Replies

If Linux would get its act together and come out with one ‘distro’ [whatever the heck that is], it might make some serious inroads. For example, if Linux came out with one desktop home version, they might effectively challenge MS’s Windows Home.

Every time I browse, Linux, I find a dozen different flavors of the OS and that many more desktop versions. That leads to confusion for non-technos (who don’t want to spend massive numbers of hours learning about all the different flavors) and those more interested in productivity than in programming.

Linux is working against itself by continuing the multitude of flavors. That may be fine for ice cream, but not for general computer use. All the variations makes the Linux world appear to be a disorganized playground rather than a serious operating system and desktop application software.

It was bad enough 20 years ago, when we had PC DOS or MS DOS or OS/2, GEM Desktop or Windows Desktop, WordPerfect or Word or Wordstar.

MS learned that lesson early on. They tried to make their productivity software (Office) so proprietary that it was incompatible with other productivity software. Corporate users told MS they would not buy their products without the capability to convert between MS products and other off-the-shelf products. MS balked, and their products wouldn’t sell. They finally capitulated and allowed ‘conversion’ programs to convert the productivity files.

I just don’t want to spend the time to learn Linux and determine the differences to find one version that best suits may usage.

Tom

I understand your feelings.. but to me.. thats what I like about Linux.. If I want to operate in Fluxbox environment I can.. If I want to operate in GNOME desktop environment.. I can. Same goes as KDE... or Enlightenment.. or XFRE...

Its about Choice.. plain and simple. If you do not wish to use Linux.. so be it.

I myself do not like Apple because you are trapped in a hardware path that is overpriced for what you get. The software is fine and I do enjoy the BSD/Enlightenment type desktop environment.

I use a Linux box and a Windows XP box at this time.. again.. its about choice.. I dislike what MS did to their office environment so switched to another office suite..

Won’t ever happen. I’ve been a Linux developer (SW/HW designer) quite a few years now. The power is Linux is its flexibility. That is what allows it run on virtually any hardware (PC, set-top box, mainframe, server, embedded device like cell-phones and automobiles). Different machines have different functions: your cell phone has very different functions and capabilities than your automotive unit.

IMO, Linux was never really for the desktop/end-user. It’s power is perfectly suited for use in the computing machines users never see: the servers and routers that run the backbone of the Internet, and embedded devices that you never open up or see.

Agree. When Vista came out I decided then that XP would be my last Windows machine. I had hoped to move to Linux but for the reasons you cite (and others) have concluded that desktop Linux will remain a hobbyist market indefinitely. The Mac, however, has positioned itself as a universal platform. The general user can view it as a “better PC” (you really can’t appreciate the jaw-dropping difference in display quality until you see an iMac running side-by-side against Windows). The power user can view it as a universal platform that in addition to all the Mac goodies can run a network of virtual machines of any desired flavor. I run Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Linux simultaneously on my iMac (using VMWare Fusion) and everything just works. The iMac is beautifully designed and best of all is completely silent. I’m very happy with it.

If Linux would get its act together and come out with one ‘distro’ [whatever the heck that is], it might make some serious inroads.

Not gonna happen. Distro is short for distribution. Linux is open source, and any Tom, Dick or Linus can distribute his own version.

For example, if Linux came out with one desktop home version, they might effectively challenge MS’s Windows Home.

[...]Linux is working against itself by continuing the multitude of flavors.

There is no "it," and there will never be a One True Linux. That's part of the whole open-source idea, which is the main reason Linux is free. But if one Linux distro could package its OS with a pretty interface and an easy install "wizard," then seal it in shrink wrap and bundle it with off-the-shelf PCs, you'd have something like what you describe.

The problem is, it's been tried, and it didn't cut into Windows' market share much at the consumer level. Never mind that Linux will handle the same documents, connect to the same servers, and browse the same Web sites as Windows, a lot of folks want to run the same binaries as all their friends.

It was bad enough 20 years ago, when we had PC DOS or MS DOS or OS/2, GEM Desktop or Windows Desktop, WordPerfect or Word or Wordstar.

Yeah, it really sucked when there was competition. Isn't a monopoly much tidier?

I just don’t want to spend the time to learn Linux and determine the differences to find one version that best suits may usage.

If you don't take the time to become an informed consumer, then you get whatever crap is easiest to buy. That's true with everything you buy.

All Linux distros may have differing package systems but they both have a variety of windows GUI environments. Microsoft offers only one. And I think choice is good. Microsoft wants you to think its bad. Linux is just fantastic in what it offers consumers - for free. You can't beat a large community of open source users, who make each new version of the OS. Product release cycles are both fast and predictable. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer can't say that about Windows. Here's a fact they don't want you to know: Linux can run on the new generation of low cost, low powered processor Netbooks with no problem. All they've got to offer you is Windows XP cause Microsoft dropped the ball on that end of the computing market.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus