Okay, enough of this "Linux developers don't care" bullcrap. The thousands of people doing translations, technical support, usability testing and accessibility infrastructure deserve credit for the work they do. If you are going to comment on it with such certainty as if you are speaking fact, please use it first. No, don't pop in a live cd, install it on a half dead computer and try to run Windows games / Blitz for three hours. Actually use it. That is, forget the Windows / Mac habits and think differently, because the platform is different, whether you like it or not.
Not that I think this is flawless, or that Windows and Mac are not superior in numerous ways. Indeed, I think it's entirely fair that someone may use whatever they please. However, I get the distinct impression from many "facts" posted here that the writers have little clue of what they write.
Here's a nice way to see where things are at: Ubuntu's community support system.
https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu
Not that I disagree with the comic. People do get sucked in to this thing pretty oddly. XKCD is always good :)
As for compatibility, you will find most people don't care about distros other than the big few. (Debian, Fedora, OpenSuse -- Ubuntu being a spinoff of Debian and quite compatible). I think Ubuntu is becoming very prominent on the desktop space thanks to Launchpad, which is working wonders for interconnecting the open source community and has a nice automatic build system that gets binaries for all supported versions of Ubuntu packed into an APT repository. Most distros are compatible with each other without problems; people who work on these open source operating systems do not suffer from 'not invented here', so share a ton of work. Most Linux distributions use GNU; are compatible with the Linux Standard Base; are running either GNOME, XFCE or KDE with X11 and have dbus and HAL in the background. The major differences are in configurations, support and branches merged into the kernel / other such broad components. I agree that having a single core project would simplify workflows, but this is good in that there can be a lot of innovation happening in a lot of different places. For example, Fedora is working on a really cool miniature X that runs for the boot sequence, ultimately smoothing out the front end and causing some neat performance benefits. Basically... who doesn't want to move the mouse pointer as the computer boots up? Current neat feature from that is a properly sized boot splash and a collapsible "details" pane.
That change will probably find its way into other projects like Ubuntu once Fedora has it working really well.
The open source operating system ecosystem is really just a larger scale view of distributed source control. With Linux, every single developer has created his own publishable branch of Linux via git. First of all, the distributed way is just a smarter, easier form of source control. (I use Bazaar. Highly recommended). When someone has an idea for a patch to push into Linux, he can propose it on the mailing list. Linus may not want it in his tree, but that does not kill the patch! Any other tree could gladly incorporate it, and work continues seamlessly. Maybe some day Linus will want the change in his (quite popular) kernel tree after it has been polished (perhaps by a group of developers), and that will be entirely possible.
In addition, distributed source control ensures we do not become reliant on any one person or corporation. Linux (both the kernel and the ecosystem) is thus saved from the "hit by a bus" problem. Instead, the project as a whole is adaptable and resilient.
Not that I think this is flawless, or that Windows and Mac are not superior in numerous ways. Indeed, I think it's entirely fair that someone may use whatever they please. However, I get the distinct impression from many "facts" posted here that the writers have little clue of what they write.
Here's a nice way to see where things are at: Ubuntu's community support system.
https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu
Not that I disagree with the comic. People do get sucked in to this thing pretty oddly. XKCD is always good :)
As for compatibility, you will find most people don't care about distros other than the big few. (Debian, Fedora, OpenSuse -- Ubuntu being a spinoff of Debian and quite compatible). I think Ubuntu is becoming very prominent on the desktop space thanks to Launchpad, which is working wonders for interconnecting the open source community and has a nice automatic build system that gets binaries for all supported versions of Ubuntu packed into an APT repository. Most distros are compatible with each other without problems; people who work on these open source operating systems do not suffer from 'not invented here', so share a ton of work. Most Linux distributions use GNU; are compatible with the Linux Standard Base; are running either GNOME, XFCE or KDE with X11 and have dbus and HAL in the background. The major differences are in configurations, support and branches merged into the kernel / other such broad components. I agree that having a single core project would simplify workflows, but this is good in that there can be a lot of innovation happening in a lot of different places. For example, Fedora is working on a really cool miniature X that runs for the boot sequence, ultimately smoothing out the front end and causing some neat performance benefits. Basically... who doesn't want to move the mouse pointer as the computer boots up? Current neat feature from that is a properly sized boot splash and a collapsible "details" pane.
That change will probably find its way into other projects like Ubuntu once Fedora has it working really well.
The open source operating system ecosystem is really just a larger scale view of distributed source control. With Linux, every single developer has created his own publishable branch of Linux via git. First of all, the distributed way is just a smarter, easier form of source control. (I use Bazaar. Highly recommended). When someone has an idea for a patch to push into Linux, he can propose it on the mailing list. Linus may not want it in his tree, but that does not kill the patch! Any other tree could gladly incorporate it, and work continues seamlessly. Maybe some day Linus will want the change in his (quite popular) kernel tree after it has been polished (perhaps by a group of developers), and that will be entirely possible.
In addition, distributed source control ensures we do not become reliant on any one person or corporation. Linux (both the kernel and the ecosystem) is thus saved from the "hit by a bus" problem. Instead, the project as a whole is adaptable and resilient.