How Linux Can Achieve Faster World Domination

Status
Not open for further replies.

gfair

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2007
64
0
18,630
0
The acceptance of Linux by a wider audience has always been limited by Linux developers themselves. There is so little focus put into how non-technical people would approach considering or installing Linux that the community keeps Linux back far more than any other force. I know this from years and years speaking to people in the community. The community should be asking questions like "How would Apple improve Linux?" in a serious manner, not jokingly, because frankly if Linux had been Apple's product, the community would be 10x the size it is now, and probably more. What does Apple do with a complex product? It simplifies how people install and use it, so that anybody can use it and switching is easy.

The other issue is that there is a lot of redundant effort and slow progress on key applications, and this presents more choice and more confusion to potential users. There's KDE and Gnome, there are so many distributions. Linux's motto is the antithesis of "E Pluribus Unum".

As much as people will cite diversity and choice as the advantages of Linux, these qualities work against Linux when it comes to non-technical people considering adopting the product. This is why Linux has failed, after 19 years, to make any serious inroads into home PCs. I certainly hope this changes, but for it to change the community will have to make one distro for the non-community and stick by it.
 

traesta

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2009
35
0
18,530
0
I think the lack of success linux is having is based on peoples laziness and disinterest of learning new language, not to mention the population percentage of users that only want to check their e-mail or play solitaire. Any advantage they(linux) has is trumped by mircrosoft/mac regardless of it's importance.
 

weegee64

Distinguished
Nov 10, 2009
70
0
18,630
0
Most people do not have enough free time to justify how long they have to spend to install Linux and get their drivers to work. Also, games do not support Linux, and it is a hassle to get them to work with Wine, etc.
 
I'm all for some people switching to Linux, but understand Linux isn't for every one. I don't want to answer people on simple questions like "How do I open bash? How do I install a rpm,etc,etc,". At any rate, I prefer Linux having a smaller market share as hackers/crackers don't target a small market share that often. (Note: Any one saying Linux is immune to hacking/cracking you are dead wrong; for example, if one gets the root account they can pretty much destroy/erase EVERY THING on the HDDs/SDDs,etc).
 

Tomtompiper

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2010
382
0
18,780
0
The advantages of Linux at present are for people who use their PC's online. If you want games stick to Windows, the game developers will only support one PC platform, and they aren't even supporting Windows properly. If all you do is Surf and watch online content then Linux is the weapon of choice at the moment, it will do almost all that is required save a few sites that are set up for IE. and it will do so in safety. As of this moment I have not heard of a single Virus,trojan or spyware that affects Linux, and the fragmentation and speed of change on the Linux Platform means it would be difficult for Hackers to effectively attack a Linux machine.

For me the best solution is to run all of my home PC's on Linux (PCLinuxOS at the moment) and dual boot one machine for gaming and using IE when it is required. Gone are the days when my Son's computer picked up a virus and spread it around my network, it has made life so much easier not having to worry about keeping firewalls and antivirus software up to date and running interminable scans on multiple PC's every week.

Apart from Games and IE I can honestly say I have yet to come across anything I can't do in Linux that I couldn't do in Windows, except paying for software. As to the Ipod/Iphone/Itunes problem, that is down to Apple, they could provide software in a heartbeat if they wanted to. If I had an Itouch/Iphone I would Jailbreak it and use Amarok, but this is just a fudge, it is up to Apple to support their customers who want to use their products on a Linux platform. Me I'll stick to Archos.
 

killerclick

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2010
1,563
0
19,790
2
Linux runs 60% of world's web servers, 90% of world's top 500 supercomputers. It can't be everything to everybody and I'm against dumbing it down for the masses.
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]weegee64[/nom]Most people do not have enough free time to justify how long they have to spend to install Linux and get their drivers to work.[/citation]
The thing is there is no time required to install drivers in many cases. Ubuntu 9.10 has drivers for my WiFi adapter pre-installed (the kernel does, to be more specific), while Windows 7 - Microsoft's flagship product - does not. Most other drivers are pre-installed on both OSs, with the exception of binary video drivers on Ubuntu, although the free ones work flawlessly if you don't need fancy 3D effects (which most people don't).

