Linux on the Desktop: It's Not Me. It's You.

by Dietrich Schmitz

Have you grown tired of Linux on the Desktop?

Does 'familiarity breed contempt'?

At times, I feel I have a 'relationship' and when it reaches the point of saturation, or, I don't see anything in the way of innovation going on, I feel the urge to say in parting, "Linux, It's not Me.  It's You."

Yes.  You.  I'm flipping that famous line, "It's not you, it's me intentionally to make a point.

What is my point?

I am a human from planet Earth.  I am really smart and Linux, you are doing a terrible job of keeping up with things.

So much so, I am just about to break up with you if you don't start shaping up.  I know you've been busy with Android and other embedded devices, but you really need to pay attention to me.  Over here, that's me sitting at a conventional keyboard, monitor, desktop unit (or Laptop).

And I keep hoping you'll begin paying attention to me.

But it seems like things are, well, boring, unchanging.  You've made a few attempts to sweeten things up.

Like Gnome Shell, for example.  Okay you worked hard on that, but, it's just that it is easy to use, but too simple.  Why is it so hard to innovate?

Unity?  You've really gone out of your way to be 'different' but again, the gui is not usable and limiting.

I've stuck with you this long only because of LXDE.  Now, after all of the upstream struggles to get Gnome 3.x to a point of 'usability', I have resorted to using lightweight LXDE.  Why?

Because, it doesn't reinvent the wheel.  Don't fix what isn't broken.

Panels, Desktop, Desktop folders, icons, menus, terminal windows, they all work in a classic intuitive way which is why I have always liked you Linux.

I think the problem is, you are trying to be different but no matter how hard you try, the technology just comes up short, deficient.

Maybe you should just be yourself again?  You know like when Ubuntu first came out?  Gnome 2.x worked so darned well.

Why did you change?  I don't like you as much anymore.

Please change.  I mean, innovate, in the truest sense of the word.
Let's not make new widgets that replicate existing functionality.  We already have in my estimation too much of that.

And please.  STOP cloning yourself.  You could go blind doing that.

How many of you do we really need?  I think you should just work on making one Distro better.  No, perfect.  That's right, perfect.

Make yourself sexy with a purpose, but let's stick to just the Linux Standard Base (LSB), one Filesystem Hiearchy Standard (FHS), one graphical API (like Windows GUI).  Yes?  Come to think of it, isn't that what makes Windows so successful?

Please.  Don't put on pretenses for me.  I know you.  I just want what's best for you and think you should really strive to simplify.  And, never mind what the other clones are doing.  They are just copy cats trying to emulate.  You are better than that.

Linux on the Desktop:  Be the best that you can be and I won't leave you.  Promise.

-- Dietrich

Related articles

• Fedora Desktop 20 (Gnome): A Class Act
• Top Ten Sleeper Distros
• The Linux Desktop Mess

Read More

Get in the Game. Fedora is Linux Done Right

by Dietrich Schmitz

Join Fedora's growing community backed by a multi-billion dollar sales commercial Distribution, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

Consolidated development on one Distribution with continual refinement and focus. Don't waste time with non-standard cookie cutter, me too Distros which, most likely, won't be here in five years.

The next Fedora Desktop Linux is taking shape, continually evolving.  Being the first to include new advanced technologies like systemd, Fedora leads the way to the future of Linux.

That's right.  Fedora is a 'test bed' for future RHEL feature enhancements. Most importantly, work done on Fedora is 100% Linux Standard Base (LSB) ISO compliant.

How important is Linux Standard Base?

One need only look to the pure number of Distros that exist today for examples of variation to understand the problems inherent in added complexity introduced by ignoring standards like LSB.

So, download Fedora today.

And, Get in the Game. Fedora is Linux Done Right.

-- Dietrich

Related articles

• The Fedora Project is the Best FOSS Community-Driven Linux Distribution
• Don't Compromise. Go with the Best of Breed: Fedora 19
• Sandbox? What Sandbox? -- Fedora Has You Covered

Read More

Ignore Linux Standards at Your Own Peril

by Dietrich Schmitz

So, I've been watching the progression of all things Linux for the past few months and noting how many Distributions are falling in line with systemd adoption and those which are not.

