Do you want Linux to go mainstream?

Tillotson

It seems to be universially assumed that Linux users want Linux to dominate the desktop. Currently Linux is developed for geeks by geeks. I love linux but I don't recommend it to friends who aren't technical especially if they're going to be contacting me asking for support. Linux is an adventure game that I enjoy figuring out, it's easy if you know how. Most people aren't like that. Most people want to click "yes", "yes", "accept", "yes", "finish" and get a solution. They don't care how it works.

Open source isn't going to produce the next photoshop. Developers need money and donations aren't going to cut it. Why would a company sponsor a photoshop/CAD/Ableton like project? World of Goo was kinda neat but it was hardly the next Crysis.

Does this mean that we need to be more accepting of closed source apps? How will these apps, which people need to do their job, be delivered? Would having a propierty repository like an app store work? What compromises are you willing to make?

I don't want to sound elitest, I just think there's different tools for different jobs.

Grudaire

+1

I'd much prefer an idiot proof version of Linux, if I had more time I might eventually be able to sort out wireless etc etc!

croo

I love linux but I don't recommend it to friends who aren't technical

I installed ubuntu on my 72 year old father's system and he manages just fine!
He mostly just browses the web, writes emails, the odd letter in openoffice and he does a lot of photo work for which he uses GIMP without much problem. His printers work, scanners work, can read the images from his cameras memory card and his system stable and faster now it is not swamped with virus checkers. All in all he is quite content! I'm not sure he even notices it is different... or no more different than when he has migrated from one windows version to another in the past.

Developers need money and donations aren't going to cut it

There is nothing in open source that says you cannot charge for your work ... you only have to provide the source code. Actually, I think open source is better for developers! In a closed shop developers work on a project but when they leave they must leave their work. They might have to do the same thing in the next position but must start from scratch and do it all again. Now, in reality, they most probably take their work with them but this would be, strictly speaking, illegal. But with Open Source they can take their work with them. Open Source is about freeing developers... and customers... the only person losing is the middleman - who with enough money can and has manipulated markets to achieve massive profits for themselves. Just going from memory so I could be wrong, but when I bought my first PC in 1987 the system cost be about £3000 while MS-DOS off the shelf cost about £30-40. Now I can buy a machine for a couple of hundred euro and the equivalent of MS-DOS costs about the same price as the machine! This is what yo can do with a monopoly!

There are many firms who earn plenty of money in the world of open source. Many of the giants of the computer world have now embraced open source and even Gartner is now saying that by 2010 80% of businesses will use Open Source.

Does this mean that we need to be more accepting of closed source apps?

You don't think we've been acceptive of closed source? where have you been the last 30 years?

Open source isn't going to produce the next photoshop ... World of Goo was kinda neat but it was hardly the next Crysis.

So you don't think open source can compete with closed source?
Firefox is not better than IE? Apache is not better than IIS?
Perhaps OSS is not yet or might never be developing #1 games - but that doesn't mean this games won't be developed with OSS tools! What's different about gaming is its more an art forms .. pop art perhaps but it is closer to story telling than your typical business app.

But in many new areas I think open source leads... I mean the web is practically built on open source! About the only place left now is in the .NET world of MS & the console worlds. Business software is still mostly closed but that is just starting to change now - in 5 years I do not believe that will be the case any more.

Capt'n Midnight

Tillotson wrote:

Most people aren't like that. Most people want to click "yes", "yes", "accept", "yes", "finish" and get a solution. They don't care how it works.

compare this http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Next
to apt-get or synaptec package manager

windows PC's take quite a while to download install and patch up to date the apps and viewers to provide the same basic functionality you get off most linux live cd's

some best of breed apps are open source

photoshop is probably better than the gimp + photoshop, but a full version costs more than a computer and is over kill for home users.

towel401

keep it nerds-only pls

else it will just turn into windows or completely web based / ad supported

Galen

Ubuntu is that way already.

Tillotson

croo wrote:

So you don't think open source can compete with closed source?
Firefox is not better than IE? Apache is not better than IIS?

Firefox is a bit of a special case because it gets 80% of the click revenue when you buy something you've searched for using their search box. Linux kicks ass as on servers there is no doubting that. But servers usually have a narrow set of requirements that you can optimise for.

