Linux is not hard, it's ignored - Column

[Rouxenator]

That article is missing a section called "compatibility".

 

[porchrat]

For any Linux-Based OS to become mainstream, it would have to be sold, together with the relevant proper support & paid development. The Linux community needs to standardise on what flavor they want for Desktops/Laptops and Servers and sell them. The money generated from that will assist in further marketing the OS and enable the building of more decent updates, with proper beta testing.

The general reason for the various flavours of Linux is that there wasn't a version that performed a need. Most of these flavours are created for a specific purpose for example the Linux distro SME is specifically geared to be light on resources and functions as a small network server.

This sort of thing can't happen if you only have the Linux equivalent of WindowsXP or Windows7.

customer:"hi there I am looking for a version of Linux to run at home on a small server"
Incredible Connection Guy:"well then sir you'll be needing Linux Ultimate 64bit with the added Tux Media Centre option!"
customer"???"

So I disagree that Linux needs to standardise. Standardising would mean a big loss of flexibility which is one of the key aspects of Linux that makes it so versatile. Linux is running on all sorts of little integrated devices these days. That would not be possible if all that was available was Linux Home, Linux Professional and Linux Ultimate.

 

[LCBXX]

The general reason for the various flavours of Linux is that there wasn't a version that performed a need. Most of these flavours are created for a specific purpose for example the Linux distro SME is specifically geared to be light on resources and functions as a small network server.

This sort of thing can't happen if you only have the Linux equivalent of WindowsXP or Windows7.

customer:"hi there I am looking for a version of Linux to run at home on a small server"
Incredible Connection Guy:"well then sir you'll be needing Linux Ultimate 64bit with the added Tux Media Centre option!"
customer"???"

So I disagree that Linux needs to standardise. Standardising would mean a big loss of flexibility which is one of the key aspects of Linux that makes it so versatile. Linux is running on all sorts of little integrated devices these days. That would not be possible if all that was available was Linux Home, Linux Professional and Linux Ultimate.

I completely agree about the appeal being the absolute versatility. However, the reason something becomes mainstream is because it was standardised at a certain point and a framework was set down. Other developers and designers are given the framework and make money from their design and product sales. Sure, that completely ruins the whole "freedom" idea that I assume working with Linux & open-source is all about, but as long as the goal is to stay diverse and different, the uptake would never become general unless the concept of being continually diverse outweighs the "constraint" of general-standard, which is generally easier accepted by the masses.

 

[eix-sync&&emerge]

I seemed to have joined at a rather intresting time , dont bash it before you try it . the reason for all the distros is that not every one wants to keep there hands clean , nor is everyone the same.... first time ever posting on a forum , i feel like ... a troll

 

[knortjor]

Obligatory quote:

"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. " - Linus Torvalds

 

[porchrat]

I completely agree about the appeal being the absolute versatility. However, the reason something becomes mainstream is because it was standardised at a certain point and a framework was set down. Other developers and designers are given the framework and make money from their design and product sales. Sure, that completely ruins the whole "freedom" idea that I assume working with Linux & open-source is all about, but as long as the goal is to stay diverse and different, the uptake would never become general unless the concept of being continually diverse outweighs the "constraint" of general-standard, which is generally easier accepted by the masses.

It depends on what you mean by standardised. IMO there are many levels to standardisation before you reach Linux Home, Linux Professional and Linux Ultimate. Some parts of the various distros are standardised, while some parts still aren't.

I seemed to have joined at a rather intresting time , dont bash it before you try it . the reason for all the distros is that not every one wants to keep there hands clean , nor is everyone the same.... first time ever posting on a forum , i feel like ... a troll

Nah not trollish, makes sense to me. I have even heard there are some masochists out there that like Gentoo.

 

[Rouxenator]

ReactOS is a much better idea than Linux.

 

[porchrat]

ReactOS is a much better idea than Linux.

Yea if it could just find a way to get itself out of alpha

 

[Rouxenator]

True - but at least it aims to run the most popular binary executable natively.

 

[JerryMungo]

The general reason for the various flavours of Linux is that there wasn't a version that performed a need. Most of these flavours are created for a specific purpose for example the Linux distro SME is specifically geared to be light on resources and functions as a small network server.

This sort of thing can't happen if you only have the Linux equivalent of WindowsXP or Windows7.

customer:"hi there I am looking for a version of Linux to run at home on a small server"
Incredible Connection Guy:"well then sir you'll be needing Linux Ultimate 64bit with the added Tux Media Centre option!"
customer"???"

So I disagree that Linux needs to standardise. Standardising would mean a big loss of flexibility which is one of the key aspects of Linux that makes it so versatile. Linux is running on all sorts of little integrated devices these days. That would not be possible if all that was available was Linux Home, Linux Professional and Linux Ultimate.

