> pare, wala namang palitan ng paninindigan. i thought you said > 'linux needs standards to survive.' or did i not get your point.
Linux needs good, well thought standards, not 'hell-loads' of them that all try to do the same thing. > > Qt, Gnome, Tk, KDE, linuxfb, fbdev, fbconsole, GGI, DRI, XFree, > > Motif, Windowmaker - many duplicating each other's functionality > > and waaaaay less mature than Win32 and DirectX. > > these are not standards. these are brand names. different > implementations/use of standards. maybe you are trying to point out how > windows beats linux on the desktop. Call them whatever you wish. In practice a developer has to commit to working with one of them, otherwise they'll be spread out too thinly. That effectively makes these 'standards'. There is some kind of ironical truth to the Devo song that goes: Freedom of choice, is what you've got. Freedom from choice, is what you want. > > And let's not get started on all the different 'proprietary' > > distros and their packaging formats. > distros are brands. they're not standards. after the end of the > day, they are all linux running the same protocols/standards. mag > redhat ka man, In practice, the popular distros like Red Hat end up becoming de facto standards. Has anyone been able to get Kylix 2 to run on Debian? How easy/hard is it? With all the support its getting, I can see a future where Mandrake becomes synonymous with Linux (for the majority of users). For better or worse, market forces have now become an important part of driving the Linux standards game. And this is something that MS has far more experience and wisdom in (just because they're asshole businessmen doesn't make them stupid technologists - and apparently they've shown themselves to understand market needs far better than anyone else). > this *is* a perfect argument. take a look at NetBEUI, Microsoft PPP LCP > Extensions, PPTP, Windows Internet Name Service, PDC/BDC/SMB (sorry for > those using Samba) --- all hell loads of proprietary standards. now, > compare that to TCP/IP, DHCP, IPSEC, DNS, RADIUS, LDAP, SSH -- the real > deal 'open standards'. if you knew better, you'd note Microsoft took Networking-wise, I prefer Linux to Windoze. Graphics-wise, the standards used by Linux are around 2 steps behind Windows. Cross-platform APIs like libSDL (it works on *doze/*nix/Macs/BeOS/etc...) are a VERY GOOD thing. But, by their nature, tend to lag behind the state of the art in hardware support. > including Cisco IOS. if it didnt, WinXP wont live up to its hype. as > you've said, it'll probably die. now do you see unix running those Excuse me, I never said WinXP will die for lack of standards. Stop putting words in my mouth, please. MS can make its own standards and has the clout to make them stick. Linux, on the other hand, *needs* open standards, or else it will lose its most important appeal. > > Open standards matter VERY VERY MUCH. But saying it is what matters > > *most* indicates either ignorance or an overzealous fanatical > > attitude. Of what use is an open standard if it is lousily written and > > inadequate to meet your needs? > hindi naman ako fanatic. no OS is perfect. you need a standard to be > open so that its short-sightedness/inadequacies can be corrected > better by the user community themselves. simply put proprietary > standardization is a jurassic model. if open standards can get > screwed up, proprietary/closed ones pa kaya. In real life, we have seen how, despite everyone's clamour for an open standard (OpenGL), the once derided (and deservedly so) Direct3D has stolen the lead from OpenGL in terms of standard hardware support. Today, under OpenGL, you have to code to a different set of manufacturer specific extensions to use hardware shader functionality. No such problem (although there are complaints of the spec being too rigid) in DirectGraphics. I still prefer OpenGL for the moment, but if 2.0 doesn't come out soon and proves itself to be a superior spec (it's openness being only a small part of that), I'm afraid DirectGraphics will end up the winner... just like the Win32 GUI architecture has proven far more dominant than X Windows. The former may not be open, but it seems that MS has done a far better job of correcting its inadequacies than the X consortium or X community has. Experience in the graphics area has shown that open standards will not necessarily win over closed ones. The flip side of openness is that it sometimes promotes fragmentation. The price to pay for freedom of can often be slower standardization. _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
