5 ms·

Linux always wins? I disagree! Desktop linux adoption is still in the low single percentages. I think your linking linux with democracy/capitalism is very ra

Linux always wins? I disagree! Desktop linux adoption is still in the low single percentages. I think your linking linux with democracy/capitalism is very random.

confluence 14y ago
Desktop linux was always completely stupid idea - it provided no benefits to either the manufacturer or consumer but it had all of the drawbacks of a switch with no forcing function available to push mainstream adoption (for example fundamental lack of OS/tools for consumers from another platform). However - Linux dominates mobile and it dominates commodity consumer tech. It already dominates back end server tech. My Android phone/tablet is indistinguishable from the iPhone/iPad. The forcing function for this was due to manufacturers needing an OS to run their mobile systems - since Apple ain't licensing - they are forced to adopt Android to scale out their high volume production. Linux dominates server tech because licensing fees kill business models and the vast majority of backend processing is mostly stable and needs to be horizontally scalable. The world is going to run on linux. And it'll be through the browser.
- emilsedgh 14y ago
  Stupid idea? Initial goal of desktop linux was to provide a 'free as in free speech' desktop. It was not a stupid idea and has worked out just fine. It was so damn successful on that goal that at some point (early 2000's) we thought we could reach world domination without any heavy investment. I have a very functional, good looking, modern 'free' desktop. Disclaimer: Im a KDE contributor.
  - confluence 14y ago
    I don't understand what you mean. Ubuntu has so far lead the charge with the Linux desktop and even back in 2005 the user experience was atrocious (no fault of their own). The open source community should've just given up and transferred resources to FireFox, servers and the Linux kernel - because so far net investment in desktop Linux has had negative ROI. Just look at the example of Plan9 to see why.
    - emilsedgh 14y ago
      Whether desktop linux has been successful or not must be judged by its goal. Its goal was not reaching mass market (hence, its not a company selling a product). Its goal was creating a usable free desktop. We have more than one usable desktop. We have been successful by definition. But the fact that you say "we should've just given up" or "Desktop linux was always completely stupid idea" tells me that you do not share the concern of people who are working (mostly as volunteers) on desktop linux.
      - StavrosK 14y ago
        Even for the mass market goal, I'm not sure it's failed. All my family and friends (including my parents) are running Ubuntu, and whenever my (average, when it comes to computer literacy) girlfriend hears about someone having problem with Windows, she says "well, it's their fault for not running Ubuntu".
      - takluyver 14y ago
        The FOSS community doesn't really have a single goal. Some people want a usable free desktop, others to get mass market share (see Ubuntu bug #1, for example). Some people have specific principles - like that science should run on open source code - others see money to be made from it. These groups work together when their interests are aligned. Many people, for instance, have an interest in ensuring the Linux kernel works well. But the goal, and hence our success, depends on the individual.
  - fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
    Initial goal of desktop linux was to provide a 'free as in free speech' desktop Linux has been my free as in speech OS for many years. I love it! I don't give a shit about the "Desktop". Sorry, KDE contributor, KDE is a very impressive product, I just don't need it. The command line is how I use Linux, because it is a far better way to deal with a computer. If you are a power user. Linux, from, by, and for, power users has always worked spectacularly well using the command line. The desktop? That's always been something our pride and ambition wanted, but we never needed it.
    - emilsedgh 14y ago
      When we talk about desktop linux, we do not talk only about the widgets and wallpapers. Desktop linux means PDF readers, video players, window managers, web browsers, email clients, music players, chat services, office suites and much more. Are you telling me that you use none of them and perform all your tasks without even running X?
      - fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
        I try to avoid PDFs as much as possible, I hate them. I am not interested in video playing on Linux. And I used to work for a video editor maker who's products worked on Windows, OSX and Linux. (And used to work SGI) But my workhorse Linux machine is just not for videos or video games. OSX and Windows are for those. That's why I think of Linux as by and for programmers. Not anyone else. Email does not need window managers, same with music players, chat service, emacs is my "office suite", etc. All of these are generic things for a wide public. For everyone. But OSX and Windows are already doing a great service for everyone. Why should the free and open OS also be easy to use for the general audience? What's so wrong about it being specialized to power users? My point is that Linux as an OS for and by hackers has been spectacularly successful. As an OS for everyone else? Meh.
- sek 14y ago
  I still think a desktop Linux will be big in the enterprise, especially for computer professionals. You need a powerful machine for certain things.
  - confluence 14y ago
    You're probably right - but that wasn't the goal of the Desktop - which was mainstream adoption.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      When you make statements like this, you need to qualify the goal of whom. I've run Linux on my desktop since '95. It's not my goal to get mainstream adoption - mainstream adoption is irrelevant to me. The same is the case for a lot of people, and quite a few Linux "desktop distros". Specific distro's might have mainstreaming the Linux desktop as a goal. Some might have failed. Some are still trying. But there's no single goal here. Nor even a single vision of what a "Linux desktop" should look like.
- padobson 14y ago
  I don't know if it was stupid or not, but I wouldn't know how to use Linux at all without switching to Ubuntu desktop from Mac OS when I couldn't afford the Apple premium after college. It released me from dependency hell, forced me to learn VIM, and vastly improved the quality of my Google searches when I had a development question. As a result, I'm a much better developer today than if I had been able to afford a Mac.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