The desktop is different. A main stream desktop OS has to cater for pro and pro-sumer. This includes niches that many geeks aren't interested in developing for. If I go start developing for gimp how do I get payed? The guy working full time on Ardour makes $24,000 a year through donations which is just scraping minimun wage. I have doubts about the feasibility of charging for an OOS app unless you can tie in advertising/paid web services. Either that or get sponsored/hired to develop by a large corporation but this isn't going to happen for most apps.

It doesn't effect me, I'm just interested in peoples opinions.

Mark200

Galen wrote: »

Ubuntu is that way already.

Yeah I was kinda thinking that myself... well maybe it's not as user-friendly as Windows, but it's still pretty straight forward to use after a day or so of just messing about with it. I installed Ubuntu like 2 days ago... it was my first time using anything but windows. And I like it. It wasn't too difficult to get used to. I'm no computer geek either.

Kinetic^

I'd love a distro of linux to go mainstream, ubuntu is almost there with only a few cases of components not working from the off. I installed ubuntu on my parent's PC as they only browse (firefox) or mail (thunderbird) people and nothing else so it made sense to move to something more secure.I've showed them how to update it via update manager and there have been no complaints from them and even less phonecalls to me worrying about viruses that they would've picked up with XP. For your average user, ubuntu is way safer and performs better then windows but as per usual, if you're a gamer then go windows.

corkie

towel401 wrote: »

keep it nerds-only pls

else it will just turn into windows or completely web based / ad supported

With the more security features now include in Windows and IE to block ad's etc. Windows is becoming more like linux/firefox.

Also with the Windows 7 RC coming available for free download from the 5th, is MS coming more afraid of that fact.

Linux is more widely used than most people realize. Most people are probably unaware that they use it (embed in a lot of consumer electronics - i.e. sat-nav's, photo frames, rooters and some TV's etc.)

The lotto terminals in this country run off it?

I use linux as my main OS, but i like having windows available for those times you need to connect/firmware update a device that a manufacture only provides tools in this format.


Regards,
J.

ynotdu

It would be a sad day if Linux based systems or open source disapeared.

can understand the point of view of nearly all posters here.

It is free for the poor.

It is secure as is possible.

It is a fun pastime for those with the skills to create software.

Most of all in the way low cost airlines made traveling affordable to almost all it brings an operating system to the poorest anywhere on the planet.

Imagine if Microsoft&apple had nothing to force them to be cost conscious:eek:

Khannie

I'd like linux to be more widely used on the desktop. The reason is simple: Better drivers and games. I have a printer upstairs that will only work with a windows virtual machine. I checked and there will /never/ be any drivers for linux built for it (by the manufacturer at least, and I'm not arsed trying to look every once in a while).

I switched to linux when I was only playing UT2004. Never looked back. I took the hit that I wouldn't be able to play every game and tbh I don't have time for gaming any more.

Eventually linux desktop usage is going to the point where it's worth a company's time developing their game in OpenGL (instead of D3D) so the linux port is straightforward. When that happens we're gonna see much larger adoption. Direct3d was a stroke of genius by Microsoft. Locking games developers into their OS and effectively locking out gamers from using linux full time.

Anyway, yeah, I can't wait until linux is more mainstream.

matrim

I'd like a distro or two to go mainstream. That way you get the better hardware \ application support.

No matter what happens there will always be distro's that are more geeky and require more technical knowledge to run, once the mix is kept right you should be able to cater for everyone

Capt'n Midnight

ynotdu wrote:

Imagine if Microsoft&apple had nothing to force them to be cost conscious:eek:

just a reminder if it was needed that apple moved to BSD
sun who like apple used proprietary hardware and software have open sourced software and even cpu designs
And there's IBM

You see a lot of hardware companies want to sell hardware, open source is a great way for them to do so as it offers customers free software upgrades for life and the software houses can't under cut since it's being subsidised by hardware sales


also IIRC 70% of programming is done in house in tweaking and customising off the shelf software or developing new stuff, and that is unlikely to change, more people use the Microsoft API than write it. Not all programmers work for the big software houses

The big software houses are the only ones who could loose out to open source, but even they benefit as they can cherry pick , microsoft got their TCP/IP stack from BSD etc.

Khannie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

microsoft got their TCP/IP stack from BSD etc.

