Linux Desktop Fragmentation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

Softpedia ^ | 4 September 2014 | Silviu Stahie

[ShadowAce]

[Organic Panic]

In my line of work, engineering and manufacturing, the cost of an OS is negligible. It simply isn’t an issue what the software I use is in the $20,000 range. I’m no fan of Windows but there’s simply no choice.

[Organic Panic]

In my line of work, engineering and manufacturing, the cost of an OS is negligible. It simply isn’t an issue what the software I use is in the $20,000 range. I’m no fan of Windows but there’s simply no choice.

[Bidimus1]

Thus the reason we should have 100 different tread pitches for common screws.

As long as distrowatch.org exists liunx will NOT be a major player in the desktop market.

As Tech that does support the very idea of supporting 10 different desktops with average users is at best daunting.

[ShadowAce]

Those 10 different desktops are all sitting on one or two different base OSes, and probably all are the same kernel.

Support won't really be an issue.

[adorno]

Imagine the same kind of fragmentation occurring in a government system, where everybody does their own thing, and no one knows what the next person is up to. A city or state or national government, would end in chaos.

Chaos is a better word for what's happening with the Linux community, and fragmentation is just a nicer way of putting it.

"The end result is a perceived chaos of applications, operating systems, desktop environments, you name it. Developers are pulling in every direction and the lack of a concentrated effort is damaging the platform in its entirety."

As long as every Jane, Dick and Harry believes that they know better, then, there will be no centralized control and no real good direction for Linux.

So, who in their right minds are going to dive into a pool of so many uncertainties, other than the tech geeks who think they know better?

[Bidimus1]

You try talking an of site user though it while guessing what OS, Kernel, then Desktop (and its variant)

And please dont go with the just remote in idea.. that only works if the system is fairly functional.. and EVEN IF I can remote in I then have to learn how many deviant desktops.

a few years back MS got hammered for releasing 7 different ver of windows 7 but some how the many “flavors” of lin(s)ux is supposed to be better ?

[GeronL]

I did not like the DVD/CD burner my Linux came with, so I got another one because I have the choice.

[Scrambler Bob]

M4L

[GeronL]

I went to a snocone stand and they had so many flavors I could not believe it, I told them that this was a horrible idea and that one flavor for all should be the rule. nay, the law.

//kidding

[ShadowAce]

I don't think you understand that the desktop being spoken about here is just an application on top of the actual OS. They are not tied together like Windows is.

What desktop is being used is usually irrelevant to any issues being experienced by the user. Not all the time, but usually.

[catnipman]

Why Linux is Not Ready for the Desktop (and probably never will be)

[TexasRepublic]

You must not like huge grocery stores either, they are so confusing with so many brands of salad dressing. And the aisles are different in every store! Oh, the humanity!

That which some call chaos, I call choice.

[adorno]

kidding or not, variety is the spice of life, but...

Variety is not needed for everything or everywhere.

Some things are good enough with no variety, or with just a few flavors.

I wouldn’t want thousands of flavors for ice cones, because, I would be stuck for hours making decisions. See how that applies to Linux? Then, after you’ve made a decision, you wander whether it was the right one, or you want to try some or all of the others, while not actually gaining anything of practical value.

[publius911]

Bookmark

[publius911]

Imagine the same kind of fragmentation occurring in a government system, where everybody does their own thing, and no one knows what the next person is up to. A city or state or national government, would end in chaos.

You picked the absolutely worst example to make a point, so I had to skip the rest of your post.
That description fits perfectly the state of political governance in the U.S., from top to bottom, and yet half the voting population (and presumably Windows owners) thinks it is a good thing.

[familyop]

No one knows how many people in the world use Linux. There are too many obstacles to discovering that number or even getting close with a percentage of market. Most users refuse to register, and many browsers offer user agent options to mask them.

But you see, that’s an advantage, too.

[familyop]

"Imagine the same kind of fragmentation occurring in a government system, where everybody does their own thing, and no one knows what the next person is up to. A city or state or national government, would end in chaos."

Imagine that being too much of a restricted portrait of the near future. Imagine such decentralization of all markets down to community and individual levels with all useful products being made by anyone and everyone willing to make them in micro-operations with no way to control them at all. That's on the way everywhere, and it won't be stopped.

[adorno]

The state of political governance?

I’m talking about governing. Simple governing. Not “political governing”.

When it comes to actual governing, it’s absolutely essential that there be a set of policies that guides that government, and not a whole slew of policies which will just create chaos.

But, thanks for playing, and enjoy your anarchy in the Linux community.