Installation of any operating system is confusing to average users. What is formatting and primary vs extended vs logical partitions? These sorts of things should not be necessary to understand during installation. Indeed, you can install most modern Linux distros without this knowledge but it will erase your HDD or overwrite existing Linux installations. Windows, as far as I know, does not provide any means for automatically partitioning the drive unless you want only a drive C:, and even then it exposes the user to non-n00b-friendly terminology. But for the most part it's still click and install.

Once installed Linux and Windows differ alot in some ways and not much in other ways. Most Windows users still say that Windows is more intuitive and easier to use, but I know several people who use Windows Vista and XP and after several years still can only do the tasks they do regularly. Put them outside of their familiarity comfort zone and they are completely lost. I wager that most OSs are the same in this regard. But just because a Windows "power user" doesn't understand a different paradigm due to it being different to Windows doesn't automatically make Linux unintuitive. Windows is not Linux. Linux is not Windows. If you can't comprehend these two facts then you are narrow-minded and should not be giving advice to anyone who is trying to think outside the box.
 

uh_no

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2009
315
0
18,810
5
see

you say okay everyone needs to put more people to work on this....well what are they going to pay them in? dollars presumably....so where are the dollars coming from? not software sales....tell me how it makes business sense for a company to throw money at a piece of software which they aren't gonna charge for and thus cannot turn a profit? it doesn't make sense....

 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]uh_no[/nom]seeyou say okay everyone needs to put more people to work on this....well what are they going to pay them in? dollars presumably....so where are the dollars coming from? not software sales....tell me how it makes business sense for a company to throw money at a piece of software which they aren't gonna charge for and thus cannot turn a profit? it doesn't make sense....[/citation]
How does Google make money? Advertising. How do Novell and Red Hat make money? Selling commercial support. End users are only a small market really, and Microsoft themselves know this, which is why piracy is not a big issue for them. It's the enterprise volume licences where they make their money, and for companies like Red Hat and Novell it's the same but with support, not licences.
 

Tomtompiper

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2010
382
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]weegee64[/nom]Most people do not have enough free time to justify how long they have to spend to install Linux and get their drivers to work. Also, games do not support Linux, and it is a hassle to get them to work with Wine, etc.[/citation]


I find this funny, I recently reinstalled XP on a friends computer after a virus ate here had drive. It took 5 hours to install the OS and all of the drivers for her hardware, TV card, Printer, Network card, Scanner, Graphic card..etc. After the install I installed Linux for her so that she could open emails safely. it took 20 mins and everything but the printer and scanner was already set up, they took another five mins to do. All done on the GUI, no need for a terminal or bash.

The XP install was a bare install, office took another 25 mins and I left her to do the many more hours it will take her to download and install the service packs and updates. The Linux install included many programs too many to list, and the update ran in under 20 mins.
 

androticus

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2008
43
0
18,530
0
There is no good reason for Linux to exist on the desktop. Commercial OS vendors (MS and Apple) provide superior products that are less hassle to install and use. If it takes me 2 hours to solve an annoying problem trying to get some new device or app to work, the $25-$40 I've "saved" have been wiped out. Multiply by the number of times that happens over an install lifetime. And curses forever to the kernel team when they decided to eliminate binary compatibility for drivers across kernel versions. That is so incredibly lame and causes so many issues it makes you afraid to upgrade. Linux, like Global Warming, is a religion, not a rational movement.
 

zodiacfml

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2008
1,154
1
19,285
0
for several times, Linux does not need to compete with Windows.
i still haven't read any developments regarding Chrome OS of Google, yet, for me, that is the future of Linux (devices to be exact).
Google has a point, we switch on our computers to get online. If only it could support devices such as cameras, phones, and various devices....
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Linux runs 60% of world's web servers, 90% of world's top 500 supercomputers. It can't be everything to everybody and I'm against dumbing it down for the masses.[/citation]
Exactly what I meant!
 

