| |||||||||||||
how solid is the Linux "Monoculture"?how solid is the Linux "Monoculture"?Posted Nov 13, 2012 23:23 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)Parent article: Crowding out OpenBSD
we see a lot of variation within Linux from the different distros and their different approach to doing thing.
Even at the kernel level, it's more of a family of closely related branches than a single entity.
This is not as diverse as Linux vs OpenBSD, but it's a fairly close analogy to the relationship between the different *BSD systems (not as much divergance, but still quite a bit)
It's amusing to see this viewpoint of Linux being a monoculture at the same time that we see people lamenting that the Linux desktop is so horribly fragmented. And that Linux is so hard for software vendors to support because it's so varied.
We must be doing something right if we're getting criticized for both being too monolithic and being too fragmented at the same time :-)
(Log in to post comments)
how solid is the Linux "Monoculture"? Posted Nov 14, 2012 8:38 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
> We must be doing something right if we're getting criticized for both being too monolithic and being too fragmented at the same time :-)
It does not require a new culture to break compatibility (I think I've already answered this same comment of yours some time in the past...)
This being said, I agree that Linux does not bear any of the "monoculture" risks: whether it is fragmented today or not the GPL makes sure it could become at any time.
|
|||||||||||||