On 03/08/2015 09:06 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
We do get a lot of interoperability between distros as a result of agreement on the kernel though. And increasing agreement on systemd also improves this interpretability. And in user space, the DE's do a lot of heavy lifting as well on unifying UX interoperability to the degree I can fairly well use e.g. GNOME on either Linux or BSD. Certainly the gap between Honeywell flight director software, and whatever Airbus calls their flight management system or OS, is quite a big deal greater both in code and in the UX.
*sigh* Years ago we had what the media termed a "war" between Motif and OpenLook. Where are they now? This, like so much else, was a 'war' the media saw because it believed there should be only one 'standard' and not the diversity that fosters innovation. Should we have only one kind of pocket calculator? Should HP have and reverse polish, which is much more logical, won out over Texas Instruments and Infix/BODMAS that is taught in schools? To have just one pocket calculator standard? Wouldn't that simplify production and education? There are areas where the interoperability matters such as the binary standards that the kernel has to deal with, but which become irrelevant when you cross processor types. There are areas where interoperability exists not a technical level but in the mind/perception of the user. I can use any Linux desktop I've met to get my day to day work done. That's not to say I can customise E16! That's not to say I _like_ Gnome. But then I don't like driving in the middle east, in 2CVs or without seat belts. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org