4 ms·

Linux won't succeed on the desktop until someone takes a commercial interest in doing so. In order to have a motivation and ability to make Linux work for the m

by tormeh 10y ago

Linux won't succeed on the desktop until someone takes a commercial interest in doing so. In order to have a motivation and ability to make Linux work for the masses you need to earn money off of desktop users. It's extremely unclear to me why such a commercial actor should choose Linux over something newer and shinier like Redox. Sure, there's a bit more work to be done with Redox, but not that much (you only need one file system for desktop) and in return they'd get technology from this side of the millennium as opposed to 1970s tech. EDIT: What I mean is that without earning money off of the end-users, developers will develop a product for themselves, not normal users. That's fine. That's FOSS developers's prerogative. But it won't make Linux on the desktop take off.

soulbadguy 10y ago
This, 100 % this. Linux hasn't succeed on the desktop because the business case for it is weak. The success of ubuntu is in large part due to the financial input of Mark Shuttleworth/canonical. For linux on desktop to move to the next step we need a way to generate revenue out of it. I do think there is a market for it ( a small one), and but that the main hurdle to a commercial desktop linux distro are cultural as opposed to anything else. I am not sure if i agree that something like redox would make more sense than using linux. The most lucrative market for linux desktop right now would be dev/front-end and backend. Going to redox you would lose all that ecosystem. I think microsoft is realizing that which is why they are pushing the linux on windows thing. But definitly, an desktop os based on something more modern than unix would be awesome
Shorel 10y ago
There's Canonical (and their software store) and there are Steam machines. The commercial interest is there. I don't see what has Redox to do with your point, or if you are simply trying to leverage this thread to promote it, but I guess any downvote comes from that angle.

by tormeh 10y ago

soulbadguy 10y ago

This, 100 % this. Linux hasn't succeed on the desktop because the business case for it is weak. The success of ubuntu is in large part due to the financial input of Mark Shuttleworth/canonical. For linux on desktop to move to the next step we need a way to generate revenue out of it. I do think there is a market for it ( a small one), and but that the main hurdle to a commercial desktop linux distro are cultural as opposed to anything else. I am not sure if i agree that something like redox would make more sense than using linux. The most lucrative market for linux desktop right now would be dev/front-end and backend. Going to redox you would lose all that ecosystem. I think microsoft is realizing that which is why they are pushing the linux on windows thing. But definitly, an desktop os based on something more modern than unix would be awesome

Shorel 10y ago

There's Canonical (and their software store) and there are Steam machines. The commercial interest is there. I don't see what has Redox to do with your point, or if you are simply trying to leverage this thread to promote it, but I guess any downvote comes from that angle.