Posted on 09/04/2014 12:17:37 PM PDT by ShadowAce
One of the most common expressions that you will hear in the Linux community is platform fragmentation, and it's also one of the contra arguments that people spout when citing reasons not to get a Linux OS. I'm here to tell you why platform fragmentation is actually a good thing.
First of all, let’s explain what people mean by platform fragmentation, which is also sometimes referred to as desktop fragmentation. The Linux ecosystem is populated by hundreds of active Linux distributions, some of them more popular than others. There are lots of different desktop environments and some of them might feel redundant.
As you well know, Linux is not the desktop of choice for many people. In fact, the most optimistic numbers place the Linux desktop at around 1.7% of the market share. It's a lot, if we consider the total number of PCs in the world, but in the grand scheme of things it is very little.
It's not like Linux OS can't compete with their main two opponents, Windows and Mac OS X. In fact, Linux is better in many aspects and some of those features, like security for example, should ensure its domination. Being the most secure operating system out there doesn't seem to do much, and platform fragmentation is invoked as one of the reasons.
Linux developers have a habit of starting parallel projects when there is a perfectly good software that does the same thing. Or, better yet, they fork the original application and create their own. Sometimes they have good reasons to do so, but most of the times they are wrong.
The end result is a perceived chaos of applications, operating systems, desktop environments, you name it. Developers are pulling in every direction and the lack of a concentrated effort is damaging the platform in its entirety.
Surprisingly enough, platform fragmentation is actually one of the strengths of Linux. The fact that Linux developers can fork and develop their own version of the software means they also have the freedom to do so. On many occasions, the two parallel applications start borrowing features from one another and that improves both of them.
Platform fragmentation is also the direct result of complete freedom, something that can't really be experienced with other type of OSes. Users can choose what they want, even if sometimes they might be confused because there are too many similar things on their plate. The good software will always rise to the surface and that's true either for applications or distributions.
It's also argued from time to time that developers should unite their efforts to put together a better product. People tend to forget that most of the Linux ecosystem is open source and free. This means that developers work on what they like and do things exactly how they like. "Forcing" them to work on a project just for the sake of unity is not really a good idea.
As long as we perceive fragmentation as a bad thing, it will be just that, but we also have to keep in mind that a lot of the innovations and interesting things that happen in open source are because someone had an idea that didn't fit into their current paradigm.
Linux is not weaker because of fragmentation, it's actually stronger. The entire Linux experience is greater than the sum of all the parts, and the main reason for that is that there are "too many" parts to begin with.
In my line of work, engineering and manufacturing, the cost of an OS is negligible. It simply isn’t an issue what the software I use is in the $20,000 range. I’m no fan of Windows but there’s simply no choice.
In my line of work, engineering and manufacturing, the cost of an OS is negligible. It simply isn’t an issue what the software I use is in the $20,000 range. I’m no fan of Windows but there’s simply no choice.
Thus the reason we should have 100 different tread pitches for common screws.
As long as distrowatch.org exists liunx will NOT be a major player in the desktop market.
As Tech that does support the very idea of supporting 10 different desktops with average users is at best daunting.
Support won't really be an issue.
You try talking an of site user though it while guessing what OS, Kernel, then Desktop (and its variant)
And please dont go with the just remote in idea.. that only works if the system is fairly functional.. and EVEN IF I can remote in I then have to learn how many deviant desktops.
a few years back MS got hammered for releasing 7 different ver of windows 7 but some how the many “flavors” of lin(s)ux is supposed to be better ?
I did not like the DVD/CD burner my Linux came with, so I got another one because I have the choice.
M4L
I went to a snocone stand and they had so many flavors I could not believe it, I told them that this was a horrible idea and that one flavor for all should be the rule. nay, the law.
//kidding
What desktop is being used is usually irrelevant to any issues being experienced by the user. Not all the time, but usually.
You must not like huge grocery stores either, they are so confusing with so many brands of salad dressing. And the aisles are different in every store! Oh, the humanity!
That which some call chaos, I call choice.
kidding or not, variety is the spice of life, but...
Variety is not needed for everything or everywhere.
Some things are good enough with no variety, or with just a few flavors.
I wouldn’t want thousands of flavors for ice cones, because, I would be stuck for hours making decisions. See how that applies to Linux? Then, after you’ve made a decision, you wander whether it was the right one, or you want to try some or all of the others, while not actually gaining anything of practical value.
Bookmark
You picked the absolutely worst example to make a point, so I had to skip the rest of your post.
That description fits perfectly the state of political governance in the U.S., from top to bottom, and yet half the voting population (and presumably Windows owners) thinks it is a good thing.
No one knows how many people in the world use Linux. There are too many obstacles to discovering that number or even getting close with a percentage of market. Most users refuse to register, and many browsers offer user agent options to mask them.
But you see, that’s an advantage, too.
The state of political governance?
I’m talking about governing. Simple governing. Not “political governing”.
When it comes to actual governing, it’s absolutely essential that there be a set of policies that guides that government, and not a whole slew of policies which will just create chaos.
But, thanks for playing, and enjoy your anarchy in the Linux community.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.