Systemd adoption by major Linux Distributions

The freedom to make choices in software design which introduce variation ultimately exacts a cost.  It's not apparent up front but in the long term, introducing 'variation' of any kind into a operating system results in additional complexity.  Only recently has holdout Debian gotten around to recognizing that their sysvinit system is beginning to show its age and 'limitations'.  Uniformity lends to conformity and implied standardization, sometimes in the form of 'de facto' standards.

Today, I am reminding readers of the importance of adhering to standards as the image below shows how being Linux Standard Base compliant can and will lead to lower cost of operation and ongoing maintenance.

Linux Foundation promulgated 'Linux Standard Base'

Does having to adhere to standards stifle creativity and freedom of choice?  

Well, there's room for debate on that question and while to a degree standards compliance does impose a restriction on the respective developer's freedom to deviate, it also results in reducing complexity and to a larger extent fosters an environment in which software vendors and business concerns can reliably make assumptions which utilize those standards, including standard software behaviors, to streamline cost of operation from both consistency and reliability points of view: less complexity, fewer points of failure.  With fewer points of failure, reliability goes up and support costs go down.

Is my preferred Distro 'X' Linux Standard Base compliant?

It's an important question.  Let's take a look at Microsoft Windows for an answer.

Historically, over the past fifteen years preferring to work with Windows has been rightfully perceived by CIOs and CEOs as an implied standard, and despite Microsoft being a Monopoly, every developer knows that they have only one software API to deal with when choosing to code Windows executables on the Windows Legacy x86 platform.  That makes Windows an implied or 'de facto' standard, in lieu of there being any other competitor in a market.  And the choices imposed on Developers are made simple.  There's just one theoretical 'Distro' to think about when it comes to designing a piece of software for a given market.

But, there aren't any 'Distros' in the Windows world.  

Of course, but you see, Distro variation is non-existent, along with the implicit complexity stemming from compiler dialectic variations, differing package management and file hierarchy structure design considerations.  They're all gone and the attendent costs exacted on program development don't pertain in the Windows software development thriving ecosystem.

Should there be fewer Linux Distros?  

I don't argue for fewer Distros.  However, I do maintain that if the designers of Distro X conform to a base standard and not deviate, they will not have compromised their right to creative choice.  One need only look to the richness and diversity of software written to the Windows API to have an answer.

As long as Linux developers continue to clone new Distros and cheerlead the way, all the while ignoring standards, the chance for long-term survival of their work is put at peril.

Big Business Craves Stability

Simply put, Big Business Enterprise cannot afford downtime and thus the reputation of any Enterprise grade software system hinges on its stability and reliability in addition to effectiveness in providing a business solution.

There will not be as many Distros in five years as there are today.  

That fact is a certainty.

By attrition, some Distros will simply fade away into disuse.  The sturdy long-termers will consolidate and survive by adopting common standards and as there will be far fewer Distros, more programming effort will be spread across the few remaining base Linux Distros.  My prediction is there will be no more than six remaining in five years.

But be assured, Linux will continue to endure and survive, flourishing on a base set of LSB-compliant Distributions for many years to come.  -- Dietrich

Related articles

• The Debian Init System Deba{te|cle}
• Fedora - 10 Years
• Sandbox? What Sandbox? -- Fedora Has You Covered

Read More

Red Hat Enterprise Linux: LSB Certification Means Stability, Lower Cost

by Dietrich Schmitz

Are you looking for stability?

You need not look to Ubuntu LTS to find stability.  Sorry to bust the bubble of those who suffer from  delusions of grandeur, but the level of rhetoric really has gotten to be just a bit too much.  


No, I've lived on both sides of the deb/rpm fence using both Ubuntu and Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.  Ubuntu is a commercial Distribution underwritten by Canonical Ltd.  Ubuntu depends on Debian, which is a community Distro.  Fedora on the other hand is the base for all software research and development which ultimately finds its way into Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

When it comes to real innovation, users can be assured that Fedora will include all of the most leading edge software available.

Standardization Breeds Stability, Reliability, Lower Cost

Unlike Ubuntu, when it comes to Linux Standard Base (LSB) compliant operating systems and applications, the latest Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 is certified.  This is very important to Enterprise IT which must rely on standard behaviors without unnecessary deviation, or, software fragmentation.

Software fragmentation is a major problem in the Distro community where Distro A's software may not work on Distro B because of some non-standard variation in the filesystem or software design and functionality.  Uniform software behaviors based on standards means that system administrators can anticipate and support software with the least amount of time and effort expended.  Conversely, software variation means not enough standardization and potential for increased support which translates into higher cost of operation.

