Insync 1.0 was introduced, which, by itself, is a good thing, particularly because Google chose to pass on writing a Drive client for Linux but provided one for Microsoft Windows and Apple OSX last Spring of 2012.
That's to be expected I guess. After all, they represent two very big markets with essentially one codebase for each operating system--fairly simple in view of long-term maintenance. I think that's a safe assumption.
But today we have Linux complete with all of the wonderful open source and choice at our fingertips. So much variety. That is trumpeted as a good thing. I would tend to agree, to a point.
Here's where I see a problem that hasn't gone away and keeps on growing. Take a look at this page:
|Insync Loves Linux web page|
Note how many Distros are on the page, each with its own permutations of GUIs, each with its own File Manager, each with its own system file structure, each with its own package management system.
Continue to scroll and you get a complex mish-mosh of directions depending on which Distro is involved and if none applies, you can get a tar.gz download and untar and hope for the best.
Honestly, I would be a little intimidated as a new user of Linux were I to see that.
It's a big roadside sign flashing and warning. Begs for your attention. What is the message here?
It's the lack of standardization which is the crux of the issue.
Will the continued diversification, forking, spins, work to our collective advantage? It's a fair question and from a development standpoint it creates layers and layers of complexity for each new variation.
I submit, it's not going to stop and the cost of implementation for Linux systems deployment will rise correspondingly unless something is done about it.
I wrote about Linux Standard Base and feel there isn't enough being done to address LSB-compliance.
What would it take to join together to achieve LSB compliance for one file structure standard, one universal package management standard. If that were accomplished, we'd see the number of installers reduced substantially.
Standards need not be a control issue. Standards help reduce costs. On the front page of the Linux Standard Base reads the following:
The Linux Standard Base was created to lower the overall costs of supporting the Linux platform. By reducing the differences between individual Linux distributions, the LSB greatly reduces the costs involved with porting applications to different distributions, as well as lowers the cost and effort involved in after-market support of those applications.
That seems to be a worthy goal. We really need to do something about this before it gets out of hand.
What can you do to help? Ask your Distro support channel if they are LSB-certified. If they are not, voice your opinion loud and clear: Petition them to become compliant and have them make it a top priority feature enhancement requirement.
One file system structure, one package manager.
How do you feel about this? Give us your feedback.