to Linux or whatever you like. This is the *BSD forum and you're now massively off topic.

2 members found this post helpful.

Except BSD. Please.

3 members found this post helpful.

got a nice screen with INVALID or CORRUPT kernel image...someone can help me??? unetbootin+testin lead to that error!!!

Fragmentation of development is the bazaar model, and it does work very well. Some projects have benefitted greatly from using the bazaar development model like GNU, Linux, and other projects.

The cathedral, or monolithic, model works well, but only when the entire project is all on the same page with all the developers like FreeBSD is. Some things like FreeBSD can be well developed and gold standard setting, while others like systemd can be a complete pile of shit held together only with duct tape, super glue, chicken wire, and bondo. It all depends on how the project is treated both externally and internally, and how well attention is given to bugs and other problems.

So that's how a small part of the community react when someone disagrees with them. Not very surprising considering some are very close minded to such point where they deny a space that doesn't belong to them. Good thing is I know this isn't the reaction of most people.
And I couldn't care less about where people think I should move, too, after all these are just opinions that seem to be on the same level for both sides = crap. Agreeing with me or not, anyone can sit right beside me, I might even learn from the people who disagree with me and vice-versa

Mods can close this thread. I've made my mind.