Red Hat 10-Year Lifecycle Support

When it comes to using the Fedora community Distro, if stability becomes a concern, then Red Hat's 10-year Lifecycle support for their Red Hat Enterprise Linux is available.  Those interested in RHEL may obtain a free 30-day evaluation version of RHEL6 to determine if it fits their personal or business needs.  A simple registration process will allow you to receive from Red Hat a link to your software to download.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is Superior Technology

Red Hat is the right path to take given their long track record of use in real-world large-scale Enterprise business settings.  You don't get into the New York Stock Exchange unless you have stability and reliability going in your favor.

So, don't listen to all of the hype.  Sort it out.  Discern the true differences.  Red Hat Enterprise Linux represents superior Linux technology built on LSB standards providing truly stable lowered cost of operation.

-- Dietrich

Read More

Running Your Own Railroad

by Dietrich Schmitz

I am beginning to see a pattern in how Canonical operates.  Not to single them out, but I think that to succeed in any business endeavor, a business plan must set objectives with a timeline to their completion.

It seems that Canonical are setting their own priorities.  First came Unity.  Then they targeted X.org a standard for Display management by supporting Wayland.  As Wayland reached its first production release, version 1.0, Canonical immediately took the code and forked it to their own project specification called Mir. (Image credit: inhabit.com)

This is looking less like an open community than any other time I can remember.  Canonical are carefully taking control their code base and removing community involvement.

Then, Canonical developed a new fork called Ubuntu Touch for their planned smartphone division.

Now, they've announced a plan to develop their own package management software, with the 'intention' (cough wink) of using it for their smartphone technology.

This has garnered much attention and the noise level continues to amplify.

What if the plans for this new package manager were more ambitious than Canonical are telling us?  Suppose that package management system would take away the Debian apt/dkpg control?

That would not bode well for Debian, me thinks.  And I've advocated for a unified package manager.  One because it would dramatically ease the burden of programming and two it would reduce costs and allow software written to be packaged and run on all Linux Distros.

That isn't my idea.  Actually, it's been around for years in fact and is part of the Linux Foundation's Linux Standard Base (LSB).  In fact, rpm is the standard which is a 'mandatory' specification to obtain LSB certification.

Debian have resisted support for rpm and LSB which may work ultimately to their disadvantage if they continue to ignore the standard.

Debian is not a commercial Linux Distribution.  So, they can afford to play foot-loose and fancy free by ignoring standards in favor of their own 'de facto' standard.

But how long will that last?  They took two years to roll out Debian 7 Wheezy which still runs on sysvinit, not systemd, although they've made systemd an installable option.  Two years is slow people.  Debian is looking old, stodgy, and resistant to change.  And, as we all know, technology is changing at the speed of light.

So, is Canonical running their own railroad?  Necessarily, to run a business, yes.  They and Red Hat can't afford to play around like Debian and Canonical just might switch away from deb package management entirely to again gain control of another big piece of the Linux Distro puzzle.  Let's hope that Canonical recognize the importance of LSB and support rpm.  -- Dietrich

Related articles

• cgroups: A BIG WIN for Systemd
• The Linux Desktop Mess
• Red Hat Linux is Here Today and Now
• What Value Does Linux Advocacy Have?

Read More

Where Will Your Linux Distro Be in Five Years?

by Dietrich Schmitz

No question in my mind.  There will be more fall-out similar to the likes of what happened to Fuduntu.  Call it a consolidation, if you will. (Image credit: aeromedicaleducation.org)

It gave me pause for thought to realize that the choice one makes for a Distro should be given very special consideration.

For personal use and, particularly, when it comes to the business world, there are some critical questions which need to be answered before making that choice.  I have come to realize that just a handful of things are important and that made Fedora 18 the obvious choice.  So what attributes should one be looking for in a Distro?

Leading Edge 'best of breed' Technology and true Innovation

Along with a six-month release schedule comes the newest technology available.  Some might argue that such is a cause for unstable operating conditions.  For example, Debian does not operate on a time-based release management schedule, which I have issues with. It is highly debatable as to whether their policy promotes stability or not.  While Ubuntu is also time-based at 6 months, it relies upon the Debian 'Test branch'.  Fedora on the other hand works closely with upstream providers.  Also, I argued the merits of Yum and have concluded that Fedora's implementation of Yum dependency resolver combined with the LSB-certified Red Hat Package Manager, rpm,  represent a superior technology.