Is this true? You mean a port, or a yoink?

ethernet

Don't believe in forcing it down people's throats and the "no virus, spyware, etc." preaching.

Do think people should know they have a choice and that things may be implemented differently.

Do think people should be familiar with the open-source model.

Naikon

Khannie wrote: »

Is this true? You mean a port, or a yoink?

Pretty much any OS's TCP/IP stack is somehow derived from the Original
bsd TCP/IP code. Berkeley sockets were also pioneered around the 70's
and still in use today.

The original code probably isn't used due to lawsuits ect, but the concepts
still apply. Hard to believe an internet without standard TCP/IP.
MIcrosoft has a history of directly yoinking code and putting it in windows.

Anywho, I would be a happy man if Linux went mainstream.
It would result in better/more drivers, more games(not that I play that many though),
and some recognition of the hard work of Free/OSS software would be nice.

I can't stand reformatting my parents machine for the N'th time because
of some stupid virus/undetermined malware crippling the machine.

Naikon

ethernet wrote: »

Do think people should be familiar with the open-source model.

True, it disgusts me that "Compooters" in school revolves only around having
to learn to drive very specific Microsoft products.

An introduction in school/learning centres ect would be a good step.
Imagine if Goverment organisations moved away from contract licences with MS.

"Screw Microsoft kids", lets learn about basic Algorithms/BASIC/new fangled BASIC like
langauge. It's not like very expensive software/hardware is actually needed to
teach some concepts.

Dartz

It already has (ish)

I don't use Linux because it's open source, or for ethical reasons, or because I hate Microsoft, or because it's just 'technically superior' somehow. I don't use it because I'm an enthusiast, or because I'm a *nix-head.

I use Linux because it's more convenient than Windows for daily fudging around. It fulfills my needs perfectly, and competantly. It's fuss-free to install, especially Ubuntu. Once any glitches are worked out after installing, they stay worked out.

I don't have to worry about WGA suddenly taking the Gitmo approach to anti-piracy, or any other of a hundred random things suddenly deciding it'll lock my PC out unless I pay for something, somewhere. and even then, there's no guarantee that if I have to reinstall Windows, it won't decide to be a prick and lock itself down and leave me with a bricked PC. I don't have to worry (much) about viruses, because there's so few of them out there for such a small market share OS, though I still keep an free AV for scanning, just in case.

Linux and Ubuntu as a user experience has been far more positive than any Windows variant, simply because it doesn't get in my way or act the bollox. Also, once I get about a week or two into an install, it becomes rock solid as all the little bugs and glitches get ironed out.

And if random lusers like myself are picking up on it because of this, and not some sort of status symbol, then she's already getting into mainstream.

ravydavygravy

I've been a linux user for a long time now, and I use it both at home and in my job. In the server market, linux is already pretty mainstream (as previously mentioned) but in the desktop market I couldn't care less if Linux was more widely used or not.

I love linux, but I can still see how it can be a pain in the ass for other users - for example, *every* time I have upgraded in the last 5-6 years, I have had issues with my dualhead configuration, invariably involving hand-editing xorg.conf to get it working. Your average non-techie user will get this far and give up, since (a) they don't understand why its not working and (b) they won't understand how to fix it. They don't have a tech support monkey they can call, and unless they are part of the minority who are willing to search the web and find solutions to their own problems, the problem will be the end of linux for them.

So why don't I want linux to become mainstream? Because I don't care that much - personally, I think the people who go around trying to convince people to switch to linux are as bad as the guys who ring me trying to switch telephone providers. If someone is motivated and wants to move to linux, I am more than happy to help, teach and support them - but it has to be their decision to make the move. Linux will become mainstream by itself if it becomes easy to fix for non-technical users (I already feel its easy to use) - until such time, I'm happy enough for it to stay where it is. Linux advocates should spend time working on the OS and its flaws, not tryingto convert people to use a system they are not equipped to run & support.

My personal opinion, yadda, yadda....

An Fear Aniar

I would certainly like to see more and more desktop hardware shipped with Linux on it. Right now, many of the complaints about Linux are caused by the fact that you're trying to get Linux to work on a machine designed for Windows.

Hopefully it will all happen gradually, so that issues like proprietary applications can be worked out along the way.

.