4 ms·

"Unity isn't going to drag any joe-average users to suddenly want Linux on their PC." 'What comes with the PC at the store' is what joe-average is always going

"Unity isn't going to drag any joe-average users to suddenly want Linux on their PC." 'What comes with the PC at the store' is what joe-average is always going to use. Always. What a Linux desktop looks like and aspires to be and how well/whether it works means nothing in this context. Nothing. Numbers-wise, people using Linux on the desktop are: geeks (an insignificant percentage of PC users) and friends/parents of geeks (an insignificant percentage the former). We're like flies buzzing around a very small pile of elephant dung (but it's really good dung); meanwhile the elephant has lumbered off, out of site.

jiggy2011 15y ago
Not totally sure, yes there is always going to be a big advantage to whatever comes with the PC. I think if there was a clear sales pitch that could be used to sell Linux desktop as an alternative to Windows there would be enough people willing it try switching to give it critical mass which would then cause OEMs to ship it with some of their computers. Linux tends to be well used in dedicated electronics (routers, GPS , phones etc etc). We really need to think about what "Linux on the desktop" actually means. What it really seems to mean is a system where the majority of the components are released under a GNU (or similar) license , so that includes the Desktop environment etc. Let's say for example that apple decided to rip the darwin kernel out of OS X and replace it with Linux 2.6.x but kept everything else as it was would we suddenly cry "woo it's the year of the Linux desktop" , what real quantifiable difference would it make? It seems that in order for Linux to succeed as a mass market desktop OS it needs some company to plug big gaps (as has happened with android) at what point would the "Linux people" decide they no longer wanted to be associated with it?

jiggy2011 15y ago

Not totally sure, yes there is always going to be a big advantage to whatever comes with the PC. I think if there was a clear sales pitch that could be used to sell Linux desktop as an alternative to Windows there would be enough people willing it try switching to give it critical mass which would then cause OEMs to ship it with some of their computers. Linux tends to be well used in dedicated electronics (routers, GPS , phones etc etc). We really need to think about what "Linux on the desktop" actually means. What it really seems to mean is a system where the majority of the components are released under a GNU (or similar) license , so that includes the Desktop environment etc. Let's say for example that apple decided to rip the darwin kernel out of OS X and replace it with Linux 2.6.x but kept everything else as it was would we suddenly cry "woo it's the year of the Linux desktop" , what real quantifiable difference would it make? It seems that in order for Linux to succeed as a mass market desktop OS it needs some company to plug big gaps (as has happened with android) at what point would the "Linux people" decide they no longer wanted to be associated with it?