Linux Standard Base certification

In The Linux Desktop Mess, I argued for a singular standard filesystem (Filesystem Hiearchy Standard) and package manager (Linux Standard Base).  With the proliferation of cookie cutter Distros comes the tendency for programmers to take shortcuts and hedonistic ways prevail.  The result is seen in a wide variation of implementations with differing filesystem directory structures and package managers.  Worse is the fact that how a given package manager is implemented on one Distro does not automatically confer its ability to work on another Distro using the same package manager.   This adds wide-ranging complexity and added cost in deployment.  Fedora is the source for all Red Hat Enterprise Linux cutting edge development and by default is fully LSB compliant.  Both issues are satisfied with Fedora.

Support

When it comes down to corporate environments, this is probably the most important consideration for IT Departments.  Having a service level agreement can be the difference between having downtime and smooth seamless uninterrupted operation.  Users of Fedora can automatically migrate to RHEL and expect that level of commercial grade support.  Fedora does an excellent job in both chat and forum technical support.

Stability and Longevity

As I mentioned, Fuduntu left me shocked.  It was a moment that brought me to the question, will my next Distro be around in five years?  When you have a business to run, this becomes magnified in importance and the crowd of competing Distros falls back to reveal only a small handful which are truly stable and with a large enough community to have the requisite longevity.  I ruled out Debian on the speedbump issue and knew YUM is superior, so that left SuSE and Fedora.  SuSE uses Zypper for its dependency resolver, but yum is in their repository and supported.

But, my memory is long and I haven't forgotten the Microsoft Inter-Op partnership Novell's Ron Hovsepian struck and since then SuSE Linux Gmbh has become a subsidiary of AttachMate and renewed their agreement with Microsoft in July 2011.  That has become the deciding factor for me.  That ongoing relationship is unacceptable.  Thus, Fedora is my choice.

It should be noted that Red Hat has billion dollar-plus annual revenues going on two years now and provide enterprise grade application software for the New York Stock Exchange and are ranked number two Linux kernel contributing vendor according to the Linux Foundation's Annual Linux Development Report for 2012.

So, think of Fedora as being a test bed, if you will, for all ongoing software R&D that finds its way into Red Hat Enterprise Linux.  While the technology is leading edge, you can trust that Red Hat's support and stability will ensure that technology undergoes continual refinement.

These are the things which you should be asking yourself.

Where will my Distro be in five years?  

The answer may cause you to make a switch, as I did, to Fedora 18.

-- Dietrich

Related articles

• Fedora Got Game: Leading Edge Technology, Stability and Standards
• YUM vs. APT: Which is Best?
• Cookie Cutter Distros Don't Cut It
• The Linux Desktop Mess

Read More

Fedora Got Game: Leading Edge Technology, Stability and Standards

by Dietrich Schmitz

I was disappointed when Fuduntu announced that it would close its doors the other day.  So much potential, but I do understand the reasons why +Andrew Wyatt chose to do so and retire.

I didn't waste time looking at my alternatives.  First, I took Manjaro 0.8.5 OpenBox for a spin.  Suffice it to say, Manjaro has great potential but I encountered some install issues which took it off of my list.  Then, someone in my private LA community mentioned ArchBang.  So, I went straight away and gave it a spin.  The install went smoothly, but when it came time to install software, I was faced with having to go to AUR, download a tar.gz, unzip, cd into the directory of the software, run makepkg which errored out.  The error put me off and if I was ten years younger I might have battled with it to figure out why, but I really don't want to do that anymore.

So, I thought for a while and considered all of the pluses about Fuduntu and realized that Fedora is probably the best option, but with which GUI?  +Pete Mazzaccaro thinks we all will come around to using Gnome3 and quipped yesterday in the LA community about it.  As for myself, I am not ready for that, so I installed the Fedora 18 KDE spin and lived with it all day yesterday.

KDE Plasma Workspace 4.10.1 is what comes with this spin.  Let me tell you, KDE is the best Desktop GUI, bar none.  Hats off to the KDE Developer Community and to +Aaron Seigo on a great product.  It's really more than one product, to be accurate actually.