Linux always wins? I disagree! Desktop linux adoption is still in the low single percentages. I think your linking linux with democracy/capitalism is very random.

confluence 14y ago

Desktop linux was always completely stupid idea - it provided no benefits to either the manufacturer or consumer but it had all of the drawbacks of a switch with no forcing function available to push mainstream adoption (for example fundamental lack of OS/tools for consumers from another platform). However - Linux dominates mobile and it dominates commodity consumer tech. It already dominates back end server tech. My Android phone/tablet is indistinguishable from the iPhone/iPad. The forcing function for this was due to manufacturers needing an OS to run their mobile systems - since Apple ain't licensing - they are forced to adopt Android to scale out their high volume production. Linux dominates server tech because licensing fees kill business models and the vast majority of backend processing is mostly stable and needs to be horizontally scalable. The world is going to run on linux. And it'll be through the browser.

emilsedgh 14y ago
Stupid idea? Initial goal of desktop linux was to provide a 'free as in free speech' desktop. It was not a stupid idea and has worked out just fine. It was so damn successful on that goal that at some point (early 2000's) we thought we could reach world domination without any heavy investment. I have a very functional, good looking, modern 'free' desktop. Disclaimer: Im a KDE contributor.
- confluence 14y ago
  I don't understand what you mean. Ubuntu has so far lead the charge with the Linux desktop and even back in 2005 the user experience was atrocious (no fault of their own). The open source community should've just given up and transferred resources to FireFox, servers and the Linux kernel - because so far net investment in desktop Linux has had negative ROI. Just look at the example of Plan9 to see why.
  - emilsedgh 14y ago
    Whether desktop linux has been successful or not must be judged by its goal. Its goal was not reaching mass market (hence, its not a company selling a product). Its goal was creating a usable free desktop. We have more than one usable desktop. We have been successful by definition. But the fact that you say "we should've just given up" or "Desktop linux was always completely stupid idea" tells me that you do not share the concern of people who are working (mostly as volunteers) on desktop linux.
    - StavrosK 14y ago
      Even for the mass market goal, I'm not sure it's failed. All my family and friends (including my parents) are running Ubuntu, and whenever my (average, when it comes to computer literacy) girlfriend hears about someone having problem with Windows, she says "well, it's their fault for not running Ubuntu".
    - takluyver 14y ago
      The FOSS community doesn't really have a single goal. Some people want a usable free desktop, others to get mass market share (see Ubuntu bug #1, for example). Some people have specific principles - like that science should run on open source code - others see money to be made from it. These groups work together when their interests are aligned. Many people, for instance, have an interest in ensuring the Linux kernel works well. But the goal, and hence our success, depends on the individual.
- fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
  Initial goal of desktop linux was to provide a 'free as in free speech' desktop Linux has been my free as in speech OS for many years. I love it! I don't give a shit about the "Desktop". Sorry, KDE contributor, KDE is a very impressive product, I just don't need it. The command line is how I use Linux, because it is a far better way to deal with a computer. If you are a power user. Linux, from, by, and for, power users has always worked spectacularly well using the command line. The desktop? That's always been something our pride and ambition wanted, but we never needed it.
  - emilsedgh 14y ago
    When we talk about desktop linux, we do not talk only about the widgets and wallpapers. Desktop linux means PDF readers, video players, window managers, web browsers, email clients, music players, chat services, office suites and much more. Are you telling me that you use none of them and perform all your tasks without even running X?
    - fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
      I try to avoid PDFs as much as possible, I hate them. I am not interested in video playing on Linux. And I used to work for a video editor maker who's products worked on Windows, OSX and Linux. (And used to work SGI) But my workhorse Linux machine is just not for videos or video games. OSX and Windows are for those. That's why I think of Linux as by and for programmers. Not anyone else. Email does not need window managers, same with music players, chat service, emacs is my "office suite", etc. All of these are generic things for a wide public. For everyone. But OSX and Windows are already doing a great service for everyone. Why should the free and open OS also be easy to use for the general audience? What's so wrong about it being specialized to power users? My point is that Linux as an OS for and by hackers has been spectacularly successful. As an OS for everyone else? Meh.
sek 14y ago
I still think a desktop Linux will be big in the enterprise, especially for computer professionals. You need a powerful machine for certain things.
- confluence 14y ago
  You're probably right - but that wasn't the goal of the Desktop - which was mainstream adoption.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    When you make statements like this, you need to qualify the goal of whom. I've run Linux on my desktop since '95. It's not my goal to get mainstream adoption - mainstream adoption is irrelevant to me. The same is the case for a lot of people, and quite a few Linux "desktop distros". Specific distro's might have mainstreaming the Linux desktop as a goal. Some might have failed. Some are still trying. But there's no single goal here. Nor even a single vision of what a "Linux desktop" should look like.
padobson 14y ago
I don't know if it was stupid or not, but I wouldn't know how to use Linux at all without switching to Ubuntu desktop from Mac OS when I couldn't afford the Apple premium after college. It released me from dependency hell, forced me to learn VIM, and vastly improved the quality of my Google searches when I had a development question. As a result, I'm a much better developer today than if I had been able to afford a Mac.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]