Every distro uses the same linux kernel right? Maybe different version numbers, but basically the same kernel right? Linux is Linux, distros just depend on how things are setup beyond the kernel. Well, not to over simplify, but why can't drivers be written to account for these differences...not so that they themselves have all info for all distros, but enough info for a simple to install utility to modify, and possibly install any driver on any distro.

I personally don't have the time to program...or rather to learn how to program in such a way to make anything useful, so I can't do this. The thing is that looking at the number of posts everyday on this forum, there are enough people to demand a better functionality to linux.

There is too much expansion, and division, not enough troubleshooting, modifying and improving going on.

Linux is less stable than Windows by a long shot, at least if you want similar functionallity. If you run it as a server, with minimal GUI and without all the extras, then there aren't many problems.

Redhat Linux is now up to 3 CDs for a regular desktop or workstation install...Windows has 1 CD and has much more functionality.

I personally dislike windows due to its constant costly upgrades, and now especially with its copyright protections/copy protection. I don't believe that I should have to buy 2 copies if I have 2 computers...they can kiss my hairy -----, but Linux is free...but is free crap good, or is it still crap? It still has a chance, but a set of Linux rules and even a Standardized version of Linux is required. The people who regulate the kernel should take the initiative to stop distros from going overboard...everyone just wants their own personal distro...which is fine...but those that are made public should all follow a set of standards!

I have to disagree with you on this one. Linux users who do not turn off their machines report uptimes of months, rather than days. Total system crashes in Linux are far rarer than in Windows simply because the programs are not so tightly integrated within the OS.

But, on that one cd you have a desktop. If you want a file server, you have to then buy 2 more cds. If you want a proxy server, you have to go and buy more cds. And so on. On those 3 RH cds, you have 4 different desktops, a file server, an ftp server and several other workstation/server installs. Even if you buy a copy of RH, you still have less cds than Windows (for the same functionality) and have spent a lot less money. Plus, you can legally install on as many other machines as you like.

And yet the Linux market share is increasing. Why do you say 'free crap'? OpenOffice, Apache - both free, neither are crap.

Is this just a rant?

Definitely a rant.

I have to tell you that being back into linux after years of HAVING to use Redmond, Inc. I feel liberated.

Never have I felt so powerful and at the same time useful in my computing.

The ONLY time I have had to reboot my linux box is when I make a kernel change.

I have made it a mission to find one thing that I (me personally) cannot do on my linux system that I could do in windows. I am sorry I haven't found it.

*nix, all the way.

I DO HOWEVER agree with the ranter in that such a wide range options have been made available that it has divided the linux population into fiefdoms of pro-"this" and pro-"that" users. This can only do one thing and that is to divide the user base into factions. While at the same time promoting competition between said factions this will produce the highest quality service/drivers available while decreasing it's market share value due to "support dilution."

The question remain this, when the rebels overtake the mainstream giant at what point do they just become mainsteam and risk being overtaken? Is it avoidable? How many choices should be made to everyone? Who should the "average linux user" be?

Why do my fingers smell like cheese?

Anyhow, we now return you to our regularly scheduled rant.

To some extend , I can agree with that rant :
There should come a standard asto where files are installed ; 'till now , thid differs greatly between distros.
In one distro , program "A" (by default)gets installed in "/opt" , in another in "/usr/local/share/X11R6/lib/foo/A" , in yet another distro , the program will end up being spread all across the file-system , making it entirely impossible to track down all of its contents.
This is what causes a lot of frustration in "newbies" , amongst others.

I think , Linux would make a giant leap forwards , if all distros would stick to a mutually agreed setup of the filesystem and proogram-writers would develop a standard of installing.

Just my two €cents(equals about 2.5 $cents)

[bold]Redhat Linux is now up to 3 CDs for a regular desktop or workstation install...Windows has 1 CD and has much more functionality.[/bold]

i disagree with this one. Linux comes in 3cds or more is because it includes hundreads of application. if you counted windows installation disk plus other software installation disk such as ms office, photoshop, macromedia soft, multimedia programs and etc it will way beyond 1 disk. if you compared with linux distro, it includes many apps that you need and all will be installed at once when you install linux os into you system.

that is one of the beauty of linux

Excellent...it was a little of a rant. I just feel strongly that Linux needs someone or some group to take a strong stand on such topics. I thing the fact that it is not newbie friendly, as mentioned by Megamieuwsel is a major indication that something is wrong. That was one of the first lessons I learned in High School and University level courses...if it doesn't make sense to some one who has never used it then it is probably wrong!!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out

oh ya...about Linux running for long periods of time...my windows runs just as long on my system...probably longer. Linux has a tendancy to freeze on my system.
For those of you that think Linux is more stable...it might be on a great computer but on a computer that crashes due to hardware malfunctions, sometimes Windows handles that better.

I especially have a problem with crashing at start up at the line that says something about APM Bios or something...sorry for being so vague, I just haven't used Linux all that much lately...I need Kazaa and MS Office, and Linux alternatives just don't cut it...but why should they...both programs should accomadate linux.

If anyone has any ideas on how to increase Linux stability with an Intel motherboard, P4 1.3GHz with 384MB or whatever of PC800 RDRAM non ecc, using any graphical install of Redhat or Fedora please indicate some ideas on how to fix such crashing problems...PS I tried installing FreeBSD and GRUB would not start fully, I will eventully try a diskette loaded boat loader for safety, but maybe this may help figure out why mine and other computers are crashing so much with Unix based OSes.