Freedom of choice, is it holding linux back?

Snakeye · 2010-02-22 16:27:51

Holding GNU/Linux back from what? I run Arch exclusively and installed all the software i need. Everything works as intended. It has freed me from domination by Microsoft or some other monopoly, and it is actively developed by a host of people with no single controlling entity. If a GNU/Linux project dies, there are other projects to takes it's place. If a large multinational conglomerate goes belly up, do we care? Nope. Diversity is GNU/Linux's strength.

Anikom15 · 2010-02-23 01:03:47

Ok, I'm gonna put my thougts. First of all, choice is not a bad thing. E.g. there is Vim and Emacs and other editors, there's never going to be 1 editor, same with KDE, GNOME and the other DE's and WM's. The problem is when programs (or "environments) re-invent the wheel for no reason. E.g. there was Xscreensaver, and then GNOME (and KDE) decided to make their own screensaver, rather than just using the perfectly fine Xscreensaver, if there was a problem with Xscreensaver, they should've modified it and sent their suggestions to the maintainer, better yet, Xscreensaver should be compatible with alternate "front ends" to allow a gtk or qt configuration screen, etc.

Sound is another issue. I think it's fine that there's ALSA and OSS, but I think it would be helpful to have one sound standard for not just Linux but all UNIX, like X is for graphics, and yes, X is a beast, but it has to be.

TO CONCLUDE: When you program things the UNIX way (modular, reusable, and simple) you avoid the "freedom of choice" issue.

Last edited by Anikom15 (2010-02-23 01:05:22)

habbe · 2010-02-23 11:52:49

I think it is holding Linux back in terms of usability.

axel668 · 2010-02-23 12:40:19

habbe wrote:

I think it is holding Linux back in terms of usability.

It's true that there's always room for usability improvements, but this is also true for proprietary OSes. In fact, in my opinion an end user centric Linux distribution like Mandriva or OpenSUSE is on par with MacOS in that regard and way beyond Windows (anyone who does NOT hate the new explorer ?).

Regarding choice ... for me that's one of the most attractive aspects about OpenSource. In fact it's the main reason why I use Linux in general and Arch specifically, because of the huge choice of Software, only one "pacman -S" away.

Honestly, most of us probably could afford 50 bucks for an XP license and then install thirtysomething freeware and shareware tools to make it work the way we want (at least for a few months before it gets borked by a virus or some tuning tool or just has slowed down beyond a usable state ...) - in fact that's what I used to do back when Linux was not ready for the desktop.

But today, why take the pain when there are hundreds of Linux distributions out there, and I only have to pick the one I like best or that fits best for the current use case (while Arch is great for me, it might not be the best idea for my wife's laptop or my dad's 8 year old PC behind a modem connection).

Linux and OpenSource ist for people who like choice. If you don't like choice, and rather trust others to know what's good for you, go and buy a Mac.

habbe · 2010-02-23 15:04:05

Actually my comment was louzy because one could argue the exact opposite: freedom enhances usability because one can use exactly what one wants.

What I meant was that freedom is making it harder to maintain a usable system...

But now that I think of it, I only understand the freedom in having different programs with different philosophy behind them. Anything that the user does not see, any abstraction in API:s and whatever, what is the advantage in having many of them?

habbe · 2010-02-23 19:25:41

skottish wrote:

Before this thread turns into the newest addition to the "sound sucks in Linux" thread collection, I'd highly recommend that everyone read the following page and all 229 subsequent replies. The absolute truth to why the state of sound in Linux is what it is lies here:
http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2009/0 … sorry.html

Excellent link, thank you!

dawhead (creator of jack and ardour) says:
"Several weeks ago, I wrote on a linux audio mailing list about how I see the problem - someone was complaining about it all being politics:

Its not politics. Its the lack of politics. There are no leaders with any power to enforce any decisions. There is no police authority to identify people who fail to comply with "joint decisions". There is no justice system to punish or expel those who do. This is an anarchistic meritocracy, and yes, its harder to get system infrastructure developed in this environment than in a system like windows or OS X where a single person can say "it shall be thus". thats good, and its bad."

I find this spot on, and as one answer to the question of this topic.

Last edited by habbe (2010-02-23 19:27:26)

tzervo · 2010-02-23 19:31:37

Linux diversity and freedom closely resembles evolution. With diversity come many ideas, the bad ones do not survive, the good ones do. And since they are not force-fed, they are probably very good ones. So I am in favor of freedom.

EDIT

I know some have already said that, I just wanted to say that I agree with them! :-)

Last edited by tzervo (2010-02-23 19:32:19)

sonoran · 2010-02-23 21:26:37

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora- … 00861.html

> Linux is about choice.
If I could only have one thing this year, it would be to eliminate that meme from the collective consciousness. It is a disease. It strangles the mind and ensures you can never change anything ever because someone somewhere has OCD'd their environment exactly how they like it and how dare you change it on them you're so mean and next time I have friends over for Buffy night you're not invited mom he's sitting on my side again.

Last edited by sonoran (2010-02-23 21:28:27)

JohannesSM64 · 2010-03-02 03:11:23

Anikom15 wrote:

TO CONCLUDE: When you program things the UNIX way (modular, reusable, and simple) you avoid the "freedom of choice" issue.

For once, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

arinlares · 2010-03-02 05:56:18

It's a drawback insofar as there's a lack of standardization. Without standards, it's a bit more difficult make everything compatible with everything else. But, so long as there are people willing to work on projects for compatibility's sake, freedom is still a benefit, rather than a drawback for Linux, and even the free-software community.

Last edited by arinlares (2010-03-02 06:03:02)

Arch Linux

#26 2010-02-22 16:27:51

Re: Freedom of choice, is it holding linux back?

#27 2010-02-23 01:03:47

Re: Freedom of choice, is it holding linux back?

#28 2010-02-23 11:52:49

Re: Freedom of choice, is it holding linux back?

#29 2010-02-23 12:40:19

Re: Freedom of choice, is it holding linux back?

#30 2010-02-23 15:04:05

Re: Freedom of choice, is it holding linux back?

#31 2010-02-23 19:25:41

Re: Freedom of choice, is it holding linux back?

#32 2010-02-23 19:31:37

Re: Freedom of choice, is it holding linux back?

#33 2010-02-23 21:26:37

Re: Freedom of choice, is it holding linux back?

#34 2010-03-02 03:11:23

Re: Freedom of choice, is it holding linux back?

#35 2010-03-02 05:56:18

Re: Freedom of choice, is it holding linux back?

Board footer