linux have to get a standard version

mishung

to choose a version is diffcult to a new user

and thats a must to make linux standerlised.

the standard version should have the common packages

and managed like the linux kernel by a group and share th power of edit.

while ,write a new packagemanager that cover now what we used is a must to make the linux improved.because the package manager have the same tought of working.

to make linux ease to normal use and the largest flaxibility to make it adapted and powerful .Almost work and people don't need advaced skills to work.

Set_Killer

The power of linux is its free nature. As you know that means that everybody can look and edit the code of linux. That's why there are so many distributions. They differ by many things - the way to install a program (from source or binary) installed by default apps ( desktop managers, players, and everything else), the version of the included programs (one versions are more stable than others. For example you should prefer an easy to use linux, but there will be a much more system administrations that will prefer small, optimized and FAST distributions. So as we say here "dont pee against the wind" - the administrations will get that they want.

For new users there is silence agreement that they use Ubuntu linux just for starting. Ubuntu is great for home and office. If you dont like it you may try one of the other user friendly distros - mandriva, opensuse, fedora and others...

so the power here is that if you dont like the idea of one linux distro - just pick up another... There is no one to tell you " there is only one linux distribution and you have to use it". you are *free* to use any dostro you want.

That what linux needs now is new X system plus drivers and new compiler (gcc is not so good as msvc or intel's cc).

mfillpot

Linux is standardized, because it is the kernel used by all Linux based distributions.

Now the concept of a universal Linux distribution has been recommended by many, but in my opinion it is a very stupid idea. The primary reason for the advanced growth in Linux based distributions is the freedom of choice, which also brings with it many competing free applications. Because these applications are competing for new users they are always trying to push the envelope in functionality and security, which can't be said for unified proprietary products.

To unify all similar projects would halt that ambition and the actions, effectively making Linux distros static, which would slow the development and effectively make Linux no better than windows when it comes to advancements.

N.D. is correct in his/her recommendation to use Ubuntu, I always recommend it to new users because it is what I would consider the most user friendly. If you want some single effort for the non-technical user base then put your support behind the distro that you feel shows the greatest potential.

Personally I feel that the mass quantity of options is a great thing, it allows the administrators to choose various distros to use on their networks based upon specific needs, the unified kernel and chosen apps will be standard between all systems which means that even though they are all different, they can all communicate seamlessly (try doing that with a MAC and windows network).

ford

Having multiple versions of Linux is also just plain useful. If I am on a mobile device, I don't want to run openSUSE. In that case I would want something like Eeebuntu or Moblin. If I am on a server, I may want Scientific, CentOS, or RHEL. If I am on a workstation I may want openSUSE or Slackware. On a desktop I may want Mandriva, Ubuntu, PC Linux OS or Fedora. Each distribution is good for something in particular. Having multiple distributions also adds to security for all of the distributions. A flaw in one may not be a flaw in all. Plus, there is inter-agency competition that makes everyone work a little harder ;-)