Originally Posted by
Yfrwlf
That's the great lie they want to push on you, yes. Linux programs are Linux programs. The main difference between "distros" is they choose to use different package managers that aren't compatible with a universal Linux packaging standard. But no, it's not a "different OS". Binaries can be run on any Linux system because they're all compatible. The main thing that isn't compatible between Debian and Red Hat is their stupid package format difference just because they want to be unique and the companies supporting them want to dig their own proprietary trench in order to get converts to come over to their side (the point of being "proprietary" meaning lock-in). All that is needed is for the community to recognise this deeply impacting Linux issue as a major threat, and push for standards. The companies won't do it for Linux users and developers, because they don't want it.
They're called standards. A web browser uses HTML standards. A FTP client uses FTP standards. FreeDesktop.org, the Linux Foundation, and other groups help create standards so that when you're in KDE and you want to run a Gnome app, for example, you can still do so. It empowers Linux users to communicate on the same page at certain points. It does NOT hamper progress, because if someone feels that the standard needs to be broadened, it can be, so that new features can be added. What version of HTML are we up to now, five? OpenGL 3? Those are standards which are quite solid, and they help everyone.
Just imagine a world without any standards, where everyone did just go and do their own thing. Lets say there were 500 different website protocols for instance, instead of having everything built on HTML. Imagine trying to function in such a world, it would be horrible, bloated, confusing, and nothing would get done. Every web-based program would have to try to be compatible with all the craziness.
I'm in no way saying that there shouldn't be different approaches, and competition, for those things are good. However, with most things, there are definite areas which are similar, and those can be shared. Those are points at which standards should be adopted.
For example, lets say you have two different file manager programs. Do they use standards? Already, yes, they use a ton of standards, because they interface with files on a hard drive managed by file systems etc etc etc, and there are standards every step of the way, that's how computers are built, otherwise you'd be screwed with pineapples. As you move up the stack from hardware to software, you encounter several different standards along the way. So, for the file manager program itself, if you recognise that there are several common needs there, and can find a way to utilise a common standard or even a common library in order to work together with other similar projects, of course that's in your interest to do so.
If everyone had to re-invent the wheel for everything, NOTHING would EVER get done.
Maybe that's why D3D is becoming more popular recently, so I sure hope that OGL can compete properly and catch back up if it really is lacking like you accuse it of being.
But guess what? Let's say that OGL, a standard, changed it's points of communication, it's API, the actual part that is a standard, and implemented OGL 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc, and "moved" like you say, and none of those versions happened to at all be compatible with any other version.
a) That would be retarded, because there's no reason for it to be completely incompatible like that when they all would use nearly the exact same things, so the stable parts should have a clear API, while the new OGL calls should be added on, and what do you know, that's the way it happens to work.
b) No one would use the "standard".
The reason why: because that's not a standard. You clearly need to understand what a standard is, and how to implement one so that it doesn't impede progress and development. That's what standards are for, is to not impede progress, but to allow just the communication part to occur.
Let me give you a quick example of that. HTML again. How many programs use it? Hmm lets see, Google Maps, Google Docs, Yahoo Mail, Slashdot, all sorts of different programs and content, all using the same standard! So wow, you can have diversity and competition while using standards that are quite static. Maybe OGL needs to get it's tail into gear, maybe that was a poor example, but hopefully by now you are getting some idea of the point of standards, because without them, none of the above mentioned web apps and sites would exist!
And the rest of your comment was more of the same so I'll leave it there. Ultimately this is the on-topic point: there is nothing stopping the creation and adoption of some universal intelligent Linux binary packaging systems, the only reason they don't exist is disinterest by distro companies to play nicely with competing companies because they use their repos as a lure to get users to come to them. It's completely pointless and fragments Linux where there is no reason to do so and in an area which is critical for simplifying binary deployment by closed and open source software projects alike.
For now we're stuck with crappy archive files for the most part, which aren't very user-friendly to install at all.
It doesn't even work on the major distros, that's one of the points of this thread. I had to downgrade to kernel 2.6.27 and xorg 1.5 (using the Ubuntu Intrepid software bunch) I assume it is since fglrx won't work in the newer versions yet with my 4850x2.
Yes, Nvidia has always had quick support of the latest stuff. AMD is smaller, so they're behind in the closed source driver, but ahead in the open one still AFAIK. However, the open one doesn't have 3D, so it's a deal breaker after you plop down $1400 for a new system expecting to play some high-end Linux or Wine games.
Reply With Quote
