why is linux the way it is?

[fdm]

i removed windows on my pc a few months ago, in favor of an open-source, community driven operating system. linux is defiantly the golden child in my mind despite all the overwhelming positives of a linux OS, when it comes down to it i am very confused to why it is structured the way it is. it didnt take long for me to realize "distros" are a completely trivial method of spreading in operating system. distros seem to just fragment development and in my opinion hinder the general acceptance of the operating system. the real power that linux has that everyone can appreciate is its packaging system. but thanks to fragmentation, every linux distro that i have tried employs one of several packaging systems and use their own unique repos. my question is why? why arnt existing systems integrated so that we can choose to install programs though both package files(rpm, deb, etc) and by automated source-code based installers without worry of incompatibility or conflicts. why do i have to turn to compiling programs just because it is either really outdated or nonexistent in a distro's repo. packaging software must be a tremendous burden, so why exhaust resources on repackaging the same stuff over and over again for different variants of the same operating system? that just creates microcosms which degrade overall collaboration. it is all the same linux, no matter the name. i still pull from the same pool of free software, no matter the distro. i can still use all my favorite WM, games, browsers, etc. it seems that many packagers work very hard for their distro, why cant their work benefit everyone instead of just their small microcosm?

of course this is merely my perspective, may it be correct or incorrect. it may just be that i despise incompatibility. i am downloading freebsd right now, so linux is doing something wrong, at least from my standpoint.

[Dapper Dan]

The answer is ... it doesn't have to be that way. Choose which distro you like and stick with it. If you like Ubuntu, then use synaptic package manager and the Ubuntu utilities for your purposes. No need to be worried with slackpackges, portage or compiling from source. If you choose a source based distro then that is what you use. There is no need for source based package versions to always be completely compatible with all binary based distros. As they say, "to each his own." Choose one, go with it and that's it. I think you are perhaps searching for a bigger question which really isn't there. It's all Linux and for the most part... it all works. It's just that some of us prefer sienna red over sea-foam green.

[GNU-Fan]

why arnt existing systems integrated so that we can choose to install programs though both package files(rpm, deb, etc) and by automated source-code based installers without worry of incompatibility or conflicts.

Don't be fooled by names, fdm. If all distributions were to use the same package format, you had still to worry about incompatibility or conflicts. Every distribution (even every flavour) provides other versions of libraries etc.

Look for example at Debian Stable vs. Unstable. You as the user can choose whether you want a more tested (and therefore older) system or if you want more current software for which you may have to report and fix bugs yourself.

You simply can't deliver one package that runs on both platforms. You can't even compile the same source on both of them.

What is more, if you browse a bit through package maintainer mailing list, you will quickly come across about that what I call "the human factor". People disagree sometimes, especially maintainers
Who is to decide which compile flags are going to be set, which patches are useful etc? Having lots of distributions helps to release steam.

[fdm]

The answer is ... it doesn't have to be that way. Choose which distro you like and stick with it. If you like Ubuntu, then use synaptic package manager and the Ubuntu utilities for your purposes. No need to be worried with slackpackges, portage or compiling from source. If you choose a source based distro then that is what you use. There is no need for source based package versions to always be completely compatible with all binary based distros. As they say, "to each his own." Choose one, go with it and that's it. I think you are perhaps searching for a bigger question which really isn't there. It's all Linux and for the most part... it all works. It's just that some of us prefer sienna red over sea-foam green.

i am thinking more towards the benefit of having access to every available application right in the convenience of my package mangier. right now, its pretty spotty on allot of distros that are not major or dont benefit from unofficial repos. this is unlogical to me so i have to inquire to get a better picture of why linux is where it is at, and why the developers decided having a bunch of very similar but eccentually incompatible operating systems is better then one big one split into different projects.

Don't be fooled by names, fdm. If all distributions were to use the same package format, you had still to worry about incompatibility or conflicts. Every distribution (even every flavour) provides other versions of libraries etc.

Look for example at Debian Stable vs. Unstable. You as the user can choose whether you want a more tested (and therefore older) system or if you want more current software for which you may have to report and fix bugs yourself.

You simply can't deliver one package that runs on both platforms. You can't even compile the same source on both of them.

