3 ms·

A real open source OS? Youd equally well have asked what the point of Linux was before it picked up steam. Of course the big difference is that Linux succeeded

A real open source OS? Youd equally well have asked what the point of Linux was before it picked up steam. Of course the big difference is that Linux succeeded while Firefox OS failed. But thats after the fact. I think something like Firefox OS is important, but probably wasnt something Mozilla should have undertaken when their key asset was under massive threat and it keeps dropping other stuff that, admittedly small numbers of people are using, were still successful in Theur niche and could have continued with minimal effort (examples of projects that affected me directly are Thunderbird and Prism).

coldtea 10y ago
>Of course the big difference is that Linux succeeded while Firefox OS failed. But thats after the fact. The relevant big difference is that Linux filled a need and had a particular niche that had nothing to do with being "libre": it was good and costed nothing to run servers on. Big UNIX vendors charged an arm and a leg (and often required their own hw platforms to run), and their software was behind the times (to the point that loading the GNU userland was necessary for getting them remotely comfortable to admin/program on). Otherwise, Linux has been a failure on the Desktop too (statistically, nobody cares if someone here personally uses it -- the original idea of most Linux advocates was that it would conquer the desktop, overtaking Microsoft. Not that "it would get good enough to be used by some users on their desktops". It was already that, back in 1999).
- qplex 10y ago
  Actually being "free/open/libre" software has had everything to do with the success of Linux. However, I've heard the high cost of UNIX licenses in the early 90s was the reason why Linus decided to start his project. Also, Linux has never been "a failure" on the desktop: you seem to think that the definition of being successful is to have a complete monopoly.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Also, Linux has never been "a failure" on the desktop: you seem to think that the definition of being successful is to have a complete monopoly. Complete strawman. First, I used the Linux advocates' own definition of "success": Linux overtaking MS on the desktop, and the fabled and continuously moving "Year of Linux on the desktop". Which never happened. Second, what "complete monopoly" rubbish, which I never alluded to? Linux has less of 2% on the desktop (by all browser-based stats). For a completely free OS, that's a failure. 10-20% would have been a great success.
    - qplex 10y ago
      I get somewhat weary when I hear somebody say that "Linux is a failure on x because..." Anyway, where did you get that definition? It is the view of the Linux Zealot. To say that it some sort of general definition is just silly. You also seem to think that if an operating system is free (as in cost?) people would automatically go for it. That is simply false. In any case I think Linux will outlive Windows. Windows is pinned on one single player and Linux is has reach over many.
    - qplex 10y ago
      And with "compete monopoly" I was referring to Microsoft who has abused its position on the market multiple times to thwart competition. You have to understand that "Linux" differs greatly from Microsoft Windows(R) because of its philosophical underpinnings of being "free as in freedom" software. BTW I've heard the market share of Linux on the desktop has steadily been rising for the past few years... just give it some time ;)

coldtea 10y ago

>Of course the big difference is that Linux succeeded while Firefox OS failed. But thats after the fact. The relevant big difference is that Linux filled a need and had a particular niche that had nothing to do with being "libre": it was good and costed nothing to run servers on. Big UNIX vendors charged an arm and a leg (and often required their own hw platforms to run), and their software was behind the times (to the point that loading the GNU userland was necessary for getting them remotely comfortable to admin/program on). Otherwise, Linux has been a failure on the Desktop too (statistically, nobody cares if someone here personally uses it -- the original idea of most Linux advocates was that it would conquer the desktop, overtaking Microsoft. Not that "it would get good enough to be used by some users on their desktops". It was already that, back in 1999).

qplex 10y ago
Actually being "free/open/libre" software has had everything to do with the success of Linux. However, I've heard the high cost of UNIX licenses in the early 90s was the reason why Linus decided to start his project. Also, Linux has never been "a failure" on the desktop: you seem to think that the definition of being successful is to have a complete monopoly.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Also, Linux has never been "a failure" on the desktop: you seem to think that the definition of being successful is to have a complete monopoly. Complete strawman. First, I used the Linux advocates' own definition of "success": Linux overtaking MS on the desktop, and the fabled and continuously moving "Year of Linux on the desktop". Which never happened. Second, what "complete monopoly" rubbish, which I never alluded to? Linux has less of 2% on the desktop (by all browser-based stats). For a completely free OS, that's a failure. 10-20% would have been a great success.
  - qplex 10y ago
    I get somewhat weary when I hear somebody say that "Linux is a failure on x because..." Anyway, where did you get that definition? It is the view of the Linux Zealot. To say that it some sort of general definition is just silly. You also seem to think that if an operating system is free (as in cost?) people would automatically go for it. That is simply false. In any case I think Linux will outlive Windows. Windows is pinned on one single player and Linux is has reach over many.
  - qplex 10y ago
    And with "compete monopoly" I was referring to Microsoft who has abused its position on the market multiple times to thwart competition. You have to understand that "Linux" differs greatly from Microsoft Windows(R) because of its philosophical underpinnings of being "free as in freedom" software. BTW I've heard the market share of Linux on the desktop has steadily been rising for the past few years... just give it some time ;)