You still need one distro to emerge as the joe soap version and include it with hoards of drivers so that joe soap can get his system up and running...
Then add to that the 'joe soap' distribution driver script with every device driver - which will only happen if joe soap linux really gains momentum - so that any additional software can be easy for joe soap to install...
Ubuntu is one of those that is getting there but not quite there yet.

 

[killadoob]

Well linux is not hard anymore, the main problem is the amount of distro's. You take the small linux user base and slip it which seems silly to me, if linux really wants to compete with windows in terms of numbers they need to lock down one easy to use distro and work from there. Linux is being held back by the sheer amount of distro's available.

Windows is dominant because everyone knows it, it is not like people have to spend a few hours deciding which version to use. You have home, pro etc but they are essentially the same thing with a few key ingredients missing.

 

[porchrat]

You still need one distro to emerge as the joe soap version and include it with hoards of drivers so that joe soap can get his system up and running...
Then add to that the 'joe soap' distribution driver script with every device driver - which will only happen if joe soap linux really gains momentum - so that any additional software can be easy for joe soap to install...
Ubuntu is one of those that is getting there but not quite there yet.

There are a few that are getting there. Many of the major distros are now covered by major software producers. As long as you aren't doing something weird or using some obscure distro you should be able to find the piece of software that will run on your distro.

If you are a new user and have chosen an obscure distro to use day-to-day where there are no drivers available and you struggle for hours and hours to get something running then you deserve what you get honestly. To learn Linux pick a more dominant distro and then once you are familiar with the basics you can delve a little deeper into Linux obscurity.

I use Ubuntu day-to-day and honestly it is easier to use than Windows ever was. I really don't have any problems with it. I realise there are people that battle with it, but I have never had a single issue because before I puorchase any hardware I ensure it has a lot of Linux support. No radio-button settings hidden behind a myriad of badly-labeled windows, now all my configuration options are in easy to read text files. Don't tell me that that is too difficult for a new user, if a user is afraid of reading text then I think there is a pill for that now.

Having said that Gentoo was a bugger, I am not exactly chomping at the bit to get back to that horror show. EMERGE!!!

I get the impression from users that they believe Windows is less complicated. Windows is not less complicated, it is an OS and is required to perform the same functions that any other OS needs to, it just obfuscates detail. IMO you cannot have true user-friendliness (in the Windows sense) and security all at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[eix-sync&&emerge]

Nah not trollish, makes sense to me. I have even heard there are some masochists out there that like Gentoo.

I dont see myself as a masochist , it was my desktop of choice for awhile,still use it on my dev box moved on to arch as a desktop now though been using it for the last 6 months or so, dont see myself ever moving away, the difficulty in installing and all that is a myth when it comes to gentoo, times have changed , you simply dont have to do a stage 1 , you even get a stage 3 and a live cd, it realy is an amazing operating system, but i feel arch achieves the exact same results , just alot quicker

 

[w1z4rd]

Give me as many distros as possible please! I dont want to be limited in choice like the Windows kiddies.

 

[redarrow]

I find it amusing how many people say things like "There are too many distros", "Linux needs to standardise", "Linux needs to do this", "Linux needs to do that"... :erm:

The reason there are so many distros, is precisely because of the number of people who've said things exactly like that.. each time some Linux guy decides that he knows just what Linux needs, he starts a new distro and so on and so on..

It's simply the nature of open source, it would be impossible to create a widely used open source OS without it splitting into hundreds of different flavours.
I've heard many Windows users with very specific complaints or ideas about what Windows needs (or doesn't need). If Windows was open sourced you can be sure that before long there would be hundreds of Windows distributions available too.

 

[Tassidar]

On the subject of there being too many distros. I hear your argument, but offer this as a counter:
Linux is very much an evolutionary process, much like the natural evolution of the species, but more planned. With so many distros, it allows for innovation. If one distro comes out with a particularly new and innovative feature, it may gain market share, as people switch to it. Sooner or later, however, all other distros will copy it. Conversely, if a distro is particularly weak, it will lose market share, as people switch to a different distro.

An interesting example of this was KDE (not a distro, but the process is the same). When KDE4 came out, many chose to remain on KDE3.5 or switch to GNOME, as KDE4 was seen as unstable. By KDE4.3, KDE had become a stable desktop environment, and many people are now switching back. It didn't stop people from using Linux. By comparison. when Vista came out, many people chose not to use it, costing MS quite a bit of revenue.

Open source, by its nature, therefore encourages a large amount of innovation. Keith Curtis, a former MS employee, in his book "After the Software wars", argues that the open source model will ultimately prevail against Microsoft. Link

While Linux has problems with software and hardware support, technically, it is in many ways more advanced than Windows, with a better code base.
For example:
Ext4 is a faster file system than NTFS (which is getting pretty long in the tooth). That is before taking into account BTRFS and NILFS.
Boot times in Linux are constantly getting faster, and already Ubuntu seriously outpaces Windows in boot time.
As put very well, by Bismuth earlier in this threat, Linux is more secure than Windows.
At current, Windows has no answer to the Ubuntu Software centre (which is still developing, but shows great promise)
Another innovative feature of Ubuntu is notify-OSD, which unifies, all applications into a single, elegant notification system.
In terms of hardware support, too, Linux is the first "operating system" to support USB 3.
In terms of security, Fedora has a system in place to sandbox applications, increasing the security of the OS.

