Where I want to go to with this is, that I don’t have anything against standardization, but I _would have_ a lot against standardizing on an rpm- and Gnome-based Linux. I’d hate it and I’d simply stop using Linux. You could say I’m a zealot, but I’ve been using Linux and many DEs on it for more then a decade now, and I’d like to think I know what my preferences are and what my reasons for those preferences are.

Companies choosing some distro with some techs and some DEs don’t necessarily choose the best one, they only choose one which they can work with. That also means, if someone were to standardize a vendor-specific distro, there most likely would be war instead of cooperation. In the corporate world noone is putting common interest ahead of company decisions.

So then there’s Gnome, Gnome, and a basic E17. Differing interfaces has never been a problem in consumer electronics, as every brand of TV / DVD recorder / cable box / satellite box has its own type of interface. Even within the same brand, the menus and remote controls can vary widely.

Does it really matter that the different distributions in use on these computers use different package formats? All the distros have repositories (official and 3rd-party) which contain lots of software, and I notice that binary installers aren’t exactly dead on Linux.

It’s a problem because it’s an *extreme* deterrent to mass adoption. When people realized that the shiny cheap little computers they’ve bought are all different and don’t interact well together and everything is in a different place and the concepts are different and the menu is beyond unfamiliar . . . they all say they run Linux but why are they so utterly different? Many if not most of them are going to get their pimply nephew to slap Windows XP on the machine and be done with the whole shebang. Linux will prove itself capable, and yet will still manage to continue and confirm its reputation as an impenetrable and chaotic mystery that only geeks can love.

So no mass adoption, and without that we will continue to struggle for the hearts and minds of hardware makers, driver developers, media access, compatible apps, etc etc etc.

I have no problem with the existence of a plethora of different Linuxes, and I don’t think you could kill all the distros even if you wanted to. I do think that it would be far better for the manufacturers to settle on a single common distribution in order to have a prayer at reassuring people that buying a linux machine is not going to be a dead end for them. And I think that distro probably ought to be Ubuntu simply because it’s got a heck of a lot of momentum and buzz, the most active development machine, and the biggest and friendliest community to noobs.

I do understand the issue and the headache that comes with it, and its unfortunate. But I don’t *want* the world to settle on Ubuntu (with GNOME! ), or OpenSuse (with RPMs). But if that works for someone, so be it.

I want the world to understand that computers are complex, and either you get something that has support options (purchased or community), or you get something obscure and learn to do it yourself. Any mechanic would tell you the same.

AutoPackage has tried to address the installation issues with limited support from application people; FreeDesktop.org has attempted to address the DE/WM integration issue. There are attempts out there, but as long as the software is Free Software, there will be tweekers who look to improve it all — not always successfully, but so it goes.

There are standards, e.g.

when there is KDE which they think is not free enough, someone create GNOME, a new “standard”

when there is Debian which they think is not hip enough, someone create Ubuntu, another “standard”

then we have xfce, fluxbox, or deb, rpm or LOL, LOLROTF

The pressure to standardise has always been around. Even in filesystem hierarchy, there’s been the Linux Standards Base. I dare say, the LSB has largely still been not as successful as it had set out to be.

Things are being worked on, but might it be too late? Linux is hitting *mainstream* consumer hardware. People buying EeePC’s aren’t just Linux fans and bigots any longer. They’re regular consumers.

They don’t want to futz with things. They want it to just work. And if they go on to buying a Shuttle KPC, they want it to work similarly (”Huh? Doesn’t all Linux just work the same?”). You get the drift…

Red Hat tried shipping with a “standard” themed desktop environment. BlueCurve, back in the RHL8 days. Remember that? However, the desktop itself wasn’t standard…

Ignoring the embedded devices (maemo and OLPC) which will always have custom GUIs (iPhone anyone?), there’s just GNOME and KDE. PackageKit will paper over packaging differences. These things are being worked on. Sure, there will always be vendors that do their own thing, but I suspect once Linux desktops become mainstream enough there will be pressure to ship with a fairly standard environment.

Taste is nice, and choice is nice, but it adds complexity. In OS X, there’s just Aqua. On Windows there’s Aero (or Classic). On Linux, wow, the list just goes on ;)