[CoLoCo] Standardized Repositories

[Kevin Fries]

On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 01:08 -0500, Michael "TheZorch" Haney wrote:
> I saw an article some time ago that basically pointed out that the 
> number one thing that was really holding Linux back from becoming fully 
> mainstream was a lock of Standardization in Linux when it comes to 
> package management.  I responded with saying that Windows had no package 
> management system at all, and that uninstall programs often leave many 
> thing behind including registry keys, folders, and .DLL files which only 
> caught Windows to slow down, but the argument had a good point.  Linux 
> needs a Standardized system of Package Management across all 
> distributions.  Ubuntu and many others use the Debian package managment 
> system, Red Hat and distros based on it use RPMs, and so on and so 
> forth.  If you want to install an app on Ubuntu that's in an RPM you 
> can't use Aptitude and need a separate piece of software to do the 
> install.  This starts to make Linux more like Windows with every piece 
> of software using different types of installers.  There should be a 
> universally accepted package management system adopted by all distros 
> regardless if they are Debian based, Red Hat based or Slackware based 
> instead of all of these different competing package management formats.  
> It starts to get as confusing as the different versions of Windows Vista 
> for your Average Joe computer user.  Thus, the argument is in a way 
> correct, there are too many different competing types of distros out 
> there and a single package management format must be chosen if Linux is 
> going to make further headway.

This is a red herring.  Linux has many things holding it back.  Things
that truly cause the repository system to be insignificant.  Lets just
take one: Economics

Microsoft and Apple take inferior products, and charge lots of money for
them.  They then take that money and place into ads, and into political
activists.  They have more money to pay for more access, and therefore
are often able to influence governments as well as the general public.
Perception is reality, and when a large amount of money is being used to
produce the perception that Linux is a trivial platform, that perception
is then turned into reality.  Microsoft's money being used to subvert
the system has been documented many times, from Nigeria to the Open
Office vs OpenXML debate.  Linux generally prevails when the decision
maker has the conviction to persevere beyond the initial perception to
get to reality, instead of the perceived reality.  However, this
tenacity is the exception rather than the rule.

A perfect example of this is what Neal and the rest of the TIE crowd are
doing.  Microsoft spends an enormous amount of money making their
products appear cheaper than Linux.  They also give great discounts to
schools to further bolster that perception.  Neal and the gang need to
break through that false facade, and convince the educators if they
actually looked for themselves, that FOSS can, and generally is much
cheaper.  But it is the money Microsoft has from all those sales of
second rate operating systems (Vista = 3rd rate? twelfth? in a three man
race!) to change perception... and therefore reality.

As Linux becomes more and more mainstream, this paying for a false
perception is getting more and more costly.  The key to solving bug #1
is education, and the type of relentlessness rarely seen other than in a
Pitt-Bull.  Unite the repos if you want, but the amount of damage that
is doing to the Linux adoption rates is trivial.

-- 
Kevin Fries
Senior Linux Engineer
Computer and Communications Technology, Inc
A Division of Japan Communications Inc.