These are some examples of the open source model outpacing the closed source model.

With the next release of Windows still 2 years away (at least), there is plenty of time for Linux to innovate even further, leaving Microsoft with a large degree of catch-up work.

Microsoft's main advantage at the moment, is that it is the industry standard. As such, applications and drivers get written for it first, with every manufacturer making damn sure its Windows drivers work, as well as all applications.

To use an evolutionary game theory term, there is a 'basin of attraction' for the Windows stable state.

To quote wikipedia:

In ecology, the theory of alternative stable states (sometimes termed alternate stable states or alternative stable equilibria) predicts that ecosystems can exist under multiple “states” (sets of unique biotic and abiotic conditions). These alternative states are non-transitory and therefore considered stable over ecologically-relevant timescales. Ecosystems may transition from one stable state to another, in what is known as a state shift (sometimes termed a phase shift or regime shift), when perturbed. Due to ecological feedbacks, ecosystems display resistance to state shifts and therefore tend to remain in one state unless perturbations are large enough. Multiple states may persist under equal environmental conditions, a phenomenon known as hysteresis. Alternative stable state theory suggests that discrete states are separated by ecological thresholds, in contrast to ecosystems which change smoothly and continuously along an environmental gradient.

Link

As such, one of the biggest challenges facing Linux is climbing out of that 'basin of attraction'.

 

[Rouxenator]

Sure, it has many advantages over Windows - but its biggest downfall is that it cannot run all the software out there like windows does.

 

[porchrat]

Sure, it has many advantages over Windows - but its biggest downfall is that it cannot run all the software out there like windows does.

Your argument always seems to centre around "Linux sucks because it isn't like Windows". That is the catch22, it isn't Linux's fault that developers don't build for it. I believe the Linux community has done more than enough to make Windows software run on the Linux platform through projects such as WINE (a project that your ReactOS borrows heavily from BTW).

I can't really think of another community that has done more to create a truly cross-compatible environment than the Linux community. There are probably others that have, but I am not aware of them.

As long as you aren't a PC gamer or a graphic designer then Linux should work for you as there are plenty of alternatives to the products found on Windows. In fact back when I did use Windows everything I used was already available on Linux. Firefox, OpenOffice, GIMP etc. If people are too narrow-minded to try an open source alternative then fine let them stay with Windows and use what they are comfortable with.

EDIT @ Tassidar: that sounds like a snippet from a David Attenborough Linux documentary. Insightful and oddly peotic, but definitely attenborough-ish

 

[cassiopea342]

It's just just takes longer to make everything work.

Which is exactly what I believe the article's intention was concerning hardware manufacturers and their policies concerning Linux drivers. The reason you're spending so much time getting all your hardware to work is because the hardware manufacturers aren't releasing proper Linux drivers.

In my opinion, there are too many "linuxes" out there. We only need 1 distro for desktops & laptops, another for netbooks and another for servers. Each distro is almost like a completely different OS once you get down to the nitty gritty. This is self destructive.

The cornerstone of linux distros is the wide variety, imho. Choice is what attracted me to Linux in the first place. I was sick and tired of the "one-size-fits-all" mentality of Windows. Lock-in by Microsoft is a major issue also. Microsoft has frequently dramatically changed key components of their software that change the way the user interacts with the OS and/or software - take for instance the jump in UI to Office 2007, which completely ignored the traditional menu layout. And of course they get away with it, because their users let them. I have even heard some people saying that "Once (they'd) gotten used to the new UI, it does actually make more sense". The point is still that people who allow themselves to be bound like that have to inevitably change every time their glorious masters decide to mix things up. The combination of modularity and choice in Linux is what makes it impossible to get locked in. If you disagree with the direction a particular project or application is going into, simply revert to the old version or choose another one.

There is in fact so much choice that it may be what deters people from using Linux in the first place, not necessarily marketing. I doubt there are many computer users out there that haven't at least heard of Ubuntu. I have, however, heard of many people that have tried ubuntu, but reverted to Windows for numerous reasons. One of the more common reasons is that they couldn't get all their hardware to work - which is strangely more of a chore in Ubuntu (unless it works out-of-the-box). Another common reason is that they didn't like the desktop environment or the default applications, media players for instance, and never bothered to try installing a different one.

 

[Nod]

Sure, it has many advantages over Windows - but its biggest downfall is that it cannot run all the software out there like windows does.

The same could be said about Windows not being able to run Linux programs natively. Like Porchrat said, the onus is on the software houses to make products available for other OSs.