Camikazi

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2008
1,405
1
19,315
5
[citation][nom]tomtompiper[/nom]I find this funny, I recently reinstalled XP on a friends computer after a virus ate here had drive. It took 5 hours to install the OS and all of the drivers for her hardware, TV card, Printer, Network card, Scanner, Graphic card..etc. After the install I installed Linux for her so that she could open emails safely. it took 20 mins and everything but the printer and scanner was already set up, they took another five mins to do. All done on the GUI, no need for a terminal or bash.The XP install was a bare install, office took another 25 mins and I left her to do the many more hours it will take her to download and install the service packs and updates. The Linux install included many programs too many to list, and the update ran in under 20 mins.[/citation]
5 Hours for Windows and 20 min for Linux? Exaggeration runs well with you, I've had Ubuntu installs take longer on certain computers then XP and driver installs, when I installed Windows 7 on my 3 comps and laptop I didn't have to install any drivers except for printer and it took less time then Ubuntu install time. Linux is not the fastest at installing every time, it is very dependent on the computer.

Hell just yesterday I installed XP on my sisters laptop, from CD insertion to all drivers, office and updates install it took me maybe 2 hours. Yes I know XP can be slow to install at times, but really 5 hours, were you taking breaks on purpose?
 

cruiseoveride

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2006
847
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]tipoo[/nom]So why can't AMD get their damn graphics drivers on Linux right?[/citation]
Cos AMD can't even write their Windows drivers properly.
 

skittle

Splendid
I run debian "testing" x64, but until linux gets proper hardware/driver/software support from manufacturers (ATI, Adobe im looking at you), linux is destined to fail in the real world :(

Another interesting fact: Linux boots up faster on my old IDE drive, than windows 7 on my new OCZ vertex :p
 

skittle

Splendid
[citation][nom]ronch79[/nom]I've used Ubuntu from November last year to last night. This was with my laptop, which I use only for office apps, movies and browsing the Net. I don't think it's good enough for my desktop though, which I use for games and some apps like Corel.The reason why I ditched Linux wasn't because it's a bad OS. It actually has some features I find very convenient. Thing is, the one area where users complain about is that you can't run the apps you normally use. And, simple things like a disk checking tool is lacking.Its console commands are also strange. Those 'sudo' commands are just plain weird. I grew up with DOS and use many DOS commands before, but I can't imagine why the Linux developers didn't choose simpler names that are easier to remember.Aside from those, just fix the bugs and polish the OS a bit more. Perhaps Ubuntu 10.4 would bring more good things to the Linux community.[/citation]

Whats so hard to remember about sudo ("an abbreviation for "substitute user do" (as in, do a command with another user's privileges).") ? it performs the same function as the UAC prompt... also disk checking in windows is "chkdsk", in linux its "fdisk". not so hard to remember... but i agree it is different, and you absolutely most know your way around if you want do anything except basic word processing.
 

zoemayne

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2009
422
0
18,780
0
If developers make games playable for ubuntu than they can get the gamer market. Thats the main reason I cant use ubuntu. I use open office and firefox only main reasons I would expect to keep using windows is for Visual Studio. Dont want to have any possible compatability issues while trying to get a program to work.
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]Linux is not the fastest at installing every time, it is very dependent on the computer.[/citation]
As with any OS. It's the hardware that comes out after or only just before release of the OS that is the biggest problem because drivers usually aren't installed by default for it. Vista doesn't support my GTX275 out of the box, Win 7 does. Ubuntu 9.04 doesn't but 9.10 does.

[citation][nom]ronch79[/nom]Thing is, the one area where users complain about is that you can't run the apps you normally use.[/citation]
Well of course you can't. If you plan on running a different OS you should plan on running applications built for it. You don't run Windows media player on OSX, so why would you want to run it on Linux? Many times an open source alternative is available. In some cases, such as with professional software like Photoshop, the alternatives are not good enough. In this instance you should be demanding that Adobe port the application to Linux if you must use it. Otherwise use Windows for Windows software and Linux software for Linux like you're supposed to. Wine is not the solution.

[citation][nom]ronch79[/nom]Its console commands are also strange. Those 'sudo' commands are just plain weird. I grew up with DOS and use many DOS commands before, but I can't imagine why the Linux developers didn't choose simpler names that are easier to remember.[/citation]
You're arguing your point based on familiarity. Of course if you're used to DOS then Bash commands will seem odd. The same would be for someone used to *nix shells moving to DOS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS