Exactly. I don't see the point. All we're seeing is whether they picked KDE or Gnome, and how flashy their default background looks.Here's a proposition for somebody ambitious:Compile a similar list, but instead of screenshots, give me an interactive tour of the package manager (with a browseable list of all the packages available) and a top-down view of the filesystem hierarchy. It still wouldn't portray the distro very well, but it would sure as hell be better than KDE screenshots.
It's a mistake to assume that a large number of these distros do anything to further the Linux community at all, and thus to say that they divert valuable resources away from core development effort is inherently false. Typically, when a distribution adds something special to the scene it gets due attention. Many of these faux-distros are a result of the following train of thought:"well, we can build our own distro from scratch with these pre-installed programs, this desktop environment, and this cool looking theme! And we can use this other distro as a base for package compatibility!"This is akin to taking a Honda Civic and giving it a different body and color and calling it something else. Zero automotive engineering knowledge was required to accomplish this task, and yet in a parallel argument you would be saying that if they had taken that effort to work on the *original* Honda Civic that the original vehicle would be better. It's just untrue, as in this case the person doing the modification does not have the know-how to improve the original.Furthermore, any adoption that Linux has undergone to date has been largely due to word-of-mouth, friend-to-friend advertising to the effect of "hey get a load of this, no spyware or viruses and it runs like a Ferrari", which means that the most common and most solid distributions also happen to be the ones that people try most often. No regular Joe Sixpack user is going to decide to jump face first into Linux by making a choice off of distrowatch.com or, for that matter, a page with a large number of screenshots. Rather, they'll take the ISO that their friend made for them and give it a whirl. In short, the real all-star developers *are* concentrating on the core efforts, which typically benefit all distributions equally as they are most often distribution agnostic.
"Linux has not taken off because of standards. Can you imagine being a developer and have to test your product on 150 different versions of Linux. I'm sure your Quality Assurance cost will out weigh your development costs and that is not smart."Have you ever developed for Linux? Or even used it? If you had, you would know that you don't need to test on 150 different versions. Linux distro's are internally coherent and standardized... so *in general* if something works on one it works on all. Can you take any .rpm and have it work on any system? No, but that's not the point. Can you take the source code and have it work on _almost_ any system? Yes, and that's the point.Are there exceptions to this rule, of course, but give me one example where _any_ software is completely consistent. Doesn't exist, I guarantee you. Not even on closed source OS's. If your Windows system has been patched, a lot of stuff that worked pre-patch won't work. If you upgrade from Lion to Tiget to Bear (oh my!) on OS X, there are program incompatibilities.-olly
burkeApr 2, 2006
Exactly. I don't see the point. All we're seeing is whether they picked KDE or Gnome, and how flashy their default background looks.Here's a proposition for somebody ambitious:Compile a similar list, but instead of screenshots, give me an interactive tour of the package manager (with a browseable list of all the packages available) and a top-down view of the filesystem hierarchy. It still wouldn't portray the distro very well, but it would sure as hell be better than KDE screenshots.
meanfishApr 2, 2006
It's a mistake to assume that a large number of these distros do anything to further the Linux community at all, and thus to say that they divert valuable resources away from core development effort is inherently false. Typically, when a distribution adds something special to the scene it gets due attention. Many of these faux-distros are a result of the following train of thought:"well, we can build our own distro from scratch with these pre-installed programs, this desktop environment, and this cool looking theme! And we can use this other distro as a base for package compatibility!"This is akin to taking a Honda Civic and giving it a different body and color and calling it something else. Zero automotive engineering knowledge was required to accomplish this task, and yet in a parallel argument you would be saying that if they had taken that effort to work on the *original* Honda Civic that the original vehicle would be better. It's just untrue, as in this case the person doing the modification does not have the know-how to improve the original.Furthermore, any adoption that Linux has undergone to date has been largely due to word-of-mouth, friend-to-friend advertising to the effect of "hey get a load of this, no spyware or viruses and it runs like a Ferrari", which means that the most common and most solid distributions also happen to be the ones that people try most often. No regular Joe Sixpack user is going to decide to jump face first into Linux by making a choice off of distrowatch.com or, for that matter, a page with a large number of screenshots. Rather, they'll take the ISO that their friend made for them and give it a whirl. In short, the real all-star developers *are* concentrating on the core efforts, which typically benefit all distributions equally as they are most often distribution agnostic.
antdudeApr 2, 2006
It's not just OS. It is also programs.
guineapigApr 2, 2006
It's not enough not to digg it. Report it as lame.
linshotsApr 2, 2006Submitter
LinuxXP: <a class="user" href="http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=522&slide=1">http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=522&slide=1</a>
Closed AccountApr 3, 2006
"Linux has not taken off because of standards. Can you imagine being a developer and have to test your product on 150 different versions of Linux. I'm sure your Quality Assurance cost will out weigh your development costs and that is not smart."Have you ever developed for Linux? Or even used it? If you had, you would know that you don't need to test on 150 different versions. Linux distro's are internally coherent and standardized... so *in general* if something works on one it works on all. Can you take any .rpm and have it work on any system? No, but that's not the point. Can you take the source code and have it work on _almost_ any system? Yes, and that's the point.Are there exceptions to this rule, of course, but give me one example where _any_ software is completely consistent. Doesn't exist, I guarantee you. Not even on closed source OS's. If your Windows system has been patched, a lot of stuff that worked pre-patch won't work. If you upgrade from Lion to Tiget to Bear (oh my!) on OS X, there are program incompatibilities.-olly