But, my meager Acer Aspire One D260 with 2GB ram was feeling the strain.  I turned off 3D Desktop Effects which helps but it still felt sluggish and so at the end of the day yesterday, I decided to install Xfce.  (Incidentally, I am aware members of the KDE Developer Team are working on a lightweight version of KDE Workspaces, named KLyDE.  I think that is smart and I hope to test-drive it soon.)

Doing the install was as simple as opening a terminal window and typing:

$sudo yum groupinstall "xfce"

About ten minutes later it was done and I quickly logged out and selected Xfce from the login manager session list and logged back into Fedora 18.

Sweet relief.  Night and day speed difference.  No disrespect to KDE.  We all know why, but then KDE is so flexible and gives you whatever you want.

The price to pay for giving users everything they want is that KDE's memory footprint is somewhat larger.  Now, on today's Desktop systems with 4GB ram or better, that is a non-issue, so that isn't meant as a criticism.

So, I went about doing a few customizations, removing the bottom dock (I like cairo much better), turning on compositing, moving the top panel1 to the bottom, changing the theme, background and I was good to go.

All of the basics are satisfied by Xfce, and it isn't a victim held hostage by Gnome either.

Fedora 18 running stock Xfce Desktop

Someone on my LA community asked, why not go back to Xubuntu?  A fair question, but as I explained in Debian: A Speedbump on the Road to Innovation, Debian has been a drag on innovation and I am not going to use any Debian derivative.

And, as I wrote about it in YUM: A Breed Apart, yum is simply better technology than APT.

So, what does Fedora have that satisfies my needs?  Let's take a look.

Repository

Fedora has a great repository system and yum technology backing it up (yes yum is being upgraded but is not production ready yet).  I love using yum, but you have the default YumExtender and several other gui front-ends if you prefer not to use the terminal command line.  I also love being able to roll-back any yum transaction set.  That feature by itself puts yum ahead of the competition.  Yum is a wrapper on Red Hat Package Manager (rpm), which is certified as Linux Standard Base compliant (LSB).  LSB is a POSIX based specification.  In a story I wrote called The Linux Desktop Mess, I wrote about the issue of standardization.  Two key points were made.  1) Adhere to the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS), and 2) Collaboratively develop a cross-Distro Universal Package Manager.  In fact, rpm has been designated as the package management standard in LSB.

Both of those two issues are included in the LSB specification and the latter alone would bring stability and eliminate variation, confusion and cost in deployment of Linux Distros and applications.  Red Hat and Fedora understand this and are LSB-compliant.  The importance of that cannot be overstated.

Security

When it comes to security, Linux has always had a good reputation. Fedora has SELinux sandboxing technology standard.  While not the easiest to use (AppArmor is easier, but path-based), SELinux is bullet-proof.  SELinux was designed originally with guidance from the National Security Agency, for those who care to know and is standard in Red Hat Enterprise Linux.  No messing around there.  Okay enough said on security.  The firewall is iptables, of course.  All rules can be maintained via command line or through a gui written by Red Hat, called Firewall-Config.

Applications

I liked the minimalism of Fuduntu, and they didn't load up the Menu with every application under the sun.  Just the basics.  With Fedora and Xfce minimalism still prevails.  Yet, as with most Distros, you are only a step away from adding your 'favorite' application.  As more and more people become connected to the Internet, the need to have applications available from the installer becomes less important.  Just go get what you need in the repo!

Development

This is probably the most important consideration of all.  The breadth of the Fedora/Red Hat Developer Community is quite large, and that means we are not going to see 'end of life' for this Distro.  Also, we can be assured that continual refinement will occur.  As new technology ideas are forged in Fedora, they routinely merge to Red Hat Enterprise Linux when stable.  For those not aware, Red Hat is a publicly-traded company with +$1B annual sales.  The relationship between Red Hat and Fedora in terms of governance is good and that Oracle and CentOS spin their own Distros based on Red Hat is a good indication of the overall quality of their codebase.

So, when I say to you standards matter, I hope you will take in context the ideas I set forth in prior stories and keep in mind that while Cookie Cutter Distros are okay and represent the right to fork Distros, they potentially harm and do nothing for innovation.  Only a handful of Distros show merit and are actively bringing new ideas and software innovation to the table.  The rest are simply deviations, derivatives and copy cats that offer nothing else.

Fedora Got Game.