What is more, if you browse a bit through package maintainer mailing list, you will quickly come across about that what I call "the human factor". People disagree sometimes, especially maintainers
Who is to decide which compile flags are going to be set, which patches are useful etc? Having lots of distributions helps to release steam.

i find it pretty interesting that both posts mention debian based distros. speaks volumes, lol. i cant say that alien hasnt saved me from having to compile programs that i cant find a deb for. i install dependency after dependency, create a bunch of symlinks for missing lib files(really messy, i know), and you know what? every time i have done it, it works just fine. just have to steer clear of mandrake and suse rpms(i think i used arch).

where does the need for drastically different libraries come into play anyway? for something that is in early beta stages of production, major changes between versions is to be expected, but for everything else, why is backwards compatibility an area that seems missing?

another thing is i really put in question the security of repos in general. the package lists are generally distributed on same servers as the packages themselves. the package list also generally contains the md5s or checksums or sha1s or whatever. on top of that many distros have their repos hosted on edu servers and the like. idk seems dangerous to me in a world where defacing is an everyday worry. the good hackers at least have a enough respect, but stuff like this is a gold mine for malware pushers. puts a shiver down my spine lol.

[jayd512]

I don't really have a whole lot to add to this. But you're mentioning all apps being available from one source of maintainers, all set-up for download and installation. This wouldn't solve all the incompatibility issues. After all, look at the stuff for Windows. You can install on 2K or XP, not on Vista, which might even be on the same machine. Or vice versa.

Besides, the maintainers are really the ones that say what works best. And for them, it does. It might not work best for you or me. But then, that's why we have other distros waiting for us

[Jonathan183]

Most distros have their own package manager, this is an important feature and has usually been taylored to the needs of the developers and users of that distro. Some distros are binary based while others are source based. Any universal package manager would need to be capable of dealing with both binary and source packages and would also need to be at least as good as any existing distro package manager. Developing the tool would be a huge task ... and you still are left with the job of convincing everyone to adopt it ... Some are likely to prefer their own approach to package management and say why change?

No one group/company controls GNU/Linux, so imposing a change across all distros is impossible. If it were possible some would oppose it anyway

[fdm]

You can install on 2K or XP, not on Vista, which might even be on the same machine. Or vice versa.

that doesnt seem like a very fair assessment lol. nt based operating systems have historically had poor win3.x and dos support mainly because their emulation layer is trash, but if the program wasnt written in the stupid ages it should have support for the nt line of OS and generally 9x up. i have never even installed vista and i dont plan to so i have no insight there. but windows is completely irrelevant because of wine and dosbox(and even dosemu when dosbox fails) which all are just about as good as running windows apps on a real windows or dos OS. windows cant make the cut and as a result linux is leagues ahead of it in every way.

No one group/company controls GNU/Linux, so imposing a change across all distros is impossible. If it were possible some would oppose it anyway

is the development of "standards" completely overlooked, or is it that developers see no other why to coexist other then forking off from the main projects to start their own? from one perspective that would allow for competition to form furthering overall development, but from another standpoint that just leads to a bunch of incomplete projects which i see as a waste of resources.


when i look at linux history in wikipedia, mail archives, etc i am still left wondering the main incentives behind the choices made during it's early development that makes it what it is now. for instance, in my mind, i deduce that the rapid rate of deprecation is a direct result of immature codebase. in other words my guess is that linux is very young as development goes and the programmers that are writing these libraries dont or better yet cant take everything into account. i also conclude that if libraries use other libraries, which i assume is the case, if something becomes depreciated at the top, changes would have to trickle down through all projects that utilize the depreciated function. i can also imagine that the change isnt always graceful.

this is where outside knowledge is needed. my strange mix of logic and assumption works well enough in a programming environment, but when it comes to things that are either fact or fiction i require input from people other then myself in order to understand it properly or even at all. because of its broad nature i posted this in "The Coffee Lounge" on a forum that deals with multiple open-sourced operating systems. this way i can get input from all walks of linux and bsd geru so i can finally stop pondering about it so much i dont mind long-winded or even off-topic, as furthering my knowledge is ultimately the goal.

[MikeTbob]

i dont mind long-winded or even off-topic, as furthering my knowledge is ultimately the goal.

Hang around this forum long enough and you'll still learn something new every day.

[Jonathan183]

is the development of "standards" completely overlooked, or is it that developers see no other why to coexist other then forking off from the main projects to start their own? from one perspective that would allow for competition to form furthering overall development, but from another standpoint that just leads to a bunch of incomplete projects which i see as a waste of resources.

opensource will not prevent standards (good tools are shared rather than being reinvented). I don't believe a distro develops just to be different ... distros develop to meet different needs ... Ubuntu may be good if you have reasonable spec hardware, but it will not be much use if you only have 128MB RAM and need a GUI. Something like DSL will do the job and is a better choice for this particular need.

Effort is wasted if all distros are trying to produce exactly the same outcome, for the same application - but they are not.
... worlds most used OS may happen - but it is not the goal

[elija]

Let's not forget philosophy. Many distors differ on their basic principles with some taking a more pragmatic approach to proprietry software and some saying not in our distro.

If you want to try the "purest" linux experience out there have a look at Slackware.