/tech/ - Technology★

>make 3 competing GUI toolkits (that look and work almost same), split developers into 3 projects to each reinvent the wheel instead of cooperating to make superior toolkit

>make 100 different distros to cause confusion for users

>>just like if someone was doing diversion to weaken linux...

-t. poettering

>>818989

thanks Captain Obvious, you've saved the village

>>818966 (OP)

>having 100 different distro is bad.

>implying linux distro wasn't about choice rather than convenient.

Why you're defending niggers of OP? You're either a honorary nigger or a gay dick sucked nigger for making this shitty thread. Kill yourself.

>>818966 (OP)

>having 100 different distro is bad.

>implying linux distro wasn't about choice rather than convenient.

Why you're defending the niggers OP? You're either a honorary nigger or a gay dick sucked nigger for making this shitty thread. Kill yourself.

Linux is just a kernel m8.

Also all-those so-called different OS' are all just the same exact OS, the GNU OS, hence why they're all called "Distributions"

For Debian;

Distrobution = Debian
OS = GNU
Kernel = Linux 

For Fedora

Distribution = Fedora
OS = GNU
Kernel = Linux

See where I'm going with this?

Now what if it's not a GNU based OS? Like Android version 8

Distribution = Oreo
OS = Android
Kernel = OS

Easy right?

>>819046

>Kernel = OS

Man I need sleep, I meant to say kernel = Linux and fuck it I don't want to delete the post and re-do it

I missed the early days of Linux (started with Slackware), but probably they just used Linux kernel with GNU tools, and whatever other open source programs they found. Eventually someone made somewhat popular distros like SLS, but before that there wasn't any standard or conformity and they just did whatever made sense and worked for them. So the "real" Linux is more like LFS.

>>818966 (OP)

>There should be one linux OS.

No thanks.

>>818966 (OP)

Support for so many varieties of hardware is a strength, not a weakness. There is only one GNU/Linux. There could be a billion distros and they would all be GNU/Linux. Again, being able to fork is a strength not a weakness. You seem to have completely missed the point of open source software.

>>818989

reported for spam

>>819029

too many choices are bad

also because of so many competing distros, contributors need to be split between them. If instead they worked on one or two distros, the quality of them could be way better.

>>819046

so why open source idiots develop only one kernel, but at same time 100 distros and 3 gui toolkits? why so much diversity at distros, but zero at kernel? why nobody stops them?

why they lose time on doing another stupid distro when they could develop GUI tools for all linuxes?

>>819098

>Again, being able to fork is a strength not a weakness.

that's a weakness when everybody just makes 15th fork, instead of all of them working on a single distro/software

>You seem to have completely missed the point of open source software.

the point of open source is that open source cucks develop shit for free and then greedy jews steal that and make profit off it

There is >>819167

>but zero at kernel

False. There are many forks of the Linux kernel. Debian for example has their own.

>>819167

>that's a weakness when everybody just makes 15th fork, instead of all of them working on a single distro/software

There are many cancerous pieces of shit in the open source community. Nobody should be forced to work with people like that, and cream always rises to the top.

>the point of open source is that open source cucks develop shit for free and then greedy jews steal that and make profit off it

Stealing open sourced software is encouraged, but you'll have a difficult time making money on something that's already free.

>>818966 (OP)

>>819098

It's GNU/Linux, an operating system which respects the user's freedom to sell or give away modified versions. For the user, it's untethered, unrestricted. Hence the term "free".

>>819167

>so why open source idiots develop only one kernel

There isn't just one kernel.

>but at same time 100 distros and 3 gui toolkits?

Because kernel development ask for hardware knowledge.

Improvements in software can only happen by throwing away code and starting over, not by trying to "fix" fundamentally broken code. There's a name for this phenomenon, escalation of commitment. Projects that suck the most always get the most work because better projects don't need as much funding and improvements to be good.

>>818966 (OP)

As i see, you have no clue what means OSS development. It's not about hoarding developers and they will have fun and make great things together. They have (sometimes huge) ego and normally do their projects for themselves and release it for everyone. This tribalism happen in MS too, but their development isn't about making the best for users or even for the devs, so your verdict is much closer to the SaaS faggotry. Also Qt and Gnome isn't about reinvent the wheel and the LKML is just a good example for what you want (even at least grsec became quasi-opensource).

If you want to see this problem than visit *BSD world where every fork have its problem "reinventing the wheel" thanks to minimal cooperation.

I know you are a troll but whatever. Maybe someone take your crap seriously. Consider posting this on /g/ for some laugh.

Can you stop making multiple threads about pointless bullshit

>>818966 (OP)

>>make 100 different distros to cause confusion for users

To be fair, there are only a few (maybe 20 at most) "original" GNU/Linux distros. The rest are just reskins of existing distros, which behave exactly like the systems they are based off of "under the hood."

And software was always fragmented. There used to be dozens of subtly incompatible variants of UNIX (which eventually led to the POS that is POSIX,) but nowadays it is just GNU/Linux, BSD, and the rapidly fading into irrelevance Solaris. And before there was UNIX, every computer ran a completely different operating system: so you had Multics, ITS, Lisp Machines, TENEX, the IBM mainframe OSes, language-as-an-OS systems like Smalltalk, BASIC and DOS on PCs, VMS, etc. This was a good thing though, because each of these systems brought something new to the table. Nowadays everything is either Unix or Windows.

I agree with you in general though. The GNU Project and the Linux kernel developers should work more closely to ensure a fully integrated and functional base system, like how the BSDs do things. GNU/Linux's amateurism is one of the ugliest things about it, especially when we consider how popular it is. And even if I do not agree with their ideas, I appreciate that the freedesktop.org guys are trying to resolve the issue of fragmentation.

>>819252

>Nowadays everything is either Unix or Windows.

Linux is not Unix.

OSX is not Unix.

>>819323

OSX is actually a certified UNIX. Linux is Unix-like.

>>819326

Oh man.

https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1190p.pdf

>This is to certify that Apple Inc. has entered into a Trademark License Agreement...

That certification sounds phony, almost as if Apple purchased the certification.

Where does POSIX declare what the /Library directory should contain? Where is /usr in OSX without installing the OSX Dev Tools - and specifically choosing to install /usr?

>>818966 (OP)

>just like if someone was doing diversion to weaken linux...

>There should be one linux OS.

But that's wrong retard