-- Dietrich

Related articles

• The Future of Fuduntu
• Fuduntu Linux discontinued, team plans to move onto a new distro
• YUM vs. APT: Which is Best?
• Fedora Project's Robyn Bergeron: The Linux Desktop Is Almost Ready for Its Close-Up
• Fedora Desktops - Quick Look
• The Other Shoe Drops: Founder Announces Retirement, Fuduntu End of Life

Read More

The Linux Desktop Mess

by Dietrich Schmitz

Today something struck home and really punctuates the current state of affairs we now have with Linux Desktops.

Insync 1.0 was introduced, which, by itself, is a good thing, particularly because  Google chose to pass on writing a Drive client for Linux but provided one for Microsoft Windows and Apple OSX last Spring of 2012.

That's to be expected I guess.  After all, they represent two very big markets with essentially one codebase for each operating system--fairly simple in view of long-term maintenance.  I think that's a safe assumption.

But today we have Linux complete with all of the wonderful open source and choice at our fingertips.  So much variety.  That is trumpeted as a good thing.  I would tend to agree, to a point.

Here's where I see a problem that hasn't gone away and keeps on growing.  Take a look at this page:

Insync Loves Linux web page

Note how many Distros are on the page, each with its own permutations of GUIs, each with its own File Manager, each with its own system file structure, each with its own package management system.

Continue to scroll and you get a complex mish-mosh of directions depending on which Distro is involved and if none applies, you can get a tar.gz download and untar and hope for the best.

Honestly, I would be a little intimidated as a new user of Linux were I to see that.

It's a big roadside sign flashing and warning.  Begs for your attention.  What is the message here?

Standardization!

It's the lack of standardization which is the crux of the issue.

Will the continued diversification, forking, spins, work to our collective advantage?  It's a fair question and from a development standpoint it creates layers and layers of complexity for each new variation.

I submit, it's not going to stop and the cost of implementation for Linux systems deployment will rise correspondingly unless something is done about it.

I wrote about Linux Standard Base and feel there isn't enough being done to address LSB-compliance.

What would it take to join together to achieve LSB compliance for one file structure standard, one universal package management standard.  If that were accomplished, we'd see the number of installers reduced substantially.

Standards need not be a control issue.  Standards help reduce costs. On the front page of the Linux Standard Base reads the following:

The Linux Standard Base was created to lower the overall costs of supporting the Linux platform. By reducing the differences between individual Linux distributions, the LSB greatly reduces the costs involved with porting applications to different distributions, as well as lowers the cost and effort involved in after-market support of those applications.

That seems to be a worthy goal.  We really need to do something about this before it gets out of hand.

What can you do to help?  Ask your Distro support channel if they are LSB-certified.  If they are not, voice your opinion loud and clear: Petition them to become compliant and have them make it a top priority feature enhancement requirement.

One file system structure, one package manager.

How do you feel about this?  Give us your feedback.

--Dietrich

Related articles

• The Linux Filesystem Need Not Be Mysterious
• Linux Standard Base: Misnomer and Misconception
• Fuduntu: Back to Fundamentals, Gets it Right
• The Impossible Quest for the Most Popular Linux Distro
• Unofficial Google Drive Client `Insync` Pricing Revealed, Out Of Beta For Windows And Mac

Read More

Linux Standard Base: Misnomer and Misconception

by Dietrich Schmitz

Introduction

Linux has enjoyed a steady progression of growth from its beginnings in the early nineties and its continued expansion in pure number of Distributions totals in the hundreds today.  It is not an exaggeration to say that, weekly, a new Linux Distribution is born.

With the birth of each new Distribution comes slight deviations in design, coding, filesystem structure, all done in the interest of enhancing some aspect of the Linux experience, be it a set of pre-installed applications, a specific graphical user interface or a specific stack of applications implemented and provisioned for a special business or consumer purpose. (Image Credit: IBM Press Redbooks)

This quilt-work of Distributions reflects a strong willingness to invest development efforts in Linux and is a positive indicator of just how popular it has become.

By the same token, there is a corresponding perceived risk that inconsistencies and incompatibilities may arise born of the need to make changes driven by special interests and the need to make functional improvements.  There is also in addition to natural variation an increased possibility for introduction of unintended errors, the result of neglect of implied standards of one kind or another that should be adhered to, but go unnoticed until after production general release.

