4 ms·

I think people are looking at these operating systems the wrong way. In the past, Ubuntu was the easy to set up but hacker-friendly linux. Nowadays, they are tr

I think people are looking at these operating systems the wrong way. In the past, Ubuntu was the easy to set up but hacker-friendly linux. Nowadays, they are transitioning to being more for OEMs and other devices. Linux Mint is simply coming in to fill the gap that Ubuntu is leaving as it transitions to other markets.

unalone 15y ago
Well-said! The great thing about Linux – its killer feature compared to Windows or Mac – is that it's open-source, meaning each user is free to tweak it however they see fit. Ubuntu has been an interesting experiment in whether such an open-source system can also be designed to be competitive with a casual market; they're finding that the casual market's extremely difficult to penetrate, and so they're trying to innovate and make something genuinely appealing. I'm curious to see if they succeed or not, but it doesn't really matter either way, because Linux remains the turn-into-anything choice for people who need (or just want) more control over their computing environment. As Ubuntu makes drastic changes, a new iteration of Linux becomes the go-to for people who want a conventional installation. Maybe it would have made more sense for Ubuntu to remain the conventional brand and for a newly-branded brand name to be the one fiddling with Unity, but Ubuntu's already got a name for itself and Shuttlesworth wants to take advantage of it. I think it's beautiful how Linux is capable of branching and splitting so painlessly. I don't use it myself, but that's okay – Linux doesn't need considerable market share to remain the valuable tool that it is.
- keithpeter 15y ago
  "I think it's beautiful how Linux is capable of branching and splitting so painlessly." You've nailed it for me with that quote. Thanks. Points up the difference between commercially packaged OS and a free (ish given Ubuntu's binary blobs) one.
  - diminish 15y ago
    in the past 2 months i used extensively gnome2,3, unity, xfce, kde4.6 etc and i am so happy for such a small market share there are many choices. this is the power of open source.

unalone 15y ago

Well-said! The great thing about Linux – its killer feature compared to Windows or Mac – is that it's open-source, meaning each user is free to tweak it however they see fit. Ubuntu has been an interesting experiment in whether such an open-source system can also be designed to be competitive with a casual market; they're finding that the casual market's extremely difficult to penetrate, and so they're trying to innovate and make something genuinely appealing. I'm curious to see if they succeed or not, but it doesn't really matter either way, because Linux remains the turn-into-anything choice for people who need (or just want) more control over their computing environment. As Ubuntu makes drastic changes, a new iteration of Linux becomes the go-to for people who want a conventional installation. Maybe it would have made more sense for Ubuntu to remain the conventional brand and for a newly-branded brand name to be the one fiddling with Unity, but Ubuntu's already got a name for itself and Shuttlesworth wants to take advantage of it. I think it's beautiful how Linux is capable of branching and splitting so painlessly. I don't use it myself, but that's okay – Linux doesn't need considerable market share to remain the valuable tool that it is.

keithpeter 15y ago
"I think it's beautiful how Linux is capable of branching and splitting so painlessly." You've nailed it for me with that quote. Thanks. Points up the difference between commercially packaged OS and a free (ish given Ubuntu's binary blobs) one.
- diminish 15y ago
  in the past 2 months i used extensively gnome2,3, unity, xfce, kde4.6 etc and i am so happy for such a small market share there are many choices. this is the power of open source.