A Standards Group is Established

The realization that there ought to be some form of standardization was recognized by the Linux Foundation which on June 29, 2001 established version 1.0 of the Linux Standard Base (LSB).

From the Linux Foundation's LSB website 'Workgroups' page opening paragraph:

"The Linux Standard Base was created to lower the overall costs of supporting the Linux platform. By reducing the differences between individual Linux distributions, the LSB greatly reduces the costs involved with porting applications to different distributions, as well as lowers the cost and effort involved in after-market support of those applications."

That short summary encapsulates the intentions of LSB fairly well.

A list of LSB-certified Linux Distributions is found here.

LSB has gone through revisions reaching version 4.11 on February 16, 2011.

The LSB Misnomer and Misconception

The misnomer:

Is LSB achieving it's goals, or, does fragmentation live on despite the clear need for standardization?  That, in essence, is the misnomer.  A standard misapplied or largely ignored is not a standard at all when other 'de facto' standards eclipse it.

The misconception:

The misconception stems from resistance offered by Developer 'camps' who perceive standardization as a form of unwanted change or a form of unwelcome 'control', when, in fact, standardization would potentially streamline and reduce complexities inherent in the diverse Linux ecosystem, lowering operating costs, simultaneously achieving increased ease of use and conferring an automatic rise in popularity.

Continuing with the argument for the need for standardization, add to the mix variations in upstream development interests and you begin to see a large potential for conflicts of interest:

Some developers simply might not take interest in work or maintenance to an upstream package unless it effects 'their' Distro, for example.  Or, if it is a large body of developers, such as the Debian community, software release management policy may dictate that work move pragmatically and in some cases at an arbitrarily slow pace which may become unacceptable in today's Internet time scale where technology changes almost by the minute.

The perceived risk for lack of standardization is quite real and there are indeed resultant variations, structural and feature-based inconsistencies, along with an array of independently-developed package management systems.  Taking Debian for example:

Depending on which Distro is chosen, dictates which package manager can or cannot be used.  As such, there has been no universal package manager that would allow an application to reliably install on any Distro. 

Diverging methodologies and interests formed naturally through time and the popularity of Debian and it's sibling derivative Ubuntu has resulted in the Apt-get package management ecosystem becoming a virtual 'de facto' standard, for example.  Resistance to using that which appears 'foreign' regardless of its intended benefit becomes human nature.  Thus 'loyalties' and political interests develop centered around use of specific technologies independent of whether a broader standard would accrue a realized benefit.

Uniformity and Ease of Software Development

As an example of the effect of uniformity, it is acknowledged that Microsoft Windows has been a singular success by virtue of being largely 'one set of code' with one API code path for all Developers to follow (arguments for minor variations in 32- vs 64-bit code trees aside).

The result during the nineties up to present starting with Windows 3.1 has been adoption of a singular API.  Every Developer could and still can assume that when they write to Windows, it will run on all Windows PCs, irrespective of the OEM hardware vendor.

Should not this be the case for Linux?  I submit the answer should be yes, but regret that it isn't generally true that writing an App for Linux confers automatic ability for it to run on all Distros and, much less, on all hardware.

Reducing common denominators, unifying file structures, joining up to embrace a standard which employs a 'common' package management system all are standards-based compliance issues for Linux to truly broaden its World user base.  If this isn't done, there will continue to be fractious, limited, smaller communities with orbiting spheres of politically-driven interests, localized to the technical merits of one particular Distro seeking competing market share over others.

Unix has done well largely because of A.T. & T. Unix as a commercial product.  Apple and Windows both surface for developers their own unified APIs which can safely be followed ensuring that side-effect bugs will be minimal.  As popular as Linux is, adoption of standards such as POSIX shows that choosing your path wisely can ensure a truly portable operating system and/or application.

LSB Compliancy Test Kit

The argument for standardization is clear.  As demand for increased Linux commercial and consumer-based production grows, so, too, will demand for increased uniformity, simplification and standardization follow.

If your organization has plans to adopt and scale up use of Linux-based system deployment, it would behoove them to certify and use only those Distros which are fully LSB-compliant.

To determine whether your preferred Distro is Linux Standard Base compliant, you may download a test kit here.

-- Dietrich

Related articles

• How I got to use Linux and why you should too
• The Linux Filesystem Need Not Be Mysterious
• The ultimate Linux starter kit for small business
• Fuduntu: An Innovative Old Linux Revisited

Read More